Rowan Counterintuitive

The Need for DBT on Campus

A freshman in college sits in her dorm, swallowed by assignments and wanting some kind of escape. She gets a text from her boyfriend; there’s a party going on. That’s perfect, she thinks, I need a night where I don’t have to worry about anything. At the party, both she and her boyfriend get a bit carried away. Six shots isn’t that many, she thinks, trying to rationalize her consumption.

Afterwords, she gets in a fight with her boyfriend. She barely remembers what it was about, she just knows that she was incredibly hurt by some of the things he said. He called her worthless, saying that he was the only one who would ever like her. She didn’t realize he could get so nasty. After all this, she is much more stressed than before that night, and all the assignments are still there waiting to be done. She comes out of the experience with a lot of regret and no progress at all.

What this girl experienced is actually quite common. As a college student, I hear stories like this all the time. I once heard a fight like the one described above get physical outside my dorm. It was obvious the two students were drunk. A night that was supposed to be fun had gotten very dangerous very fast. It’s a common problem; student’s don’t know how to deal with the stress of college so they turn to parties and relationships without thinking, and it can actually hurt more than it helps.

The point of these stories was to give an example of a very common issue among college students called dysregulation. This can occur in many forms, the most prevelant among students being emotional dysregulation and relationship dysregulation. Basically, these aspects of student’s lives become unhealthy and stressful, causing negative effects on student’s lives. But there is a way to treat dysregulation, called Dialectical Behavior Therapy.

In its original, most intensive form, Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) is very regimented and time consuming. Clive J. Robbins and Zachary Rosenthal describe the therapy, originally developed by Marsha Linehan, as requiring multiple group and individual therapy sessions weekly, skills training, phone coaching, and meetings among a person’s team of therapists. I do not subscribe to this definition, described in the DBT section of Acceptance and Mindfulness in Cognitive Behavior Therapy. DBT, when used most efficiently, is whatever dialectical behavior skills a person needs in order to improve her life.

Marsha Linehan (this information was relayed to me by Clearviewtreatment on borderlinepersonalitytreatment.com) found that five different types of dysregulation occur in patients with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). These are emotion dysregulation, interpersonal dysregulation, self dysregulation, behavioral dysregulation, and cognitive dysregulation. Each type reveals some sort of dysfunction in each aspect of a person’s life. DBT was created to treat this dysregulation, which, though commonly found in patients with BPD, can affect anyone at any time.

The website of Sierra Tucson describes four main principles of DBT: “1. The primacy of the therapeutic relationship, 2. A non-judgmental approach, 3. Differentiating between effective and ineffective behaviors, and 4. Dialectical thinking.” These principles, specifically the first two, apply to both patient and therapist, assuring that all parties are comfortable with and prepared for what is to come. The third and fourth dictate what the patient will learn. Dialectical thinking leads to radical acceptance by teaching patients to become aware of their own judgments and accept them, according to Rachel Gill of ilovedbt.com.

Four treatment modules go along with DBT’s principles: “1. Mindfulness, 2. Distress Tolerance, 3. Emotion Regulation, and 4. Interpersonal Effectiveness.” These go hand in hand with the principles, teaching patients through various methods to accept and handle the reality in front of them. Mindfulness leads to learning distress tolerance and so on, each skill building on the next, teaching patients how to handle their life’s dysregulation.

The workbook Don’t Let Your Emotions Run Your Life for Teens breaks down DBT perfectly to fit most people’s lifestyle. The book teaches individual skills and outlines which situations call for which skills, giving exercises on how a person is going to apply said skills. It builds upon itself, starting with the basics that apply to everyday life and getting more specific as it goes. That is how DBT should be, and that is how I learned to apply it to my own life.

People with BPD struggle enough with everyday life. The disorder is almost entirely made up of life-interfering behaviors such as impulsive actions, dysregulated relationships and emotions, and some symptoms of depression such as lack of motivation. We cannot expect such individuals to keep up a schedule like Robbins and Rosenthal require. However, we should supply them with the skills necessary to improve their daily lives.

College students who show many signs of dysregulation lead incredibly busy lives. None of us have time for class, homework, and a social life in general let alone when paired with multiple therapy sessions a week with phone coaching in between. Along with the lack of time, society still stigmatizes going to therapy as a sign of weakness, which may deter many college students from such a regimented form of DBT. Students will still need to go to therapy, but at a more relaxed pace, giving them more time for it and welcoming less judgement.

A less intense form of DBT is an effective compromise for all recipients of the therapy. Going to therapy once a week and working from a book like Don’t Let Your Emotions Run Your Life for Teens was enough to make a difference in my life, and could do the same for many others. For BPD patients, it requires less effort and is not as overwhelming. For college students, it takes up less time and welcomes less stigma. DBT can be redefined, and this new definition will help many people.

This relaxed form of DBT would be absolutely perfect for college students, as previously stated. They suffer from serious dysregulation. But why?

At college, new students experience immense change. According to Brian Harke of the Huffington post, students come to college “overly optimistic and confident in their ability to manage the challenges they will encounter at college.” They struggle to manage new, unprecedented stress. Students who attempt to cope by delving into extreme parties or unhealthy relationships radically dysregulate.

Of course, there is the academic side of college, the main cause of stress. Students think that they can handle college academics, and often get a reality check in the form of a failed test or paper. College academics can get so stressful that experts write entire books on how to deal with said stress, such as “College Success” created by the Extended Learning Institute and Lumens Learning. But stress is not limited only to academics in college.

