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 along with figuring out what to do incase she would not be let into the COG. 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.
3. While waiting in like to get into the basketball game a friend and I were looking through new book Food Junkie, which is basically a cook book that only uses junk food for ingredients. Reading the ingredient lists on some of the "recipes" seems quite repulsive but others sounded somewhat decent, we agreed on and disagreed on others because he is by no means picky about what he will eat, where as i dont think that ramen, mounds and hot sauce all mixed together sounds good on any day. It was all positive be cause we would laugh at some of the combinations or say we'd like to try it. Yes at some points we were thinking in stereo because we were analyzing the recipes in front of us. There really wasn't any resolution because we just went through the book and that was the end of it.

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. A couple of my friends and I were discussing where we wanted to eat for dinner. The overall tone was argumentative and we were divided between going to Spikes or the COG. I brought up that since we had eaten dinner at the COG the past few nights, many of us are sick of it and want a change. One of my friends explained that she would rather go to the COG because they have a better variety instead of just fried food. I thought about how her and I were thinking differently on the topic and realized that her belief in being a vegetarian was making her want to go where there is a salad bar; one example of thinking in ‘stereo.’ Eventually we came to a compromise that if we ate Spikes that night, then the next night we would go to the COG.

2. My friend and I were at the mall trying to decide which movie to watch. The tone of the reflective context was explanatory since we both didn’t have a really good idea of which movie we wanted to see. We remembered that True Grit had received good reviews and we therefore believed that it would be a good movie to watch. This led us to the conclusion of watching True Grit.

3. My hall mates and I were arguing with our friend about his mooching. He didn’t contribute any money for the pizza that we had ordered, however he argued that many of us hadn’t contributed in the past. One of my hall mates brought up the fact that our friend hadn’t paid for any pizza for the past three times, however nobody else knew that for sure. We thought about the evidence we had on this issue and since only one person remembered our friend not paying, we couldn’t use this as concrete evidence; this is another example of ‘stereo thinking.’ We decided that our friend would pay for the next pizza and in exchange we wouldn’t say anything more about his mooching.

Caleb Erb

1. My friends and I were driving back from our winter retreat when I thought that we had passed the road that we needed to take to get home. My friends and I started arguing whether we had taken the road on the way to the retreat. All three of us were thinking in stereo, yet I had my mind set on the fact that we had taken that road on the way there and they were set on the fact that we had not. In conclusion, a resolution was made that we had in fact taken that road on the way there and had taken the long way back. We figured out that the confusion was due to the change in road names and we were both kind of right because the name of the road was different coming from the north than it was coming from the south.
2. This weekend my neighbor and I were discussing the idea of carpooling because we have similar schedules this semester. In order for the carpooling to work we would have to wait for the other to get out of class before we could head home. We concluded that we would only be able to carpool on Mondays and Tuesdays because I have a late class on Wednesday and I don’t have any class on Thursdays so I would not need to carpool anyway. Even still, we were both thinking in stereo because we were both thinking economically and how we could save some money. The conversation was friendly and both parties spoke in a positive tone throughout.

Elizabeth Cartwright

1.One day at lunch this week, a classmate and I were casually discussing our schedules this semester and how we were enjoying our classes so far. She mentioned that one of her classes was a cross credit for women’s studies. She then said it will probably be an awful class which discussed outdated concerns about men exploiting women. Another classmate sitting with us insisted that the exploitation of women was a current issue and we see it in the news when we hear about cases of women trafficking. I affirmed the first point of view that the class may have a feminist slant to it because it is related to women’s studies, but at the same time, it is not entirely correct to completely dismiss the notion of women exploitation. I also said the class will probably be interesting and informative on a subject over which the student did not know much about. The conversation’s overall tone was friendly and reflective. We all respected one another’s views and eventually all came to the conclusion that the best way to go into the class was with an open mind because it will most likely be very educational on a topic none of us knew extensively. I am not sure if any of my classmates were thinking in stereo but I was. I did so by thinking about the way I formed my opinion on the subject and assessing whether it was a reflection of my friend’s ideas or an original idea. I came to the conclusion that it was my own.

2.After sitting in my first Spanish class of the semester, I discussed the appropriateness of the course level for my previous experience in Spanish with my professor. I argued that because I have already learned all the material she wished to cover, as listed in her syllabus, I should move up to a higher course level. She told me that taking her course would ensure that my Spanish grammar was strong and the next course up would be much more challenging. She also said that if a higher level better fits my ability, I should try to test into a higher level. We related to each other very well and the overall tone of the conversation was very practical and good-natured. Ultimately, we both came to the decision that the current class was too easy and I took the placement exam to move into a higher course level later in the week. I am fairly positive that neither of us was thinking in stereo at the moment.

3.One night my boyfriend got home after a hard work out and said he was hungry and tired. I told him he should get something to eat before he rested so that his body can replenish all the energy it had exerted. He said that he did not want to get anything to eat because his body was too tired. In the end, we both came to the conclusion that getting something to eat would be beneficial in the long run so that he does not wake up from his nap starving and he does not deprive his body of the energy it needs to maintain a healthy athlete. Our conversation was friendly, but a little frustrated because we both knew that it was good to eat right away, but he did not feel able to or motivated to do so. The overall focus of the reflective context was what was in the best interest of his physical health. I think both of us were thinking in stereo at the moment because we were able to assess the situation based on a greater context of what is best for overall health, regardless of feelings of hunger or exhaustion.

