I’ve heard about these theories briefly before, but I thought this article was especially interesting because many of these dilemmas can be applied to my everyday life. I think that whether we notice it or not, we are faced with many of these issues (even if they seem very small and insignificant). For example, if you and your roommate are deciding where to get brunch over the weekend, there are many small decisions happening. On one hand, the Battle of the Sexes can be applied if you both want to go to different places, and you have to come to some sort of agreement in the end. The Chicken Dilemma is also at play, because at some point someone has to back down and give into what the other person wants. Similarly, I think you could also apply the Volunteer Effect, because you hope that your roommate will decide to give up and say that the two of you can go where you really want to go (and vice versa). I think that when you think about all the decision we have to make in the span of a day (especially while we may not think about it), this reading becomes much more prevalent and applicable to our lives.

For me personally, I am much more likely to step up for something if no one else says anything because I feel bad, but it’s interesting to think more deeply about the idea that if you wait out long enough, someone else will step in and you won’t have to. I also think it depends on the situation and who you are with. I am sometimes less likely to step up if I don’t feel comfortable in the group or I know I probably wouldn’t do as good of a job as another person.

Last semester, my 102 class went to a talk given by Dr. Hidalgo on immigration law. Reading his paper gave me a deeper understanding to what he was explaining in his talk. I thought Hidalgo’s distinction between “doing” and “allowing” was very interesting. When thinking about moral arguments and dilemmas, especially ones concerning immigration, I agree with Hidalgo’s point about our moral duty to disobey the law if the punishment for us isn’t to the same standards as the consequences for others if we do follow it.

Another point I found particularly interesting was his argument for the revisionary view. He used an example of a woman named Linda, and gave two different examples of her moving from Chicago to LA, and then Chicago to London. He argues that the restriction of her moving not only infringes upon her rights, but the rights of the people in that city who would associate with her. By “conscripting” citizens to comply with federal law, through prohibiting them from hiring unauthorized migrants or not reporting them, the government is effectively restricting the rights of their citizens as well. I thought that argument was interesting, because within the issue of immigration, you rarely hear about the rights violations of citizens, only the migrants.

I took the implicit bias test on gender and careers, and was somewhat surprised when I saw that I had a tendency to place men in career positions and women in a care taking position. I went to an all girls school from kindergarten through high school, and was always in an environment that encouraged women to pursue whatever career they wanted. I come from a background with so many women that make significant contributions in whatever field they go into. Despite my upbringing and the people I was surrounded by throughout my childhood, our general societal presumptions about gender are still in my implicit biases. I found that really interesting, because I went into that test pretty convinced I knew what my results would be, and they ended up being the opposite.

I found this reading extremely interesting and prevalent in our society, especially today. The stereotypes that exist between men and women is ingrained in our society more than we know. Additionally, they can either manifest in mostly harmless ways, or in ways that could be damaging to someone’s life and health. The example about the doctor who decided that his female patient didn’t need a routine test to test cholesterol levels (simply because the issue of high cholesterol is statistically more common in men) when in fact she ended up needing medication to control her levels proves this idea and how dangerous it can be. The preconceived notion that certain people are at a higher risk for a certain type of medical issue is understandable, but that doesn’t mean that they should be applied and people should be considered “safe” from these problems (especially in something like the field of medicine). I’ve had family members in the exact same situations, and my female relatives have had to ask for specific tests that doctors overlooked (because the statistical odds of a female having those problems were extremely low) but the test results showed that in fact they did have the issue. To me, this reading solidified the idea that these stereotypes definitely exist in our biases, but in some fields the practical application of them can be very dangerous.

I found the reading on Mindbugs fascinating, especially the idea of how our memory can heavily affect what we consider to be reality. For example, the misinformation effect is something that can have large consequences in certain situations. I am very interested in studying the structure and flaws of our criminal justice system. Considering how many people are wrongfully convicted of crimes that they did not commit, it leads me to question why we continue to rely on something as unpredictable and subjective as eyewitness testimonies as much as we do. The fact that even the smallest language change can shift our perception and reality is scary to me. I can’t even begin to count how many times my family and I will argue over details in even the most minor stories. We all have different versions of the same event and are convinced that the way we remember it is correct. Applying that idea to a larger scale, like the criminal justice system in the U.S. is very problematic, and has the ability to affect the lives of so many individuals.