Many students know only the positive stories they’ve heard from their parents about “The College Experience” of decades ago. Talking about the “College Experience” as if there is a standard for activities in college does not help students in the least. Instead, pressure is put on them to achieve not only academically but also socially. The wild and sometimes-exaggerated stories set even more expectations for students to fulfill, so forced relationships and parties with unfamiliar and possibly unhealthy people occur. Non-organic interactions can cause dysregulation, as they did not happen naturally, they are forced, and they are unhealthy. Obviously, not all relationships and parties are inherently unhealthy or cause dysregulation, but it is important to consider the related statistics.

82% of college students have admitted to using verbal violence against a romantic partner, often brought on by the use of drugs or alcohol. In that vein, 44% of college students have been classified as binge drinkers. In those relationships and parties seen as part of the college experience, a good amount of dysregulation exists.

The immense change that college students are undergoing, and the pressure felt by many of them causes the dysregulation described by the earlier statistics. Not only academic pressure, but that to somehow “succeed” socially, if that is even possible. A student under almost constant stress who is not recieving help is bound to suffer from dysregulation. This brings me to my original point; college students need DBT. Once we stop looking at dysregulation as a part of being at college and see it as a real problem that has a clear solution, we are on the path to fixing it.

But of course there are naysayers. Therapists whose patients don’t improve with DBT complain that it doesn’t work in extreme cases of BPD and emotional dysregulation. In one case, Shireen L. Rizvi had a patient named Barbara whose condition was not improved, and whose disorder may have been worsened, by the improper application of DBT. Barbara had BPD, social anxiety, severe depression, PTSD, and was an abuse survivor. Rizvi’s treatment was incompetent.

Over the course of six months, Rizvi struggled to treat Barbara, later blaming her failure on the “therapy-interfering behaviors” of her patient such as asking her therapist very personal questions, calling her in crisis daily, and not making eye contact. Rizvi’s response to these behaviors is what makes her argument that DBT didn’t work here completely invalid. Rizvi admitted to outright ignoring some of Barbara’s behaviors in many ways. She failed to indulge in and therefore validate the behaviors. The very basics of DBT state that a patient must feel validated in order to receive treatment. Maybe partially answering a question or asking her why she didn’t make eye contact would have been an improvement. Rizvi instead let them agitate her and obstruct her own practice.

While Barbara did overstep the patient-therapist line (she had had a romantic affair with a previous therapist, so she didn’t understand it in the first place) Rizvi’s response should have been one of understanding and willingness to help, not one of agitation and rejection. Rizvi admitted to being a “novice therapist”, but as someone who is not even a therapist yet, I can see that that is no excuse. She looked at Barbara and saw not a person but a set of symptoms: mistrust of authority, boundary blindness, disassociation, crippling anxiety. Well-administered DBT could have helped Barbara; her therapist did not.

Therapists need to take into account the state of their patients and how to best treat them. They cannot look at every patient as the same textbook set of symptoms, they have to see the patient as a whole person. Barbara may fit the criteria for rigorous DBT, but would not be able to handle it. She most likely would have done better under a less structured form of DBT, as one who has had little structure in her life to begin with. She is not familiar with such intense dedication to one thing, a thing which she is not even convinced is worthwhile yet. So, giving her small tidbits of DBT in her therapy sessions would not only have given the therapy more meaning to her, but made her more receptive to it.

Another example of DBT failure is one I found on a forum for people with BPD. This time, we see the patient perspective on the issue. A user we’ll call Cabdriver gave a list of explanations on why DBT wasn’t working for him and how it was flawed. The list consisted of a combination of him not practicing his skills and his therapist punishing him for it. He found the skills boring and unhelpful, and would lie to avoid punishment and say that he did them when he hadn’t.

Therein lies the problem: a therapist should never punish a patient. Apparently, Cabdriver’s therapist would become irreverent or even take breaks from therapy when Cabdriver didn’t practice his skills regularly. This is probably an extreme case, but it is troubling. Again, I reference that one of the key principles of DBT is validation, and a patient cannot possibly feel validated if he is constantly fearing punishment. A person can’t fear his therapist; therapy is supposed to be a safe space where someone can admit to anything without judgement. He may be held accountable for his actions, but he shouldn’t have to fear a slap on the wrist. Patients are adults; treat them as such.

The solution here lies in both the patient and the therapist trying a bit harder. The therapist needs to try to convince Cabdriver that the skills are worthwhile, as the punishment approach is ineffective and downright patronizing. Maybe Cabdriver needs a new therapist altogether. But he also must realize that the skills are there to help him, and they aren’t as black-and-white as they seem. Cabdriver often said things along the lines of “Have a problem? Practice your skills!” However, “practice your skills” can simply mean applying a new approach to a situation or changing thinking. It doesn’t always mean “sit and be mindful and all the world’s problems will disappear.” In the end, everyone involved with DBT just has to be open minded and accepting, and go from there.

Obviously not all college students are Barbara or Cabdriver and not all therapists are Rizvi. However, they may still have therapy interfering behaviors and not be the most eager to start DBT. That is why a very relaxed form of it is best. Reluctant patients shouldn’t be completely immersed in the therapy, or shut out like failures. Introducing DBT slowly in small pieces makes much more sense. The therapist doesn’t even have to officially declare “We’re going to do DBT now.” She can simply give skills that pull from DBT and mention the name, intriguing the patient. Patients who recognize the value of DBT are receptive patients.

Patients have to believe that the skills will help them, and that they can implement them successfully. Emotional validation, as Robins and Rosenthal say, is one of four core principles of successful DBT. The safer and more empowered a patient feels, the more likely they are to use therapy skills outside of the office, as I stated when giving cabdriver a solution. But of course, the person has to practice the skills in order for them to help. If someone completely ignores their skills and makes no progress, then what?  Successful therapists guide their patients through that process, from belief, to validation, to empowerment, to practice. The unsuccessful, who treat their patients like children throwing fits, drive patients away.

