🎓 Class: 10 Anh LN1

📖 Book Title: A good girl’s guide to murder by Holly Jackson.

(https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40916679-a-good-girl-s-guide-to-murder)

✨ Why I chose this book

One of my friend owns the book and I remember she told me about it once. Frankly, all I heard was something something “murder” and it wasn’t to my liking at that time. I didn’t like horror. However, I came across this title “ a good girl’s guide to murder” once again on my Instagram feed a few months later while dumb scrolling on my phone. This time, the contrast between the words “good girl” and “murder” sparks interest in me. What do you mean a good girl’s guide to murder? Would I be taught how to end someone’s precious precious life? I then remembered how my friend was crazy about that book so I decided to give it a try since I’d finished all the books at home (once or twice) anyway. And that’s why I chose this book.

✨ Overall impression/ brief summary

Apart from the captivating title that provoked my curiosity for this book, its cover is also intriguing at first place. I’ve read a couple of whodunnit books and seen several detective movies so I know for sure what those delicate, messed up threads that align to each others are - investigators use them to solve crimes( mostly to link and keep tracks of the evidences). I also read somewhere that people also has a color code for it. While green is for clear and solved cases, red means something fishy and uncanny is going on. What’s the color of the threads on this cover again? You get what I mean.😉

The story revolves around a girl called Pip, on her way to investigate a case occurred 5 years ago and turns out it was more of a psychological thriller rather than a horror story (😮‍💨). Overall, it can be considered a perfect nail-biting mystery to traumatize and confuse one’s brain after their long study.

-I’ll update once I’ve read enough of it)

Even though economic growth and money is essential to provide good living conditions, it does not ensure the equal access to "a good life" with adequate education, food, social services, job, and healthcare to all citizen in a nation. Hence, it can never be development itself as development of a country should be able to eliminate poverty, unemployment and inequalities (Seers' concept). In reality, there are a lot of so-called developed countries with large social division between rich elites and slum dwellers like: China, India, etc. Images of futuristic cities, gold furnitures and accessories of these nations are no stranger to anyone. However, along with that, the number of narrowed, attached apartments with insufficient clean water where families of 6-7 people lives in is nowhere less. Countries with such huge gaps among their citizen can't be labelled "developed". Admittedly, economic growth provides facilities and job opportunities for people to choose. The question is "Who gets to choose the good ones? Who gets to choose first?" How can one country claims 'having development' when there are still citizens with terrible quality of life living somewhere away from its media light?

I believe the resources we've gone through in class did state that economic growth and materialistic innovations is never ending since it is in our nature that the desire for more has never stopped, it only grows stronger. Thus, it is crucial that it should not be considered development and nations should stop centered on money and start to actually invest in all areas of the countries and make it a priority to give people equal access to the benefits of economic growth.

Initially , having too many choices without any structural support creates a fake kind of freedom. For example, it does not matter if a country has dozens of different private health insurance plans or hundreds of elite colleges if the average person cannot afford them. In this case, choice does not actually help anyone; it just hides the fact that the system is unfair. True freedom means being healthy, safe, and educated. Without these basic things, having a lot of options just makes people stressed and anxious because they are left to struggle completely on their own.

On the other hand, when a society focuses on providing the "real conditions" for a good life - like great public schools, affordable healthcare, safe neighborhoods, and a strong safety net - it builds a solid foundation for everyone. For instance, countries that guarantee these basics often have the happiest citizens. When people do not have to constantly worry about how they will survive if they get sick or lose their job, they actually feel more free. This security gives them the peace of mind and stability to chase their real goals.

Some people might argue that if the government focuses too much on providing these conditions, it will take away personal freedom and control people's lives. But this is not true. Providing basic needs does not mean taking away options. In fact, it does the opposite. You cannot truly choose your career or your future if you are trapped by poverty or untreated illness. Taking care of basic needs is what makes real choice possible in the first place.

In conclusion, a great society is not measured by how many things people can choose from in a market. Instead, it is measured by how well it takes care of its people. By making sure everyone has the basic tools to live a good life, we can create a society where freedom is a real experience for everyone, not just a luxury for the wealthy.

