The Ego Death

The most painful death is that of the ego. It required me to take stock of who I am and what I believe and make a conscious effort to destroy the fundamental constructs of my mental model about the world.

We form our egos by engaging and interacting with the world around us. We explore new interests and ideas and hold on to whatever works. When we do not get what we want, we take one of two paths. We either kill our ego or we let our ego kill us.

There is no middle ground. It is one or the other.

The Good Fight

The ego killing us describes a situation where we let our previously held judgments about the world dominate our present ones in the face of all evidence and reason.

Successfully killing the ego is when the opposite happens. It’s when we take a step back and reassess the path we’ve chosen to take by looking at the truths we take for granted given the life experiences we have had and deciding to actively update or abolish them.

I’ve tried to pay attention to how I personally deal with this internal battle.

I subconsciously adopt a mental model that resonates with me, and I design my life experiences to be consistent with it. This model may not represent what I truly want or how I really think, but it is the best out of all possible options at any given time.

Much of this is pragmatic. When things are going well, and I am able to feel happiness, then there is no reason to change. When things aren’t going well, it’s time to reassess.

The nasty trick that life plays is that mental models differ from each other in how they manifest into behavioral and thought patterns throughout your life. Some mental models are better for the long term than for the short, others are better for your professional life than for your romantic life, and others are better for your internal growth rather than your external growth.

I used to think that my mental model today needs to be the “right” model. A correct way of processing reality. But this is a harmful way of going about it.

This comes from the realization that your mental model will inevitably change. And so, to think about them as absolute truths or not would undermine your ability to develop. You need to have a mental model, period. You need to have a singular set of beliefs for a given time in order to be able to test it against the evidence that life will present to you even if your model today is inaccurate and wrong. This will allow you to test other ideas and new ways of living.

The most dangerous thing to do is to have no set of beliefs at all because that precludes the possibility of testing and iteration. The second most dangerous thing to do is to hold on to past beliefs because they feel safe. This also precludes the possibility of testing and iteration, but on a smaller timescale since it is always possible to abandon that given set of beliefs for another one.

I would feel emotionally attached to old ways of thinking because they constituted my identity. I used that identity to connect with other people, and create goals, and make decisions. It is then understandable that disrupting my mental model wasn’t a very practical thing to do.

In order to sustain short-term stability, I would try to deny myself space to properly analyze the reasons why I was doing something because that something needed to be done.

Until one day, circumstances force you to take an honest look at what you believe in and wonder whether there is another way, a better way.

Those are the ego deaths that are fundamental to growth.

In fact, I would think that the best advice I could have ever given myself would be to try out competing mental models and see what works best for me.

There is obviously a presupposition here. Namely, that the “right” mental model is not “right” for everyone. You should never be either a democrat or a republican, a liberal or conservative, a believer or an atheist, a pessimist or an optimist, a capitalist or a communist, you should aim to each for a certain time.

There is a wide spectrum of beliefs and ideas that exist. None of them have been proven to be absolutely right or wrong. However, there is a more important truth, and probably the only one that matters, and that is “functional truth”.

In other words, what are the beliefs and ideas that are helping me move closer towards my goals without making feel like shit?

If you were born in a conservative household and you adopted those values as you got older, and you noticed that those very values helped you achieve what you wanted, you will cling to them more, and you will want others to share your beliefs too so that you can validate your experience.

Most people don’t think, they rationalize. We act first and think later. That isn’t to say that most people are stupid. On the contrary. Acting first doesn’t come out of thin air. Our actions are an extension of our publicised and unpublicised ideas about life.

It doesn’t matter whether our ideas are right or wrong because the primary determinant of whether or not we adopt them is functionality. Societal beliefs are one aspect that feeds into our mental models. To live in harmony with other members of a society, we need to sculpt our beliefs to look like theirs as much as possible. If you’re extremely agreeable, then the most likely thing you’ll do is take the average of the positions you are exposed to and claim that the average represents your own philosophy. This is quite useful to establish harmony with those around you but detrimental to your own growth and understanding.

To take a stand against who you used to be, what your society tells you to be, is an arduous task, to say the least. It is akin to dying. Most people are not ready to make that sacrifice.

However, the only way to live a life that is full, respectable, and enjoyable is to be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to allow yourself to move forward, to learn, and to grow.

In order to do that, it will require an element of cynicism and sarcasm. You’ll need to learn to stop taking your thoughts and beliefs about the world so seriously. They are merely tools to help you go through the life, and they can be used as much against you as they can for you.

When we understand the limitations of our understanding, and how little of the bigger picture we actually see and can potentially see in the future, it is futile to hold on to any belief at all. Instead, it is better to try on beliefs and measure progress.

Peel away the layers

It can start like this.

Should I believe that being productive is good or bad?