The bottom line is, it all comes down to the proficiency of the therapist. If they look at patients as textbook sets of symptoms who all need the same thing, no progress is going to be made. However, if they change their style to meet each patient’s needs, looking at them as a human being, it makes all the difference. This kind of care could benefit everyone, from the most resistant BPD patient to the scared college student. Therapists just have to be willing to try.

So, with the right therapist, the correct form of DBT, and a little effort, college dysregulation can be a thing of the part. Obviously I’m not offering a magic way to make student’s problems go away; I simply want to offer them a healthy alternative to the common coping mechanisms. Parties and relationships can be great, but only when they are done right. Often they become stressful, defeating their purpose of trying to relieve stress. Teaching college students DBT would give them coping mechanisms that work for them and benefit them in every way. If the girl from the story had DBT, her life would be vastly improved. Hopefully in the future, we can give the proper help to her and all students like her.

Works Cited

@DbtPeers. “An Introduction to Dialectical Thinking According to DBT.” DBT Peer Connections. N.p., 18 Oct. 2013. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

Clearviewtreatment. “Five Areas of Dysregulation in People with BPD – Borderline Personality Treatment.” Borderline Personality Treatment. N.p., 12 Oct. 2011. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

“Dialectical Behavioral Therapy & Treatment – Clinical Excellence at Sierra Tucson.” Sierra Tucson. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2016.

Ed.D., Brian Harke. “High School to College Transition, Part 1: The Freshman Myth.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 June 2010. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

ELI (Extended Learning Institute at NOVA), Lumen Learning. “College Success.” Candela Learning. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Rizvi, Shireen L. “Treatment Failure in Dialectical Behavior Therapy.” Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 18.3 (2011): 403-12. Science Direct. 2011. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Robbins, Clive J., and Zachary Rosenthal. “Dialectical Behavior Therapy.” Acceptance and Mindfulness in Cognitive Behavior Therapy. John Wiley & Sons, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

Shook, Nancy J., Debora A. Gerrity, Joan Jurich, and Allen E. Segrist. “Courtship Violence Among College Students: A Comparison of Verbally and Physically Abusive Couples.” SpringerLink. N.p., Mar. 2000. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

User Cabdriver. “DBT: How Is It Working for You?” RSS. N.p., 19 Sept. 2010. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

Van Dijk, Sheri. “Don’t Let Your Emotions Run Your Life for Teens.” Google Books. Instant Help Books, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

Wechsler, Henry, George W. Dowdall, Andrea Davenport, and Sonia Castillo. “Correlates of College Student Binge Drinking.” American Journal of Public Health, n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016

Why Can’t We Choose Our Race, Too?

Self-identifying race has never been more important to Americans than it is now because it is more than a source of pride in ones’ history and family – it is a choice that allows people to access more opportunities in society. However, self-identification of race encounters more opposition than self-identification of gender in America. As a society, we accepted Bruce Jenner identifying as a woman in 2015. However, we simultaneously shunned Rachel Dolezal, a Caucasian-born woman, for identifying as African-American in that same year, resulting in her forced resignation as the President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Half of the Millennial generation acknowledges the idea that “gender is a spectrum” instead of just male or female; cities and public establishments have created no-gender ID cards and bathrooms to accommodate for all genders. So what makes choosing our race so different when race and gender are ultimately very similar in regards to how they develop in people and the advantages gained from claiming to be one or the other?

We are constantly confused by censuses, college and scholarship applications, and work applications that require race identification. The reason being: How do we know what race we are?  Race can be based on whether a man looks African American or on the blood of his African American ancestors. According to D’vera Cohn’s article, “Millions of Americans changed their racial or ethnic identity from one census to the next,” applicants tend to change the race they identify as such as Americans who identified as Hispanic and “some other race” in the 2000 census, who then identified as Hispanic and White in the 2010 census. Determining a person’s race is only the beginning of the difficulties of racial self-identification. America’s diversity explains the reason for the 2010 census including an option to check multiple races and a final option for “some other race” if someone couldn’t choose one of the listed races. Race can’t be defined as easily as black and white because our nation is filled with so many colors. By solving this dilemma of racial identification, proper respect toward one’s race can be given and exploitation of racial benefits can be prevented.

Let’s begin with determining what race is. While race is characterized by the looks of the individual, it can also be determined by blood. In American history a man was deemed Black by society if they had even a drop of Black blood in them and didn’t have to look Black to be considered Black. This was called the “one-drop rule.” Even if a man had White parents, White grandparents, and White great-grandparents, if his great-great-grandmother or grandfather was African American, he was considered Black. Institutions such as schools or factories during this time of segregation had the power to identify applicants’ races despite the wishes or appearance of the applicants.

Contrary to the original use of “one-drop rule,”the rule could be applied by applicants to gain the societal benefits as a person of color in scholarships, college admissions, or work institutions. Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren claimed to be 1/32 Cherokee Indian which in some cases would allow her to have the same health care and education benefits Native American tribe members have, but she looks Caucasian. She, despite proof of her relations,  isn’t considered Native American by us because her appearance doesn’t match her Cherokee claim. Race isn’t just how we identify ourself, but also how society identifies us.

On the other hand are mixed-race college applicants who face the moral dilemma of selecting the race most likely to get them accepted. Natasha Scott, the child of an African-American father and an Asian mother, applied to the University of Virginia in 2011 solely as an African-American to improve her chances of being accepted, but felt guilty about it. By claiming to be solely Black, more educational and most likely monetary opportunities were open to her. When posting her dilemma on College Confidential, none of the commenters mentioned putting only Asian yet many either said to choose African American and Asian or just African American. She is both races, but in this case, chose to be the one most beneficial to her.

