With their 44-28 loss to the Arkansas Razorbacks on November 5, 2011, the South Carolina Gamecocks fell to 7-2 overall and 5-2 in the Southeastern Conference (SEC) with three games still to play. For the garnet and black faithful, a seven win season in years past would be considered a success. After winning their first SEC East division title in 2010, anything short of a conference title game appearance or double digit wins is now a disappointment.
Heading into the 2011 college football season, South Carolina was the heavy favorite to repeat as SEC East champs again. But after a stunning conference loss to Auburn and a heartbreaker to Arkansas, the Gamecocks now find themselves half a game behind the surging Georgia Bulldogs (5-1 in the SEC), a team that started 0-2 and many left for dead.
But there is a caveat. Georgia's lone conference loss came against South Carolina, and a tie atop the SEC East would give South Carolina the edge by virtue of winning the head-to-head meeting. South Carolina has one more conference game left, a home game against Florida on November 12. Georgia still has to play Auburn at home on November 12 and Kentucky at home on November 19. A Gamecock win and a Bulldog loss in conference play would clinch the SEC East crown for South Carolina two years running.
Can it happen? Better yet, should it happen? It's something I've debated between myself with no closure in sight...
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Rock On... the Schizophrenic Stereotype
Negative stereotypes are difficult to overcome, and those afflicted with schizophrenia struggle with this unnecessary label. Among others, schizophrenics are generally identified as dangerous and even violent. Prejudice of this nature persists because the public holds onto farfetched notions about this mental illness. Additionally, portrayals of schizophrenics in contemporary literature have a greater impact on the public at large than in psychological research literature. The only way to change this perception is to improve public competency towards this mental disorder and community health programs treating for schizophrenia. By addressing these faults and taking appropriate measures, the fear of schizophrenia will all but disappear.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Still Music To My Ears
On October 28, 2006, I bought my first album: Faith by George Michael. Five years and 172 albums later (as of this posting), music has given my life a definitive soundtrack for all time.
It has only been recently that my taste in music has been stimulated. In my younger years, I wasn't much of a fan of music. Sure, there were some catchy tunes I heard on the radio, but no one song convinced me to buy the artist's/band's albums and build a steady library. And to be honest, I was okay with that until two chance events happened in 2006.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
"Lord Help Me, I'm Grieving"
At one end of today, I was sitting in church, jotting down sermon notes from my pastor on a series about grief, and thinking today was gonna be another peaceful Sunday. At another end, I read and saw a terrible story where two-time Indianapolis 500 winner and 2005 Indy Car champion Dan Wheldon died from "unsurvivable injuries" he sustained in a fiery fifteen car wreck eleven laps into the final race of the season in Las Vegas, Nevada. Wheldon was just 33 years old. It's all the more tragic considering that Wheldon, a British-born native of St. Petersburg, Florida, is survived by his wife and his two sons, ages two years old and seven months old.
Wow. You don't have to be a racing fan at all to feel remorse for those immediately involved in this tragedy. Well, you gotta at least be human. And have a soul.
At any rate, the death of Dan Wheldon is a reminder of two things just about all of us take for granted: professional race car drivers, especially those in open-wheel racing, risk their lives at every event, and death is imminent.
Wow. You don't have to be a racing fan at all to feel remorse for those immediately involved in this tragedy. Well, you gotta at least be human. And have a soul.
At any rate, the death of Dan Wheldon is a reminder of two things just about all of us take for granted: professional race car drivers, especially those in open-wheel racing, risk their lives at every event, and death is imminent.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
A Letter To The Lisbon Girls (Fiction)
The following is a "letter" I penned as the father of the Lisbon girls in The Virgin Suicides as part of an English assignment I had earlier this week. I wrote this piece to convince these girls not to contemplate suicide as a means of dealing with distress, for their youngest sibling, Cecilia, killed herself by jumping out of her second story bedroom and onto a spiked fence. Other pertinent background information to keep in mind was that the setting of this book and subsequent movie is Detroit, Michigan in the early- to mid-1970s. The parents of the Lisbon girls were devout Catholics, and the mother was especially strict. It was my objective to remind these girls, as their father, that God would watch over and safeguard them from harm's way. Enjoy, dear reader.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Rock On... Cloning
One of my favorite classical novels is Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. It’s a story where Victor Frankenstein creates a superhuman out of body parts to prove that man can manipulate science to transcend natural boundaries. The main underlying premise argues, however, that some scientific endeavors are just better left unfulfilled because the consequences bring more problems than promise. In the same way, I think the cloning of human organs and pets would be a dire case of life imitating art.
