#notes4

[amiacollegestudent-blog]

DSM and the Categorical Approach to Psychological Disorders

To standardize their definitions and diagnoses, psychiatrists and psychologists developed a reference book called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that sets specific criteria for each psychological diagnosis.

Categories of Psychological Disorders According to DSM–5

Neurodevelopmental Disorders Schizophrenia Spectrum Bipolar and Related Disorders Depressive Disorders Anxiety Disorders Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders Trauma-Related Disorders Dissociative Disorders Somatic Symptom Disorders Eating Disorders Elimination Disorders Sleep-Wake Disorders Sexual Dysfunctions Gender Dysphoria Impulse Control Disorders Substance Abuse and Addictions Neurocognitive Disorders Personality Disorders Paraphilias Others

[taylorhawkins94]

Notes 4

My analysis 1 was weak in parts where I was summarizing the poem more than analyzing it. This has always been a major weakness of my writing and I plan to work on it throughout the course of this class. I am really interested in diving deeper into the motives of the wolf and the meaning behind the rhetoric line, "couldn't I have". I think that the wolf is seeking to be the master of his own destiny and desires to create something that will last long after he is dead. The wolf does seem to have enough self awareness to know the importance of clearing his name and moral conscence before he dies. This causes me to question his intentions because why would he want to be portrayed in such a positive light before his death, had he not lived a noble life up to that point so this was his last effort to paint himself in a postitive light? 

[melissaashleybrooks]

Notes 4

Reflecting on Analysis 1 -  The ideas that I tried to convey in my analysis came off as an opinion rather than an analysis. I think that is what I struggle with the most (being able to word things so that it doesn't sound opinionated). I also skimmed over the text rather than staying close to it and using the words in the book to do the analysis (as stated in my one-on-one) and I recognize that now after reading through it again. Instead of giving textual evidence in my analysis and implications, I only worte down my ideas based off the text, so it read more of an opinion. In the analysis I was trying to show Prospero's "self-centered" nature, but it was hard to do that without actually using those words. For the next time around, I will use sprecific traces of evidence in the text to add to my claim so that it is credible. 

[raulitosdoritos]

Notes 4

I've noticed in my writing I often tend to jump into implications and conclusions about a given text that people could easily dismiss because of my lack of support. It is not rare for me to use a short quote to establish the foundation of a claim, then jump into broad speculations that could easily raise questions of justification, as is evident in my Analyses 1 post. Perhaps I received an uncommon impression about Prospero and concluded that he is childlike when it comes to his self-esteem/securities, but regardless, all accusations are acceptable as long as it is accompanied by evidence. I could have employed more quotes with more depth in order to justify my analyses.

Other than lacking support, another hammering to my writing are my misinterpretations and my necessity for closer reading and profound thinking. When discussing Prospero's disposition, I disregarded the fact that what I know of his situation is what he chooses to share, and so his statements are subject to be bias. This allows information to be hid, therefore impairing the legitimacy of my findings. I also failed to look at the whole picture in a different perspective than the concrete, which resulted in a general, unmemorable analyses that seldom provided anything really unique.

My goal for all future writings and analyses is to better justify my claims with solid incontrovertible evidence, and most importantly, to think deeper so as to find more profound interpretations and messages deeply embedded within the context.

[yourandy96]

Notes 4: Reflection of Analysis 1

Reviewing my Analysis on The Tempest, focusing on the relationship between Caliban and Prospero, and looking at the feedback given to me by Karolyn, I found that I did not go as in depth as I actually though I did. My analysis remained quite broad because of the lack of evidence that was provided and my failure to link my implications back to the text. In all honesty, I had a little trouble following Shakespeare's writing in the Tempest which made it more difficult than to further analyze the text. Also, in my analysis I seem to focus on too much on trying to show the likeness between Prospero and Caliban which causes me too lose focus on referring back to their differences, in terms of class and power. I also lose sight in trying to use Prospero and Caliban's relationship as a way to further analyze the binaries I presented, which again is me just losing focus on my main purpose in my writing. I can improve on my analyses by doing another close reading of certain sections of the text and use outside resources, such as SparkNotes and Shmoop, to help clear up the cloudy areas in my understanding of the novel.

[tayleirobinson]

Notes 4

While I was writing Analysis 1, I felt it very hard to stick to ideas that were strictly grounded to the textual evidence. But apparently I did a much better job of that than I thought I had. Something that I didn't think I struggled with, but I obviously did, was delving deeper than the surface of the text. In my analysis, I discussed the scene in Frankenstein in which the creature revealed himself to De Lacey. My focal word was "countenance". I said it implied that people were only judging the creature on his appearance and that De Lacey, being blind, was the first to judge him on his words rather than his appearance. But I really just wrote about observations rather than actual implications. If I were to rewrite this, I would think deeper about it. I would say that the fact that De Lacey is blind and can therefore see the creature for who he truly is implies that sight is a hindrance sometimes when you are trying to judge someone. If you don't let your sight cloud your true judgement, then you will be able to see the person for who they really are.

[obspec]

OBspec readers! Haf here. I know, "oh geez, this girl again?" But wait -- I swear this will be informative AND enlightening. So let’s dig in for a minute. Because E.4: "TINGED BY WHAT ABSORBS IT" was fun right?