Self-identifying race shouldn’t be something that can be changed depending on the situation, but in cases like Natasha Scott,  she isn’t lying about her blood relations as she is part African American. While Natasha Scott can identify as either race, can non-mixed-race college applicants also have the ability to choose a race they have no relation to? Given the freedom to self-identify race, an applicant can earn college scholarships only eligible to certain races such as scholarships solely for African-Americans. We see this as unfair to real African-Americans who are eligible to the scholarships since no scholarship means no education. When we have the ability to choose our race we consider our family, our environment, and our situation.

Likewise gender has its advantages despite the benefit not being monetary. A man who is transgender is able to enter an otherwise prohibited area – the women’s bathroom. Transgender and intersex individuals can also gain an advantage in activities like the Olympics. In Layden’s article, “Is It Fair for Caster Semenya to Compete against Women at the Rio Olympics?” he mentions how intersex competitors may dominate in women competitions because of how the excess testosterone aids in certain muscular development. We feel that the glory and respect given to an Olympic medalist should be fairly rewarded and loathe competitors who cheat by claiming to be female.

Race and gender in general are similar by how they develop in humans.  Children don’t begin classifying people into different races until around 10 years old according to Art Markman in his article “Categories, Essentialism, Race, and Culture.” If the children grew up in a politically liberal area, they believed in classifying people into racial categories as oppose to children who grew up in politically conservative areas who believed that categorizing races was wrong. The development of racial identity in children stems from the environment and the members of society surrounding them. An example would be Lacey Shwartz, mentioned in the article “Family Secret and Cultural Identity Revealed In ‘Little White Lie,’” who grew up with white Jewish parents in a white community. Despite her African American features, she identified herself as white because of the community and people she lived with. Similarly, in the documentary Somewhere Between, four Chinese-American girls were adopted by Caucasian parents and grew up thinking of themselves as White. They compared themselves to a banana that was yellow on the outside and white on the inside.

Gender identity development is similar to the development of children’s racial identity because they both develop from their environment. Girls who grow up surrounded by princesses, dresses, dolls, and other female stereotypes are likely to identify themselves as female once they are old enough. If boys were surrounded by similar princesses, dresses, dolls, and such, they would also be likely to identify themselves as female if they weren’t told they were biologically males. Parents are encouraged to help their daughters or sons to develop a healthy gender identity by exposing their child to both genders’ activities, clothes, jobs, and to alternate gender roles such as male nurses or female firefighters. Gender identity in children develops through exposer to gender roles and activities in their community like racial identity.

We should be able to self-identify our race if we can self-identify our gender based on the similarities between race and gender. However, self identifying race and self identifying gender have a major difference. When self-identifying as a specific gender, people usually look like the gender they are identifying as. If a male identifies himself as female, he uses she, her, hers to describe himself and alters his appearance to appear female. In this case, the person matches his physical appearance and we accept her self-identification. On the other hand, claiming one’s race isn’t as easy because the rules for determining race are fuzzy, which allows institutions to dispute applicants’ choices. An example of this would be in Garcia-Navarro’s article “For Affirmative Action, Brazil Sets Up Controversial Boards To Determine Race.” 27-year-old Afro-Brazilian diplomatic applicant Lucas Siqueira was denied a Brazilian diplomatic position because the government “race commission” decided his looks made him Caucasian. Regardless of how he self-identifies, others will determine how he is treated in his neighborhood, at his school, and by prospective employers. The main point in the article was that his claim did not match his appearance. We aren’t confused when gender is claimed because the claim matches the looks, but since we can’t tell  if applicants  are the race they say they are if they don’t match the physical characteristics common to the race they identify as, racial self-identification is less accepted.

We can’t choose our race since society has to agree with the choice of the individual. Racial self-identification is important to us because there are benefits and opportunities available in our education and work institutions only accessible to specific races. Racial equality has a fine border now that most of America is mixed-race. Gender is considered a spectrum by many Americans and we are less inclined to place women and men into their stereotypical gender roles because of the concept of gender equality. If all genders are equal, then identifying as male, female, or otherwise matters little.

Works Cited:

“Millions of Americans changed their racial or ethnic identity from one census to the next.” Pew Research Center. 5 May 2014. Web. 31 October 2016.

“On College Forms a Question of Race, or Races, Can Perplex.” The New York Times. 13 June 2011. Web. 31 October 2016.

“For Affirmative Action, Brazil Sets Up Controversial Boards To Determine Race.” NPR. NPR, 29 Sept. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Layden, Tim. “Is It Fair for Caster Semenya to Compete against Women at the Rio Olympics?” SI.com. Sports Illustrated, 11 Aug. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Markman, Art. “Categories, Essentialism, Race, and Culture.” Psychology Today. N.p., 27 Oct. 2009. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

“Minority Rules: Who Gets To Claim Status As A Person Of Color?” NPR. 16 May 2012. Web. 31 October 2016.

Norris, Michele. “Family Secret And Cultural Identity Revealed In ‘Little White Lie’” NPR. NPR, 23 Mar. 2015. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

“On College Forms a Question of Race, or Races, Can Perplex.” The New York Times. 13 June 2011. Web. 31 October 2016.

Riben, Mirah. “Being Blackish: Race and Self-Identification.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 June 2015. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Wong, Curtis M. “50 Percent Of Millennials Believe Gender Is A Spectrum, Fusion’s Massive Millennial Poll Finds.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 2 Feb. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016.

Foreign Affairs, Last concern for the United States?