As far as scientists in the United States go, I think they have many more practical issues to deal with than in cloning human organs. In general, I am against human cloning of any kind because I believe that desecrates the sanctity of life and opens up a huge Pandora's Box over what could arbitrarily deemed right and wrong. Then again, science is a perpetually progressive field of study that is always looking for the next major breakthrough. But cloning human organs is one step too far.
For instance, one scientific approach involves cloning an exact replica of another person for the sake of having a perfect match if an organ transplant is needed [3]. It sounds like a fantastic idea because it virtually guarantees an individual won’t suffer from the rejection of their own organs, should they need them in an emergency. However, several ethical concerns are raised by this notion. Among others, cloning a human being to harvest back up organs would "violate the clone's individual autonomy and liberty", as well as it's Thirteenth Amendment right to be protected from being treated like a piece of property [3]. Another possible option scientists have looked at is to create genetically modified pigs in order to produce organs suitable for transplant in humans [1]. The problem with this idea is that pigs and humans are not one and the same anatomically. They may closely emulate each other, but pig organs work best with pigs and human organs work best with humans. Whatever their m.o., there’s bound to be more concerns than closure.
On a related issue, I think pet cloning is as absurd as cloning human organs. I love domestic animals, but I'm not a fan of having copies of an original pet. The main reason I disagree with pet cloning is because the animal in question has no say in the process. It's unethical, really. For instance, I have a cat, and if I wanted to replicate him, he can't object and tell me I'm violating his rights. He may hiss and emit blood-curdling screams, but those can be easily misinterpreted by the people looking to clone him.
As it turns out, I'm far from alone in thinking this way. An independent study conducted by the American Anti-Vivisection Society found that 80% of respondents were opposed to pet cloning and 84% objected to companies selling genetically engineered animals as pets [2]. Even though pets are subordinate to humans, they're just as real and don't deserve to undergo a process that does little, if any, long-term benefit to anyone.
Not only are cloned pets controversial, they carry a hefty price tag, too. Some go for up to $50,000 [2]. I think if I were to spend that much money to keep a pet from my past, I probably have unresolved psychological issues only a professional counselor can correct.
In the end, cloning of pets, like the cloning of human organs, is a novel idea that's better off a rough draft in the minds of inquisitive scientists.
(Academic) Works Cited
[1] "Cloning Fact Sheet." Human Genome Project Information. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, 11 May 2009. Web.
[2] "Ethics." NoPetCloning.org. American Anti-Vivisection Society, n.d. Web.
[3] Hilmert, Laura J. "Cloning Human Organs: Potential Sources and Property Implications." Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 77 (363). Pp. 363-386. Web.
As far as scientists in the United States go, I think they have many more practical issues to deal with than in cloning human organs. In general, I am against human cloning of any kind because I believe that desecrates the sanctity of life and opens up a huge Pandora's Box over what could arbitrarily deemed right and wrong. Then again, science is a perpetually progressive field of study that is always looking for the next major breakthrough. But cloning human organs is one step too far.
For instance, one scientific approach involves cloning an exact replica of another person for the sake of having a perfect match if an organ transplant is needed [3]. It sounds like a fantastic idea because it virtually guarantees an individual won’t suffer from the rejection of their own organs, should they need them in an emergency. However, several ethical concerns are raised by this notion. Among others, cloning a human being to harvest back up organs would "violate the clone's individual autonomy and liberty", as well as it's Thirteenth Amendment right to be protected from being treated like a piece of property [3]. Another possible option scientists have looked at is to create genetically modified pigs in order to produce organs suitable for transplant in humans [1]. The problem with this idea is that pigs and humans are not one and the same anatomically. They may closely emulate each other, but pig organs work best with pigs and human organs work best with humans. Whatever their m.o., there’s bound to be more concerns than closure.
