This is How by Skyler Paoli https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow What do I know? How do I know it? en-us 2021-01-13 14:19:04 UTC 2025-11-17 22:12:48 UTC hello@padlet.com What is knowledge? Is knowledge essential to be a good human? npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1089800831 Bertolt's Life of Galileo changed my perspective on knowledge. Knowledge is ever-changing, and those who refuse to accept it, like the clergy in Life of Galileo, are going to fall behind. Today, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, or TERFS, believe that trans people are delusional and misogynistic, and I read their message boards as a form of self-harm. Sometimes, they sound reasonable, and it makes me feel terrible about myself. The TERFS are like those who believed the Ptolemaic Model of the solar system - they haven't broken out of the old paradigm, and they close their eyes to the real, observable science discovered by experts.

Knowledge is different from fact or truth: As the last line of Life of Galileo poetically puts it: "There are a lot of things we don't know yet, Giuseppe. We're really just at the beginning" (113). Galileo's discoveries were made in the early 1600's, with the understanding that there were "a lot of things [they] didn't know yet." Similarly, the AAUP published an article in 2020 points out that "[e]xpert knowledge is a process of constant exploration, revision, and adjudication." In a sense, we are still "at the beginning." Knowledge is the compilation of what humans have discovered up to that point, while fact is what is actually and unequivocally happening. Truth is a little messier, and is often confused with knowledge. Truth has to do with perspective. In the beginning of Life of Galileo, Andrea says, "I can see with my own eyes that the sun goes down in a different place from where it rises. So how can it stay still? Of course it can't!" (9). Of course, Andrea is telling the truth, but he is still wrong. Knowledge requires research, peer review, and looking at something from every angle possible. Gaining knowledge takes time. The AAUP also comments on this difference: "There has been an explicit political campaign attacking universities as enemies of freedom of speech. Since all are equally entitled to freedom of speech, scholarly standards and criteria are attacked as mere intimidation and unjustifiable censorship." To bring back the example of TERFs, a lot of them literally believe trans people are delusional, that is their truth, but it is not knowledge, because it has been scientifically proven that trans people are not, in fact, delusional. Scholarly standards are important when we choose what to believe and what to dismiss.

Knowledge is not essential to being a good human, but willingness to accept knowledge is. When people ignore scientific discoveries for their own benefit or peace of mind, our world crumbles. The refusal to accept climate change because "it snowed today" is leading to sea level rise, superstorms, and a mass extinction. TERFs refusing to acknowledge that transgender people are valid leads to discrimination and hate. There is a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance.]]> 2021-01-15 02:02:10 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1089800831 How Can You Change Somebody's Opinion? npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1089912075 People won't listen to scientific evidence alone, so you have to find a way to relate to them and not put them on the defensive when sharing your knowledge.]]> 2021-01-15 03:29:16 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1089912075 What is good? What is the good life? npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1098980765 "Good" is what has the best outcome for the most amount of people. This is the crux of secular humanism. I have never been religious - in fact, I grew up in a home that was openly hostile toward religion, and I never really thought about morality, or what makes someone or something "good" or "bad;" I just knew. When I became interested in exploring my Mormon heritage, I found Jimmy Snow on Youtube, an ex-mormon secular humanist. He introduced me to the concept of "consequentialism," which he describes as, "when ethical choices are made, it is the consequences of those choices that are judged." One example I think most people can agree on is that love is good because it leads to better mental health of the one who loves and the one who is loved. In this example, love is not just good because someone said so, it is good because the consequences are positive.

The good life: Me on a farm with my many foster children and dogs, teaching middle school marine biology, and editing scientific papers for additional income. We would have strawberries, herbs, goats, bees, and a miniature horse. I would have a Tesla Cybertruck to take my honey, goat cheese, and produce to the local farmer's market in an environmentally friendly way, and I would take my children to the tidepools regularly. Researchers King and Napa identified three main variables that lead to the western notion of the good life: "happiness, meaning in life, and money." All three of these variables are met in my version of a good life: I'd have money that would allow me to do good deeds and have meaning, and meaning would bring me happiness.

