Author: Sydney Mccarthy

Extra Credit Blog #3 – Empathy During COVID-19 Pandemic: a Panel Discussion

Sydney Mccarthy Leave a Comment

On Wednesday, April 29th, I attended a discussion regarding the psychological aspects of empathy, and how empathy can be translated into the current pandemic. The discussion was held by the Rock Ethics Institute and was hosted by Daryl Cameron who is a professor of Psychology here at Penn State.

There were four panelists/speakers: Paul Conway, Abigail Marsh, Michael Poulin, and David DeSteno. All of whom are professors of Psychology at Universities across the country.

Each speaker talked about their work and how it may apply to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The first speaker was Paul Conway who specializes in sacrificial decision making. He explained sacrificial decision making as how people weigh decision that could hurt some people for a benefit or gain for more people. Put into today’s context, people (governments) had to make a decision and weigh the conflict between self-isolation (which leads to mental health and overall economic issues) and allowing people the freedom to take a risk and go outside. Self-isolation (which we are currently dealing with) will benefit the larger community but it has high costs which is something we are currently dealing with, and will be dealing with for some time after the virus has subsided. These moral dilemmas are what Mr. Conway concentrates on in his work. I found this very interesting especially since, as a business major, I may be forced with a moral dilemma that I will have to make a decision on. Learning the psychology behind this is extremely fascinating.

 

The second speaker was Abigail Marsh who researches “human altruism.” She explained that this is, essentially, the study of populations who are selfish vs. those that are empathetic. Psychologists learned that levels of empathy and compassion vary between people yet they don’t know how or why. They do know that alcheristic qualities are distinguished as the ability of someone to recognize another person’s fear. Empathetic people find happiness in other people’s happiness, so they act to ensure those around them are doing or feeling well. In relation to the current pandemic, psychologists have found that the average person is very altruistically motivated.

 

The third speaker was Michael Poulin who is interested in exactly what “empathy” is and how and why we use it. Researchers have not developed a single definition of empathy, however, Mr. Poulin believes empathy is a way that people connect to others whom they don’t even know. However, he notes that the desire to help or reach out to someone doesn’t always lead to action. This is because helping someone else typically comes at a cost (either financially or personally). He is interested to find how we as human beings navigate that tension between acting and weighing the costs. What is also very cool about his findings is that apparently asking yourself “how” you are going to achieve a goal will almost automatically allow for more success in achieving that goal. He wants to see how applying this knowledge could be used in pro-social goals, which I am very fascinated to learn too. In terms of the present situation, helping others means doing –at times– unpleasant things, such as wearing masks, staying separated, or risking your health. However, to get people to want to do this more, to keep up with these sacrifices, we need to explain to them “how” and “why” we are doing this because that will make people more inclined to listen.

 

The last speaker was David Desteno who studies the morals and emotions of humans. He explained how a lot of the success we have had as a species involves our brains and our interactions with others. He said that gratitude and compassion allows for us to sacrifice in the moment and wants to know why certain emotions allow us to do this. In terms of the pandemic, he wants to understand how our emotions have allowed for us to not engage in behaviors that give us pleasure; and, how we can control those behaviors to concentrate on the greater good.

 

The host, Mr. Cameron, also briefly shared what he is interested and what he is working on. He is curious about what degrees we can control and understand our empathetic response; and how capable we are to respond empathetically to current situations occurring. These are very, very interesting questions. This is something I have never even considered before but since hearing these questions, I have been thinking back to various situations I have been in, and my response to them.

 

A theme throughout everyone’s research seemed to be around how and why people make sacrifices in the short term and if we can understand these behaviors.

 

One question posed by the audience was how each panelist approaches “empathy” and how they would define it. After hearing what each person had to say, I crafted my own personal definition of empathy:

I believe empathy is recognizing the pain/struggle of another person, translating that pain to yourself, and wanting to help that other being.

 

Overall, I really enjoyed this discussion. It truly made me consider things I had never considered before.

 

Mr. Cameron was an excellent moderator. He looked for themes across everyone’s work and summarized them well. He also made sure everyone was heard. Lastly, he did a fantastic job engaging the audience and encouraging them to ask questions.