On a related issue, I think pet cloning is as absurd as cloning human organs. I love domestic animals, but I'm not a fan of having copies of an original pet. The main reason I disagree with pet cloning is because the animal in question has no say in the process. It's unethical, really. For instance, I have a cat, and if I wanted to replicate him, he can't object and tell me I'm violating his rights. He may hiss and emit blood-curdling screams, but those can be easily misinterpreted by the people looking to clone him.
As it turns out, I'm far from alone in thinking this way. An independent study conducted by the American Anti-Vivisection Society found that 80% of respondents were opposed to pet cloning and 84% objected to companies selling genetically engineered animals as pets [2]. Even though pets are subordinate to humans, they're just as real and don't deserve to undergo a process that does little, if any, long-term benefit to anyone.
Not only are cloned pets controversial, they carry a hefty price tag, too. Some go for up to $50,000 [2]. I think if I were to spend that much money to keep a pet from my past, I probably have unresolved psychological issues only a professional counselor can correct.
In the end, cloning of pets, like the cloning of human organs, is a novel idea that's better off a rough draft in the minds of inquisitive scientists.
(Academic) Works Cited
[1] "Cloning Fact Sheet." Human Genome Project Information. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, 11 May 2009. Web.
[2] "Ethics." NoPetCloning.org. American Anti-Vivisection Society, n.d. Web.
[3] Hilmert, Laura J. "Cloning Human Organs: Potential Sources and Property Implications." Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 77 (363). Pp. 363-386. Web.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Rock On... Religion and Mental Health
Beyond all the dogma and traditions, faith is the cornerstone for religious beliefs of all creeds. When those beliefs are positive, an individual can feel confident to do all things through a deistic being (e.g., God) with it as their strength. As a result, one can improve their mental health simply by putting their faith in faith. However, in a secular field of study like psychology, positive religious beliefs have been criticized for being narrow, subjective, and abnormal. Even various polls and studies have provided checkered results for the psychological benefits of religious beliefs. But with an ever-growing acceptance of religion as part of an individual’s lifestyle, disciples of psychology must recognize the potential for productive mental change of Biblical proportions as a result of religious beliefs.
The main reason positive religious beliefs can help one’s mental health is because it provides an individual with a sense of hope and meaning in life. By believing in a higher, deistic order, one can put confidence in that being for spiritual guidance, in both this life and the afterlife. The best part is that an individual need not belong to a religious community to feel better about their life. For example, one study conducted on 271 male and female psychiatric patients, who also met the criteria for major depression or bipolar disorder, found a negative correlation between an increase in religious beliefs and depression/hopelessness (Murphy 1104). In fact, during Murphy’s study, church attendance and private practice - the other two independent variables - actually increased depression and hopelessness, albeit by a few degrees (1104). While not clearly indicative of the entire population, this particular study does corroborate one thing: faith alone is powerful enough to positively influence an individual‘s outlook on life.
Still, it is not merely enough for an individual to have religious behavior; religion must also become one’s way of living in order to achieve greater psychological benefits. By attending more formal religious services in life, one develops a stronger religious social identity, thereby maintaining “higher levels of subjective psychological well-being” than those whose participation in the religious community remains stagnant (Greenfield & Marks 255-6). In addition, having a strong faith can keep people from being swayed by less commonly accepted beliefs. One study conducted by Kia Aarnio and Marjaana Lindeman of over 3,000 individuals found a negative correlation between having strong religious convictions and believing in “paranormal claims” (5). Like many things in life, hard work is necessary to achieve success, and enlightenment in religion is no different.
Historically speaking, though, religion and psychology were incompatible for the longest time. This dissonance came about because religion depends primarily on faith and hardly, if any, on objective findings. In the twentieth century, for instance, clinicians saw individuals with an adamant sense of religious beliefs as “more suspicious, irrational, guilt-ridden, and unstable than others and were less able to cope with life‘s difficulties” (Comer 73). Their school of thought wanted nothing to do with hypothetical claims religion brought upon by society. Likewise, religious leaders wanted nothing to do with hypothetical claims psychology brought upon by society. In fact, Agostino Gemelli, an Italian psychiatrist, fell back on his background as a Catholic priest to denounce any form of psychological treatment, specifically Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis (Farr et al. 1825). But as the twentieth century progressed, religion became a viable force once again, and the field of psychology had no choice but to embrace its impact.
