A Psychological Legitimization of Link Crew

link-crew-logo-2013-ping

The Boomerang Project (linkable) and it’s Link Crew initiative provide a lot of information on the fact that Link Crew WORKS! But they don’t provide much information explaining WHY it works! Thus,

Task: Your task is to provide a research based psychological legitimization and rationalization for the Link Crew Program at SAS. IN short, WHY DOES IT WORK?

This Research by Professor Walton of Stanford (while he was at YALE) is a great place to start!

http://www-new.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/system/files/QuestionOfBelonging-1.pdf

Download the document below that is your assignment for this project. The end result will be a keynote presentation!

A Psychological Legitimization of Link Crew: A Psychological Legitimization of Link Crew

Our First Step will be to understand what exactly link crew is. Firstly, we’ll consult our resident link crew leaders as they explain to you the following:

  1.  What are the goals of link crew?
  2. What activities do you engage in to reach your goals?
  3. Has a rationalization for these activities been given to you? if so, what is it?
  4. What “maintenance” activities do you engage in throughout the year?

Next, use the link to the Boomerang Project above to further your understanding of what link crew is.

Analyzing an Ethical Choice

Thus far in TOK, we have analyzed the following Ways of Knowing: 

  • Perception

  • Emotion

  • Reason

  • Language

Your task, is to identify an Ethical Choice...this could be something real from your life like “not cheating on a test” or it could be something that is real in the world however something that you do not have immediate experience with such as voting against a war if you were a senator…and then analyze how you came to that choice. You must integrate the 4 ways of knowing into a CONCEPT MAP illustrating your analytical process. 

You can create this map digitally or visually.

Requirements:

  • Integrate at least the 4 Ways of Knowing we’ve discussed thus far
  • Concept map form
  • Map needs to sufficiently indicate to the reader how you came to your conclusion (I cheated or I didn’t cheat)

The whole point of this exercise is to answer the Driving Question:

To what extent does one utilize the ways of knowing when coming to an ethical decision? 

The answer to this question leads to other great follow ups like:

  • Should we be more present in our decision making?
  • How to become more present?
  • Do some ways of knowing influence us more than others when coming to an ethical conclusion?