Extra Credit Blog #2 – Let’s Not Beat Around the Bush

Sydney Mccarthy Leave a Comment

On March 5th I attended the discussion “Let’s Not Beat Around the Bush: How can we Fight Stereotypes in Porn?” which was held in the Fraser St. Commons. 

The venue would prove to be much too small for the amount of people who came to the deliberation as the majority of the audience members had to stand due to the lack of chairs. Also, it became so hot in the room that we needed to prop open the door using a trashcan to get some fresh air. 

*Side Note: one thing I did notice about the deliberations, in general, was that many more people are able to attend discussions during the week rather than the weekends, myself included

The discussion itself was very interesting, as it wasn’t a subject that could be debated all that much. Instead of the issue being one with various sides, the group focused on the issue of stereotyping those who watch or participate in pornography, and how we can eliminate this stereotyping. 

When listening to the approaches, it seemed that weren’t surrounding one coherent issue. It seemed that lot of the deliberation was just talking about things related to porn such as the stereotypes about porn, and the hyper-sexualization of porn actresses (and women in general). While these are issues in our society, I did not understand how they related to stereotypes for pornography. Furthermore, they began to look further, and ask questions about things that were not related to their topic. For example, one of their approaches involved establishing a union for pornography stars. Once again, while this may be an interesting idea, it is not related to stereotypes in porn. 

One thing that I found a little disappointing was that in their physical issue brief, the section about hyper-sexualization of females included several images to provide examples of this. However, the examples contained images such as naked women covered by half-naked men, or women who look like they are having sex. I felt that by demonstrating the hyper-sexuality of women they were participating in it themselves through displaying these images. I believe that better examples could have included images of women wearing clothing or being posed in ways that attempts to sexualize them as opposed to having naked women. For example, I did a presentation in front of my high school during my senior year that discussed the sexual depictions of female superheroes in movies and comics. I think that I was able to get this message across without showing the same types of images they did. 

In addition, I didn’t think the moderators did the best job seeing both sides of a topic. For example, during their approach about education about pornography, they didn’t look at the negative sides of this approach. 

All that being said, I do think the moderators did a good job with the difficult topic they had. They did an excellent job with asking clarification questions and follow-up questions which is more difficult with larger groups. Also, the moderators were able to regroup and redirect back to the approach after the audience would start to get off topic. 

Extra Credit Blog: The Art of Swiping Right: A Discussion of Dating in the Digital Era

Sydney Mccarthy Leave a Comment

The deliberation took place on Wednesday, March 4th, and was held in Chambers 221. The room was very large which was actually very helpful because there was a HUGE group of people who came to the discussion. So much so that there wasn’t enough chairs for everyone. 

The deliberation focused on how we can make online dating websites or apps (such as Tinder and Match.com) safer. Approaches that I found the most interesting included more education and background checks. 

The education approach discussed teaching students how to be safe on online dating platforms in schools. It also brought up an alternative that it could be taught within the app through notifications, reminders, and things of the sort. The purpose of this approach would be to teach and remind people of the dangers of online dating, and how to do it in the safest way possible.

The background check approach suggested that dating apps incorporate a mandatory background check for all users to complete before they are allowed to begin using the service. The background checks would include a criminal record check, and verification that the person is who the say they are. The purpose of this approach would be to prevent anyone from creating fake profiles and therefore preventing people who use the applications to prey on unknowing victims. 

One person suggested a photo identification to go along with the security checks. They would require the person signing up to take an obscure photograph of themselves (what was discussed during the deliberation was a photo of you touching your ear with your pinkie) that they would not typically be able to find online. 

In my opinion, though this would make internet dating a lot safer, this approach is not feasible. It is a huge lack of privacy for you to be required to submit the information they would require, and it is unrealistic for the app developers to have to go through millions of peoples data to permit them to use their app. 

I actually thought the topics were interesting and I had opinions but the group was too big and it was difficult to participate. 

In addition, I don’t think they did the best job of controlling the pros vs cons. They just let the discussion go after they proposed their questions and let them go. Also, they didn’t do follow up questions or paraphrase or any other deliberation skills (though this may have been due to the size and time restrictions). 

Something that I liked about the deliberation was the variety of perspectives and suggestions the audience members brought. For example, someone compared the specific requirements people can select on the elite dating app to the babies with genetic enhancements. Yet another person countered this point by stating that though people are selective online, they are also going to be selective in real life as well. 