While the first variable mentioned is happiness, the research showed that "happy people were judged not only as leading a desirable life but also as good people who were likely to go to heaven... Happiness may also be considered a by-product of leading the good life, rather than a contributor to the good life." This means that happiness does not lead to the good life, but rather that the good life brings people happiness. Also, happy people are considered more likely to go to heaven, implying that good deeds are associated with happiness and happy people. To support this, King and Napa cite four separate studies that link "meaning in life" (the second variable) with subjective well being. In my experience, nothing feels better than helping others or the environment. Doing good makes me feel good. Also, existentialism leads people to look for meaning in life, which can often be found through doing good deeds.

The third variable is money. King and Napa cite a study by Diener et al. that, "beyond being able to afford life's most basic needs... the correlation between income and happiness [was found] to be a mere .12" This implies that money does not lead to the good life, but money is helpful for doing good deeds. In my good life fantasy, I would need enough money to keep my little farm going, which is why I would sacrifice some of my free time to edit scientific journal articles. Like King and Napa say, "[m]oney might be best seen as a means to an end rather than an end itself." So, while money is important to the good life, having money does not make life good.

Living the good life requires hard work and effort, but we shouldn't let the perfect get in the way of the good. If you're not attaining your perfect dream life, you need to learn to make your life right now the good life. Add in little bits of happiness: volunteer on the weekends, cook your favorite meal, pet a dog. By living in the here and now, while still looking toward the future, everyone can live their own version of the good life, even if it's not completely perfect.

"What Actually is Secular Humanism?" YouTube, uploaded by Jimmy Snow, 6 September 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzWOLqr--yo

King, Laura A., and Christie K. Napa. “What Makes a Life Good?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 75, no. 1, 1998, pp. 156–165., doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.156.

]]> 2021-01-18 20:02:13 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1098980765 Fuck It! npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1099115625 "So do what you like and we'll like what you do when you do it, and if they don't that's fine. Fuck em!"]]> 2021-01-18 21:30:38 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1099115625 What is the truth? Is truth essential to be good or to do good? npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1103979498 "Live your truth."
"I'm just telling the truth."
These are both phrases we hear all the time, and they both tell the same story: truth is subjective. When I first came to college, I met a kid who clearly needed a friend, so I decided I would fill that role. We both enjoyed marine science and were interested in sharks, but when we started talking about the Sea Shepherds, I realised our world views were fundamentally different. He told me the Sea Shepherds were an eco-terrorist group that impeded research, while I had grown up being taught the Sea Shepherds were a noble vigilante justice group risking their lives to protect whales. Admittedly, I did not know a ton about the Sea Shepherds, so that night I scoured the internet for answers. In the end, the only websites that condemned the Sea Shepherds were run by the Japanese government, who, incidentally, have a financial stake in the continuation of whaling. I knew my new friend had lived in Japan his whole life, and was probably taught from a young age that the Sea Shepherds were anti-research terrorists. That was his truth. He wasn't lying to me when he told me they were terrorists, and he had good reasons to think so, considering they have blown up (unoccupied) whaling vessels that claim to be "research vessels." Our world view, our truths, are influenced by our surroundings. The opposite of truth is lies and deception, not incorrectness or misinformation.

Of course, just believing something does not make it true. The line is subtle, but it is there. For instance, if someone who is red-green colorblind points at a red piece of paper and calls it green, they are not lying - they are telling the truth, because to them, the paper is green. On the other hand, people who believe in the Flat Earth conspiracy are completely convinced the earth is flat, but they had to ignore all the facts to get there. Neel Burton, MD wrote an article for Psychology Today that reads: "The bullsh*tter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it." In this case, a Flat Earther is a bullshitter. They ignore all the facts - which are set in stone, unlike truth - to design their own false narrative. This is different from someone who believes the Sea Shepherds are terrorists or can't tell the difference between red and green.

