Causal – l8tersk8ter

I could use some help getting started professor. I know that my White Paper is probably not up to the standard that would allow you to provide good feedback, but I still wanted to make this post. I plan on having my White Paper improved by tomorrow night. I do have some ideas for my paper though. I think a good route to go would be how being on a competitive team causes different positive effects, such as positive reinforcement, how to cope with loses, how it feels to contribute, etc (I know those are kind of broad but they’re just example for now). I would then do how all of those effects can then cause positive self-esteem or maybe how they cause positive mental health since I feel like my hypothesis is kind of drifting towards that topic. This argument would take on the structure of a causal chain. I will work on my White Paper and look forward to your feedback.

This entry was posted in Causal Argument, l8tersk8ter. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Causal – l8tersk8ter

  1. davidbdale says:

    I see you didn’t actually update your White Paper, L8tersk8ter, but I’ll help as much as I can with some general observations.

    The first thing that occurs to me reading your summary of the Pedersen article is that it seems to indicate sports teams are always successful: “It was hypothesized and proven that the self-perception of success in a team sport can be connected to the global self-esteem of teen girls.” Is there not a danger that being a member of a woeful team would just as easily damage the self-esteem of participants? That would be an interesting hypothesis.

    I would also note that the “common knowledge” expressed in books such as Leary’s are exactly the sort of received dogma you might want to question instead of automatically embracing: “It is universally accepted that people want to enhance self-esteem, it is more desirable to have a high self-esteem, and raising a low self-esteem can improve the well mental wellbeing of a person.” Once we accept that generalization, it’s way too easy to find evidence of it wherever we look, even if we think we’re conducting an objective scientific study.

    To me your most interesting observations come when you question the outcomes of studies that reinforce general assumptions. You’re much more nuanced than your subject matter when you say, “This study looked into these connections between extracurriculars and both delinquency and depression. There was found to be no consistent measure and the variance was highly context based. It is not about what activity is being participated in, but rather how it is being conducted.”

    I wonder if it might be fruitful for you to conduct a “fact-check” sort of analysis on the literature that supports your original hypothesis. You may find the “rebuttal” position more to your liking.


  2. l8tersk8ter says:

    Thank you. I do intend to find more sources that will provide better support so that the information I’m using as support doesn’t come across as so questionable.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s