Nowadays, religion has been accepted into the field of psychology, though discrepancies remain. The big objection comes from clinicians, who have remained skeptical about religion in mental health because religion provides highly subjective viewpoints into an already soft science. In 1990, for instance, the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Religion and Psychiatry released a set of strict guidelines so psychiatrists could not impose their own religious beliefs toward their patients (O’Connor 611). The amendment kept personal beliefs incognito while still openly discussing a patient’s choice of religion in their rehabilitation, if needed. Even then, experts remain divided on how to address the issue of religion in the professional setting. For example, one study of psychiatrists in the United States show that while 90% of respondents are okay about discussing religious beliefs with patients, 82% feel religion and spirituality can cause “increased patient suffering” (Eichelman 1774). Such an anomaly sounds farfetched, but this paradoxical notion is preferred when exploring diverse issues within different religions practiced in various cultures. The irony of it all is that psychology thrives on controversies like these, so when the debate over religious beliefs became more commonplace, it was sacrilegious to not discuss this issue with conflicting viewpoints. Call it an intellectual purgatory, but this amicable stalemate between religion and contemporary psychology appears to stay until the end of time.
(Academic) Works Cited
[1] Aarnio, Kia & Marjaana Lindeman. “Religious People and Paranormal Believers: Alike or Different?” Journal of Individual Differences, Vol. 28 (1), 2007. pp. 1-9. PsycArticles. Web. 13 Sep. 2010.
[2] Comer, Ronald J. Abnormal Psychology: Seventh Edition. Worth Publishers, New York, 2010: Chapter 3.
[3] Eichelman, Burr. “Review of Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine.” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 164 (12), Dec., 2007. pp. 1774-1775. Web. 12 Sep. 2010.
[4] Farr, Curlin A., Ryan E. Lawrence, Shaun Odell, Marshall H. Chin, John D. Lantos, Harold G. Koeing, and Keith G. Meador. “Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine: Psychiatrists’ and Other Physicians’ Differing Observations, Interpretations, and Clinical Approaches.” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 164 (12), Dec. 2007. pp. 1825-1831. Web. 12 Sep. 2010.
[5] Greenfield, Emily A. & Nadine F. Marks. “Religious Social Identity as an Explanatory Factor for Associations Between More Frequent Formal Religious Participation and Psychological Well-Being.” International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Vol. 17 (3), Feb. 2007. pp. 245–259. Web. 11 Sep. 2010.
[6] Murphy, Patricia E., et al. "The relation of religious belief and practices, depression, and hopelessness in persons with clinical depression." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 68 (6), Dec. 2000. pp. 1102-1106. PsycArticles. Web. 13 Sep. 2010.
[7] O’Connor, Shawn & Brian Vandenberg. “Psychosis or Faith? Clinicians’ Assessment of Religious Beliefs.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 73 (4), Aug. 2005. Pp. 610-616. PsycArticles. Web. 13 Sep. 2010.
The main reason positive religious beliefs can help one’s mental health is because it provides an individual with a sense of hope and meaning in life. By believing in a higher, deistic order, one can put confidence in that being for spiritual guidance, in both this life and the afterlife. The best part is that an individual need not belong to a religious community to feel better about their life. For example, one study conducted on 271 male and female psychiatric patients, who also met the criteria for major depression or bipolar disorder, found a negative correlation between an increase in religious beliefs and depression/hopelessness (Murphy 1104). In fact, during Murphy’s study, church attendance and private practice - the other two independent variables - actually increased depression and hopelessness, albeit by a few degrees (1104). While not clearly indicative of the entire population, this particular study does corroborate one thing: faith alone is powerful enough to positively influence an individual‘s outlook on life.
