I have never heard of mindbugs concept before until after reading the chapter “Mindbugs” in the Blindspot. I found this concept to be very intriguing especially when the chapter discussed the idea of faulty memory. When it revealed the consequences of false memories, I never would have really thought it about like that.  For example, faulty memory of a witness in a criminal court case can be harmful and dangerous in our criminal justice system; misinformation has led to many cases of wrongful incarceration. This clearly is a major issue, so how would we go about determining the accuracy of someone’s eyewitness testimony other than checking video surveillance (if it’s not there) for proof.

The reading on mindbugs was very interesting to me. I was pulled in when the author was explaining how humans have ingrained habits of thought and how this is actually an evolutional triumph. The first example of a mindbug of the tables was fascinating because even when I was given the correct information that they were equal, tested the claim, saw that it was correct, I still could not see them as the same shape when I pulled the paper shape away!

One of the most interesting parts was when the author talks about Loftus’s study about retroactive interference, or, the misinformation effect. Small changes in the way we ask questions can lead to a change in what is remembered. The author dives into the effects of this on cases of wrongful conviction. This brought me back to a project I did as a freshman in one of my leadership classes where I read and presented on Just Mercy. I think about the retroactive interference mindbug combined with implicit bias based on race and it is mind-boggling how our unconscious thoughts can have such profoundly differing impacts on others. The Chapter “Shades of Truth” was also very interesting to me. The author talks about untruths and the real motivation behind them. Everyone tells these gray lies. I was always under the pretense that it was a social politeness thing, lie to not hurt others, to spare other’s feelings. But the author calls us on that and explains that the lies are motivated by the intention to spare one’s own feelings.  I then realized I had a mindbug that was allowing me to habitually accept my actions and convince myself the motivations behind them were purer than they are! crazy

The first thing about this article that stood out to me was the mentioning of natural selection. This is something that we continuously talked about in my previous LDST 102 class and a topic I find very interesting. The thought of the “unconscious mind” is one that I wonder how much it affects me in my daily life. I am very curious about how many unintentional mental interpretations I make every day without realizing. I also don’t understand how the people who make these illusions come up with them in the first place if they are not aware yet. Similarly, I find it interesting how I our minds perception can switch once told about a different perception.        This also made me think about the unintentional biases and opinions our minds make in society. If we make an assumption strictly through the use of our unconscious mind are we in the wrong, and do we have natural selection to blame (that sounds confusing, so an example would be assuming somebody’s place of origin or gender)? Similarly, the misinformation effect has scary implications as well. Many times, when witnessed are being interviewed I wonder how they could not remember such a crazy event (assuming it is a murder, car accident, ect.) yet there are so many instances where I have made split second decisions and not been able to recall the timeline or my surroundings after. In all, I find this topic of unintentional doings of the mind extremely interesting, but not something I could comprehend well enough to study.

The article on mindbugs reminded me of some of the concepts that we talked about in leadership 102. It is clear that humans are basically incapable of seeing the full picture and that definitely worries me. I was thinking about how often members of my family and I remember the past differently. We are both positive that we are right, but tell different stories involving different people, places etc. It is clear here that we are filling in gaps in our memories, but doing it differently based on what is convenient for our brains. People always want to claim that they are in the right, but based on this reading it seems that both people might never be in the right.

The implications of these mindbugs are scary. We are making decisions with faulty information most of the time. This affects how we make choices all the time, even if we do not realize it. To me, it is frustrating that we can know that we make decisions using faulty logic all the time, but not really know how to stop that. It reminded me of the book Predictably Irrational which talks about how we know that humans make completely irrational decisions, but are comfortable that way. Certain decisions might make sense in our heads, but are completely not grounded in reality. It’s frustrating that even though I am aware of mindbugging and some of its implications, it would still be hard, and probably impossible in some cases, to train myself to think differently.

Hoyt and Murphy’s paper was all too familiar. While I’m a Jepson major, I have two science minors and am on the pre-med track and have felt almost every single thing they described in their paper. I’ve had so many of my parents (male) doctor friends “encourage” me to explore options other than med school or disciplines they deem easier because they’ve internalized the stereotype that women are supposed to be the nurturing caretakers. One of the reasons I’ve maintained that I can go to med school is because of the role models I’ve been lucky enough to find along the way. In high school, I was lucky enough to shadow Mass General’s head of OB who was a woman with two daughters who attended my high school. She was extremely honest with me about having a family while working full time as a physician, but encouraged me nonetheless to do so myself. I’d probably still be on my same path without her, but I can only imagine how much more doubt in my abilities I’d have. Representation and role models matter.

I really liked the phrase they used of how women were less averse to tasks like initiating negotiations when they were “primed with power” (392). To me, this shows how powerful the simple act of telling women they are just as capable can have. It also reminded me a lot of imposter syndrome that I know a lot of women in STEM and other male-dominated fields face. They feel like they don’t deserve to be in their position because they’re a woman and that the people (men) around them are much smarter, more capable, etc. and causes them to withdraw and doubt themselves. If we made it a habit to prime women with power and remind them of their abilities through words, actions, and providing attainable role models, I imagine it might help close the disparity of women in leadership positions.