In conclusion, I think that this discussion was very successful, as there were  a lot of lively participants and the discussion was maintained throughout the entire time. 

E-Portfolio Website Platform

Sydney Mccarthy 4 Comments

For my E-Portfolio, I have decided to use Wix as my design platform for this project. I like having options and templates to start from and branching out and customizing my website after that. It will provide me with a strong starting place. I did not like WordPress because it gave me too much freedom and not enough structure. I would feel too much stress about starting to build my website from square one, and needing to maintain and create all the parts of it. On the other side, Weebly, I feel, did not give me enough freedom as it does not have that many options to choose from. Also, I have used Weebly in the past (granted it was years ago) and did not like how few the options were and how bland the choices were. Because of this, I believe that Wix is the perfect platform for me.

 

I think that my audience for my portfolio would be incoming first-year students. I would like to show just how much growth and development you go through throughout your first year at PSU Schreyer. I want to show them some of the projects and assignments they will be working on (because that is something I would have been interested to see) and how cool it is to have a bunch of your work that you can then show off and be proud of!

 

Some of the artifacts I would consider adding to my portfolio is my final LJS project (something my group and I worked very, VERY hard on), my Ted Talk, honestly maybe a link or something (let me know what you think) to my Disney Blog because it is something I am very proud of, my documentary, my management final Yarnell Fire presentation, my issue brief (both of them), maybe one of my favorite Geoscience labs, and I’m not sure what else. I want my artifacts to be really wide spread over all the classes I have taken and all I have done. I also want to include my schedules for the past two semesters because I think that would be a cute momento too.

 

Like I said, if I were an incoming freshman, I would have been very interested time see what types of projects I would have the opportunity to work on (and to see what “college assignments” were like). I believe by showing a wide variety of things I have worked on, I will achieve this goal. I also think it would be a good summary for myself to look back on.

Civic Issues Post – 4/9/20

Sydney Mccarthy 4 Comments

For my advocacy project, I think I will create a detailed infographic but I will include actual images of the people being harmed from not being able to have the resources they need. I actually got inspired in part by the Photographer as Witness: A Portrait of Abuse article I read because it reminded me of a project I had to do in my photography class last year where I discussed photographer Mary Ellen Mark who would take pictures of runaways, prostitutes, and other people whose lives were much different from other people’s regular lives. She did this to document and show the world who these people were and what their lives are like. These images struck me different and much stronger than any facts or data ever could. Because of this, I want to make an infographic including the facts from my research, and suggesting what could be done, but I want to include actual images of the people who this issue is impacting.

 

I do think that Photographer as Witness: A Portrait of Abuse is a piece of advocacy and I do believe it is ethical. I understand why some people may argue it was unethical of her to take the photos when she could have stepped in, however, even if she did, I don’t believe she would have been able to do anything that would really help the situation and most likely would have been hurt as well. Documenting that night and that incident allowed for people to see the real images of domestic abuse. Sure, people have watched television shows, movies, or some other form of media where domestic abuse may have occurred, but these scenes are not real and therefore have less of an impact on the viewers. Seeing photographs of the actual violence, and the actual scene, is SO much more impactful. People will remember what they saw in these images and will be able to understand what real domestic violence looks like. I think it was ethical of the photographer because without something to show people, they will not have a deep understanding.

Issue Brief Rough Draft

Sydney Mccarthy 1 Comment

Just as a note before I begin my rough draft, I am still working on my background paragraph (I have been struggling to find the exact information I need) and conclusion. I also still need to do the citation style.

 

Title: Establishing Facilities for US Adults with Mental Illness

Intro:

A survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) division of the United States Department of Health & Human Services in 2018 showed that approximately 19.1% of the US adult (18 years and up) population experienced any mental illness such as mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder (AMI) during the 2018 calendar year.(https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf) This percentage includes 23.9% of adults (with AMI) who had serious mental illness (SMI) and 7.2% of adults who had a major depressive episode (MDE). In fact, MDE is, sadly, the second most common mental health disorder prevalent in US adults each year(right behind anxiety which an estimated 48 million–or 19.1%– of US adults suffer from each year). (https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf) These numbers correspond to 1 in 5 adults with AMI, and 1 in 25 adults with SMI (https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-by-the-numbers). While these numbers may seem shocking, they aren’t all that different from the percentages SAMHSA has gathered over the past decade (Figure 48?).