Many people believe in lending a helping hand, until their lives are threatened. In today’s society many countries are getting involved with foreign affairs not realizing what negative outcomes may result. The US, as well as a few other countries, are well known for lending help that offer economic stability. But on the other side there are many enemies facing a problem as well, the help of foreign affairs. Which leaves us asking should the U.S get involved in, when it chances the a  American lives. When we see a friend struggle we feel bad and wish we could help and in fact may even help. But when countries see Syria struggle, such as the US they would like to offer help. But when we see terrorist involved it leaves us thinking should we help or stick out? An outcome of intervening may cause  an attack on our own nation. In today’s world many 3rd world countries as well as powerhouse countries fear terrorism. Many countries ask why these threats are happening, but when we look at it many of these attacks happen due to getting involved with foreign affairs.

The threats of terrorism is paralyzing to us. Because of past attacks, we fear of going to sporting events and other large social gatherings. A few examples of recent terrorist attacks that occurred, would be the Boston marathon and the bombing in the Germany vs France soccer game before the European Cup. The attack in France resulted in an unbelievable amount of security on all areas of France. These terroristic threats occurring in todays society causes major problems for the world. The people fear from experiencing some of the most entertaining events the world has to offer. By terrorists creating fear in the people, it helps terroristic groups achieve there ultimate goal, which is to cause chaos and fear.

The people of The US, have mostly agreed that the number one problem that we face in the US is terrorism, according to Rebecca Riffkin, in her article “Americans Name Terrorism as No. 1 U.S. Problem”.  Riffkin claims about one in every six americans feel terrorism is the biggest problem going on in the world. From these results terrorism should then be the first things we solve in America, rather than worrying about others issues. If the people agree on a problem, the government should react to the problem first before the issue increases to a bigger deal.

Terrorism is an on occurring problem in Syria. ISIS who is one of the most popular terroristic groups has been getting involved with Syria and creating chaos. Syrians fearing for there lives are deporting Syria and trying to make there way into other countries that are willing to accept them, which is creating more problems for countries letting in these refugees. ISIS is not a fan of the Syrians leaving, because if these Syrians leave and they are fleeing the country, Isis will have no one to terrorism which defeats the whole idea of terrorizing these people. By The US allowing these people to come into our country causes many problems for us, for which we do not know who they are or what types of ethics they believe in. The U.S could have many benefits by having Syrians stay in Syria in terms of defeating ISIS. By having Syrians stay in Syria it allow ISIS to be all in one area of the world rather than in all different countries, which will allow the counter terrorism programs to intervene and defeat ISIS easily.

First off by the U.S getting involved with ISIS will feel threatened by the U.S and will cause ISIS to do an unethical response such as another attack in fear of retaliation. The people of America feel unsafe already with terrorism, due to recent events that have occurred all over the world so, why should the government go looking out for more problems? The U.S should be fixing the problem and exterminating terrorism here in there own country first. Once the U.S do so, they can begin to offer help to other countries. By the U.S getting involved with these issues in Syria it results in the U.S national security to get into self defense mood. Which will result in more fear for the american people which is not something the people would look forward too.

Many problems occur with letting in these Syrian refugees in, such as we don’t truly know who is coming into the U.S. Many of these refugees are coming in with past crimes such as rape and murder. Now we are letting these Syrians in with who will continue with these lifestyles. By letting these Syrians in with these types of lifestyles they will inflict harm on our own people, because the government didn’t know who they were truly letting in. Another problem that occurs with these refugees is some of these Syrian refugees have forged papers and are really with ISIS which is a giant problem within itself, know we are letting in these people who we are trying to take out and defeat the U.S. Many believe that our government should have great knowledge of the refugees who are coming into the country, and if the government cant confirm who these refugees are then don’t let them in, that is how you create safety and hope for the people. By letting these Syrians into the U.S it is causing more problems rather than solving one. By just closing off the borders of American we are one step closer to defeating ISIS and are taking the fear out of the people. 

The best bet for the US to offer a great chance in safety for the people would be to let other countries take action on the problems that are occurring in Syria, and to just have the US worry about themselves. Even though other people and countries believe to stop terrorism the U.S should go attack ISIS head on, that would cause more problems rather then good. The US has many issues to deal with between its own countries and there problems, to go on and worry about how another country is doing. If it is such a big concern to the world why hasn’t anyone else stepped in and intervene?   

The U.S is acknowledged the top powerhouse in the world and a country that has the highest say in the United Nations, which has the likes of France, Britain, Russia, and a few other countries in the organization. But with that role that the U.S has they feel the need to always try to get involved and share their beliefs with the world.

The US is seen as a powerhouse nation with one of the strongest military power out there in the eyes of the people. But while having so much power can be beneficial in today’s world, it may cause more problems rather than good. Whenever a problem occurs, people believe the U.S should intervene since they have such a strong military and have been known for changing the tides in battle. People believe the U.S should intervene, go win the battle in Syrian and get out. But the people don’t realize there are many more problems that the U.S face when it comes to getting involved with foreign affairs. The United Nations was created for these types of problems, which is a reason why the U.S should stand back and let this organization do there job.

The United Nations was created to prevent wars and to intervene when necessary and to prevent any harm on countries. This organization was made after the world war to prevent wars. But other countries like Russia and China have different plans for how to settle the problem with Syria, that many other countries do not believe in. While other countries realize the problems that are going on in Syria and realize they have no need to be involved. President Obama felt upset that France and Britain are making no attempt to get involved. But understanding where France is coming from many wouldn’t want to be involved either after the attacks they received at Paris and bombing that occurred as well. The US as well has dealt with a lot of problems with terrorism speaking 9/11 and the bombing in Boston just occurred in these past years. Other countries such as France realize there is no need to get involved, the U.S should think about recent events before making there next move on Syria.

