The reading on mystery was extremely interesting. Perception of mystery shows how easily humans can be manipulated in a way. In fiction, mystery can be perceived as evil or hopeful, and the author will clue hints that affect perception. In real life scenarios, I think that it can be a mix of both perceptions. Thinking of our current situation, there is a lot of fear in the unknowns: will me or my family get sick, when will things return to normal, etc. However, I think there is also some hope, like seeing random acts of kindness or thinking of how great school will be once we return. It reminds me of the glass half empty or glass half full analogy. I was a bit confused about Gesalt psychology in general, but I understood the “closure” principle because it’s something I see a lot. It can explain why bending the data to fit the claim is a prominent issue in statistics.

This reading highlighted how we are often irrational when we choose a leadership. The idea of a prototypical leader and the primary effect are not indications that people are drawn toward the best leaders, but rather the superficially attractive one. The lack of effect that situation has to perceivers stuck out to me. In my 102 class, we learned about how different situations called for different leaders, but this reading suggests that we jump to conclusions about a leader despite the situation. Consciously, we know that jumping to conclusions is bad. However, we can trick ourselves into thinking that we are not filling in the blanks with bias and end up at the same slanted conclusion. The four cues perceivers use contribute to this conclusion jumping greatly, and they are quite shallow. I have studied in the past the dangers and lures of charisma, as well as how intrinsically it is relied upon in the American political system. While the logical side of me knows how harmful the tools we use to resolve mystery, I also wonder how hard it is to change these things. Being aware is the first step, but they are so widespread and relied upon, I do not know what it would take.

I had heard of the Stanford Prison experiment before, but never read the details. It was shocking how quickly simulated guards and prisoners alike fell into the real character. It was pretty disturbing to read and unimaginable to think of the long-term abuse that true prisoners have to endure. I have studied the effect of prisons on people in past classes and it is never less shocking to learn about. I think that the general public is not aware of the mystery that surrounds prisons. They are, constitutionally, supposed to be “not unusually cruel” punishment in regard to the crime that was committed, and in so so many cases this is not true.