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf

And, even if you are not directly impacted by AMI, you probably know someone who does, possibly in your own family. If we were to step back and look at the broader picture, it is remarkable to see just how much mental illness shapes the world we live in today. Providing a place for adults with mental illness will make for safer streets, will improve the criminal justice system, and improve millions of US adults’ quality of life. Also, by providing a place for adults with non-severe mental illnesses to talk either one on one or in a group environment would be a great help to those in need. It may also help stop mental illness from getting worse.

 

Background Paragraph: (subtitle) The History of Mental Facilities

  • Was there ever a place for adults to go?
  • Statistics (if any) about the amount of help for adolescence vs Adults
  • Why were places closed down?
  • What has happened over the years since then?
    • What happened when the patients were released?
    • Lead into next paragraph…

 

Mental Illness in the Homeless Population

 

Establishing and re-opening mental hospitals would provide for safer, cleaner streets across the country. Now more than ever, we see and hear on the news about the increasing homeless population in major US cities including New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco (https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/01/14/the-american-cities-with-the-highest-homeless-populations-in-2019-infographic/#d5de6114a9c2). The homeless population has a lot of negative impacts on society. Homeless Encampments  –or groups of homeless people living together in a group (https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/homeless-encampments-0)–) lead to a great amount of harm both for the environment, communities, and society. Some of the issues caused by these homeless encampments include “chronic public intoxication, panhandling, loitering, trespassing, shoplifting, drug dealing,… and disorder at laborer sites” (https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/homeless-encampments-0). This impacts all members of society who have to deal with these issues every day, such as businesses that have a homeless encampment set up around their stores. These encampments also endanger their communities through the biohazardous materials (such as blood, vomit, human waste, and other bodily fluids), needles, amongst other materials displaced around the area due to these set-ups. Encampments also are terrible for the environment as the homeless leave behind fires (which often lead to wildfires), damage in wilderness areas and parks, “fouled water,” and an abundance of trash (https://ecobear.co/homeless-encampment-cleaning/impact-of-homeless-encampments-on-the-environment/). Lastly, on a more individual level, these people are struggling with severe health issues and they need help. No one should have to live the way these people are. Lives would be forever changed. What if I told you that the largest, most common population of homeless persons (by 24,475 people) is those with severe mental illnesses. A total of 20.1% documented homeless people suffer from severe mental illness, according to the HUD 2018 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations  survey done by  the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_NatlTerrDC_2018.pdf). And this is just those who were counted in this survey and categorized under “Severely Mentally Ill,” meanwhile there are more than likely more cases that were not counted. Through constructing facilities and hospitals for those with mental illness, the documented 111,122 homeless people would have a place to go to get treatment for their disorders, would have a shelter over their heads, and would have the chance to improve their lives forever (https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_NatlTerrDC_2018.pdf). Clearing them off the street would give them a place to go (providing them with a better quality of life), would make for a safer environment in cities where homelessness was a very prevalent issue, and it would make streets/sidewalks/cities a cleaner place with less litter. It would also provide them with proper treatment for their AMI and would bring healthy, working adults back into the work environment which will improve the economy.

 

 

Mental Health and the Criminal Justice System

 

Our criminal justice system is notorious for its inequitable treatment of defendants and criminals with mental illness. In fact, “2 million people with mental illness are booked into jails each year. Nearly 15% of men and 30% of women booked into jails have a serious mental health condition” (https://www.nami.org/learn-more/public-policy/jailing-people-with-mental-illness). Placing these people in jail prevents them from getting treatment for their mental illness which, combined with the stresses and victimization of being in jail, leads to their AMI conditions to get worse (https://www.nami.org/learn-more/public-policy/jailing-people-with-mental-illness). What makes things worse is that after these individuals are released, they “no longer have access to needed healthcare and benefits” because of their criminal record (https://www.nami.org/learn-more/public-policy/jailing-people-with-mental-illness). In addition, when looking at this situation through a psychological perspective, incarceration of those with SMI/AMI is not going to help treat these people and help them return to society.