By this definition, truth is essential to be good and to do good. Someone who isn't telling the truth is either a liar or a bullshitter, and both are harmful to those around them. It is argued that sometimes it's okay to lie to protect yourself or those around you, but most of the time lies lead to more lies, and eventually the truth comes out and causes more harm than just telling the truth in the first place would have. The harm of bullshitters was really obvious in 2020; we had climate change, a pandemic, and "Stop the Steal." People who deny climate change exists generally make absolutely no effort to help the environment, which is going to lead to humanity's downfall if nothing changes. Climate change has been proven by science, but people still stubbornly deny its existence out of greed and fear. The pandemic spawned a whole host of bullshitters. First, it caused people to refuse to wear masks, even though they are scientifically proven to stop the spread of this novel deadly disease. Second, now that we have a vaccine, people are refusing to take it because they think vaccines cause autism and will implant a microchip in their arm. It has been proven that vaccines do not cause autism, and we don't have a microchip small enough to be inserted with a vaccination needle. The conspiracy (bullshit) that the election was fraudulent literally led to the death of four people during a "protest."

In conclusion, truth is not synonymous with fact, and is ultimately subjective based on one's perspective. However, this does not mean that every opinion is the truth, because our world is full of bullshitters who ignore all the present evidence. Truth is essential to be good and do good, because lies and deception usually hurt people when the truth comes out, and bullshit leads to people acting in ways that do not serve themselves or the greater good.

Burton, Neel. “What Is Truth?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 23 Aug. 2018, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201808/what-is-truth.

Hunter, Murray. “Sea Shepherd: Eco Terrorists or the Front Line to Protect Social Justice?” The Nordic Page, 15 June 2014, www.tnp.no/norway/global/4518-sea-shepherd-eco-terrorists-or-the-front-line-to-protect-social-justiceij.

]]> 2021-01-20 02:51:06 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1103979498 What is Truth npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1112526362 "A little boy of three sittin’ on the floor
Looks up and says, 'Daddy, what is war?'
'son, that’s when people fight and die'
The little boy of three says 'Daddy, why?'
A young man of seventeen in Sunday school
Being taught the golden rule
And by the time another year has gone around
It may be his turn to lay his life down
Can you blame the voice of youth for asking
'What is truth?'”]]> 2021-01-22 00:47:24 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1112526362 What is a good society? How do you create and maintain one? npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1112531557 Every dystopian novel proves that if you try too hard to create a good society, you will ultimately fail. In The Giver Lois Lowry, the government prevents people from seeing colors, and there is no weather or hills. This is in the name of "sameness." The idea is that if everyone is the same and equal, there will be no conflict, pain or strife. When Jonas, the main character, becomes the Receiver of Memories, he starts to see color, and learns about hills, and snow, and pain. Despite the pain, this new world, filled with emotions and experiences, is worth it for Jonas. In Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, everyone is genetically engineered and put into predetermined castes, with the idea that it will create social order. However, like in The Giver, one character, Bernard, realises that he is being brainwashed by the government, and the world is actually better in a place where everything isn't always the same and predictable.

So what is a good society? If true equality and a complete lack of conflict don't make a society good, then what does? In the end, all a good society needs is freedom to the point of not infringing on other peoples' freedom or rights. Artistic expression, love, and the freedom to present however you want without being harassed, shot, or arrested should all be allowed. People value individuality, and when that is taken away from them, we end up in the world of The Giver or Brave New World. Furthermore, the use of deadly weapons should be much more regulated, because your freedom to own a gun ends where another person's right to live begins. A good society hinges on inclusivity, kindness, and nonviolence.

The closest I have ever come to creating a society is in a Summer Camp group. We start with a community agreement that focuses on safety and being kind to others, and all the children sign it. If they break the community agreement, there are consequences. This is a very basic system of government: there are "laws," and a hierarchy of adults to enforce them. Our summer camp society is good because when we explain why we have the rules that we do, the children are more likely to follow them than if we just told them what the rules are. Our rules are also loose enough to let the kids have fun, while still keeping them safe. There is also a system in place to remove any extremely problematic or disruptive kid from the group, preserving the enjoyment and learning experience for the others. In essence, to create and maintain a good society, rules must be put in place that do not restrict people too much, while still keeping everyone safe, and just leaders must be in charge to enforce these rules.