Well, who knows? Let’s try both. i fet

Okay, looks like not being productive didn’t really lead anywhere great. I felt guilty and that time was passing me by.  Maybe I can try being productive. Hmm, being productive wasn’t all that great and caused a lot of pain and inconvenience but I definitely feel better at the end of the day.

Maybe I should try being more productive than unproductive.

What about this whole religion thing? Is there a God? Isn’t there?

Well, let’s try both. There’s definitely a lot of freedom in not subscribing to a belief system but it sure is depressing to know that there is no overarching purpose to any of this. Maybe it’s best to believe that there is a purpose, and God does exist, but we don’t know what that purpose is, and no religious text is necessarily closer to the truth than I am.

It’s clear where this is going.

However, this isn’t to say that adopting the one that makes the most sense functionally is the end of the journey. It’s only the start.

Take the two topics I talked about above. Productivity and Faith.

Let’s delve into those. We’ve established that productivity is better than no productivity. Now, is there a point where you get too much productivity? If that’s the case, should I be investing so much time into figuring out how to be maximally productive? What happens if I don’t? What happens if I do? Is there something more important I should be figuring out?

What about God? Well, what would happen if I decided to pick up a religious book and took it seriously? Would I be ridiculed for doing that? Would people call me stupid? Do I care?

What’s the worst that could happen if I did that? What’s the best that could happen? Could I discover truths about life that I wouldn’t have discovered otherwise, that would allow me to lead a better quality life?

 

I think people should stop running away from possibilities in the pursuit of stability and consistency. I think stability and consistency are overrated and drastically limit how we experience life. I say go on adventures and test your beliefs and don’t assume that you need to ever know the answers to anything.

I’d love to one day ask people I care about, “what do you believe about this?” and have them respond to me, “I really don’t know, I’m trying this out for now and here’s what I’ve discovered.”

 

Advertisements

How Not to Win Friends and Influence People

The title, a spin on a popular, self-improvement book, is not meant to contradict Carnegie’s work. It touches on a problem I think many of us are facing, however.

There exists a need to be liked. Call it agreeableness. And for many reasons, being agreeable can be very useful in getting what you want in business and relationships. People are obviously more likely to respond to someone who treats them well, rather than someone who doesn’t.

Agreeableness has a dark side though. Insincerely smiling, noding, and acting as if what the other person has to say is important to you, will turn you into a bitter, resentful person. Not being confrontational, open, and honest with others will substitute long-term happiness with short-term gains.

People take your words seriously. If you don’t take the risk of sounding blunt, forward, or even rude, you may inadvertently conceal your true thoughts and feelings. In any relationship, this will build resentment over time.

Being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole is a bad thing. However, being a good person for the sake of being a good person will turn you into an asshole.

Going out of your way to gain the approval of others is not a selfless thing to do. It’s an egoistic thing to do.

Why? Bad motive.

When you are trying to please others, you are usually thinking about yourself. You are thinking about how to best avoid conflict in the present in order to preserve your own feelings of well-being – similar to how a student would lie to his teacher in order to avoid punishment. In another word, hedonism.

There is nothing wrong with hedonism. Everyone should try to think for themselves and figure out what value system (if any) resonates with them. Hedonism is a set of beliefs, or maybe just one, that practically holds for a lot of people. And I would say it’s a deeply ingrained belief. It is not a by-product of the modern economy, it is the cause of it.

People respond naturally to hedonistic values. They intuitively make sense. Why they make sense to us is a different matter. I would suspect that it has something to do with our lizard brain, the ‘happy feeling’ hungry side of us. I will not go into this.

But there is something to be said about honor and truth, concepts that have been discarded from our new world like rotting leftover food. There isn’t much practical use for feeling a sense of duty for anyone or anything. It certainly doesn’t pay in the short run, and may never pay off in the long run. It’s a bad investment.

And yet when you do adopt values such as honor and truth, it feels right. You ‘just’ know you did the right thing whenever you’ve told the truth. It’s something that has constantly fascinated with me over time. Why does self-respect, self-esteem increase when you tell the truth and go down when you don’t?

When we grow up, our opinions are largely shaped by our friends, immediate family members, and society through various forms of media. Not all of these subgroups, or elements within these subgroups have one ideology or system of beliefs. They are usually variable on any level of analysis. Oftentimes, they are self-contradictory beliefs. But no matter, everything will somehow seep its way in and influence us in one way or another.

For this reason, I think it’s important to question the values underpinning our beliefs. We often discover that what we’ve programmed to do, what we’ve been conditioned to do, is often not what we really want to do, and not what we ought to do.

Sacrificing short-term happiness and stability for long-term happiness and integrity might be the best choice we can make. It’s also the most difficult.

