Dialogue with Dylan

Some lessons learned from dealing with severe acne a few years ago.

Some thoughts on addressing hateful people and evaluating your own hate.

In summary: I believe there is abundant irony and hypocrisy around this conversation of addressing hate. Don't misunderstand me: hate is terrible, particularly groups with the intent of being violent and judging people based on immutable characteristics. But if we want to progress towards a society where we all don't hate each other (which is probably impossible, but at least alleviate the amount of hate), then we must practice what we preach. We can't be hateful to hateful people, then turn around and condemn hate in the same breath. If we treat this selectively, and our own hate is acceptable and justified because it's in pursuit of ending other hate, then we're not being morally consistent. I think there are many examples and wise words from historical figures that suggest we should be defeating hate with the opposite of hate: love. We must include intolerant people if peace is to be achieved in any way. And even if you are feeling vindictive, this approach makes you the more mature person who has their morals in alignment. I could be wrong about this, and certainly don't have all the answers, but it seems like our current practices aren't effective at all. This is just food for thought. Ask yourself, "am I a hateful person?" At first you might impeccably deny that, but upon further consideration, you might be surprised. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this. Be well everyone. 

A message of gratitude and constructive criticism. I'm incredibly thankful for everyone who has dedicated their lives and careers to public health, but I feel as though these conversations we're having about important scientific issues could be more productive.

In summary, I'm frustrated by the sanctimony and reluctance to expose ourselves to new ideas, which I would argue is unscientific. The entire basis of science itself is asking questions. While there are definitely conspiracy theories and misinformation out there, I think the line is being blurred to the point where offering remotely dissenting opinions or alternatives solutions is belittled to the point where those ideas get lumped in with actual conspiracies. Unfortunately, whether we acknowledge it or not, politics and ideology influence science. So it is quite difficult to be objective though many scientists claim to be. We are all biased and must be open minded enough to consider every study out there and leave the door open to the mere possibility that we could be incorrect or proven wrong in the future. Science might be better seen as an ongoing process rather than a goal. I could be completely wrong about this, but at a least I'll admit that. I hope you find this interesting and I wish everyone well.

I feel compelled to speak up about how I think we can improve these conversations being had regarding scientific issues. 

In summary: I'm sincerely grateful to everyone who has dedicated their lives and careers to public health, especially those we have served on the front lines. I just feel frustrated by the sanctimony and reluctance to exposure ourselves to new ideas, which I'd argue is unscientific. The entire basis of science is scrutinizing your hypothesis and asking questions. I believe more progress is to be made if we view science as an ongoing process rather than a goal that we must aspire to achieve. Leave the door open to the mere possibility that what we believe to be true could alter down the road. Not that it will, but could. I'd encourage everyone to be open minded when confronted with those who you believe are unscientific, and acknowledge our biases. Ideology and politics heavily influence science, unfortunately, so claiming to be objective is very difficult. I'm not denying that some claims are more scientific than others or that extreme conspiracies exist, but I think the line is being blurred. I could be wrong, but just thought I'd share. Be well. 

Henry Brechter is the managing editor at AllSides: a news website dedicated to addressing media bias and polarization by curating balanced news and promoting civil conversation. We talked about the mission of AllSides and ways that we can all be responsible news consumers.   

Check out AllSides here: https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news 

Stephanie McCullough is a financial planner at Sofia Financial. We talked about behavioral finance, the purpose and strategies of debt, student loans, independent responsibility vs. government policies, and more. Hope you enjoy it! (Recorded 6/9/21) 

I've been thinking a lot about impartiality, or the lack of it in our discourse. So I thought I'd share my observations and what I believe will help us improve our communication. 

Katie Koestner is an activist against sexual violence and an advocate for student safety and healthy relationships. She appeared on the cover of Time magazine at age 18, has given more than 16,000 speeches at more than 5,000 organizations around the world, has written more than 1,000 publications, and is one of the nation’s most sought-after experts regarding these topics. Hear about her story, her thoughts on the Me Too movement, and more. (Recorded 3/27/21) 

Dr. Ned Ketyer is a retired pediatrician and a member/President-Elect of Phsyicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania (PSRPA) which is a non-profit organization dedicated to public health, environmental, and climate advocacy. In our conversation, we talked about renewable energy, the Green New Deal, how to have an impact, the eventual displacement of workers, and more. (Recorded 3/11/21) 

Dr. John Fea is a Distinguished Professor of American History at Messiah University. In our conversation, we talked about historical parallels, populism, the 1776 Commission vs. the 1619 Project, the removal of statues, the second amendment, religious liberty vs. eliminating discrimination, the electoral college, and more.