Overall, PSU Spring 2019’s Deliberation Nation was a highly successful and informative experience for me. For this post deliberation report, I will be specifically focusing on the deliberation elements present in the deliberations “Build-a-Baby (insights on genetic modification)”  at the State College municipal building and “Pour Decisions (insights on the binge-drinking culture in colleges) at Webster’s Cafe.

In terms of establishing a solid information base, both deliberations were extremely successful in that fact. Each team overview effectively established the background surrounding their respective issues and identified their root causes. Their approach teams were then able to expand upon that by reinforcing their claims with detailed evidence. I first noticed this in the “Build-a-Baby” deliberation in which team overview immediately established the history behind genetically modifying newborns and listed concrete points about both the potential benefits of modifying babies as well as the controversial ethical dilemmas that were involved. Each deliberation also effectively identified a broad range of solutions. The efforts of each of the approach teams are notable in the fact that their ideas and solutions were each creative and intricate in their own right. In the “Pour Decisions” deliberation, I particularly enjoyed that the presented solutions were unique and that their ideas were not cliched. When it comes to combatting binge drinking, it is very easy to slide into a solution that might be commonly mentioned but ineffective in terms of practicality. The deliberations also touched upon the social interactions between the participants. When preparing for our deliberations, we were aware of how important being respectful to our audience was. Respect and understanding are essential to the crafting of an effective and efficient deliberation. Each deliberation was able to ensure that emotions never overcame rationality and that no one ever spoke to others in a demeaning and disrespectful way.

At the same time, there were certain aspects of each deliberation that proved to be different in approach. An example of this is how each team managed the weighing of pros and cons for each situation and their interaction with the deliberative audience. The deliberation about genetic modification handled the weighing of pros and cons well. When teasing the idea of allowing genetic modification without restriction, the moderators knew when to focus on both the pros and the cons. The moderators knew that after discussing how unchecked genetic modification can lead to decreases of long term health disorders, they should immediately move on to the potential boundaries that unchecked power could cause. In the case of the binge drinking deliberation, the moderators weren’t able to effectively handle and weigh the pros and cons, mainly due to the inactivity of the present audience but also because of miscommunications that were present during the presentation.

Mutual comprehension was also a point that was somewhat lacking within the first deliberation. There was one point while discussing the finances backing modifications in which two of the active audience speakers got into a somewhat heated argument over whether or not an immediate cost was more detrimental than a long term cost. Each speaker was so disengaged from the other that it was clear the no progress was being made and that comprehension was the issue. The moderating team also had a difficult time ensuring that the speaking went back to normal because it was just so confusing. In the drinking deliberation, comprehension was slightly better in the fact that speakers and the audience remained calm collected, being able to share ideas and eliminate confusions or misconceptions through time.

Finally, when it came to making the best decisions, though it is impossible to reach out and know how every single persona felt or thought, it was clear that towards the end of both deliberations, people’s opinions had become more concrete and that certain individuals came to settle on an opinion based off of what they heard. When discussing the “truth style” campaign for the binge drinking deliberation, it was clear that the specific approach was beginning to click with certain individuals. This was evident when the campaign was alluded to during discussions of the other approaches. In the genetic modification deliberation, the more the deliberation continued, the more people began developing a clear opinion and began to open up more to the entire group.

In conclusion, while each deliberation had its share of issues, none of which took away from the overall productiveness of the deliberations. This was the first time that I was engaged in such an activity and it really opened my eyes for an alternative way of discussing differences between ideas.