After two weeks of no SCIF, I was craving for another interesting lesson that would invigorate my otherwise boring week filled with lectures and labs. We began with a simple test that required us to rank 17 items on a sheet of paper in order of survivability on a stranded boat. The aim was to get the lowest score possible by comparing with the ranks given by scientists who analysed the problem, and we had to do it individually and then in a group (this lesson’s focus was on the importance of group work). A few of the items given to us were things such as: nylon rope, 20L of water, shark repellant, a shaving mirror and a sextant. My individual score was higher than the group score which meant that I had a better chance of surviving by consulting with a group rather than myself; I thought that certain items had quite a high priority but in hindsight I was probably considering survival in the long term rather than the short term (getting rescued as quickly as possible). In the group, we were fairly quick to come to consensus on most of the items, and the more controversial items were quickly resolved by one of the members providing his opinion and the others agreeing. What I learned from this was that it is important to listen to as many different opinions on a particular matter and account for all of them in order to achieve a result which everyone can eventually agree with.
Following that task, we were given a jigsaw puzzle to solve. It seemed simple enough to solve and we allocated roles to each member in the group; one member worked on the border of the picture, and the other members including myself worked on a specific colour within the picture. However, the last piece of the puzzle didn’t fit within the remaining spot and we spent about 2 mins trying to force the piece into the space, but to no avail. We eventually concluded that the puzzle was wrong, and spent the next 5-10 mins on our phones believing that we had finished. Around then, I had a sudden thought that maybe our piece belonged to another puzzle in the room, and I went around with the piece to the adjacent table. I showed them the piece and asked if it belonged to their puzzle, and after a while of fumbling around they agreed that it was theirs, and gave us one of their pieces that seemed to have a different colour to the rest. It turned out that piece was the missing piece in our puzzle, and it was also eventually revealed to us later on that this had been done on purpose to see how we would react and solve the problem. Pejh was especially satisfied with the way our group conducted the ‘swap’; we were well-mannered in our approach and showed exactly how scientists should share information and collaborate with others to achieve a unified result, whereas some other groups just took their piece from another group which was like taking someone’s research and using it with giving them any credit.
Overall, I liked both activities equally because they were both logical and involved thinking creatively and working well within a group.
SCIF1121 Journal - Kengo 