Still, it is not merely enough for an individual to have religious behavior; religion must also become one’s way of living in order to achieve greater psychological benefits. By attending more formal religious services in life, one develops a stronger religious social identity, thereby maintaining “higher levels of subjective psychological well-being” than those whose participation in the religious community remains stagnant (Greenfield & Marks 255-6). In addition, having a strong faith can keep people from being swayed by less commonly accepted beliefs. One study conducted by Kia Aarnio and Marjaana Lindeman of over 3,000 individuals found a negative correlation between having strong religious convictions and believing in “paranormal claims” (5). Like many things in life, hard work is necessary to achieve success, and enlightenment in religion is no different.
Historically speaking, though, religion and psychology were incompatible for the longest time. This dissonance came about because religion depends primarily on faith and hardly, if any, on objective findings. In the twentieth century, for instance, clinicians saw individuals with an adamant sense of religious beliefs as “more suspicious, irrational, guilt-ridden, and unstable than others and were less able to cope with life‘s difficulties” (Comer 73). Their school of thought wanted nothing to do with hypothetical claims religion brought upon by society. Likewise, religious leaders wanted nothing to do with hypothetical claims psychology brought upon by society. In fact, Agostino Gemelli, an Italian psychiatrist, fell back on his background as a Catholic priest to denounce any form of psychological treatment, specifically Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis (Farr et al. 1825). But as the twentieth century progressed, religion became a viable force once again, and the field of psychology had no choice but to embrace its impact.
Nowadays, religion has been accepted into the field of psychology, though discrepancies remain. The big objection comes from clinicians, who have remained skeptical about religion in mental health because religion provides highly subjective viewpoints into an already soft science. In 1990, for instance, the American Psychiatric Association Committee on Religion and Psychiatry released a set of strict guidelines so psychiatrists could not impose their own religious beliefs toward their patients (O’Connor 611). The amendment kept personal beliefs incognito while still openly discussing a patient’s choice of religion in their rehabilitation, if needed. Even then, experts remain divided on how to address the issue of religion in the professional setting. For example, one study of psychiatrists in the United States show that while 90% of respondents are okay about discussing religious beliefs with patients, 82% feel religion and spirituality can cause “increased patient suffering” (Eichelman 1774). Such an anomaly sounds farfetched, but this paradoxical notion is preferred when exploring diverse issues within different religions practiced in various cultures. The irony of it all is that psychology thrives on controversies like these, so when the debate over religious beliefs became more commonplace, it was sacrilegious to not discuss this issue with conflicting viewpoints. Call it an intellectual purgatory, but this amicable stalemate between religion and contemporary psychology appears to stay until the end of time.
(Academic) Works Cited
[1] Aarnio, Kia & Marjaana Lindeman. “Religious People and Paranormal Believers: Alike or Different?” Journal of Individual Differences, Vol. 28 (1), 2007. pp. 1-9. PsycArticles. Web. 13 Sep. 2010.
[2] Comer, Ronald J. Abnormal Psychology: Seventh Edition. Worth Publishers, New York, 2010: Chapter 3.
[3] Eichelman, Burr. “Review of Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine.” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 164 (12), Dec., 2007. pp. 1774-1775. Web. 12 Sep. 2010.
[4] Farr, Curlin A., Ryan E. Lawrence, Shaun Odell, Marshall H. Chin, John D. Lantos, Harold G. Koeing, and Keith G. Meador. “Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine: Psychiatrists’ and Other Physicians’ Differing Observations, Interpretations, and Clinical Approaches.” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 164 (12), Dec. 2007. pp. 1825-1831. Web. 12 Sep. 2010.
[5] Greenfield, Emily A. & Nadine F. Marks. “Religious Social Identity as an Explanatory Factor for Associations Between More Frequent Formal Religious Participation and Psychological Well-Being.” International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Vol. 17 (3), Feb. 2007. pp. 245–259. Web. 11 Sep. 2010.
[6] Murphy, Patricia E., et al. "The relation of religious belief and practices, depression, and hopelessness in persons with clinical depression." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 68 (6), Dec. 2000. pp. 1102-1106. PsycArticles. Web. 13 Sep. 2010.
[7] O’Connor, Shawn & Brian Vandenberg. “Psychosis or Faith? Clinicians’ Assessment of Religious Beliefs.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 73 (4), Aug. 2005. Pp. 610-616. PsycArticles. Web. 13 Sep. 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)