A major concern for bringing soldiers to another country to defend foreign people, as a country we shouldn’t be sending our own men to a place where they risk their lives in order to protect other countries citizens,  due to foreign countries having weak military strength.  Lt. Gen. Clarence E. McKnight, Jr believes a way to defend the Syrians is to send men in and risk their lives .“Only an overwhelming land force can impose order and peace on that tortured piece of real estate. We would lose people as would our allies, but the alternative is to simply stand idly by while this tragedy unfolds.” As he describes so in the article “The U.S. Should Intervene in Syria in a Big Way” I completely disagree with this statement, by sending in soldiers we risk there lives and create more chaos. As Lt. Gen. Clarence E. McKnight, Jr goes on to say “I don’t mean more bombing, more pathetic efforts at diplomacy and heaven forbid any more red lines.” to me bombing would be more of a reasonable idea rather then sending soldiers in. No matter what ISIS will feel threatened and strike back, they have shown that throughout the years and that they will not be hiding back and laying low. They will strike back to the ones who intervene with their battles. Either way by getting involved the U.S will cause problems so if that’s the case, blow off a few bombs take your men out and see how they react because either we sending our men into a death mission would bring back terror to our country. Due to the safety of our people and concern for there well being is why we shouldn’t even get involved, no good come out of getting involved. If the world saw this as a major problem others would be getting involved, but as you can see France and England are backing out because they got more problems to deal within there own country.

U.S has admitted to already attempting to bomb Syria even though they said the bombing was a failure. Many men working in the government believed that this bombing had helped ISIS rather than destroying them. In the article “U.S admits it Bombed Syrian Troops.” by Nancy Youssef, Youssef goes on to talk about,  “as the strikes intended, the coalition may instead been a boon for the terror group.” Now by U.S doing such an awful attack in bombing ISIS, not only did they set up a possible chance for a counter attack by ISIS they also made ISIS feel stronger. By doing these actions and failing, the government has now risked the lives of Americans in beliefs that ISIS will conduct a counter attack on the U.S. The government should next time realize there are more important things in life then bombing, and worry about the major concerns in America

The U.S should realize that there are plenty of mistakes that led that resulted in problems throughout the world. A matter of fact is that some of these problems were easily avoidable, such as the problems that occurred in France with the fake citizenship and how that one mess up caused so much suffering for the people. As well as realizing our soldiers are very important to us and that some problems that are going on around the world aren’t worth the fight and that we should leave our people out of the problem.

The United States has been known for helping out foreign countries in a time of need, starting back to the first World War. But when it comes to war should we rethink the idea of helping out a country or to go in with no hesitations. For when doing so there maybe repercussions for our acts, the U.S should worry more towards the protection of there own people before strategizing a plan to save other countries people. A question our government should ask themselves about foreign affairs is, what US should get involved in and what they should leave up to the United Nations or other countries to intervene with?

The threats we receive from terrorist groups should be our government’s top concern. Countries around the world that are helping out the issue in Syria, and that are bringing in some of the people of refugees are being hit by terrorist attacks. The US has been involved with many problems due to terrorists throughout time, the people of the U.S fear that their lives may be at risk. If The US is aware of the risks they put on there own people should they still get involved or let others step in and give Syria help?

Elected president Donald Trump has implanted his ideas of Syrian refugees and decided to take our men out of Syria as well as close off the gates and banning  these Syrians from coming in. Already many other countries are getting involved with this crisis, and have a strong handle on the situation. By getting involved we open up the doors to much bigger problems such as dealing with Russia. Which Trump goes on to say in The New York Times, “We end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria.” Now by doing so not only are we letting in refugees that we clearly have no idea who we are, but also would be going to war with another country just because of our beliefs and ethics on society and how these Syrians should be treated.  All that has happened by getting involved with these Syrian refugees throughout the world should have convinced the government that the people of America need to be safe and let others intervene and stay out of this disaster.

Since 9/11 there has been a significant amount of refugees that the US has let in. An article By Russell Berman, called “an ISIS Terrorists Really Infiltrate The Syrian Refugee Program?” Berman asks the question such as can ISIS ruin the refugee problem and stop refugees from deporting,  “And within that population, three people have been arrested for activities related to terrorism. None of them were close to executing an attack inside the U.S., and two of the men were caught trying to leave the country to join terrorist groups overseas.” Even though those numbers do not seem like a big deal, we still have to look at it in a different perspective such as that if they were caught doing a terrorist acts there are many more of them out there who may not have been caught. As well as we don’t have a perfect government as does no one else which leads to question are there still other terroristic groups out there in the U.S who haven’t been caught, that are planning an attack on the nation? 

A giant problem with countries letting in refugees is that these refugees are coming in with have fake passports for allowing these Syrians into the countries, and trying to realize the difference between fake passports and real ones. After the bombing in Paris the French had found a the passports from one of the bombers, that France had no information of from this man ever being allowed into the country. “The fingerprint was not in the French database, the senator said, and therefore officials believe the man was among a group of refugees and migrants.” France could have prevented this tragic accident from happening. The U.S should learn from Frances mistakes and realize many people in France that got very hurt by this attack. The U.S should protect their people and do whatever it needs to ensure the safety of the people and one way to ensure that is by cutting off the borders to these refugees.

America lives by good ethics, they believe in the pursuit of happiness and want to share the joy all over the world. America lives for peace, and believes in helping a friend out when they are in a time of need. But also the U.S should think about themselves first and there people when a threat can occur. We as people understand that people are in time of need, but also as people we should be more concern about ourselves first and make sure that are safety and protection are in good hands. Which when getting involved with Syria’s people, many problems occur. Many countries all over the world are willing to lend a helping hand and feel that they can make a difference. But the U.S has been dealing with terroristic attacks for years now and they should realize that they should just mind their own business for the safety of the nation as well as the safety of their own citizens.

