Answer

Social Problems

In this scenario, Barbara thinks she is the best student whose skills are outstanding. She keeps bragging about this to her friends, and even goes on to ridicule their grades and test scores. According to her predictions, her SAT scores will not be below the 1400s. Due to her thinking, Barbara remains calm and eager to score outstandingly as she expects. She remains confident even after the test, meaning that she still believes that her skills are excellent. Unfortunately, the scores come back and she is in the 800s mark. Rather than accept that she was not really prepared, or that her skills are not perfect as she thought, Barbara explains to her friends that the test does not count since it had obviously been scored wrong. She is now shifting the blame to the instructor who graded her test. In addition, she also adds that she is not a good test taker.

            This scenario is an example of a face saving thinking. That is because Barbara was acting arrogantly before the test, since she was confident that her scores will be very high. She went as far as ridiculing other people’s grades since she believed that her own skill level was very high (Vaughn, 2008). She acted with so much ego, which is why even after taking the test she was still convinced that the scores will be among the best. Unfortunately, when the results showed that she had performed poorly, her reaction changed to try and blame the instructor. She was still unable to accept that she was not a good performer as she thought. Hence, her actions were meant to try and lessen the embarrassment that she was feeling (Vaughn, 2008). It is also at this point that she finally admits that her weakness is in test taking, and not that her writing and math skills are not as excellent as she makes others to believe. Her face saving actions prevented her from accepting the truth with regards to her outcome.

Scenario 2

            In this scenario, Jackson has to cast a vote on two proposals which would decide on the location of a new city park. The first proposal features a location near Jackson’s house, thereby offering him a beautiful view. However, the limitations are that its cost is twice as much as the second proposal. Also, the location is not easily accessible by most of the public. The second proposal offers a location that is near the city centre. It is more convenient to the public, and will also raise the value of properties in the region. Jackson casts his vote on the first proposal which has significant disadvantages.

            Jackson’s actions represent a self-interested thinking since he has made a choice by only focusing on his own needs (Vaughn, 2008). As a City Assemblyman, Jackson should have been capable of making a decision that is in the best interests of the public. Unfortunately, he chose the first option since it would make his own area more beautiful. In addition to this, he would not have to commute or drive over a long distance to access the facility. He did not consider the fact that the members of the public would need to be able to access the city park. That would mean positioning it at a place where everyone would be comfortable to visit the park. The negative consequence of his self-interested thinking is that the city park will not be able to serve its purpose (Vaughn, 2008). The location is not suitable for the role it should play since many will find it located far away from them.

Scenario 3

            Antonio’s test scores tend to be quite predictable. When he scores highly, he often gloats that he never even studied for the test. He likes showing off how he is still the brightest student even when he argues no effort was made. However, when he gets low scores, Antonio argues that the instructor graded him unfairly, that the test had flaws, and that he will not accept the outcome without protesting his scores.

            This represents a face saving thinking since Antonio feels embarrassed when he gets low scores. That is because he had already praised himself for being the best even when he does not put in more effort with studies. Thus, when someone else scores better than him, he feels embarrassed of the defeat (Vaughn, 2008). Unfortunately, this behaviour prevents critical thinking which would have enabled him to reflect back on the reasons why he did not perform as expected. Rather than go back to the test to check whether he failed as a result of not preparing, Antonio wastes time by going to the grade-review committee to protest by stating that he could not have scored so poorly (Vaughn, 2008). His arrogance may cost him better grades in future since he will not correct on past mistakes, if he cannot accept that he was the one on the wrong.

Scenario 4

            Sheila, a great scientist has been focusing on specific clinical studies for many years with an aim of establishing her favourite medical hypothesis. She believes that high vitamin E doses can cure skin cancer. Each additional study she carries out contributes to the evidence suggesting that her hypothesis may be true. Her final study is very important because it will either confirm or invalidate the hypothesis. Unfortunately, the findings invalidate her hypothesis and further concludes that her idea has no proper foundation, and that the high doses are toxic and will cause terrible side effects. However, instead of reporting the same findings, she argues that they do not disapprove her hypothesis. On the contrary, they are only inconclusive.

            Sheila’s actions are a reflection of self-interested critical thinking. That is because she has refused to accept the findings from her final study mainly because she will not let go of the belief which she has held for a very long time (Vaughn, 2008). The study has openly offered important conclusions that should have prompted her to cease any additional trials. Unfortunately, she has stated that they are inconclusive, meaning that she will still continue with the trials. A negative consequence of this thinking is that her reasoning is now impacted. Since she cannot accept the truth, it means that more important resources will have to be wasted in future trials as she continues with her clinical studies. It will be a great loss since the findings will definitely not change no matter how many more trials she attempts (Vaughn, 2008). Her critical thinking has been blocked, therefore her judgment of the situation is also flawed.

Scenario 5

            During the heated debate between David and Max with regards to biological evolution, both individuals offer unique arguments. On one hand, David rejects this theory as he supports creationism. This theory argues that all planet life was created by a supreme being. Max, on the other hand, supports evolution since he rejects the explanation provided under creationism. David presents various facts in relation to his argument. He also states that there are major gaps in the fossil record, hence proving that it is a fallacy. Max, however, does not have an explanation for this gap in records. Rather than accepting the fact that he cannot explain this, he suddenly quotes some fictitious research findings which he argues prove that there really is no gap in records.

            Max’s actions are a representation of self-interested thinking since he has refused to accept defeat when he could not explain his own beliefs. Thus, rather than give up on the belief that evolution took place, Max resorted to the use of fictitious arguments just so he could win the debate and prove David’s argument as false (Vaughn, 2008). He focused mainly on his personal needs of winning the argument, and the belief he held. A negative consequence of this self-interested thinking is that critical thinking was hindered. Max should have taken the debate as an opportunity to research further on whether or not his argument is true. He should have sought reliable arguments to support the belief (Vaughn, 2008). Unfortunately, this was not considered since David believed his quoted research findings. Max would rather lie than give up on his belief that creationism is not a true theory, but that biological evolution is more reasonable.