This week, I have learned about how climate responsibility should be distributed in order to serve the most feasible, suitable, and effective outcome that benefits nations' growth and better our planet condition.

The context in both the video and the article "Responsibility for climate justice: Political not moral" mentions two debatable concepts called Ability to Pay Principle (APP) and The Polluter Pays Principle (PPP). The names of the two concepts are self- explanatory and both concepts, to some extent, is not equal. We have to dig deep in order to understand the equity in climate responsibility. For example, China is the leading nation in releasing carbon dioxide nowadays but it is only because China's population is huge; thus, if we measure at the individual level, China is far from being the most CO2 emitted country. Not to mention, we also have to take into consideration who pollute the Earth the most historically and some countries, mostly developing ones, don't have the advanced eco-friendly technology needed in their production process. So what now, they should stop produce? Therefore, applying the PPP is nearly impossible, considering that many and many more aspects I've read. APP, on the other hand, simply means the wealthy should pay because they can. The question is why should they pay for something they do not cause at the moment? And what if that discourages countries' economic growth to avoid responsibility?

Another thing that I found important after learning this is how individual lifestyle changing (positively and eco-friendly) almost makes no impact at all in solving climate issues. Most of the readings and campaigns I've read before this often celebrate individuals who have heightened awareness of today's environmental status and show it through their actions, like: using reusable materials, avoids plastic bags, turns off lights when leaving a room, or being a vegetarians/ vegan, etc. Those wide-spreaded slogans often state "small meaningful actions have big impacts". Now, do they? If people still use personal vehicles (because it is more private, flexible, and comfortable) that altogether emit huge amount of GHGs, if classes and buildings still use air-conditioner all day everyday (because our planet is getting hotter), if companies just blindly and "profitably" greenwash all their products to seem more eco-friendly while their production processes are actually worsening it... Do small changes like altering one's lifestyle still counts as impactful? Yeah, basically it completely blew my mind after learning about this.

Climate responsibility should indeed be systematic/ structural and political in order for it to make a real impact to our alarming ecosystem as well as satisfying "equity".

Task 2.

a/ pick up litters, save energy, recycle

b/ proposing and making changes systematically and politically

c/ structural and political responsibility

d/ Assuming this idea is being applied and acknowledged by governments, what if there are countries who still oppose to this idea, what do we do then? war?

The truth is, everyday people cannot choose to be perfectly eco-friendly because our world is not set up that way. Most people drive cars not because they want to pollute, but because their cities lack good public buses or trains. They simply have no other realistic way to get to work or school. Similarly, as the world gets hotter every year, people have to run air conditioning all day just to stay safe and comfortable. When our entire society runs on fossil fuels, making small personal sacrifices feels like trying to put out a massive wildfire with a tiny water pistol.

On top of that, blaming individuals is exactly what major polluting companies want. It shifts the moral guilt away from big industries and puts it onto regular citizens. This allows corporations to use "greenwashing" ,a trick where they put eco-friendly labels on products to look good, while their production process is still polluting the environment. Real impacts are nowhere to be seen if changes still happens at individualistic level.

This does not mean small habits are completely useless. Doing best to live a green life is a great way to build a mindful mindset. But it cannot replace major structural changes. If a house is on fire, arguing over who left a single light bulb on will not save it. Instead of feeling guilty about our own daily shopping habits, our collective energy must shift toward demanding that governments pass strict laws to force systematic change.

Constantly buying and consuming products doesn't equate to more happiness or a higher satisfaction level in life. Admittedly, we need to consume to exist, for example, buying food and houses to meet the needs of subsistence and protection. Our consumption behaviors, however, have long exceeded the baseline consumption for basic necessities. Since, along with subsistence and protection, we also have other fundamental human needs, according to Max Neef (1991), such as: affection, understanding, participation, idleness, creation, identity, and freedom, we tend to opt for more and more products to satisfy those needs. Affection, understanding, participation, freedom, etc, in reality, need not and can't fully be expressed in any material products or services. We buy and consume mainly because of our 'wants' not our 'needs', whether it is a bag of chips that we bought when we are not hungry just bored or a brand new iPhone 18 despite having bought the 17 version of it 12 months ago. Leftovers can be found in family dinners at even small, timid restaurants and altogether they make up a huge amount of food waste, yet there are still people dying out of hunger. Research conducted by Oswald (1997) also points out that, despite the development of facilities, services and products, our satisfaction level is only higher than that of the mid seventies. In some countries, like Britain, that level are even reportedly lower. Therefore, why do we consume if we don't even need the majority of the things we buy everyday? Consuming less not only does not worsen our lives but also has a positive impact environmentally and humanitarianly.