Work cited

Lt. Gen. Clarence E. McKnight, Jr. The Huffington Post “The U.S. Should Intervene in Syria in a Big Way” September 2015. November 11 2016. Web

Youssef, Nancy. The Daily Beast “U.S admits it Bombed Syrian Troops.”  Sep 18 2016. Nov 20. 2016. Web

Riffkin, Rebecca. Gallup “Americans Name Terrorism as No. 1 U.S. Problem” November 3 2016. December 14 2015. Web

Rosenthal, Max. Mother Jones “Here’s What Republicans Don’t Get About Refugees” November 3 2016. November 17 2015. Web

Fantz, Ashley. CNN “ More than half the nation’s governors say Syrian refugees not welcome” november 3 2016. November 2015. Web

Sanger, David. The New York Times “Donald Trump Likely to End Aid for The Rebels Fighting Syrian Government.”  Nov. 18 2015. Nov 19 2016. Web

Berman, Russell. The Atlantic “Can ISIS Terrorists Really Infiltrate The Syrian Refugee Program?” Nov 18 2015. Nov 20 2016. Web.

Miller, Jake. CBS “How do Americans feel about U.S. involvement in foreign crises?” Sep 14, 2014. Oct 30,2016. Web

Amanpour, Christiane. CNN. ” Passport Linked to Terrorist Complicates Syrian Refugee Crisis” Nov 15 2015. Nov 20 2016. Web

Perceptions or Facts

“You play ball like a girl!” This used to be one of the worst insults of all time. It is quite a compliment. Softball seemed as only the girl version of baseball. The girls who couldn’t compete with “the big guys,” played softball. That underhand pitch, the size of the field, how much bigger the ball is easy. In reality it is harder. Recent studies shows how much harder hitting a softball is than hitting an overhand pitch of a baseball. The angle, speed, distance, and spin are just a few aspects of the windmill pitch’s difficulty. In reality, hitting a 95 mph overhand baseball pitch from 60 feet away is more difficult than hitting a 65 mph, windmill softball pitch from 43 feet away, as iSport.com tells us.

We all know that softball is simply the “girl version” of baseball. The field is smaller, the ball is bigger, and the uniforms are quite different. Most believe that these differences would make playing the game much easier. Girls are underestimated pretty often, but when it comes to softball, there is much empowerment. When baseball and softball get compared, most would always go into saying how much baseball is harder. The field is big, the ball is small and white, and the pitching is faster. All these descriptions are true but doesn’t make the sport any harder than softball.

Some sports can be very similar or different to each other, like softball and baseball or tennis and badminton. Sports like tennis and badminton are also a pair of sports that are modified towards each other. They both have the same concept, but many differences. The shape of the court, using rackets, hand/eye coordination, having a player on each side of the net, etc. are all aspects of the two sports that are similar. Softball and baseball both have the same general rules, like needing to get three outs and using a ball to pitch to a batter. They both have a first, second, and third base that runners run to so they can score. Though these basic and simple rules are a few aspects what these sports have in common, their differences are increased. For a badminton play to succeed in tennis would require extra skill practice and new coordinations to be formed. New skills would still be needed when a baseball hitter goes up against a softball pitcher and succeeds. The athletes, no matter how hight their skill level, are not prepared to face a kind of sport so similar, yet so different at the same time.

The sports, softball or baseball, have are countless aspects that can make one sport harder than the other. Just because the softball field is smaller does not make it any easier. In fact, distance and size make more difficulties to hit than a baseball. In baseball, the standard base distance is 90 feet from base to base, but in softball they are 60 feet apart. The fence in softball is usually about 220 feet or so. A baseball field fence is about 400 feet from home plate. The pitching distance from home plate is also different. They softball mound is only 43 feet from home, the baseball mound is 60 feet. The baseball mound is also higher because of the extra dirt under the mound, where-as in softball, it is flat.

The significance of these differences is how it changes difficulty. The softball rise ball, and the batter’s natural movement of dropping the bat when swinging. The batter’s effectiveness of hitting the ball productively go down tremendously. In softball, not only does the pitch rise, but it is also pitched at distance of only 43 feet. That is only where the mound is placed. After the big leap off the mound and the intimidating windmill, the pitcher ends up about 38 feet away from the batter. The reaction time the batter has to see the ball and to hit it short.

Baseball’s pitching has only a few difficulties, but the main one is the size of their ball. Because of its small shape, the ball has a better chance of movement. The pitcher can hold the ball a certain way and can make the ball do some crazy movements while approaching  the strike zone. The batter must make sure the ball won’t be out of the strike zone by the time it gets there.

It has been researched by an online myth buster channel, that the reaction time to hit a baseball is longer than softball by .045 milliseconds. If the baseball batter is pitching from 60 feet with the speed of 95 mph, the batter will have just about .395 milliseconds to react and hit the ball. A softball pitcher who pitches from 43 feet at with speed of 70 mph, only allows the hitter .350 milliseconds to react. Numbers like these can indicate that softball hitters will have a more difficult time hitting the ball.

Hitting a ball coming at the strike zone at 65 mph causes the batter to see the ball so quickly that they need to have amazing hand-eye coordination. The ciliary muscles in the eye takes time to contract and relax to see an object far, to close. During a baseball or softball game, this has to happen fast, and this takes time and finding the ball in the air takes time too. During both kind of pitching, the ball is blocked by the pitchers body at some point therefor the batter can’t see the ball until it is already in the air. This makes the eye muscles have to work even faster to see the ball and see it come closer.

To make this process quicker, the batter has to focus on a point in space that they assume the ball will come from. It can be easier to look at the pitcher’s release point. In baseball, this might be easier because the release point is next to their head, but in softball, the release point is by their hip.

The different aspects in each sport is focused on the view point of the player. A softball player might think that hitting a 90 mph, dropping pitch is harder, and vise versa for the boys. Let’s say that a badminton player tries to play tennis. They would believe that tennis is more difficult because of the bigger court and the size of the racket. A tennis player would think that badminton is difficult because of its higher net and the birdie.

