Reply to comment

I felt I should add a couple of things that went through my mind while reading our assignment. First of all, I was immediately reminded of debates that we had in my senior Government class near the end of my final semester of high school. They were, of course, on hot-button issues, inadvertantly giving a great example of this whole intuitive morality business. One member of the group opposing my team told me that they really didn't have enough evidence to make a case - but she just knew that our issue was morally wrong, and that should be enough to make it remain illegal. She was judging this issue not because she could pinpoint specific negative effects of it, or give any reasons. She was raised to believe it was wrong.

The other thing I wanted to point out was just more evidence of the bipartite brain, and the language used in it. The essay speaks of intuitive thinking being accessible to the conscious brain only at the product stage - the conscious brain can't access the processes that result in that product. This drove me back to the whole I vs. we discussion we began having in class on Tuesday. When we began referring to our individual selves as "we," it was very uncomfortable for me. I've been trying to figure out why. Perhaps it's because the conscious part of my brain knows it's what I'm referring to when I say I, and it doesn't want to lose what little distinction and power over the unconscious brain that it has (seeing as the conscious can't access many unconscious functions, but the unconscious can control the conscious). Perhaps it's just uncomfortable for me to acknowledge that something I thought I was sure of, "me" or "I", is actually even more complicated than previously thought. Complication and extra self-discovery are really not things I need going into my first college finals week!