]]> 2021-01-22 00:51:00 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1112531557 The Giver npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1112535754 “Submitting to censorship is to enter the seductive world of 'The Giver': the world where there are no bad words and no bad deeds. But it is also the world where choice has been taken away and reality distorted. And that is the most dangerous world of all.”
- The Giver by Lois Lowry]]> 2021-01-22 00:53:52 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1112535754 What is a good person? Who deserves to have a good life? npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1138974132 According to Mencius, all humans are innately good. According to Dumbledore from J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter, the ability to love is what makes someone good. It is a common saying that "nobody's born racist," which perfectly embodies both the idea that humans are innately good, and that the ability to love is what makes a person good. People are born without hate in their hearts; hate is learned from their surroundings.

The entirety of the Harry Potter series is based around the idea of good versus evil - love versus hate. The protagonist, Harry Potter, is protected from the villain, Lord Voldemort, by the power of his mother's love. Voldemort does not even have the ability to love, which enables him to commit acts of true evil. Voldemort is a caricature of a bad person, because of course, every real human being has the inherent ability to love if they try. Just because someone has had racist, sexist, or homophobic beliefs, or has committed acts of racism, sexism, or homophobia doesn't mean they are beyond redemption. They can learn how to love again, like when they were born, when they were without bias.

"The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death but at a terrible price. You have slain something pure and defenseless to save yourself, and you will have but a half-life, a cursed life, from the moment the blood touches your lips" (Rowling). This quote from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone calls into question: Who deserves to have a good life? If a unicorn represents all that is good, and wholesome, and "pure," to destroy it makes one evil, and undeserving of a good life. This draws a line between someone who has done bad things, and someone who is beyond redemption. Mencius advocates that everyone can look within themselves and try to change, which implies that a factor in where the line falls is whether someone is willing to change (79). People who have committed acts of hate and evil, and are not willing to change, do not deserve to live a good life. Thus, even though everyone is born good, and has the ability to be good, those who choose to do evil and be evil do not deserve the good life that everyone else does.]]> 2021-01-28 23:51:21 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1138974132 What criteria is needed to be a good person? npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1138976066 Making sweeping judgements about who is good, and who is bad, or evil, is inherently problematic. It's subjective, and a lot of the time, we do not know enough about the people we are trying to judge. However, there are several overarching criteria we can use to decide whether a person is good: self-reflection, kindness and nonjudgementalism, and whether the impact they have on people and the world around them is positive.

The ability for self-reflection is the first thing that makes a person good. If one can look into their past, and effectively judge whether their actions were right or wrong, and move forward emulating their best self, that is an indication of good moral character. People get things wrong sometimes and do bad things, but that does not make them a bad person. Mencius wrote a really profound quote: “If others do not respond to your love with love, look into your own benevolence; if others fail to respond to your attempts to govern with order, look into your own wisdom; if others do not return your courtesy, look into your own respect. In other words, look into yourself whenever you fail to achieve your purpose” (79). If you are “failing to achieve your purpose” repeatedly, it is probably because you are doing something wrong, and need to take a moment of self reflection in order to do better. I used to think it was okay to invalidate people's religious beliefs because I grew up in a non-religious household. I even felt vindicated when I made my friend cry over an argument about god. I was only 12 years old, and realised shortly thereafter that my attitude was unacceptable. Now, I treat all religious beliefs with respect. Even though my actions were not good, I was able to recognize that through self-reflection, and change my behavior. This connects to the next criteria of kindness and nonjudgementalism. In self-reflection I realised my actions did not reflect the ideals of kindness and nonjudgementalism, and changed my actions accordingly. If everyone was kind and nonjudgemental, our world would have significantly less conflict. For the most part, there is no reason to be unkind to anyone, ever; however, I would not go so far as to say everyone deserves kindness, because it is not an obligation to be nice to those who have been horrible to you or others. It is also easier to be kind if you are not judgemental; everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt; maybe they don't realise what they are doing is wrong and need the chance to engage in their own self-reflection, or maybe there's just been a misunderstanding. Also, not everyone is the same, and just because someone is different from you does not mean they are wrong or bad. Being kind to those around you doesn't cost anything, and makes people feel good about themselves. This leads into the third criteria: having a positive impact on the people and world. The easiest way to have a positive impact on the world is through kindness, but there are also other ways to do good in the world, such as inspiring others, helping the environment, giving back to the community, helping those less fortunate, and pretty much every facet of research.

