Responsible decision-making: Video debate
"VERTICAL LIMIT".
On Friday evening (26th), after
the meeting with the advocate, we had the activity Responsible decision-making: Video debate "Vertical limit". Kristaps had prepared it very well, and
the result was quite interesting.
After a brief introduction made by
Kristaps, we watched the beginning of the movie (from 0.30 to 6.20 min) in a
big screen. In two words, the plot is as follows: while climbing in Monument
Valley, siblings Peter (O'Donnell) and Annie Garrett (Tunney) lose their
father, Royce (Stuart Wilson). After two falling amateurs leave the family
dangling, Royce forces Peter to cut him loose to save Peter and his sister.
Then each participant received a little
sheet of paper, where we had to write our name and our evaluation about the
decision that was made: to cut the rope. We had to write “+” if we agreed, “-“
if we did not agree and “?” if we did not know really.
Then on the bases of evaluation 3 groups
were created. Most of participants were in group “+”, just 2 in group “-“ (Emanuels and
Ritvars) and 5 or 6 in the group of indecision. Then each group reflected 3-5
min to make a group opinion about decision made and the two first teams
explained the reasons of their decision, trying to attract the participants
without a clear position. As a result of the debate most of them joined the
group “-“.
Kristaps was animating the debate, which
was quite hot: from one side, there was a logical decision making (better just
1 dying than 3 dying), from another side there was the idea that to save 2
persons you have not the right to provoke directly the dead of someone. Kristaps was asking if the decision would
be different if on the top of the rope there was a sick or old person, or if
down the rope there were your own mother or girlfriend.
Kristaps also wanted to stress that actors
can be seen as a part of our being: in each decision we do there are the three
elements: the father as the mind, the sister as the feelings, and the son with
the knife as the will with free choice.
At the end of this activity participants understood
better the importance of having strong set of values and criteria (“thinking
slow”) that allow taking difficult decisions rapidly when necessary. The
importance of considering the impact of our decisions in other people as one of
the central criteria in the decisions was stressed.
As Emanuels explained us afterwards, we
used in this activity several “learning methods”: video fragments analysis,
emotional learning, guided debates and learning by positioning ourselves in the
debate. It was a very “hot” activity where we learn a good number of things
about decision making, really!!