Fall 2010 Critical Thinking First Field Notes

Return to Critical Thinking

Post Field Observations Here:

Mark Alfino

Notes here

Kelly Owens

1. The participants in this situation were lead into giving reasons on their point because of the controversial political stand point. They were coming from opposite political parties and in being two very different people had opposing views on the subject matter. To continue backing up their point and avoid throwing random statements out into conversation, well reasoned examples must be brought in. There was some overlap in relating the topics but not a whole lot. In the beginning of the debate there was some agreeing on the matter however as the conversation progressed this relating became less noticeable and the situation a little more tense. I believe they were thinking in stereo, all involved were thinking about the issue at hand but were not really getting anywhere near a resolution so one of the participants backed out, but they also agreed to disagree, which is sort of a resolution in its own way.
2. My roommate lost her id a couple days ago and we were trying to figure out how we were going to do lunch. The tone was positive aside from the fact she didnt have the id. We engaged in in thinking in stereo about where the id may have been left or forgotten. We ended up coming to the resolution that if she couldnt get into the COG i would get her lunch elsewhere with flex since she didnt have any cash.

Paige Brunett

1. I was having a conversation with a friend about illegal immigration and we both had very different opinions. My friend had a very argumentative tone and chose to only state her opinions instead of having a discussion. Her tone eliminated the prospect of thinking in stereo because it turned into a very shallow, one-sided conversation. No resolution was reached and we agreed to disagree.

2. Earlier today I was talking to my mom about dropping a class that seemed too difficult. My intention was to get opinions from someone I trusted and who wanted the best for me which allowed the conversation to be a discussion, as opposed to an argument. Thinking in stereo occurred because we were both trying to see the situation from one another's point of view. An agreement was reached, after we each stated our opinions, and I dropped the class.

3. My roommate and I were discussing the condition of our room because the agreement that had previously been made about how the room should be kept was not met. The focus of the conversation was making the living space comfortable for both parties and we were both trying to keep an open mind and a positive tone. Again, we were thinking in stereo by looking at the situation from each other's perspective. In the end, a compromise was reached.

Caitlin Pallai

1. The participants in the following example, including myself, had just come back from the basketball game on Saturday, were back at our dorm, and soon found ourselves on the topic of eating. One of my girlfriends suggested that we should go eat at Spike’s since the COG was closed. I and another friend agreed with her saying that we hadn’t eaten for a few hours and were willing to go. However, one of my other friends said that she wasn’t hungry yet, so we should go to Spike’s later. The friend that suggested this was definitely not thinking in stereo and was not utilizing sympathetic understanding. This conversation dragged on un-necessarily until one of my other friends, whom I often see as the Mediator (especially in this conversation), suggested that those who were hungry should go to Spike’s and that those who weren’t should just wait and get their own food later. We eventually agreed on this resolution.

2.Me and my friends were watching a nature show in one of the common rooms. The show was talking about a wolf pack and somehow we got to discussing the differences between coyotes and wolves. Overall, the tone of the conversation in the beginning was more jokingly, but then it became more serious when one of my friends said something false and then my other friend, who’s a big knit-picker, noticed this. Neither of the two was thinking in stereo and eventually the conversation ended but no real resolution was made.

3.I was texting my friend about going to the gym, however she responded by saying that she probably wouldn’t go due to a lot of homework. During the conversation, I engaged in stereo thinking and realized that I probably wouldn’t be going to the gym if I had a lot to do either. I therefore texted her back saying that it wasn’t a problem and I wished her luck. I eventually went to the gym regardless.

Conner Ryan

1.

2.

3.