I found it to be very interesting to learn about the specific types of dilemmas in this reading. Many of them were new to me. I could not help but think of situations that I personally have experienced each one of them. Volunteer’s dilemma was a curious one for me. Sacrificing oneself for the good of the masses is the very noble, but I am not sure how many people would be willing to so. There is always an underlying a mentality of “someone else will do it” for humans. I appreciate that the author explained that this phenomenon also happens for animals, with the migrating wildebeests. I think this shows that moral dilemmas are an instinctual part of life. They often have to do with survival and thriving, not just human characteristics.

I have learned about some specific game theories before in my economic classes before. They have always made me nervous because I do not do well being in situations like that, especially the prisoner’s dilemma. I like to think the best in people, and because of this I have a feeling that I’d be the one going to jail (or receiving the lower utility). I think that this has an interesting connection with the distinction between allowing and doing. I am much more willing to allow something mediocrely bad to happen than to do something worse to a person in order to save myself.

I attended the “Jim Crow Cigarettes from Richmond to China: An intimate history” lecture presented by Dr. Nan Enstad. Enstad gave an extremely insightful analysis of how race relations allowed some people to thrive in the booming tobacco and cigarette trade of the 19^th and 20^th centuries and others to be stifled across the globe. Richmond has a special relationship to this industry, as it was one of the birth places of the tobacco boom. Enstad started her research on a local basis, talking to elderly ex-factory workers about their experiences. In all of her work, Enstad highlights the role of under-represented groups (women, African Americans, queer people) in history and this project was no different for her. A major topic in her book on the subject was the “gold rush” to farm the new strain of tobacco called Brightleaf. This was a very sensitive crop to plant, and recently freed African Americans had every reason to think that it would be their ticket to social mobility because they had all the skills to thrive at it. However, white men cunningly made sure that black people never had the chance. The corporate structure of white collar versus blue collar jobs was implemented. African Americans were forced into lower level positions due to left over structures of slavery and the lack of opportunity to acquire any land.

Enstad’s talk was a good example of why certain people were able to acquire leadership opportunities, like tobacco tycoons James Duke and Lewis Ginter. This general idea is still a problem today. We have been learning a great deal about how implicit biases, and while in the 19^th century it was blatant racism, people’s preconceived notions shaped an entire business structure. Enstad explained how slavery left people with the belief that black people should be excluded from higher management jobs, even though they were most knowledgeable about the product. There was a “Brightleaf Tobacco Network” of corporate workers of the same race (white) and class (middle) that perpetuated the cycle of white-male leadership. The biases were so deep rooted, that when the American tobacco/cigarette industry spread to China, the racism spread as well.

I enjoyed Enstad’s talk and I learned a lot about an unfamiliar topic. Even past the information she shared, Enstad emphasized the investigation structure of using local stories to examine global histories which I think is extremely useful in any field of study.

My 102 class went to a talk given by Hildago about civil disobedience to immigration laws, which introduced me to this topic. His paper was a more comprehensive explanation, and it gave me a deeper understanding. I found the distinction between “doing” and “allowing” to be very interesting. It is similar to what we talked about in class, that people are much more willing incur higher risks if it means they are allowing something to happen, rather than doing something that has lower risks. This distinction has even deeper levels when you consider the morality of the choice. When it comes to immigration laws, I agree with Hildago that the choice to not do something (as in not follow the law) is the more moral option, and worth the risk of punishment. In the talk he gave last semester, he discussed the different types of civil disobedience as well. People often have an idea that civil disobedience must be grand gestures that call a great deal of attention. However, with immigration laws in particular, civil disobedience can be much more discrete. There is merit and importance in public, attention-grabbing disobedience. However, people have a moral duty to disobey in daily life as well.

I was not familiar at all with the topic of Dr. Flanigan’s paper, but it was very informative. Initially, I was surprised because the only arguments on prescription use that I have been exposed to are in regard to the opioid crisis. She provides many compelling points like the DIC perspective, epistemic authority and bodily autonomy. The idea of deferring to the patient’s judgment about treatment options was something I have never considered, and while I imagine I would personally have some insecurities and doubts if I had the final say in choosing my medicine, it is a strong argument overall. She addresses the counter arguments of dangerous drugs and addiction, which are topics I would like to read more about. I worry that even a rational person could be told the risks and benefits of a drug, then still make a decision that is bad for their health because of their biases or unwillingness to change their mind. However, doctors have biases too so perhaps this is already the case. I cannot say whether I agree or disagree with Flanigan’s argument, but it is a topic that I would like to follow up on.

Dissociation–the state in which a person possesses conflicting attitudes, one reflective, the other automatic–is a hard concept for me to wrap my head around. Similar to the mindbugs from the last reading, it is hard to understand that my brain makes decisions and judgements that I do not have control over. However, the mystery behind dissociation makes it all the more important to be aware of. People do not have to endorse racist or sexist ideas to possess them. It is a problem that society must address. Some implicit biases are extremely harmful and potentially deadly, like the black=harmful and the American=white stereotypes that the author talks about.

The Managing to Clear the Air reading delves into specific ways that stereotypes, implicit or explicit, are damaging. If a person feels like they are negatively stereotyped, they are more likely to perform worse or underperform. I learned about this in my 102 class as well; it’s called stereotype threat. There are several other aspects of stereotype effects that are startling. Take, for example, reactant response. It is upsetting to think about a person changing themselves to fit in, then being ostracized in other parts of their life because of it. It is the definition of a lose-lose situation. It is so important to learn about these threats and try to find ways to combat them. I expect that they will be obstacles for me in the future, so I want to be as prepared and aware as possible.

I took the gender and science test and received the result “slight automatic association for Male and Liberal Arts and Female with Science.” I was a bit surprised from this result. I was worried that I was going to get the opposite which is a stereotype I strongly dislike, and I wonder if this made me more conscious of what I was answering. I am a female in science (math) myself, so the math=male stereotype is one I am sensitive to and do not want to perpetuate, even if it is subconscious. When I look around my classes, I feel like there is usually a good mix of men and women surrounding me. However, in my liberal arts classes I do notice a ratio heavier on the female side. I am sure that these impacted my score. Implicit biases are very frightening to me. I do not want to underperform or pressure people because of my unregistered stereotypes, but that is just another reason why it is so important to try to bring them to light.

I had never heard of the term mind bug before, but I’ve been exposed to these types of illusions before. On the first day of my 7^th grade woodshop class, my teacher spent the whole period showing us illusions and assigning each one a deeper meaning of why we got it wrong in the first place. I hope he reads this someday because the metaphorical reasons he came up with are not true the reasons our minds trick us. It is interesting to me that mindbugs are a product of evolution. Our brain does this because it helps of survive in the world. However, there are times that this automatic evaluation hurts us and there is no way to turn it off.

The idea of false memories is especially frightening. When it comes to remembering things, I think it is safe to say that a person is going to trust their own memory compared to someone else’s most of the time. But this specific mindbug seems to say that this instinct is wrong. In fact, both people are probably remembering wrong. Differing memories are usually pretty harmless. For example, when two people are arguing over who found a song first or which person agreed to take out the trash the correct answer is not going to have an important effect. However, Blindspot shows that there are very real consequences to faulty memory, like when a person is a witness for a trial. Mistakes are bound to be made when a person’s memory is the only thing to rely on. It makes me happy that we are living in a world of constant videotaping and surveillance because, if nothing else, at least there is a tape to fact check ourselves with some of the time.