 

Manuevering Through Chaos

Chaos has always been something that interested me, The thing with chaos is that everyone experiences it to different degrees, and everyone responds to it in different ways. My concept of chaos is, of course, relative. I used to think that organization was the remedy of chaos. That if you put things in order, you would free up enough focus for more pertinent things. I believed that being less chaotic meant being more laser focused.

That may not be so true. While being more organized does allow for efficiency, there seems to be another dimension that organization cannot solve. Imagine a large circle, compose of an inner solid circle and an outer circle. The inner circle is the first stage of chaos. Combatting it involves having a schedule, understanding what to prioritize and when, and implementing a system that ensures consistency. And don’t get me wrong, that will get you very far. But the outer layer is peripheral chaos.

Peripheral chaos relates to direction. This is the more serious, yet subtle kind of chaos. You are unlikely to suffer from it in the short run as projects will be completed and stakeholders satisfied. However, the general direction you are taking yourself is unclear. Knowing what to aim for is the logical next step. Of course, what you aim for evolves with time. What you aim for today is not the same as what you are going to aim for tomorrow.

You can then, easily make the argument that it is futile to take your aims very seriously. If you were certain they were going to change, then it would be a waste of time to orient your life in a way that seeks to accommodate an ever-changing destination. For one thing, I do not think this is a powerful argument, and I will explain why I think that is the case. However, I do think it is an objection that ought to be taken very seriously and examined further.

The reason why it’s a bad argument is that the alternative is definite chaos. Going back to the inner circle, if you chose to stop planning because plans generally had the proclivity to change, then you’d never accomplish anything. It’s a minimum pre-requisite to achieving what you seek out to achieve. But consider that the most effective plans are those that are able to accommodate change. In other words, flexible daily plans that allow for a little bit of chaos but still end up accomplishing most of what you had planned to do is superior to both having unflexible plans or no plans at all.

The outer circle then should be tackled in the same way. I disagree with having a definite, definable long-term goal. If you can be that granular with what you want, you wouldn’t know what to do once you’ve achieved it. Your long-term goal, as a matter of fact, should be anything but concrete. Instead, it should be as concrete as possible, but no more. It should be more about lifestyles rather than material things, it should be about your physical health rather than that of numbers on a screen, it should be about a state of mind, rather than a state of power.

You do not have full control of your psychological health or even your physical health. And most people have very little control over the way they live day to day. Those are real challenges, and clearly, the most worthwhile, because absent any of them,  the importance of any other superficial accomplishment would pale in comparison. And yet, most of the focus we have are geared towards achieving things that are farther out of our control, and that, even if we achieve them, will not satisfy our deepest urges.

This, of course, runs counter to the “success” literature that advises people to set fixed goals. I believe this is akin to having fixed daily schedules. It is routinely violated, and incompatible with everyday life.

Similarly, to find the right balance in maneuvering through chaos, I think we should consult ourselves over an extended period of time. If you were asked to articulate your long-term vision today, it would be different from what you wanted 6 months ago, and certainly different from what you will want 6 months from now.

There are obvious reasons of course why that is the case. Your location will drastically have an effect, so will the people you interact with on a daily basis, what you expose yourself to, and how you live. Any change to any of these would expectedly change your general outlook on life.

To constantly beg the question across time, and attempt to coherently articulate it, is critical. You will recognize with time, what the constants are. You will recognize what the variables are. The outer layer of the circle of chaos will become a little more transparent. Beneath it, truths will begin to emerge. Not all truths, of course, because there is a lot more chaos than there are truths. And there is definitely more chaos than there is your personal energy to combat the chaos itself.

But some kind of truth, even if low in resolution, will contribute to learning about higher resolution truths. The only danger to this project emerges when you start to question the notion of truth itself.

 

The Geopolitics of Man

Nation states, of course, do not form purposeless alliances. The purpose, itself, can be characterized as the will to survive, or the will to gain power, wealth, and control. It should not be a surprise for us to know that politics is driven by fear and greed. Man is driven by fear and greed. Why should politicians behave any differently? Are they immune to their own nature?

Most fascinating, however, is when the consequences of being greedy and fearful appear on the global stage, in front of the eyes of the world. We all harness those sentiments internally.  The news headlines that characterize how politicians are currently behaving reflect our most intimate inclinations on a mass scale. That’s what is so captivating about it. In the same way that sexual or violent content immediately grabs our attention, so does fear and greed. We understand these things non-verbally. In fact, our understanding of them can be seen as we act them out in our daily lives.

