1.
How did my certainty change from individual thinking to group
thinking?
At first, when I was reflecting about the importance of the survival items in
relation to each other, I felt pretty confident about my choices. However,
once we started discussing as a group, the ranking which I once thought to
be certain was now in question. People brought up points I hadn’t previously
considered, like how the whiskey could be used for fire-building and as a fuel
source, which wasn’t something I initially thought of. Hearing different
perspectives made me realize that I didn’t have all the answers, and I had to
re-evaluate my own reasoning. By the end of the consensus, my original
absolute certainty was replaced by a more flexible understanding that took
into account other perspectives. It showed me that certainty can be very
fluid—it’s not just about what I think is true, but also how new ideas and
shared reasoning can reshape that truth.
2. What role did consensus play in determining the truth? Does
consensus always lead to truth?
Consensus played a major role in the final rankings we came up with. In fact,
the group’s decisions became the “truth” we all agreed to, but I wouldn’t say
it was necessarily the objective truth. Some of the rankings were more about
compromise or persuasion than absolute facts. For example, placing the
sheet third was something that we debated quite a bit, and although I
personally wasn’t sure it deserved such a high ranking, the group agreed, so
I went along with it. It made me realize that consensus helps create a shared
understanding of c concept, taking into account multiple perspective that
would not be considered otherwise; however, it doesn’t always mean that
the truth we got to is the right one objectively. Sometimes, the loudest voice
or the most convincing argument are the ones we consider the most, even if
it’s not truly the best option. So, no, consensus doesn’t always lead to truth
—it often leads to an accepted version of the truth, but that doesn’t mean
it’s infallible.
3. What differences are there between ‘knowing something’ and
‘knowledge’?
I think there’s a big difference between knowing something individually and
knowledge as a collective concept. When I first made my own rankings, I felt
like I knew what was important for survival based on my own understanding.
For example, I “knew” that warmth was critical, so I ranked the lighter first.
But when we discussed as a group, our collective knowledge became
something bigger and more refined than just my individual knowing. We
combined our reasoning, experiences, and perspectives to create a shared
body of knowledge about survival. This group knowledge felt more reliable
because it wasn’t just based on one person’s perspectives—it was the result
of multiple ideas converging into one collective reality. In that way, knowing
something feels more personal, while knowledge is something we build and
agree on together.
4. Should some types of knowledge be restricted to certain
people/groups?
This question really made me think. During the game, I realized that some
items—like the loaded pistol—could be dangerous in the wrong hands. While
it could be useful for signaling or protection, giving it to someone who’s
scared or irrational in a survival situation could make things worse. In that
sense, I do think there are certain types of knowledge or tools that shouldn’t
be accessible to just anyone without proper understanding or training.
Outside of this simulation, this made me think of real-world examples, like
how scientific knowledge about weapons or sensitive information is
sometimes restricted to certain groups for safety reasons. However, there
are other types of knowledge, like basic survival skills, that should be shared
with everyone because they could save lives. The challenge is figuring out
when limiting knowledge is for the greater good and when it’s just holding
people back from learning something meaningfull.
