A Pandemonium (of Underdeveloped Ideas)

1. Wild uproar
2. A chaotic situation

Was my thought process while writing the first draft of my researched argument. Although the topic of conversion therapy was something I was already familiar with, gathering research material and arranging them to support my ideas was an entirely different matter.

Psychiatric organizations have stated that conversion therapy is not a valid form of therapy because it violates the ethical guidelines of scientific experimentation. The purpose of psychoanalytic therapy is to help patients overcome trauma and develop a more positive mindset. Patients take charge of the session as they freely speak their mind. Conversion therapy, on the other hand, requires that the psychiatrist leads the “treatment.” They assert the idea that their feelings of attraction need to be fixed. Evidently, this sort of treatment is hardly a valid form of science, as it contradicts with the purpose of psychology and therapy.

With that context in mind, how was I going to write 2000+ words simply explaining this pseudo-scientific idea that could easily be done in half, maybe even less, the amount of required words?

Would I have to broaden my research? Focus on other examples of pseudosciences?

My question was answered during the peer review process. Members of my writing groups focused on unique and enthralling concepts. Those topics ranged from the heightened presence of Islamophobia within the recent years, development of AI technology, and the implementation of electric aircrafts. After reading their papers, I took one look at my own paper and thought, “this belongs in the trash.”

Although some of their ideas needed clarification and could be further enhanced, I noticed they included background information and how each of their respective topics developed over time. I, on the other hand, did not include sufficient background information; I assumed that my readers would not need background information on what psychoanalysis and experimentation are. Though sparsely mentioned, the historical and biblical context in relation to homosexuality that I included in one poorly-written paragraph seemed anti-climactic. It lacked an interesting topic sentence and was apparent that I paraphrased what I read in a history textbook. Marlon, one of my peers, suggested that I spend more time developing the body paragraphs as I put more effort into my introduction.

Leave a Reply