Some might argue that consuming brings satisfaction and benefits our mental health. Keychains, plushies or cute little things are considered rewards for one's hard working or simply a refresher to ease one's mind. Plus, the act of consuming is instinctive as our ancestor need to consume to survive and attract mates. Because the survivor trait is reproduce, one needs to be able to appeal to the opposite sex, which is one of the main reason why we buy a lot of things, from makeup to cars, things that better our personal image. Nonetheless, society from its infant has implicitly build a so-called human hierarchy. Big houses, tailored suit, and designer pieces represent not only wealth but also one's reputation and status symbol. And so, consumption is a vital part of a meaningful life, regarding its sole purpose, making us feel good.

However, that view misses an essential part about humans' "wants". Simply put, our desires are insatiable. When a girl buys a new lipstick, she might want to buy a blush to match that lipstick's shade as well, even though she already has blushes at home. Additionally, companies know about such consumption behaviors and keep designing products that tempt us to buy more and more. Even if consuming and possessing material products enhance our personal image or social status, it doesn't last long either. And before we know it, we already hopped on another train looking for new possessions to pursue. Consequently, it becomes a wild goose chase - when we get to a satisfaction level, we instantly look for an upgrade version of it so we keep buying without actually getting anywhere while our environment is still horribly affected by consumer waste.

Ultimately, I believe we can totally live happy and healthy even when we reduce our consumption. Consuming less not only helps the environment but also leaves us to actually live and immerse ourselves in affection, freedom, participation and other meaningful aspects of the human lives.

Initially, individuals must shoulder great responsibility when deciding what to eat because, before all else, we need to be responsible for ourselves. Regarding the health aspects, choosing healthy food is directly protecting one’s own health. Taking an extra mile to buy organic food or sustainable products is by no means impossible. On the other hand, choosing junk food and processed food is, in most cases, often made out of convenience and instant satisfaction, which will later take a heavy toll on the consumer's health. High levels of fat and sugar in chips, hamburgers, fizzy drinks, and milk tea lead to diabetes, obesity, or dental cavities. Furthermore, because consumers continuously buy these products, companies continue to produce them under the economic Law of Supply and Demand. Individual responsibility here is about actively acknowledging these effects in our lives and thinking a little longer, even if it feels uncomfortable, before hitting the order button.

Admittedly, there are powerful external aspects that govern our decisions and limit our personal autonomy. Many critics argue that it is unfair to place the primary burden of nutrition on the individual when biological cravings, deep-seated cultural traditions, and harsh economic conditions dictate our daily routines. From this perspective, corporate marketing teams masterfully exploit our evolutionary preference for sugar and fat (a review article "Sugar Addiction: From Evolution to Revolution" , by David A. Wiss, Nicole Avena, Pedro Rada), making them irresistible. Consequently, many believe that a low financial status leaves people with no choice but to rely on cheap, filling junk food out of pure economic necessity, viewing "sustainable, laboratory, or ethically healthy" food as luxury commodities reserved only for the wealthy.

However, this passive outlook is fundamentally naive because while external factors limit our options, they do not eliminate them entirely. First, the assumption that healthy, sustainable eating is an expensive luxury is a misconception, as basic whole foods - most of which can be grown - like grains, legumes, eggs, and seasonal vegetables are highly affordable and often cost less per meal than fast food or processed snacks. Second, using poverty to justify unhealthy choices overlooks a dangerous, self-destructive toxic loop. When an individual chooses low-quality junk food to save a few dollars, they directly weaken their physical health. Because a compromised body suffers from low energy, brain fog, and chronic sickness, it becomes significantly more difficult to work, make a living, and escape financial hardship. Therefore, opting for poor nutrition does not alleviate an economic struggle; it acts as a financial anchor that actively worsens an individual's current living conditions. As for the cultural aspects, which is tricky because it is how a community lives and believes, adapting our dietary habits does not equate to abandoning our heritage. Modifying personal preferences to prioritize health and make positive impacts usually do not cause cultural harm, provided we maintain an attitude of respect toward our roots. Traditional dishes can be modernized with healthier ingredients, and heavy heritage meals can be reserved for special celebrations rather than daily routines.

