Day 5

On Day 5, we had a really long interview with the professors from CMU because we had accumulated so many questions along the way, and the professors filled in lots of gaps in the information that we found. We felt like we were imposing on the professors as we took about 1.5 to 2 hours of their time, and the professors were checking their watches somewhere around an hour into the interview. (They told us afterwards that they had to go and never thought it was going to be this long) We were slightly embarrassed, but honestly, I’m thankful that they were really patient people; despite it being a long session, they put in great effort to give us informative answers.

We learnt more about the necessity of the hook and chain in deterring attacks from elephants at least in the short term (perhaps positive reinforcement could be the main method in future?) and also about the complications in releasing elephants, that had been raised in the parks all their lives, into the wild. This was in contrast to the simple-minded view I had of how all elephants should be released back into the wild simply because they’re wild elephants. I hadn’t thought of the repercussions of sending an elephant into the wild when it was already accustomed to living alongside humans, and how it needs to undergo rehabilitation before going back into the forest. Once again, the highly detailed responses the professors gave reminded me of how every situation can be approached from multiple perspectives, and if we don’t gather a meaningful understanding of as many points of view as possible, we risk making hasty judgments. What’s worse is, these judgments could lead to microscopic solutions which ultimately do not benefit the problem of concern. It is the same with life, isn’t it?

We had the Leadership Amazing Race afterwards, which I honestly wasn’t too excited for at first, but I did see the point of it at the end, when a senior explained it to me. This activity helped me realise my main flaw in such group efforts – at times, I drift away from the group to think on my own for a bit, before coming back to share what I have gathered. It is sort of a lapse in attention – I should probably at least keep updated with what the group is doing so that I can think of ideas that will be in sync with the collective goal. I enjoyed the short period of travelling-around-Chiang-Mai-with-a-goal with my friends, and it was fun approaching shop owners for favours to help us complete our tasks, and it was fun joking around too. (After I said ‘thank you’ in Thai to the shopowners, I often added an ‘I love you’ at the back and it was amusing to notice the different reactions. Some laughed coyly, some… Kind of ignored me. Hahaha)

However, I didn’t enjoy the activities of speaking to people assertively or the closing activities that much. It felt a little impersonal to have to purposely approach the USP people that way – conversations felt a little forced. Or was it because I failed to put myself and the other party at ease..? The closing activities were a little more interesting, but I wish things could have been more casual and natural.

At night, we gathered for a Group Reflection session and we now had a lot more ideas than we did previously. It was like having a pool of perspectives, and now our job was to pick out the salient points to package into something that even someone who had not been to Chiang Mai would find meaningful.

It’s a little sad to have to go tomorrow, but I’ve really enjoyed this trip, and am really thankful for the food, fun, friends and the unique life experiences and learnings