Catherine
I found today’s class exercise pretty interesting. It felt like we were opening up a bit to our fellow peers and letting them see our thoughts. I got to better understand how my peers judge their own competencies and incompetencies. Everyone was pretty self aware about their areas of growth, whether that was wishing they were more productive over winter break or wanting to have better social skills.
Personally, I found it more comfortable to respond to the speaker from the heart chair and the head chair than from the will chair. Emotionally, I shared the happiness or sympathy I felt when my peers spoke. I was also able to do the more logical approach of just reiterating what they said to me. However, I was more confused about the will chair, because to me motivation seems to be a pretty specific category compared to the heart chair or the head chair. Maybe will and motivation will become more important as I learn more about what this course offers.
Chelsea
I think this exercise is a really interesting way to analyze other people’s thoughts, by separating the “head”, the “heart” ,and the “will”, each person can focus on just one specific aspect and ignore the rest, which means the group potentially gains more combined insight. I think this can be a helpful way of analyzing interviews. Perhaps this is a sneaky way of helping us learn our first research method.
As the speaker chair, I learned some new things about myself from my teammates’ feedback. And I realize that other people may notice something about my problems that I don’t because they are distanced and detached from these problems.
When I’m the “head”, I listen to what the person talks about, versus when I’m the “heart” I pay more attention to how they speak — their voices, their facial expressions etc, their body language.
I’m a bit confused about the “will”, as I don’t really know how to rate a person’s motivation. Because each person is different, and I don’t think two people’s motivations to do something can be compared unless that “something” is the same thing.
Hayoon
Normally, my peers and I don’t usually open up about our personal struggles or goals, so I found this exercise a refreshing way to start off the semester. A lot of the problems that they mentioned were all very relatable. It also seemed like all members were very aware of the cause or the root of their issues.
I personally had the toughest time when I was the heart of the group. I generally find it challenging to truly empathize or open up to others, therefore looking at their stories through the heart’s perspective was confusing for me. I am aware that as a designer, I should be able to empathize with others, since my role is supposed to help others. This exercise reminded me of my fault, and I will work harder to achieve this ability. On the other hand, it was easy for me to act as the head since I am already used to spitting out facts to people.
Grace
I found today’s exercise unexpectedly open. Oftentimes we don’t verbalize what we are struggling with to our peers (for some, the same could be true for what they feel confident with), but I found it refreshing to hear about my group members’ self perceptions, which were very thoughtful and relatable. I felt a bit awkward when in the speaker chair myself, but the prompt itself was a useful tool to begin stepping back and seeing myself in a non-fatalistic way.
I had a tough time differentiating the head and heart chairs. When in those roles, I felt like I was repeating the speaker’s words back to them, but I wasn’t sure how the heart was meant to respond. In retrospect, I think the heart role may have been to empathize with the feelings driving the speaker’s self observations, rather than to remark on what they said in literal terms. I think this ability to respond in a way that makes others feel validated is an extremely powerful interpersonal skill that is crucial for designers, whose goal is to understand and support their users.
I was also kind of confused by the will role. Everyone seemed very earnest and genuinely motivated to reach their goals, so I wasn’t sure how the rating should be done.