If we do not choose to change, we are accepting things the way they are. In that case, we should not blame external factors either. While corporate marketing, cultural norms, and biological impulses create heavy pressure, they do not remove the fork from our hands. Rather, as we have become aware about such factors, we should be more mindful in making food choices. Accepting our responsibility does not mean denying others' responsibility. Because we are the ones who must live with the immediate physical and financial consequences of our diets, the ultimate responsibility for making better food choices should rest on the individual.

Initially, given that knowledge is standardized through textbooks and formulas to ensure equal access, a talented student should be able to apply this shared knowledge to solve actual problems. In cognitive psychology, this leap from abstract theory to practical, real-world application is known as 'far transfer', according to Thorndike and Woodworth's Transfer of Learning Theory (1901). So long as educational systems intend to accurately identify and reward highly capable minds, they must look beyond traditional, memory-based assessments. While rote memorization provides the necessary raw material of thought, genuine ingenuity lies in how a student manipulates that material to navigate unpredictable challenges. Most students can remember geometrical formulas, but it takes exceptional talent, if not great effort, to perceive how the flat shapes printed in textbooks are essential parts in the making of skyscrapers, bridges, and all the architectural wonders of mankind.

On the contrary, some might argue that being knowledgeable remains the solid metric to measure one's giftedness as it is much more universal, fair and thus, easier and clearer to assess them. Since knowledge is standardized, printed and taught nationally while problem solving skills vary widely depend on how a student thinks, it makes it harder to develop a rubric to grade one's performance, leading to disagreements among educators. Moreover, the more knowledgeable a student is, the more efficiently they can solve problems. For instance, in kindergartens we learn how to count; in primary school, with the same problem, we know are now able solve it using the multiplication tables; then in highschool we know about indices, and other quicker formulas that helps us deal with the problem. Therefore, it is believed that being knowledgeable indicates a student's competence.

Indisputably, knowledge is indeed crucial to one's competency. The ability to perform critical thinking (questioning assumptions, identifying biases, weighing arguments, and making informed, logical decisions), and actively analyzing, adapting such knowledge to solve specific problems is what makes a student stand out. This is the true definition of a gifted student. Being knowledgeable does not necessarily determine whether a student has the ability to perform at a higher level of cognitive proficiency. Furthermore, focusing on making assessments easier for the sake of clarity risks falsely measuring and classifying a student's ability. Learning and testing should be about the examinees, not the examiners. The easiest method isn't always the right method. Students do not learn to become replica of books, they learn to be able to navigate through life and to be able to do that needs more than sole memorization and learning by rote.

Ultimately, I firmly believe that gifted students are not meant to be walking encyclopedias. Simply being knowledgeable should never serve as the final metric for a student's potential. Instead, their abilities must be measured by how productively they solve specific problems - actively reflecting upon and integrating their foundational knowledge to create tangible solutions.

     Initially, the convenience paradox and the removal of productive struggles can be considered as the two main reasons leading to this crisis. Appearance of learning, including a student's performance or visible signs of academic success, can now be achieved by AI-generated answers. Perhaps, the original ideology  of AI being a tool to help prosper one's thinking process and satisfy their curiosity has shifted to users, in this context: students, giving away their own thinking process to the chat bots and performing substitutional acts - waiting, checking and copying. This phenomenon remove struggles, regarding the time and efforts one needs to brainstorm about an idea - which further stimulate understanding and knowledge acquisition. We call it "productive struggles" because in this specific moment of the thinking process we have to actively reflect and seek from our own knowledge to bear out a solution. With AI presented - convenient, quick and widely accessible - we do not have to face such struggles anymore. Task can be done faster, productivity performance can escalate and yet our knowledge, skills might stay the same. Thus, leading to us getting the right answers without having to really understand the information and no genuine learning happens.

