On Moral Licensing (Ep 1)

People sometimes become more tolerant to themselves. For example, I'm only 6 kilograms heavier than 7 years earlier. I lost around 20 kilograms in 3 months when I was 12 years old. I was seriously obese back then, and felt the need to lose weight. But during that time, I had uncountable quick pangs to eat hamburgers, chicken, ramen, et cetera. I was very dedicated to lose weight back then, but now I have a higher muscle percentage so I have a higher basic metabolic rate. This makes me want to eat high calorie junk food. I justify my eating with all the exercise that I had done when I was young, and I still eat 3~4 times what others eat when something compelling comes out for the menu. As Gladwell puts in his podcast, when a door opens for an outsider, it usually just “gives the status quo justification to close the door again”. It happened in Gillard’s case, says Gladwell, when her election as the first female prime minister of Australia was followed by an unbelievable and unstoppable display of blatant misogyny. It happened in the case of the Nazis’ love of poet Berthold Auerbach, he explains, “because they think they’ve demonstrated their open-mindedness by loving this one Jew, they feel free to act in the most despicable way to other Jews.” And it happened after Barack Obama’s US presidential election, where for many, having elected a black president gave free rein for racism. In this part, he asks the question, when does doing good lead to good, and when does doing good lead to bad? I believe that it depends on the person's experience in life. They are weighing the risks they are willing to take, and the choices they would regret. A child cannot grow without trial and error. Similarly, moral licensing is natural and isn't something that is to be looked down on.

Solutions to education (Ep 5)

It is quite difficult to understand the purpose of universities. The purpose of a school is to educate students so that they could function better in the society. They are not profit-making organizations. The current purpose of universities is becoming warped. Universities with more financial space should grant more aid to children who are willing to learn but come from a poor background. I believe the current situation is self-contradicting. The universities with more financial space, ability to accommodate more students, and the power to educate them impacts the society more than colleges with a smaller budget. Universities should be places where students can learn comfortably. It shouldn't be a place where it is a trade-off between housing expenses and social justice. It should be a place where both traits are fulfilled.

While places like Bowdoin exist, there also are places like Vassar. Universities should know their places and their capabilities. Sure, they might want to teach as much students as they can, but they should teach as much "as they can". Universities like Vassar should be able to cover their expenses, and need a "cushion" in case they spend over their budget and create a deficit. Students wouldn't want to a university where something is lacking. Of course, they might want to go because that university's education is superior, but wouldn't the university attract more students if it all qualities were achieved, not left out? To give the students' the "best environment" to learn, colleges should run their schools to their capabilities. If they can't keep up with the large number of students, then make the school smaller. For the schools with a larger budget, make the school larger. The current problem isn't being fixed because of the schools' reputation or their image. If they really value change over their image, then change can happen.

Be efficient (Ep 2)

Before we start experimenting, we set a model that fits the situation. It is irrefutable that in a situation where a sphere is rolling without slipping and we are ignoring the air resistance, the moment of inertia of the sphere is (2/5)*MR^2 (M is the mass of the sphere and R is the radius of the sphere). Some people have stated that shooting underhand instead of overhand is more effective for a minority of the people. I want to say that if a person fits the model of the scientific experiment which concluded that overhand is the most effective way, then it is quite stupid to argue.
I am not trying to say that "all" people have a single shooting form that is the most efficient. There may be several factors that determine a person's shooting form. Psychological and physical factors exist. For example, a person might feel more emotionally stable when they are shooting underhand, or person might have physical differences that makes him/her deviate from the standards of the model. Research concluded a single shooting form that is the most efficient because forms such as the underhand increases the chance for the guard to block the shot. Because of the increase of height difference to the basket when shooting underhand, the player has to shoot with an increased angle, which is quite difficult. Some might state that people might feel more comfortable in a different form or say that he/she have already trained for so many years so it will be difficult to change their habits. I'm not trying to say is not pressure the accustomed to change. What I'm trying to say is, "If the players trained psychologically and became the standard model which fits the results of the research, then they would have been more efficient at the sport than they were before.
It is true that people without marked individuality would make the game boring, but if the purpose of playing the game is winning, then people would have to be mechanical and be less flexible in their playing styles. It would degrade the fun in the game, but it would make the team win the game