The Suburbs and Syphilis! Dramatics and trouble? Move aside, Lord of the Rings, why, it must be Alison Hendrix and her Merry Gang. Alison is amazing to write. Amazing is the only word I can think of, honestly. Alison is just...amazing! The characters that have followed her into OBspec are extremely fun to pen. A cool thing about the suburban arc of OBspec is that it doesn’t remain a wholly self-contained entity. Alison is like this whirlpool existing on the fringes of the clonespiracy and every so often, she sucks someone in—Felix, Cosima, even Sarah when she has a mo'. And it’s very important that the core sisterhood remains connected, even when it comes to seemingly removed suburban shenanigans and syph scares.

Bringing Alison and Donnie back together in a camaraderie capacity was also very important for her arc in our telling because, with neighbors like Audrey running around, you’re going to need some backup. Even if that backup is eating, farting, sex-in-the-toolshed Donnie.

Oreos And Pencil Shavings The Cosima & Scott BROTP is close to my heart, and something I really want to see developed more in the show. Thank goodness for OBspec, so I can BROTP as much as I want! Or within reason. Oreos, sciencing, and all, they’re a ton of fun. Scott is, we are convinced, the gnarliest Straight Best Friend a girl could have, and it’s a great little path he treads throughout this spec season. 

Cosima and Rachel prove to be a killer combo to write together. Identical faces be damned, the women could not be more opposite of each other, so putting them in a room is pretty much like trying to put two opposing magnets in the same box — things explode, threats are made, bombs are dropped, pencils fly. You could technically say the same of Rachel and any of her doppelgängers, but with her and Cosima especially, with both of them being invested in the science side of the conspiracy, and both being intensely intelligent and crafty women, their interactions turn into an interesting, and dangerous, game of psychological strategy. For a writer, it’s hella juicy stuff.

Art and Angie I love Art and Angie. They're a fun duo. They don't always get to do as much as I would like, but when there's an opportunity to get them deep into the nitty gritty, we take it. As of now, we see that Art’s caught himself a pretty big fish, and it’s not really clear he knows quite how to cook it yet. Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion…

Hacking With Team Lumberpunk Team OBspec has lots of little headcanons that we’ve slipped into this spec season, and their primary purpose is to fill in some of the grayer areas of certain characters, such as Cal, Mrs. S or Felix. For Cal, we decided that, based off of his established characteristics and knack for getting his hands on information, he had a network. Giving Cal a “network” of global gear heads proves infinitely useful in getting Sarah where she needs be. Enter, eighteen and a half year old Delaney, wunderkind and computer whiz. One of the many we will presume operates on Cal’s frequency. As Delphine says, it’s good to have friends in the Brave New World, and snarky young Delaney certainly is one of them. I’d like to think Delaney gets a spinoff, Better Call Saul style, in which she sasses/Skittles her way through a conspiracy she doesn’t know exists…yet. 

Eye To Eye With Rachel Duncan Eyes. They’re nifty, right? They’re the windows to the soul, some say. So what happens if you’re missing one? Or have a fake one? Are people only seeing half of your soul? What’s going on — what are you hiding?? Or maybe an eye is just an eye, whatever. With Rachel Duncan, at least, we’ve found that eyes take us down an interesting forked path of psychological and mythological subtext. 

Psychological: The eye is imbalance. And Rachel desperately needs balance. She understands that, but at the moment, her balance is manufactured. False. And it affects everything she does. Rachel is erratic. Vengeful. Dangerous. 

Mythological: Odysseus blinded the Cyclops with a stake to the eye. And if you examine the timeline of events, you might come to a conclusion of some confidence that Orphan Black is kind of a modern day Aeneid. Let’s not forget the Ancient Egyptians and their religious eye fetishes.

The characteristics of the Eye of Ra were an important part of the Egyptian conception of female divinity. [x]

Which gives you an interesting angle to look at the Eye of Neolution from, given the series’ concentration on female agency…

Eyes aside, there are very fun things going on with Rachel Duncan for OBspec. And we very much look forward to disturbing you with them.

The Other Lost Children Mark and Gracie are two important side-players in our spec, if you look carefully at the emotional content and subplot implications. With these two lie an important piece of thought in terms of the actual series. Gracie is a clone child's surrogate who got suckered into a danger she never sighed up for. Mark is an AWOL Prolethean and disavowed soldierboy struggling with his nature, his loyalties, and his emotions. The psychological and emotional plotting ground here is very rich and should for sure not be discounted.

The Complicated Discoveries of Felix Dawkins Poor Felix really gets the short end of the clonespiracy when it comes to the juicy bits. Luckily, he’s got slippery fingers and knows how to nose about when he needs to. The question for Felix is, when is too much information too much information? He’s consistently betwixt needing to live his own life and needing to be there for his sister and niece — to be there for his very best friends. Both of those needs come with the sacrifice of the other. And I feel that at a very important point—both for Orphan Black and OBspec, Felix will have to face that very difficult choice and make a final decision.

On Signing & Speaking, and Slamming Delphine’s Cupboard Doors REBECCA. We of Baby Hive knew early on in the writing process that we wanted to introduce at least one new Leda clone. Rebecca was formulated very carefully—a joint project of our writing team and outside resources with the necessary insight and understanding of deafness, Deaf culture, and the more technical bits. We all thought that a deaf clone would be not only a very interesting visual idea (Tatiana in her curly haired state using sign language? That’s way high on my want-to-see-in-the-actual-show-list) but a very interesting conceptual idea as well, which will be elaborated upon in upcoming episodes. But, Rebecca was also crafted with the intention of introducing several unique angles to the issues of independence and agency that run throughout the series. She's an extremely complex character with an attribute that colors her and defines her, but is not her entirety. So, there's still lots more to learn about her. Bottom line, Rebecca is our OBspec baby. We’re really proud of how she’s developed, and we really hope you come to love her as much as we do!