I found that the CTAA reading was very interesting because of all of the different forms of mapping moral arguments. I did not really know what consequentialism, universalism, deontic, or aretaic argument forms were, let alone the differences each had in evaluating if an action was morally good or bad. I found that the deontic moral arguments were most interesting especially in regards to lying because as an intrinsic feature lying is bad, so therefore H should not do A. I find the idea that an argument based off of intrinsic features is fascinating because it really is not dealing with the consequences of an action, it is if the action is good or bad in itself. I think that this reading really gave a great new way to look at moral arguments, especially because Warren did not really give us any way to evaluate moral arguments.

I always find it valuable to spend time analyzing and applying the world’s moist influential moral perspectives. The dichotomy of consequentialism vs. Deontology is especially interesting, and has been apparent in just about every Leadership and PPEL class I have taken. Whether or not we value outcomes or principles more is an extremely dificult question to answer. Only by looking at theorhtical cases, as like in this piece, can we come closer to answering difficult moral questions.

Personally, I find a lot of similarities in the way I think to deontology. It seems obvious to me in many situations that guding principles can lead individuals to do the right thing. The issue I have with consequentialism is that we can never be fully sure what the outcomes of an action will be until said act is committed. With a deontological perspective in place, it seems much more guartunteed that one will be in the right. Following moral principles can shape an engtire argument, as it acts as a premise throughout the entirety of arguments that they exist within. By acting based entirely on guiding moral principles, it seems very hard for one to act in an immoral manner. Overall, this piece increased my knowledge of ethics, and was an interesting and useful read.

I’m not going to lie, I was digging the CTAA reading until we got to mapping the different moral arguments. My brain hurt after the midterm, but once I finished the reading, I respected it. I’ve been in a lot of philosophy courses before, but had never read about consequentialism, egoism, or deontic and aretaic moral arguments before. Although it’s a little hard to remember which is which, I do appreciate the different perspectives in which they let you evaluate a moral argument/situation. If you’re just analyzing a statement written in this book for example, it’d be valuable to try and analyze from each perspective to see which one makes the most sense to you, so you can then form your own opinion. It’s similar to how diagramming an argument and categorical logic are different methods of evaluating an argument but help you achieve that similar goal. When I read about the sheriff situation, I had to stop and think for a minute. I still don’t really what I would do in that moment. I don’t want to frame an innocent man, even if it would be for the greater good, but I also don’t want more people to die. That’s my one qualm with this reading and these methods- if you’re in a situation like that that needs a decision right away, like if you saw a child drowning in a pond, you’re not going to sit back and analyze the different moral perspectives.

I really enjoyed the Blind reading, because it reminded me of readings we did in 102. My professor actually did the social security number test on us; even though I consider myself a frugal person, I was willing to spend more on those three things, and the last two digits of my social security number are on the higher end. I think mindbugs are fascinating and I’m glad that I actually enjoyed reading something for a class for once.

I wasn’t surprised with the results of my implicit bias test. I think that’s mostly because I’ve taken implicit bias tests (but not these exact ones) before and have discussed implicit biases at length in some of my classes. I personally think the most important thing regarding implicit biases is understanding that every single person has them and that they do not make a person inherently good or bad. We can’t control our implicit biases and the initial judgements we make about others, but we can control how we respond to those snap judgements. By being cognisant that we all have these biases, we can place ourselves in a position to combat them and readjust our thought patterns to be more understanding and welcoming of others who we may be implicitly biased against.

I had never thought about how everything can be turned into a moral argument (I, obviously, am not a noncognitivist), BUT I do think that is something we- as humans- should strive to work towards. I appreciate how their focus is not on trying to be right right, but trying to share opinions and emotions. Imagine what political debates would be like if they put all of their effort into making their point, instead of dividing time between that and targeting their opponent. This view could make voting decisions clearer,  because there would be a more transparent understanding of what politicians platforms stand for. I still think analysis of policies are important, but my point is the politicians themselves wouldn’t waste energy on attacking opponent’s policies.

Also, in regards to moral arguments, since critical thinking skills are useful “to get beyond emotional reactions in evaluating arguments”, does this mean categorical logic is more important in these argument types? And how does this relate to agreeing/disagreeing with implied premises? The last comment I have about this first reading has to do with universalism. I understand the emphasis on equality, but I don’t understand the lack of acknowledgment of equity. In order to honor the equal importance consideration of others, it is implied that people understand this may be enacted differently. For example, if everyone should have a standard amount of food for the month. The government would be giving more food to families in the lower economic class compared to the families in the middle class. How does this work if someone who believes in universalism, but not equity?

For the second reading, I had studied “mindbugs” in my LDST 102 course so there wasn’t any content that “blew my mind”, but it was refreshing to read about the complexity of the human brain. I did fall victim to the quiz at the beginning of the Availability and Achoring section; my answers were (b), (a) and (a), as predicted. This example of availability heuristic made me think of how I know several people who are scared of sharks when they go to the beach, despite the probability of being attacked by one is very slim. I understand why there is this fear though, because of the amount of news stories and movies that portray these incidents.