 

In addition, those with AMI are likely to

 

“not make bail, face longer sentences, not make parole, cycle through the system and/or commit suicide. This perpetual cycle is expensive and requires the channeling of critical funds to correctional facilities rather than toward programs or community health infrastructure that would support rehabilitation and access to mental health services that could drastically alter a vulnerable individual’s life” (https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/advocacy/federal-affairs/criminal-justice).

 

So why hasn’t this cycle ended? Because there is nowhere else for these people to go. Opening facilities would not only end this cycle (therefore saving the government money in the long run) but would improve millions of lives and give them a real second chance.

 

Rough Infographic:

 

Quality of Life of Adults Living with AMI

 

As discussed earlier, mental health disorders are extremely prevalent in society with approximately 19.1% of the US adult population being affected by AMI (https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf). Mental Health disorders often lead to those affected to induce physical harm on themselves. In fact, recent data suggests that about 90% (or more) of those who commit suicide suffered from mental disorders (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6165520/#B4-ijerph-15-02028). It goes without saying that this percentage is astoundingly high. In addition, in a different study, researchers found that often times adults with suicidal ideation (SI) feel that there is an absence of social support (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6165520/#B4-ijerph-15-02028). The article presenting this information noted that “Suicide prevention efforts often depend on the disclosure of [SI]” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6165520/#B4-ijerph-15-02028). Through providing these adults a safe place to discuss their suicidal feelings (or AMI feelings), while encouraging them to do so, we can more effectively prevent these high suicide rates and get people the help they need and deserve.

 

Why Now?

 

A question one could propose with concern to this issue and its solution is that of “why now?” The world has so many issues happening all the time: climate change, famine, plagues, war, genocide, just to name a few. So why should we concentrate our efforts to mental illness? Something that may seem so miniscule when compared to the other issues plaguing our planet. We should do something about mental illness because it is an issue we can correct and address right now. While everyone wishes to be the person to solve all the global catastrophes I aforementioned, they are just not something that has a clear-cut, easily addressable solution. However, solving the US adult mental illness crisis does have an answer, one that is fast, and will impact millions of lives with one resolution. Constructing these facilities will provide these people with the treatment they need, and will release them back into the community healthy, and ready to work and improve society.

 

Addressing Objections: The Cost?

 

While this solution would fix many problems plaguing society, it comes with a financial cost. However, there is a solution to this issue as well, potentially one that would not require any raise in taxes, nor any additional cash than what is already provided. SAMHSA spends millions of dollars a year in their Center of Mental Health Services on various programs aimed to help the American public (across all ages) prevent, combat, and treat mental illness (Figure 2). Allocating most of these funds, particularly those that relate to the same issues this solution addresses, has the prospect of providing all the money needed.

Some of the funding that could be used for constructing and developing these facilities could be that of the two homelessness programs which added up to a combined $95.49 million in 2015. In addition, money could be pulled from the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant which got a total of $483.7 million in 2015 and is attempting to accomplish some of the same goals my solution provides (https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/capitol-connector/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2014/12/FY2015-omnibus-budget-chart.pdf).  According to the National Council For Behavioral Health in their article entitled “Federal Budget,” the Block Grant aims to support “employment, supported housing, rehabilitation services, crisis stabilization, peer specialist and consumer-directed services, wraparound services for children and families, jail diversion programs, and services for special populations (people who are homeless, live in rural and frontier areas, and military families).”https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/topics/federal-budget/). The majority of the programs the Block Grant aims to support would be supported in my proposal (https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/topics/federal-budget/). With this amount of funding, we would be able to establish nice, efficient, successful operations of mental hospitals to treat those who need it. This hospital solution would cost money, this is true. However, when evaluating the assets we get in return, it is clear that it is worth the cost.

 

 

Conclusion:

Through establishing these mental health facilities we will be making our communities safer and cleaner through eliminating the largest group of the homeless, correcting the unjust criminal justice system, and drastically improving the lives of millions and millions of individuals across the nation through giving struggling adults an outlet, it is clear that this cost has equal (if not more) gain. At the very least, our society needs to become more open and encouraging for those struggling with mental illness. Although it is true that recently schools have been trying to teach children more about mental health and are trying to engage conversation to make children more comfortable with the topic, not much is done for adults. There is no conversation, as of now, about being an adult and dealing with AMI.

