My research project is focused on the ethics of climate change, the reading brought me back to a lot of the core ethical problems of my topic. Simply, the idea of free riders is one of the core factors fueling the climate crisis, countries taking advantage of global resources and producing dangerous emissions without taking the steps to properly mitigate! And now we are in a place where countries are free-riding, waiting for another country to create that big carbon tax/ reevaluate the speed of resource usage to reduce emissions. The author writes “threats are useless, though, without credibility,“ today, the threat of the earth becoming inhospitable, oceans rising in temperature and acidity, smog becoming inescapable, etc, are all credible threats according to SCIENCE and the current global environmental state. Will it only be credible when it is too late? When people in the US are experiencing the natural disasters, warming, and smog for themselves? The biggest complicating factor that fuels the free-riding problem is that the emitters don’t see/feel the direct impacts. Like the author says when talking about solutions and change, “coordination is always available to us so long as we can communicate.” The key changing factor here is global communication and effort to make a change, because the countries feeling the impact, are not the countries that are producing the emissions causing the most harm.

The climate crisis solution will require what the author names “opting out” it is even stated that the path of opting out will not provide overwhelming cooperation ( it is impossible that this will be a truly global and cooperative force), but it might help to “avoid the fate of mutual defection in human collective enterprises (by reducing the dominance of there defection strategy).” Which is exactly what we need.

Flanigan’s article presented an argument that I have never come across before, I had never heard of DIC before and reading about it was interesting. Although in the end, I concluded that I disagreed with the conclusion (as a result of my view of the medical profession, personal experience, and biases), I did think the argument was very convincing and clear. I  completely agreed with the importance of being completely informed.  The first example of risky access vs risky refusal made sense to me the way it was laid out. People should be able to decide to or not to go down the medical path the doctor prescribes/recommends and should definitely be given all accurate and complete information to make an informed choice. By the logic laid out, I understand the inequity in the risky access. But then why do we have doctors? Their job is to be able to conclude and explain the best solution for their patient. It is just so subjective, and I would hope that all doctors have the best intention and accurate knowledge to make an informed decision.

Like I said in the beginning, I think that even though this argument was very strong, my experiences have built my view on the topic and I don’t think it will be easily changed. I know that dermatologists can prescribe people medications meant for high blood pressure for people with hormonal acne to use as an acne solution. It is easy to get this prescription with one trip to the dermatologist, and that is still important so one can be informed about possible impacts or side effects. The same thing with ADHD meds, from my experience, it is easy to gain access to them through medical professionals. What I am saying is that the types of medications that are low-risk are fairly easy to get, they are almost self-prescribed. (This is completely my own opinion, this has happened to me where I research medication for acne/skin and asked my doctor about it and I was able to get the prescription, emphasis on personal experience). But when it comes to more serious medications, for example, SSRI’s (the type of medications that are given to people with personality disorders), it is so important that they are prescribed by a medical professional. Not only because it has a big impact on brain function but also because it might be crucial to take medication and also enter into therapy treatment. I just don’t think self-medication can be viewed objectively. All in all, I think it is important to be prescribed by a medical professional, no matter what the medication. I do understand that I believe this because of my personal experience because I have never been in a place where the prescription process served as a barrier.

I thought the Hoyt & Murphy reading brought up really good points about women in leadership roles that are often left out when we talk about the ways stereotypes impact leaders. The reading explained that female leaders are double-binded by the stereotype threat, “highly communal women are criticized for being deficient leaders, and highly agentic women experience backlash for not being female enough” (Hoyt & Murphy). Female leadership as a concept is not even about leadership styles or the ability to do the job well, it is about being able to survive the stereotype threat. AND most often: underperformance is caused by stereotype-based expectations. The article also pointed out the important link between self-identification and one’s career. When women encounter gender-based stereotype threat, they begin to disengage and/or disidentify with entire professions. This leads to the clearly lacking number of women in leadership positions in fields across the board. Society has really created this perfect storm of discouraging female leadership across the board, creating this weight that leads to underperformance and dissociation, and blaming the woman in the end. I did really like the researchers’ approaches for reducing negative effects of stereotype threat, especially  “making employees, and senior leaders in particular, aware of unconscious biases and unwarranted stereotypes that affect their evaluations of others” (Hoyt & Murphy). This should be applied in workplaces but also schools and universities, and also applied to racial stereotypes as well as gender.

The implicit bias test I took was on a topic that I see both sides of. It was an example of: my parents believe concept #1, it is a generational view, something that I grew up with so I understand. Concept #2 is generally more popular with my generation and demographic. I believed that since high school with my evolving views that are my own, separate from my parents, I would hold a slightly stronger preference for concept #2 over concept #1. That was not the case, the test showed that I hold a slight bias for #1. This was not the result I was expecting, this surprised me greatly and got me thinking about the power of the environment we grow up in, the way parents unknowingly mold their children. We never talk about where our beliefs came from, we just firmly state “I believe x,” and then fight about it, I feel like it is a huge loss that we, as a society, don’t take the time to breakdown where our beliefs come from. I feel like this would lead to finding more common ground among people and a stronger self-awareness.

The reading on mindbugs was very interesting to me. I was pulled in when the author was explaining how humans have ingrained habits of thought and how this is actually an evolutional triumph. The first example of a mindbug of the tables was fascinating because even when I was given the correct information that they were equal, tested the claim, saw that it was correct, I still could not see them as the same shape when I pulled the paper shape away!

One of the most interesting parts was when the author talks about Loftus’s study about retroactive interference, or, the misinformation effect. Small changes in the way we ask questions can lead to a change in what is remembered. The author dives into the effects of this on cases of wrongful conviction. This brought me back to a project I did as a freshman in one of my leadership classes where I read and presented on Just Mercy. I think about the retroactive interference mindbug combined with implicit bias based on race and it is mind-boggling how our unconscious thoughts can have such profoundly differing impacts on others. The Chapter “Shades of Truth” was also very interesting to me. The author talks about untruths and the real motivation behind them. Everyone tells these gray lies. I was always under the pretense that it was a social politeness thing, lie to not hurt others, to spare other’s feelings. But the author calls us on that and explains that the lies are motivated by the intention to spare one’s own feelings.  I then realized I had a mindbug that was allowing me to habitually accept my actions and convince myself the motivations behind them were purer than they are! crazy