Some viewers say that softball and baseball can’t be measured based off their difficulty levels. The two sports are too different for this to be stated. In the game of baseball and softball, pitchers dominate. The game is won bases off of who can make the other team’s hitters, hit less. Professional softball pitcher Jennie Finch is one who dominates every time she steps in the pitching circle. By nature, people love a good challenge, so professional baseball hitters like to face the all-powerful and mighty Ms. Finch. Professional hitter Albert Pujols accepted the challenge and stepped up to the plate. Because of Pujols not ever seeing a ball rise before, he couldn’t touch it. This got people thinking, if college players hit Finch before, then why can’t professional ball players touch her?

This doesn’t mean that the pros aren’t has good as they think they are because they truly are very good, but this just means they don’t practice hitting softball pitching as much as baseball pitching. This also could mean softball batters are pretty good in the fact that they can even touch this pitching. The movement of a softball pitch is completely different compared to a baseball pitch. Professional baseball hitters are not used to the angle. If they were, they would then be able to touch the ball more accurately. Due to the fact that it was Pujols first time ever to see this pitching, it was difficult for him. With more and more practice, there is a chance that he could perform better.

However, Finch is the best of the best, there is most likely a softball pitcher that Pujols can touch that is not Jennie. Another scenario was when Finch participated in the Pepsi All-Star Game in 2004; Finch faced more MLB hitters. “No sooner did Finch arrive at the mound the defensive players behind her sat down,” said Scott Tinley in his article, Why MLB hitters can’t hit Jennie Finch and the science behind reaction time. Though their assumptions are humorous, this states that Finch would go to strike out each MLB batter of the inning.

The batters reaction time to the ball has not been practiced enough to face a softball pitcher. Practicing this will allow a better timed swing to the ball. When athletes practice timing, they are making sure they can execute skills “without thinking.” By practicing how to come in contact with a pitcher’s rise ball, batters then will expect it at bat. Now that this a practiced, maybe even mastered, batters can then focus on whether the ball will be inside or outside.

This can prove that MLB hitters can be expected to not hit Finch on a first try, but being the professional athletes they are, they can practice and try to hit her the second time. Most hitters don’t see a second at-bat with Finch because they never want to go through that humiliation ever again. Therefore, trying to prove that a softball is harder to hit than a baseball is not reasonable. Studies can’t be accurate because the only way to prove this is if there were an athlete who practiced hitting both for an equal amount of time.

Baseball players can’t hit a softball pitch effectively because they have never seen that kind of pitching before. This is equivalent to a professional badminton player stepping onto a tennis court. Though these sports are very similar with the same kind of big idea, they are very different. With tennis, the net is low to the ground and the court is bigger. In badminton, the net is high and the court in shorter. Badminton players must focus on the speed and spin of the birdie. Tennis focuses on power and timing of the ball.

Let’s say a badminton player has played tennis for the same amount of time, we could see what sport that player has more success with. The player can give a better measure for what sport they have more difficulties in. The same concept applies to softball and baseball. Very little to no baseball players also play fast-pitch softball. If there were any who did, there is no analysis on them. Researchers have also done no recorded scenario where a softball hitter batted against a baseball pitcher. Overall, stating that one sport is harder than the other is too broad of a statement.

Some researches say that softball hitters hit less than baseball hitters because the kind of pitching is more difficult to hit. The top three softball hitters in America, as of 2015, all have batting averages over .500, while the top three baseball hitters hit just over .420. If hitting a softball is harder, then these numbers do not add up to support that statement. Because of the smaller softball field, the infield and bases are both shorter distance. The shorter distance will cause many more infield hits than baseball hitters can produce. There are aspects in both sports that make each have many different difficulties. The sports are just too different to judge if one is harder than the other.

Sandlot 2 is the biggest softball verses baseball challenge of all time. In the movie, the Sandlot boys arrive at their usual playing spot, and to their surprise they witness three girls on their dirt. Dealing with intruders is hard enough when people are on any kind of property that has clearly been taken, but girls just make it worse. As the ball players begin to make a compromise, both boys and girls make some sort of bet. The winner takes the sandlot; loser leaves. Softball pitcher, Hayley Goodfairer, challenges baseball player, David Durgano, saying she can strike out him out with three pitches. Accepting the challenge, David faces an underhand softball windmill for the first time. Foul ball after foul ball, both began to get tired and weaker. In the end they call it a draw. During draws, there is no winner and no loser.  The movie symbolizes that neither sport is harder or easier than the other.

The most critical part of comparing two sports are the view-points. When saying a softball hitter has a tougher time than a baseball hitter, the judgements are based from the viewers skill levels and their indication of the sport. The softball pitch can seem that there are more difficulties because of the completely different kind of pitching. The angle of the pitch is more difficult to hit because of angle, distance, and speed. Overall, the conclusion comes from within the view of the athlete.

Works Cited

A Women’s Softball Pitcher vs. the Top Baseball Hitters…Who Wins? (n.d.). Retrieved November 06, 2016.

CK”s Baseball 4U, B. C. (2014, February 27). What’s the Difference between Baseball and Softball? Retrieved October 30, 2016.

H. (2014). Difference Between Tennis and Badminton. Retrieved November 23, 2016.

Mann, B. A. (2011, September 30). Baseball vs. Softball. Retrieved October 30, 2016.

Sullivan, S. (2016, February 05). Baseball vs Softball, Which is Harder? – Baseball Fam. Retrieved December 05, 2016

The Difference Between Baseball & Softball | iSport.com. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2016

Tinley, S. (2014, July 24). Why MLB hitters can’t hit Jennie Finch and science behind reaction time. Retrieved November 06, 2016.