 

Intro/Thesis/Questions for my Issue Brief

Sydney Mccarthy 2 Comments

Title: Establishing Facilities for US Adults with Mental Illness

Intro:

A survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) division of the United States Department of Health & Human Services in 2018 showed that approximately 19.1% of the US adult (18 years and up) population experienced any mental illness such as mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder (AMI) during the 2018 calendar year.(https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf) This percentage includes 23.9% of adults (with AMI) who had serious mental illness (SMI) and 7.2% of adults who had a major depressive episode (MDE). In fact, MDE is, sadly, the second most common mental health disorder prevalent in US adults each year(right behind anxiety which an estimated 48 million–or 19.1%– of US adults suffer from each year). (https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf) These numbers correspond to 1 in 5 adults with AMI, and 1 in 25 adults with SMI (https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-by-the-numbers). While these numbers may seem shocking, they aren’t all that different from the percentages SAMHSA has gathered over the past decade (Figure 48?).

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf

And, even if you are not directly impacted by AMI, you probably know someone who does, possibly in your own family. If we were to step back and look at the broader picture, it is remarkable to see just how much mental illness shapes the world we live in today. Providing a place for adults with mental illness will improve millions of US adults’ quality of life, will make for safer streets, ??. Also, by providing a place for adults with non-severe mental illnesses to talk either one on one or in a group environment would be a great help to those in need. It may also help stop mental illness from getting worse.

 

My overall outline (I reference it in questions):

1st – Background paragraph

  • Why isn’t there a place for mentally ill patients to go

2nd – Mental Illness in the Homeless Population

3rd – Quality of Life of Adults Living with AMI

  • discuss the suicide rate for those with AMI

4th – Why Now?

  • Discuss that this is a huge issue plaguing society and the reason we should do something about it now is because it is an issue we can solve now. The world has many problems going on right now, but not everything has a feasible solution at this time. However, right now we can do something about mental illness by establishing these facilities.

5th – Addressing Objections: The Cost

  • The solution to the cost issue is not as hard as one may think
  • I go into SAMHSA’s funding and the millions of dollars they receive each year for programs that are trying to provide relief to many of the groups who would be helped with the construction of these facilities. I go into this in more detail with exact numbers on my brief.

Conclusion

 

 

Questions:

  • How much detail should I give in the background of the paragraph?
  • The graph I have in my intro paragraph already has a figure number in it’s title. Should I edit it to take out the number, or leave it as is and reference it as “Figure 48”?
  • Should I take out the paragraph entitled “The Quality of Life of Adults Living with AMI” and instead write a paragraph about mental illness and the criminal justice system? I will way over exceed the word limit (which I am already struggling with) if I write both.
  • What do you think my infographic should display? I was considering doing something with the money and funding SAMHSA receives and what it could all be added up to be. I already have a chart that shows all the totals of the funding but I could make one that shows the money I think should go to this idea, but I’m worried that’s too repetitive.
  • As I was writing this post I also thought of another way to prevent cost objections through explaining how the government could buy abandoned buildings or closed hospitals to speed up the process. Should I bring this up?
  • Any other ideas of things you think I should change/do?

 

Issue Brief – Exigence and Rhetorical Situation

Sydney Mccarthy 4 Comments

Thank you all for your feedback to my last post! It seems like you all think that #1 is the best idea and I am excited to do some more research about this subject.

 

I believe that my audience would be the public, particularly members of society who can relate to the issue at hand. I believe that in presenting my brief to the public, I will be able to get more support and draw more attention to this issue. I also believe members of the population who are struggling with mental health themselves would really appreciate having somewhere to go and having some say in what should be done. Gathering support for this and bringing the opinion to someone who can do something about this would be very helpful in getting some potential progress in solving the issue.

 

I think I can frame my argument to make people see how big of an issue this is, especially in today’s fast-paced, interconnected, stress-ridden society. I also should bring up the issue of the growing homeless population in major cities and how providing some relief for those with mental illness could help potentially decrease some of these numbers.

Deliberation reflections

Sydney Mccarthy 3 Comments

Deliberation Nation was a very unique and exciting assignment. I enjoy leading discussions and speaking with new people and through these deliberations, I was able to do so!