     In addition to such problems arose from the misuse of AI, the lack of effective measure to control the situation is also a no less important factor. Every problem is made of two parts: the cause and the effect and to solve one, one needs to think of a solution. The problem of AI integration into education is also because there are still no effective, adequate measure to control the situation. Using AI makes students become lazy, reliant, and dishonest. Most people acknowledged this but there is nothing to stop it. A lot of students develop a habit of opening an AI chat bot when doing homework and no parent, no supervisor is there all the time to advise and refrain them from doing so. Age control can also be bypass by students lying about their age. Teachers cannot and does not want to doubt their students work and having to open AI check systems (these system's reliability is another thing) all the time. It is not that we do not trust the learners but most of them, once developed the habit, cannot stop themselves. They can check the AI - generated work, they can fix it but that is not learning. Doing exercises is a way of adapting knowledge and by relying on AI they are giving away their chances of practicing.

      However, the problem here is not about AI but rather the use of it in education, meaning it can be put down to the students' behaviors and awareness. Even before the birth of AI, rote learning, copying, etc can also be considered a way to achieve the appearance of learning without actually learn something. AI just make it faster and more effortless. It might seem like a contradiction but since it can be put down to the users' behaviours and awareness, governing external factors, such as: study environment, training, etc that affect such behaviors may produce considerable impact. Still the limit of these practice is that only a number of learners can access and receive the solutions.     

In conclusion, the appearance of AI in education with its easy accessibility alongside with our nature to seek for convenience, comfort and the lack of adequate measure will continue to lead to the sole appearance of learning instead of genuine learning.

Initially, globalisation creates opportunities for cultural exchanges where individuals, especially young generations, can reflect and get a deep sense of understanding of their own culture by being exposed to the difference between nations. Learning English as a tool to become a global citizen - a widely held perception - is a good example to illustrate this. There are semantic gaps in the English language and Vietnamese English, for example the words "thương" and "duyên" possess such deep and delicate meanings that it is impossible to find identical words in English that can express what these two words are capable of. The same happens when we compare different languages, customs around the world. This is not because one has not reached the level of competency required but rather the more one becomes fluent and familiar with another language beside their mother tongue, the more it reveals how unique each and every culture, tradition, nation is. Globalisation, therefore, does not weaken national values but reflects them.

Furthermore, globalization leads to cultural promotion. Promoting one's own culture gives them a sense of pride and strengthens their image when identified as a global citizen. With regard to the entertainment industry, Chinese movies based on historical context, the Kpop industry of Korea, Hollywood, etc are essential parts of people's identities. Cultural promotion, nevertheless, is not within the scope of entertainment but can be integrated into products from other different fields. Promoting cultural values without distorting traditions, rituals, in turn, benefits global citizens by expanding their worldview and teaches them responsibilities as well as respectful manners.

Still, one might argue that globalisation prompts reflection but reflection does not guarantee attachment. A language learner may acknowledge how his mother tongue differs from the foreign language but might abandon it while chasing for global opportunities or immersing in an international environment. However, long before the concept of globalisation surfaced, people had already been clipping off rituals and traditions that are no longer appropriate as nations develop. It is not globalisation that is the cause of changes in culture. Abandonment of a culture or parts of it, instead, can be seen as a form of evolution in lifestyles. The development of English and the formation of Vietnamese culture, being partly affected by Ancient China, explain this phenomenon. Thus, adopting does not mean abandoning but rather changing, in most cases for the better.

In conclusion, identifying as a global citizen and having global awareness not only do not detach individuals from their roots but also strengthen the connections through reflections and promotions.

• Reflect, learning English and other languages highlights the difference between them and Vietnamese.

• cutural exchange prompts promotion

• REFLECT DOES NOT GUARANTEE ATTACHMENT

• but they do acknowledge the difference and know how unique it is. Without globalisation -> no growth and doesnt guarantee attachment also, it's a choice. adopting doesnt mean abandoning.