I thought this articles evolutionary perspective on leadership was interesting because I was actually recently discussing this with my mom. We were talking about how some groups are more likely to be leaders just because that is how our species evolved. Specifically we were talking about how men are more commonly leaders because they are bigger and stronger and were more able to provide when humans used to hunt for their food. I was wondering if that is why it is more common even now for men to work and provide for their families.

Something that I have never thought about, however, that the article addresses is race in terms of an evolutionary perspective on leadership. The article states that likely our ancestors would not have come in contact with those of another race, so it may have had a minimal impact.

I liked how the end of the article addresses how humans are not necessarily reasonable. It is great to discuss all kinds of game theory, however in the moment it is really impossible to predict how people will act. This reminds me of a game we played with Dr. Harwell in my 102 class. In the game, everyone put a certain amount of their money into a pool, the pool was divided by three and then split evenly among the participants. The more everyone donated, the more was multiplied by three, and then was given back to everyone. However, some people could choose to be selfish. I know that I went in with the mindset that yes, rationally it does make sense to give the most amount of money, and if everyone does that, then we will get the most amount back. However, when it actually came time to play the game, I found myself questioning whether or not my classmates would play fairly. Because I was skeptical of my classmates, I myself got greedy and did not donate the most amount of money. Thus, I threw reason out and acted irrationally. This just goes to show that even if a person understands what is best for the common good, they may act not act reasonably in the moment. This is what makes game theory so fascinating.

While I understand what Hildago is arguing in this essay, I have a hard time accepting that it is okay to break laws.  Basically, Hildago is saying that because immigration laws are morally unjust, it is okay to break them. But saying that these laws are unjust is subjective. Also, we live in a democracy where we elect leaders to make these laws. If we don’t agree with the laws that our leaders make, then we can elect new leaders. Furthermore, perhaps the laws are unjust, but if the goal is to be moral, then breaking the law is immoral as well.

Hildago addresses these counter arguments, but not well. Essentially he claims that immigration is an outlier in our democracy. Again, this is subjective. Just because a person does not agree with a law, does not mean that it is moral for them to break it.

I took the IAT on Gender and career. I was not especially surprised by the results (slightly bias towards men =careers) because this is a common association to have. However, as I was taking it, I realized how many I was getting wrong when I had to associate men with family. This was a little startling. I grew up with both parent working full time, and my mom actually working more than my dad. So, it is interesting to see that I still have this bias, despite having a female role model who works that hard.

The reading discussed how to bypass mindbugs and implicit biases. It says that instead of trying to “outsmart” them, it is better to acknowledge the ones that you have, and try to get rid of it. I found the story of the woman who changed her computer screensaver to pictures of various counter-stereotypes especially interesting. This is something that I will try to be mindful of, and do when I catch myself having a bias.It is a challenging thing to come to terms with. We all have biases, whether we want to or not. However, having biases does not make us bad people, as long as we do what we can to counter them when we catch ourselves having a bias.

I also learned about the concept of “double binds” in Dr. Hoyt’s class that she discusses in the reading. It makes me realize how it is possible to have two biases on the same subject, making it impossible to win. Dr. Hoyt gives the example of women being criticized for being strong leaders, and also being criticized for being “overly feminine.” I definitely see this double bind in my life.

The CTAA article discusses different ways to evaluate moral arguments. One that stood out to me was egoism. Egoism is an argument form where any action by any person is moral as long as it creates the most possible pleasure for that individual. The article states that egoists are selfish, and selfishness is regarded as a moral flaw, therefore egoism is not moral. I think that egoism is a good argument form however.

 If everyone is doing what is best for them, then each person creates their own happiness. If everyone creates happiness for themselves, then everyone will be happy. This also is less stress on each individual because they only have to be concerned with one person- themselves. If a person cannot do actions that creates the most happiness for themselves then that is their fault. Therefore, Egoism is a good moral argument form.