It was very fascinating to get two different perspectives on the deliberation. For my group’s deliberation, “Okay Scooter…,” I was a moderator for Approach 2: Banning E-Scooters from PSU’s campus. Being the speaker and controlling the way the conversation went was like a fun game because I was –hopefully– able to get the audience thinking of the issue through new, different perspectives. However, I got to sit in the seat of the audience when I attended my roommate’s deliberation “To Stan or Not To Stan: How to Make Justice Possible for Cults of Personality.”

 

The deliberation discussed what should be done to hold celebrities accountable for what they say or do, especially when they have such a strong fan following who protects them. It brought up cancel-culture, deplatforming, and other methods that society can use to properly “punish” these celebrities.

 

This deliberation took place at the Fraser Street Commons on Wed, March 4th, 2020 from 5:00-6:30.

 

The deliberation was drastically different from my own in terms of the structure, presentation, attendance, relevance, and topic. That being said, it was very cool to see a discussion done in this format, too. I also think it is important to note that the moderators did a good job especially when considering the difficulty of creating and breaking down the various approaches (as it is very difficult to come up with three drastically different approaches to such a broad and situational issue).

 

One of the differences between the two deliberations was in the Analytical Process of “Create a solid information base.” My deliberation was more grounded using facts, numbers, data, as well as what stake the issue has in the community. However, the Stan deliberation presented a more broad topic and gave examples of the issue to demonstrate its effect on society. An example of this was when the overview team brought up Michael Jackson, his immense stardom, and the multiple, strong allegations against him. They asked us, the audience, our thoughts on what should be done to combat this and punish Jackson; or, if anything should be done at all.

 

Another comparison between the two deliberations was the Social Process of “Respecting other participants.” Both “Okay Scooter” and “To Stan” did a great job of listening to the audience and ensuring that all perspectives were heard. Where the two discussions differed, however, were in the amount of perspective brought to the table. The Stan deliberation, though in a smaller space, had many more audience members than my group’s deliberation. Because of the greater group, there was more of a variety of opinions and perspectives. An example of this was when someone who had been in a fandom of Nicki Minaj (called the Barbz), had to reflect on who she was associating with after the fandom had treated those who don’t like Minaj’s music, horribly.

This is not to say, that my deliberation did not have perspective as we were fortunate enough to have three varying perspectives within our four member audience: someone opposed to having scooters be permitted, someone who had a scooter themselves and therefore had a personal stake in the situation, and someone two people who did not have any personal stake and did not have much of an opinion on the subject at all.

 

Both deliberations were successful in the Social Process of “Ensure mutual comprehension.” In “To Stan” there were times when the explanation the moderators gave to the groups was not entirely clear and the group members had to ask the moderators for a different, more clear explanation. This especially occurred with Approach #3 whose argument and suggestions were not very clear. I believe the moderators in “Okay Scooter” did a good job of clarifying any questions posed by the audience, as well as asking follow-up questions to responses.

 

There was a huge difference with the Social Process of “Adequately distributing speaking opportunities,” however. The difference was not “bad,” as it just presented the entire deliberation in a much different format than mine had. “To Stan” was set up to have a rotating approach system where the audience was split up into three groups and each of the approach moderators rotated around the room to visit each group. This method was successful in accommodating the large group. Everyone was given a better opportunity to speak their mind on the subject. The format for our deliberation was, in my opinion, very successful relative to our group’s size.

 

Another difference between the two deliberations was in the Analytic Process of “Making the best decision possible.” When I am discussing the difference, I am primarily discussions the process in which the information that came out of the deliberation can be used moving forward. Whereas our topic and deliberation as a whole was structured around possible methods of legislation for Penn State’s campus to possibly implement, “To Stan” provided a more wholistic approach to the issue, concentrating on what society as a whole should attempt to implement for their own personal lives. For example, where “Okay Scooter” suggested banning scooters, creating regulations, or allowing e-scooters on campus, –all of which would be stated in the PSU community rulebook/guidelines– “To Stan” gave general approaches for how society can demand justice and hold celebrities accountable for their actions. One of their approaches was to suggest that we “burst the celebrity bubble” that makes these people seem like they can be held above the standards everyone else has to follow. It said to teach people not to hold celebrities up on a pedestal but instead view them as a regular person. This way people wouldn’t defend them after they did something wrong, but would instead allow for them to face whatever consequences they deserve.

I don’t think that either of the deliberations’ approaches to solving the issue was better or worse but it was interesting to note the comparison.