The Netflix show The Good Place asks the question: what makes a person good? The premise of the show is that four people (two of whom truly believed themselves to be good people) find themselves in a beautiful afterlife and are told they are in the Good Place, which is effectively heaven. But, in reality, a demon has conspired to make them believe they are in the Good Place, when they are actually in the Bad Place (hell), and does his best to make them as miserable as possible. Tahani was an altruist, but her motivations were always selfish, which led her to being judged as an ultimately bad person. Tahani had a positive impact on the world, but lacked fundamental kindness. Chidi studied philosophy and ethics, and did everything he could to be a good person, but his actions hurt those around him because he was chronically indecisive. Thus, Chidi was kind, but overall, his impact on the world was negative. Neither of them utilized self-reflection in life to realise they needed to change. In these two characters, we can see how vital it is to meet all three of the main criteria to be a good person.]]> 2021-01-28 23:52:33 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1138976066 Who gets to define good people for a society? npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1139060661 Everyone who lives in a society deserves to be there, even if they aren't good people, because everyone has to live somewhere. In Divergent by Veronica Roth, society was divided up into factions: Abnegation for the selfless, Amity for the peaceful, Dauntless for the brave, and Erudite for the intelligent. At 16, teenagers get to choose which faction they want to live the rest of their lives in, but if they fail the initiation, they end up Factionless, or homeless on the fringes of society. The idea that anyone who doesn't fit into one of the prescribed factions becomes homeless is one of the reasons why this book is considered a dystopian novel. This system is clearly wrong and unfair.

In our world, refugees are like the Factionless. They are forced to flee their homes, but no other societies will take them either. They face discrimination, and are called criminals, or are considered weak, or a waste of resources.
There are other people forced to the fringes of society as well. We reject drug addicts and the poor, blaming them for their conditions, like we blame the refugees. All of these groups need help, and it is the job of society to help them; they are not a waste of resources, they are not bad for our society.

Systemic racism also comes into play when defining good people for a society. In America, we have both anti-immigrant sentiment, and systemic racism against African Americans. Immediately upon opening DuBois' Souls of Black Folk, I was overcome with a sense of rage. In the very first paragraph, DuBois poses the question "how does it feel to be a problem" (1). He is referring to how white people feel about black people in America. Over the course of history, people in positions of political and economic power decided which people were good for a society. They decided black people were not valuable in American society, and ruthlessly oppressed and murdered them. This legacy has continued through to today; systemic racism still has power. This is why it is dangerous to give anyone the power to define good people for society, and even "bad" people deserve to participate.]]> 2021-01-29 00:43:18 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1139060661 Philip Zimbardo: The psychology of evil npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1144309870 "that line between good and evil -- which privileged people like to think is fixed and impermeable, with them on the good side, the others on the bad side -- I knew that line was movable, and it was permeable. Good people could be seduced across that line, and under good and some rare circumstances, bad kids could recover with help, with reform, with rehabilitation."]]> 2021-01-30 23:54:44 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1144309870 npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1146650617 2021-02-01 01:38:17 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1146650617 Ballad of Birmingham npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1151658430 In the United States, over the course of history, people in positions of political and economic power decided which people were good for a society. They decided black people were not valuable in American society, and ruthlessly oppressed and murdered them. This legacy has continued through to today; systemic racism still has power.]]> 2021-02-02 02:53:13 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1151658430 What is knowledge? Is knowledge essential to be a good human? Revisited npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1198530471 When I wrote my last post about knowledge, I had just had chest masculinization surgery, and because I was in pain and unable to move freely, I decided to read blogs written by trans exclusionary radical feminists. I was reading blogs by people who hated me for existing, and believed the life changing surgery I had just undergone was mutilation because when I feel depressed I sometimes don't cope skillfully, and seek out content to make me feel worse. Reading Life of Galileo actually helped me through this process, because it reflected my life. I was Galileo and the TERFs were the clergy. There is real science that backs up transgender identities, while all the scientific articles that TERFs use to justify their arguments have since been disproven. I was able to realize that the TERFs were not using "common sense," as Galileo puts it, and blinding themselves from the observable truth.