Sarah Atkins

1. One of my friends is incredibly homesick. She is frequently in her room by herself trying to distract herself from thinking about home. I talked to her this weekend, and we discussed the prospect of her transferring to a school closer to home. My friend and I were both thinking “in stereo,” as we looked at the right aspects of her situation and the best ways to think about the possible effects of such a big decision.

2. During the basketball game, my friends and I were sitting in the middle of an aisle. Since it was a big group of us, people were constantly moving in and out, getting food, going to the bathroom, etc. Our acquaintances sitting at the end of the row were understandably getting a little bit annoyed with us. We felt bad, and thinking “in stereo,” one of my friends offered to switch seats so they would not be bothered by our movements. However, they declined the offer and no resolution was reached.

3. Last night one of my teammates called me and expressed some anxiety. She felt she was constantly messing up during practice. She began to think “in stereo” when she told me specific examples that best explain her feelings. I was thinking “in stereo” when I suggested that instead of looking at the negative, that she focus on what she does correctly and how she is a positive impact on the team.

Will Sloan

1. While in my dorm with my friends watching one of our favorite shows, "Dexter", we started a discussion about whether or not Dexter was moral or immoral throughout the show. Some of the group believed he was, while others were adamant that he was not. As the discussion continued, it became clear that there was no clear "right" answer, and that everyone's interpretation could be different. Despite the long argument, the discussion ended positively because everyone understood that people are free to have their own opinions.

2. As I sat around with a group of friends, somehow the topic of superheroes came up, and we began to discuss whether or not Batman should be considered a superhero, because he has no super powers. A few of the guys made the point that since he has no powers, he cannot be a superhero, while others thought that powers are not needed to be a superhero. As this discussion continued, it turned into more of an argument, and ended negatively as nobody could agree on a verdict and got frustrated with the other side.

3. Throughout the year, a frequent discussion my friends have is which computer type is better, Mac's or PC's. Obviously there are different views on this, but because i have had Mac's my whole life, I prefer them over PC's. Obviously, others in my group disagree, and it is really based on preference. Because both sides understand that the computer you use is completely up to you, the argument usually ends positively with both sides giving up.

Skyler Trimpler

1. While eating at the COG on Friday my friends and I were in a discussion when exactly does the weekend start. I believed that it started on Saturday and continued till school started back up but they were convinced that it began on Friday because of its relaxed manner. We realized that there was no authoritative knowledge on the subject so we decided on a compromise. We came to the conclusion that the weekend didn't start until your classes for the day were complete therefore not quite making Friday the weekend but not Saturday either.

2. My friends and I were watching the BCS championship game when the topic of whether professional sports are more entertaining to watch than collegiate. I was on the side of collegiate sports being more entertaining. In the end we convinced them that the college players are driven to perform becuase of the prospect of getting payed rather then getting paid to perform.

3. Did the dreidel drop at the end of Inception? I said yes my friend said it didn't. After an extended time of arguing we decided that we shouldn't focus on whether the dreidel dropped but the context that the dreidel was being spun in. Inception was a very crazy movie and one little aspect of the show was nothing to fight over.

Erik Jarvey

1. Over break my sister and I discussed the possibility of me visiting her over spring break since she lives in Los Angeles. We both agreed that the prospect of me visiting was exciting. However, we considered the issues such as her being busy at work or airfare being expensive. Thinking about these factors represented us thinking "in stereo" and seeing beyond just the prospect of traveling. We still have not made official plans or confronted the possible problems that may cause the plan to fall through.

2. My friends and I were planning out what time to leave for bowling class on Wednesday night. I wanted to leave a little early since it was our first class of the year. However, two of my friends have a basketball game right before the class and wanted to possibly be late for the class. We all saw the situation from each others viewpoint but were unable to compromise. I do believe we were thinking "in stereo" but still couldn't put out own agendas to the side to compromise for the group. As of now we still do not know what time we will be leaving for bowling on Wednesday.

3. Also over break, me and one of my long time friends were discussing Tiger Woods' future. I took the position as a golfer myself that he is still the best golfer in the world and to me he is still my favorite golfer to watch and try to emulate. However, my friend could not get over the issues that he has had off of the course over the past year. To him Tiger would never be able to hold the same position of dominance as he did before the scandal. I saw what he meant as a character point but I still disagreed and stuck to my thought that he will return to his same form while playing in tournaments. I believe that we did not think "in stereo" because neither was really able to grasp the others view of the situation and we ended the debate still sticking to our original thoughts as strong as ever.

Katie Crum

1. The first situation I noticed rationales being exchanged was when I was talking to my friends about where we should live next year. The bunch of us had different places that we each wanted to live. One of my friends wanted us all to each stay in the traditional two person to a room dorm-style, another wanted us to live in a six person apartment, while I wanted us to live in the three person apartment style of living. We all started to argue why each style of living would be best for our group. The tone of the discussion was a little tense because everyone had strong convictions about where they wanted to live. We all decided to take a step back from our personal beliefs and think about what the best options were for everyone. We decided that the best way to get along was probably to room with different people in our preferred style of living.

2. My sister and I were trying to figure out where to eat out at over Christmas Break for dinner. We were both really hungry and in the mode for different things. We were both thinking in stereo because instead of just thinking about being hungry, we began to think about how to solve our hunger problem. We both decided it would be best to go the least popular restaurant to try to get food the quickest.

3.My friend and I were discussing whether it would be better to get married at a young age or at an older one. She was arguing that you had to be older while I was arguing it was ok to be younger. We started to think in stereo when weighing the pros and cons of each other’s views. Eventually we both decided to disagree about the subject and get back to watching "Say Yes to the Dress".