Even if people are kind and generous in one context, it does not necessarily translate to every situation. This is known as 'moral self-licensing', where individuals who behave in a moral way in one situation can later display behaviours that are inconsistent in another. Past good deeds can liberate individuals to engage in behaviours that are immoral, unethical, or otherwise problematic; behaviours that they would otherwise avoid for fear of feeling or appearing immoral. Someone who volunteers to help at their church fundraiser to help the poor may later decide not to donate to another charity. When asked to write either about their positive or negative moral traits, those that describe themselves as more generous donate less to a charity, whereas those who reflect on how bad they are, donate more.

When judgment is passed by the people who surround us, it is imprinted in our minds - the neurons in our brains do their work, establishing connections even when the tiniest of data is entered through our senses. If it is an isolated judgment, or is passed by a person outside our immediate circle, the trace it leaves is pale and weak and would not affect our overall behavior now, or in the future. But if it comes repeatedly from someone we are close to, and is confirmed by others as well, it would be deeply imprinted in our minds and would become a label. Whether a label would turn into a belief or not depends mostly on time - on how long we have been subjected to its influence - its emotional charge that affects us, and our resistance to it. Believe it or not, under the influence of labels attached to us, which have become a part of our idea of who we are, we form the qualities of our character, and they in turn, determine the success or failure of all our endeavors.

The theory of evolution is attributed to Charles Darwin, but it was not Darwin who initiated the study of evolution. King Solomon stated, "There is nothing new under the sun," a philosophical statement alluding to the observation that the world is in a constant state of flux. At any given time, we see the current situation around us, but we also follow changes that take place in our lifetime, and we are aware of changes occurring over periods of time that we are unable to observe directly. The evidence regarding changes that took place in the past often enables us to infer what caused those changes. That applies both to the physical world, such as rocks, flora and fauna, and to society, including modes of behavior, fashion, literature, medical practices, and technology. The changes take place according to their own mechanism. Sometimes it is clear to us what survives, what is modified, and what becomes extinct, but it is not always easy to identify the mechanism.

The liar doesn't want to own his words. When a person is making a truthful statement, he emphasizes the pronouns, I, we, and us as much as or more than the rest of the sentence. Instead of saying, "Yes, I am," a person who is lying may respond with a simple yes. In this view, it is not surprising that computers are better at detecting lies than us. It analyzes text, looking for a pattern of objectively-observed predictors of deception. A computer can quickly examine text to look for an abnormally low number of first-person pronouns. While humans can be deceived by a number of visual stimuli, computers detect only the given cues, which can be relied on as truthful. Many studies show that our ability to distinguish truth from fiction is no better than chance, because we rely on our subconscious mind, so called 'gut feelings.'

We so want to be lovely that we can sometimes convince ourselves that we really did do what our friends think we did and that we really did have the right motives that they attribute to us. A boss can fool herself into thinking her jokes have gotten funnier when she became the boss; I can easily come to believe my class really is fabulous even after the exam is graded and the students are quiet, and my friend at the foundation handing out millions of dollars in grants can really believe that his control of the budget has nothing to do with why people keep asking if he has lost weight. ("You look fabulous!") Strategic flattery can succeed because we want to believe the compliments we receive are real. Once you realize the importance people place on being loved and lovely, you become a little better at detecting strategic flattery. And you're less likely, perhaps, to indulge in it yourself.

Science is a web of interlinking theories containing observations, explanations, models, and hypotheses, some highly confirmed, some more tentative. It is not possible to introduce a new idea in science that would not have dependency relationships of various sorts with the existing body of scientific knowledge. Part of what it means to be trained in science is to acquire an understanding of one's specialized area of this web. This involves developing a good sense of where the open questions are, what parts are most secure, and what parts might be open to refinement, revision, or even rejection. Developing good judgment about these interconnections, and the weight of evidence for each, allows one to assess the prior probability of a claim, whether it be ordinary or revolutionary, and so adjust one's degree of skepticism accordingly.

Children are all too ready to try to please their parents, and so they do try hard. As a consequence, they are often precociously able and responsible. But that power is built on a foundation of inner powerlessness to obtain the love and care they themselves need to grow up. They then bring that 'powerless-power' into adult life. They are on the unconscious lookout for another chance to use it, to achieve in adult life what they could never achieve in childhood. That is why people persist for many years, sometimes for a whole lifetime, in trying to please someone who is not capable of being pleased. Or in trying to obtain love from somebody who is unwilling or incapable of giving it. Or in trying to 'save' somebody who is determined not to be saved.

Traditionally, we've viewed cancer as the body's dragon; it has no redeeming value whatsoever. But more recently, we've learned that it can be a teacher, too. Any doctor who studies, researches, and treats cancer gets an up-close look at how the body is supposed to work and how it responds when it doesn't. That's one of the great hopes of doctors: to find the mechanisms that kill cancer cells, or prevent them from growing in the first place. To us, that's one of the most important reasons why we should learn about cancer. By learning a little about the wonders of the human body and what happens when your body malfunctions, you can learn better ways to make it work better. Actually, cancer doesn't always kill. But you can give yourself a hand with smart prevention strategies and early detection.

One effect of Thomas Kuhn's influential historical and philosophical research on the structure of scientific revolutions is that scientists love the idea of being involved in a paradigm shift. Scientists, therefore, feel a mixture of frustration and excitement if an experiment, or some new observation, goes against expectations. While the most likely explanation is that one made a mistake in a procedure or calculation, there is always the chance that it represents an opening through which new light will be shown. A general skeptical attitude allows one to be open to this possibility. This is not to say that one must be perpetually open-minded for, as the philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed out, that would be a mind that is vacant. However, scientists need to be ready to question even long-held assumptions in the field if the evidence begins to go against them. One should develop the habits of mind that allow for a properly balanced and calibrated judgment.