I previously used the quote "There are a lot of things we don't know yet, Giuseppe. We're really just at the beginning." (113). I wrote that "Knowledge is the compilation of what humans have discovered up to that point, while fact is what is actually and unequivocally happening." But what about when our current knowledge is just wrong? This is part of the scientific process, we used to think the non-coding part of DNA was "junk DNA," completely useless to organisms. But now we are uncovering just how important non-coding DNA is to life. The AAUP says that "[e]xpert knowledge is a process of constant exploration, revision, and adjudication." I want to be satisfied in believing science as we know it, but I can't help but wonder what we are just so wrong about. Humanity used to believe in an earth-centric model of the solar system, so what is the ingrained scientific belief that our generation is completely wrong about? Is it evolution? Is it how stars are formed? We will probably never know.

I stand by my assertion that the willingness to accept expert knowledge is essential to being a good human, despite the fact that I feel compelled to question it. I question it, but I would never go against it without proper research. It is the job of the scientist to ask questions and scrutinize even the most well-established beliefs. A huge part of science today is climate change; it is essential for everyone to accept that climate change is happening, else we, humanity, will not be able to do enough to save the planet and ourselves.

“What Is Junk DNA, and What Is It Worth?” Scientific American, Scientific American, 12 Feb. 2007, www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-junk-dna-and-what/. ]]> 2021-02-12 23:11:05 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1198530471 Junk DNA npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1198622982 Why did we used to think some DNA was just junk? What is the evidence we have discovered to prove this non-coding DNA isn't useless? Science and knowledge is ever-changing, as long as we keep asking questions.]]> 2021-02-13 00:39:56 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1198622982 What is good? What is the good life? Revisited npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1219674091 Previously, I defined good the way secular humanists define it: "when ethical choices are made, it is the consequences of those choices that are judged" (Snow). Thus, people are defined by their actions, and "good" actions are the ones that result in the best outcome for the most amount of people. People do make mistakes, I certainly do, especially when I am stressed or put on the spot. What matters is that we learn from our mistakes and proceed to make better choices.

Many people believe that having good intentions makes a person good, but I disagree. People with the best of intentions can still do a lot of harm because they are misinformed or ignorant. "Having the best intentions" is used as an excuse for gay conversion therapy, when in reality, the decision to force someone into conversion therapy is made with ignorance and disgust. This "well-intentioned" act harmed someone, making it a bad choice under secular humanism; the consequences are negative.

I also wrote about "living the good life" and what that means to me. My dream life remains the same, but after reading The House on Mango Street, I couldn't stop thinking about how Esperanza's idea of an ideal house was preventing her from living in the moment. Societal pressures she was facing made up the bulk of her insecurities regarding her house, but she was also very attached to the picture of the perfect house her parents painted for her when she was little. I want to live the good life now, not prepare for the good life in the future.

I cited the three variables King and Napa isolated in their study of "What Makes a Life Good:" Happiness, meaning in life, and money. Right now I have meaning in life: I am a student, I work hard to help the environment, and I have a dog and my family to take care of. I may not have a lot of money to spend on frivolities, but I have a place to live, plenty of food, and clothes. I also work toward happiness every single day.

