I found this reading to be really interesting. I am familiar with the Prisoners Dilemma scenario from my Econ and Poly-Sci classes, but was less familiar with the other ‘deadly dilemmas.’ I really liked how the author started off by stating that while there are various dilemmas, they all lead to the same non-optimal ending if the members cannot trust one another. While in theory, these issues seem so easy to irradicate, in real-life, there are so many variables at play that the costs of investing full trust in another individual are incredibly expensive. Additionally, I found the examples in historical context to be very useful.

In particular, I found the Volunteer’s DIlemma to be particularly interesting. While I appreciate learning about the extremer examples posed by the author in the readings, I found there are less extreme examples that arise on campus on a daily basis. In many classes, especially where participation is not a part of the grade, it is difficult to spark thought-provoking comments from students. A clear example of this is in my Business Ethics class. The class meets once a week on Wednesday nights from 4:30-5:45, where many students are tired from their long day or the whole week. Our participation grade is based solely on our homework responses, so there are seemingly few incentives to be an active participant. On top of there not being credit for participating.  the professor asks a lot of difficult ethical follow-up questions to the initial question, so the minimal motivation there is to participate regularly is dwindled as many students do not like being put on the spot in front of the rest of the group. As there are little seen benefits to participating for most of the students, everyone in the class hopes someone else will participate whenever the professor asks a question. When one student participates, the student suffers from being put on the spot to answer the difficult questions, but the others gain security from having to answer the other follow up questions. However, if no one were to participate, the professor would ask questions to students at random, in which everyone is in constant fear of being called on. All in all, I find Game Theory to be a fascinating topic and I am excited to learn more in the coming classes and readings.

I think Hidalgo brought up some very interesting arguments. In his piece, Hidalgo argues, “the citizens of states that enforce unjust immigration restriction have duties to disobey certain immigration laws.” (Hidalgo 1) This idea reminds me of a concept that I learned in a history course, that legality can infer morality, but at times, the two can be independent of one another. In my class, we primarily looked at the Abolitionist period, in which at the time, slavery was a legal practice and people used its legality as a defense for their inhumane actions. While slave owners were not doing anything illegal in regards to the legal system at the time,  it is now looked back in history as a dark period and abolitionists are celebrated for their actions to prohibit the act despite its legality. I agree with Hidalgo that it is morally ok to disobey/fight against laws; I think it is up to history to determine if those who stood by or fought the law is on the side of morality.

Secondly, I found the Flanigan reading to be particularly interesting, as I had never heard an argument for this issue before. I agree with Dr. Flanigan that patients should be able to refuse treatment if they do not deem it necessary, however, I cannot wrap my head around justifying giving people the choice over what medicines to take. Flanigan quotes Bioethicist Robert Veatch, stating “There is no reason to believe that a physician or any other expert in only one component of well-being should be able to determine what constitutes the good for another being.” (Flanigan 581) I think there are some things in life that I think speaking to experts will always lead to better results than just doing something by themselves. From personal training to getting a wealth advisor to manage your portfolio for saving, I think people are always better off talking to an expert in the field. I think this is critically important when it comes to getting medicine. In the other two examples, people that go to the gym by themselves or invest their own money will typically make progress, but not at the same rate as an expert. For visiting a doctor, the consequences are much direr, and I think it is unrealistic to assume that more people would be better off not visiting a doctor and medicating themselves than visiting a doctor. Doctors have to go through extensive training that takes years, are more in touch with what is new in the world of medicine,  and have likely dealt with similar cases from past patients who suffered similar illnesses or injuries. While I agree that patients should have the right to refuse treatement, I cannot fathom a world in which society is better off by prescribing their own medicine because ‘they know their body better.’

I found this reading to be very interesting, in particular the section about the Male and Career, Female and Family IAT test since that was the IAT test I did. When analyzing the results, the researchers found that 75% of males had a strong automatic association between males with careers and females with families, but what I found even more shocking, was that there was a stronger association for females, as 80% of females had a strong automatic association between males with careers and females with families. (115) I think the findings from the reading demonstrate the power of implicit stereotypes; despite our best intentions to view everyone as equal, there are still underlying societal stereotypes that are ingrained within our minds. While there have been recent societal shifts, with there now being more women than men in the workforce, the vast majority of people still have a strong automatic correlation between males and careers, and more women had this association than men. These shifts in the workforce suggest why the automatic correlation between male and career decreases in younger populations, however, I still find it interesting that more women had this association and I am curious as to why. 

I was fascinated by the correlation between taking my Implicit Bias test and the tests described in the reading. I chose the Female and Family, Male and Career test, and was surprised to find I had a strong automatic association between males with careers and females with families. I suspected I would have a correlation between males and careers but was surprised to find it was as strong as it was. I think our society has ingrained implicit stereotypes within our brain, where we will respect those that are different than us, but still, these stereotypes are embedded in our perceptions of others. Additionally, I questioned the full validity of the results. When conducting the Implicit Bias test, there were 7 trials, and I did recognize that I became faster the more times I pressed the keys. Since the males and careers correlation was the last trial, it made me wonder if I were to take the males and careers component before I took the females and careers component if the association would have been as strong.

Banaji and Greenwald define mindbugs as, “ingrained habits of thought that lead to errors in how we perceive, remember, reason, and make decisions.” (4) These habits occur when our retina takes in an image and processes it two-dimensionally instead of three-dimensionally. This misinterpretation of information can have large consequences, as our brain can take in information and apply implicit biases largely due to societal enforced stereotypes without even recognizing them. 

The issues with mindbugs have a much larger scope when there are legal implications. In criminal court cases, eyewitness testimonies can be incredibly convincing to juries, yet, it is difficult to determine how accurate these testimonies are due to the implicit biases that are inherent in our minds. This reminds me of a research study I participated in for my Psychology class last year. In the study, I was placed in a group that was shown a video of a man running away in a dark alley and then cut to a shot of his face for a second and then cut back to the man running away. After viewing this clip, there were six pictures of men on the screen, and the class had to record which man they thought was in the video. The responses were fascinating; as each of the six men was selected by at least one person in the class, and none of the suspects were picked by more than 30% of the class. In both cases, it illustrates how we cannot fully trust our brains to always accurately process information, either due to our ingrained habits or lack of context. This study along with our reading this week demonstrated to me that eye-witness testimonies should not always be given such high consideration, as they do not give insight into what kind of mindbugs the individual may have. Although we may not be able to control our mindbugs, being cognizant of their presence and their implications can at least make us think more critically about how we perceive our surroundings.