 

Lastly, another key difference was the Analytic Process of “Identifying a broad range of solutions,” particularly when evaluating the style of the approaches. In my deliberation, our approaches followed a scale of sorts that ranged from a complete ban of e-scooters, to a complete equality to bikes, giving e-scooter riders a lot more freedom. In comparison, “To Stan” had a variety of approaches that didn’t have any sort of range or scale.

Issue Brief Ideas

Sydney Mccarthy 6 Comments

I actually have three ideas for my issue brief and hope that you, my readers, can help me decide which of the two is better, or has a more solid foundation.

 

Idea #1: Lack of proper care for adults with mental illness

  • Problem
    • With Mental Health becoming such an accepted aspect of society, it is a surprise to find that there is still not proper places for adults with mental health issues. While children experiences symptoms of any variety of mental health difficulties have many options for care, families with an adult with the same issues, don’t.
    • This problem has existed for decades. The lack of a place for mental care stems from President Ronald Regan’s order to close all mental health facilities. “Why would he do that?” you may be wondering. Well, this order was put into place due to the terrible ways the patients were being treated –which goes to show that mental health systems for adults have been failing almost since their beginnings.
  • Effects
    • The lack of somewhere for these patients to go has caused a variety of issues from high suicide rates to high homelessness rates, both of which I will discuss in detail later in my brief.
  • Solutions
    • Possible approaches to this problem include:
      • Keeping the overall situation the same, and attempting to fix each issue on its own. For example, providing more homelessness support outlets and having more education in the adult world like company wide mental health promotions.
      • Providing more accessible, clinic-like opportunities for adults to attend for free.
      • Lastly, an additional solution would be to reinstate facilities for adults to go, but require more restrictions and regulations as to what the facilities can and cannot do with regards to the pacients
        • However, a drawback to this is whether or not this could be mandated, and the cost this would be to contract and maintain.

Idea #2 – The impact a lack of sports (due to the corona virus) has on society

  • Problem
    • Due to the rapid spread of the coronavirus, the sports world as a whole has come to a complete standstill. This stoppage is unlike anything the community has ever seen before.
    • In my brief, I will discuss what has caused the sudden stoppage (in terms of what triggered the athletic leagues to move so quickly in shutting everything down), what this message says to fans and athletes alike, and what the ramifications are on the sports world and on the fans who are left with nothing.
    • One very interesting factor in the sports world shutdown is the effect on viewers and fans of the games who are left with nothing. This may seem silly at first glance, however, when looking at it through a real, first-hand perspective, it is clear what watching their team every week does for the psyche of a person: it provides a relief, and an escape from the mundane, stressful world they live everyday.
  • Effect
    • I want to investigate the effect a lack of sports have on society, and on the fans who depend on their teams as an escape from the stress and hectic nature of their everyday lives
  • Solutions
    • Have the sports networks show old games and matchups to provide some stimulus for the fans
    • Encourage the sports talk and speculation to continue on the various sports networks
    • Encourage the leagues to continue playing but with enforcing corona virus tests for every player
    • Broadcast e-sports on the networks

 

Idea #3:

This one relates to my one post relating to players in professional sports leagues and their charity and advocacy about issues close to their hearts. I think that I could discuss the controversies surrounding whether or not players should be permitted to speak their minds and protest, and use their platforms (including on live television) to promote those beliefs. There is a variety of situations and examples I could draw from including the Hong Kong controversy and the methods professional sports are implementing advocacy within their league. I could also discuss Colin Kaepernick and other players who have taken such drastic measures to promote their issues.

I also think it would be interesting to approach this from the perspective of the players and through the perspective of the leagues, to not allow for any of my bias to influence the paper. This could have a mandate policy, where players could be punished for their actions should the league deem their actions harmful.

I think this could be a good issue brief because whether people are aware or not, the sports world has a great influence over society, the economy, and the well-being of the country. With these factors in mind, I believe I could investigate each one individually and create a paper with a lot of substance.

 

Please let me know your thoughts on these ideas, I look forward to hearing them! Currently I am leaning towards my 1st idea and my 3rd idea (as my 3rd idea relates to my civic issue theme), but let me know what you think. Thanks!

 

Also, I hope you, your sister, and your family stay safe and get better soon Dr. O’Hara!