I want to add to my previous post and say that I think what it means to be good impacts what it means to live the good life. Studies have literally shown that doing good makes you feel good. Others' smiles make you smile. By living your life in a way that creates the most good for the most people (including yourself), you will be living the good life. I want to live in the now as well as look toward the future, and align my choices with what I think is the right thing to do.]]> 2021-02-19 17:24:49 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1219674091 Evolution npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1219997202 https://thisibelieve.org/essay/88035/
"When she was young, Lauren LeBlanc had grand dreams of living in New York and singing on Broadway. Instead, she became a mom and schoolteacher in suburbia. While it’s not the life she once imagined, LeBlanc now knows she wouldn’t have it any other way."]]> 2021-02-19 18:46:30 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1219997202 What is the truth? Is truth essential to be good or to do good? Revisited npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1246410211 Previously, I talked about the idea that truth is subjective. This idea is flawed, because people can willfully ignore facts to the point of convincing themselves of lies. However, we all see the world through different eyes, so is it feasible that there is only one truth? It's a complex issue that makes my brain hurt.

What I do believe to be completely true is that truth is essential to be good and to do good. I'd like to add to my last post to say that spreading misinformation can be dangerous. I recently watched a youtube video about Jilly Juice. Jilly Juice is essentially salty cabbage water that Jillian claims can cure cancer, autism, and can help regrow limbs. In reality, it can cause hypernatremia because of the massive amounts of sodium, which can cause delirium and seizures. Because Jillian is not directly selling Jilly Juice, just an informative book, she cannot be prosecuted. This is an example of misinformation (a lie), that is having real negative health effects.

Overall, telling the truth is immensely important to be a good person and do good in the world. As I mentioned in my post about what is good, people's goodness is defined by the outcomes of their actions. Spreading misinformation like Jillian has hugely detrimental effects on people. Truth may be subjective, but only to a reasonable extent. Basing your beliefs on lies inherently means that when you talk about your beliefs, you are lying, even if you truly believe you are right and telling the truth.

https://parentinghealthybabies.com/jilly-juice-recipe/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201808/what-is-truth

]]> 2021-02-26 18:10:11 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1246410211 What Happened to Jilly Juice? (It's Not Good) npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1246518571 Lying about health fads is bad enough, but imagine a health fad that is actually so harmful it can cause seizures and put someone in a coma. Not only that, there's nothing anyone can do to stop this, because Jillian isn't actually selling her product directly.]]> 2021-02-26 18:32:50 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1246518571 What is a good society? How do you create and maintain one? Revisited npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1430768585 Previously, I took examples of works of fiction to answer this question: The Giver by Lois Lowry and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. I pointed out that both books comment on how it is impossible to create the "perfect" society if that is what you set out to do. Instead, people should strive for "good enough." Perfect is too rigid and doesn't allow for people's needed individuality. This semester, we read two books that are rooted in reality: The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros and The Woman Warrior by Maxine Hong Kingston. Both books critique society.

The Woman Warrior begins with "No Name Woman," in which Kingston recalls a story her mother told her about a woman in China who was raped by another man while her husband was in America and got pregnant. She was punished by society, and ended up killing herself and her newborn baby girl. Kingston realised this was something wrong with society, which is reflected in the rest of the biography, which can be described as feminist literature. This highlights the unfairness of sexism in a society. Sexism is prevalent in every society that I know of, and every woman feels its grasp. The House on Mango Street is also filled with examples of sexism. The character Sally lives in an abusive home, and then escapes to an abusive marriage. Her father was her keeper, never letting her leave the house except for school, because "to be this beautiful [was] trouble" (Cisneros 81). Then, her husband was her keeper, never letting her go outside without his permission (102). Women are trapped; their beauty and their bodies are weaponized against them. In my last post I noted that freedom makes a good society, while equality does not. What I meant was that equality is different from sameness. It would be more accurate to say that equity creates a good society. If one half of the population is trapped, unequal, how can that society be good? A good society has to be good for everyone. People of all genders and all races and all occupations should be treated with equal amounts of respect and dignity. This is not even close to how our society is today.

