Our group chose to call the white house and ask them if they sent missiles, and we would send a full-scale strike back if the call didn’t work. It was clear that the call won’t work: because of the intense cold war between the USSR and the USA, we won’t believe anything the person in charge said. So in fact, we chose B in disguise.

According to the article, we found a sentence that stated that it’s entirely possible for the US  sending a missile to the USSR because it did so to other countries before. We knew that it also could be a computer error, and if we gave the wrong information to the high commander, we could actually start a war. The consequences would be millions of deaths which might include us. On the other hand, if the missile was really coming and we reported that there is nothing. Not only I would be executed for treason, but the country will also be weak in the coming war. We die, either way, so we chose to believe in the evidence that provides by the computer and history and sent a full-scale strike back. I think we made this decision because we didn’t use emotion; we didn’t consider the bigger picture of the future and empathize with people because we thought we end up bad anyway.

“On 26 September 1983, the nuclear early-warning system of the Soviet Union reported the launch of multiple USAF Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles from bases in the United States.” however, Stanislav Petrov reported it as a computer error and it turned out that he is right. He used reasoning because he said that if the US really wants to attack the country, 5 missiles are not enough. He used knowledge about global politics, computer science, mathematics and so on. But the most important part of his decision-making process was his gut, his intuitive thinking.

Language is infectious so that people readily listen to you, but the words you said must be rational and reliable so that people can believe you. Language uses emotion to empathize with others, and reason uses evidence and facts to pursue others. These two are ways of learning, there are so different but both of them are necessary and complement each other. Without reason, the decision you made or the knowledge you have could be reckless or unreliable, because they are generated emotionally. On the other hand, without emotion, the fact can seem cold. For example, without the rendering of diction, the information about war would be a string of data, which doesn’t help people understand the main idea.

When I was listening to a speech, I might feel angry, happy and even sad with the speaker’s words. At this time, I relied on emotion to feel feelings and points the speaker wants to express to me. But I also looked for evidence that really supports the opinions of the speaker to ensure that everything he said is true and evidence sometimes hit a person hard. For example, “the earthquake killed 23 people, we need to know how to protect ourselves and prevent this tragedy from happening again.”