I said before that my Summer Camp groups were as close as I could get to a perfect society, but sexism and racism are still prevalent in my groups of elementary school students. There are more boys than girls, because it is a science camp, and parents are making the decisions that little boys will be more interested than little girls. There are more White and Asian kids than kids of other races, because Camp is expensive, and the socioeconomic classes are largely divided by race where I live. We do have scholarships available, but not that many. Kids are picking up on this. It is forming their unconscious biases. This is not the basis of a good society. It has to start young. We have to be teaching our kids why people are not treated equally, and how to combat this in their lifetime. Starting young is how to create a good society, and the next generation will maintain it.]]> 2021-04-18 23:24:28 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1430768585 2016 npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1430815238 This poem, while written in 2016, still holds true in 2020. In this poem, it is young people advocating for women's rights, the young people who are going to be the future.]]> 2021-04-18 23:58:28 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1430815238 What criteria is needed to be a good person? Revisited npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1507080244 I wrote previously about self-reflection, kindness, and nonjudgementalism, using Mencius and the Netflix show The Good Place. I postulated that these were the three criteria that needed to be met to be a good person. I still believe this to be true, but I would like to add more reasons why based on DBT, or dialectical behavior therapy. I was in a DBT program for four months in high school, and I learned a lot of important skills. One area of focus in DBT is interpersonal relationships. How one handles interpersonal relationships is key to being a good person, which Mencius and The Good Place also illustrate. DBT emphasizes non-judgementalism and the notion that everyone, at any given time, is trying their best. This encompasses all three criteria.

First, DBT encourages self-reflection by giving you tools to make your future relationships and communication more effective. It teaches a skill called DEAR MAN, which is an acronym explaining how to ask for things you need: Describe, Express, Assert, Reinforce while being Mindful, Appearing confident, and Negotiating. Practicing DEAR MAN allows one to look back on how they previously handled making requests in an unskillful way, and to improve in the future.

Second, DBT inspires kindness by emphasizing using "I" statements when having a disagreement with someone. This is more from the Emotion Regulation focus of DBT, but it still applies to being a good person. By not taking your feelings out on people, and instead recognizing that while your feelings are always valid, some reactions are not appropriate, we can have healthier relationships.

Third, DBT teaches non-judgementalism as its core message. Everyone is at a different place in their life's journey. We need to work to understand others without passing judgement on them. Being judgemental stunts our personal growth, and the growth of people around us. Being in a non-judgemental environment is conducive to creative, academic, and personal success.

In conclusion, I stand by everything I said in my previous post, but DBT has been an important part of my life, that I think subconsciously inspired my older ideas. ]]> 2021-05-09 22:51:07 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1507080244 What is a good person? Who deserves to have a good life? Revisited npaoli14 https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1507118388 My last post focused on the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling. I grew up loving those books, and idolizing the author. The books have messages about friendship, and what defines good and evil, which made it a perfect case study for this question. Through her books, J.K. Rowling has made a positive impact on so many people, but does that make her a good person?

Recently, J.K. Rowling has made her views on gender public. She is what is called a TERF, or Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Her books preach acceptance, but she doesn't practice acceptance in her real life. I loved her books as a child because they made me feel like I belonged, and to hear her talk about trans people in a derogatory way was not surprising, because it was the culmination of microaggressions on Twitter toward people of color. I believe that even though her books have had a positive impact on the world, that does not make her a good person.

However, does that mean she does not deserve to have a good life? She has been viciously attacked on social media by thousands of people who don't even know her. Their fury was justified; many trans people, like me, found refuge in her books. Despite the hurt she's caused, I'm not sure she deserves to be attacked by thousands of strangers. She does deserve a loss of respect and a loss of a platform. She hurt people, and she needs to be prevented from causing further damage. She no longer deserves to be uplifted and revered.

Previous good actions and positive impacts do not negate future wrongdoings. People who cause harm to others deserve consequences, but they do not deserve to be disproportionately harmed in retaliation. I do not have hope that J.K. Rowling will redeem herself, but there is hope for others. It is possible for someone to become a better person over time, and being better will improve their life.]]> 2021-05-09 23:28:11 UTC https://padlet.com/npaoli14/thisishow/wish/1507118388