Interestingly, there have been campaigns in the past to outlaw or severely limit any adult content that contains violence or sex. Is it not interesting, then, that there has never been an effort to combat fear and greed? The latter two sentiments can be just as destructive to the human psyche, but the packaging makes all the difference. When you watch the news, you think you are ‘learning’ about the world, are becoming a more informed citizen. Afterall, it should be one’s duty at the end of the day. The worst part is that watching it makes you feel like you have a part of it. It creates the illusion of agency in many, and the idea of ignoring the politics and the fear and the greed diminishes from their sense of agency. And yet, it is not a stretch to stipulate that the avid political follower is no more or less powerful than the carefree citizen who pays no attention to such affairs and does not intend to either.

This brings us to a fundamental point. Politics is entertainment. Watching a political story unfold, understanding the details of the shameful, scandalous acts (Fear) and the triumphs, deals, and victories (Greed) creates quite a powerful narrative. The narrative is this. There is a game being played. This game is bigger than you. It has many players, and the mechanics and dynamics of this game are infinitely complex. Every now and then, you will get an insight into a story, where you can now rearrange the parts and suddenly a new story emerges. Now you are an active investigator. You begin to find more clues. You think you’re clever, so instead of getting your information from one source, you get it from CNN, RT and everything in between. You then take your findings and start to build your arguments while you debate with friends, taxi drivers, and strangers. I specifically mentioned the “while” here to make a point. Most people do not deliberate over politics when they are alone, being thoughtful and quiet. People have conversations with others about politics and share information with each other. Once a position has been assumed, the other will assume a counter position by trying to look for evidence in a narrow, inaccurate, limited mental library of news stories and ‘facts’ that he has encountered over the past few weeks across a number of news channels.

This brings us to another important point. The news is not real knowledge. First, there is very little you can know from politicians themselves. They are, by virtue of being a public figure whose role it is to cajole, deceive, and manipulate, untrustworthy. This is not a blanket statement either. It is very difficult to imagine anyone who can maintain credibility when thrown into the political game. It is also important to remember that there is a reason for all of this. Sometimes, it is to maintain national stability and prevent any threats to the economy. Sometimes, politicians behave responsibly by deceiving the people. It is perfectly conceivable for a parent to protect their children by doing the same.  The more important point, however, is to notice that many news channels are not motivated by informing the public, but rather, by getting higher ratings. There is an inherent flaw in the incentive structure that exists. There is no reason to even dig deeper into why it is dangerous to have a system that rewards news that gets the most eyeballs, not the news that is the most accurate or informative.

 

 

 

Knowledge Gaps – The Problem with Voting

7175209698_cb9fe3bc8b_b

In a friendly conversation with a stranger at a bar, it occurred to me that there is something fundamentally flawed with the way we perceive the world and how we react to our perceptions. The man, quite talkative with a thick Eastern European accent decided to discuss political affairs and some of the happenings around the world. In one of the subjects, he displayed an unusual sense of understanding of the region in question. He couldn’t properly identify which capital cities belonged to which countries, or what exactly was happening beyond what is apparent on the face of it.

It got me thinking about how all people are likely to have a similar sense of knowledge where they have different amounts of knowledge pertaining to different subjects. The idea intrigued me because I immediately thought of the process of polling, and elections, and they are fundamentally based on the idea that every person, above a certain age, belonging to a particular nationality, is allowed an equal vote like everyone else that shares those criteria that required no skill, effort, or intelligence. This imperfection of democracy is, of course, not a novel idea.

Churchill famously remarked, “The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.”

There is, of course, political incorrectness involved in this idea. It implies that a certain amount of knowledge is required to make democracy something really worthwhile. It persuaded me to think of examples where either a double standard exists in our society that would overrule the political incorrectness of this idea.

Society is built upon the general principle that most high paying vocations can only be reached through passing certain criteria such as standardized tests or earning academic qualifications from a university. Job competency then is directly measured by the amount of knowledge and/or intelligence a person possesses. But if people need to be qualified in order to work, then why don’t they need to be qualified in order to vote.

In market research where companies compile data about consumer tastes and preferences, and use it to create a more suitable product, the ‘voter’ or person surveyed is not required to tick any boxes when it comes to qualifications. They just need to have a residence, access to the internet, and a general preference for things over others. It’s quite interesting to me that the process of voting has more or less the same criteria. Both forms of voting do not require any qualifications or proof of knowledge.

This seems to suggest that a presidential candidate is not elected on the basis of being competent. I say this because many people, even those who are educated, do not have the sufficient political, economical, or social knowledge to make an informed choice about who they think should lead their country. In the case of market research, the product is catered to be suitable for what most people want. The product is consumed within these groups of people, and a continual process of feedback would be taking place after that.

In the case of politics and presidential elections, the newly elected president is the product. However, in this case, the product has the ability to affect society, the economy, healthcare, and even other sovereign nations. It seems to me a little absurd that almost anyone can be part of these significant decisions.

If I hired a plumber to fix my sink, I would be sure to take note of his qualifications. I would also do the same for my mechanic, teacher, taxi driver, pilot, or anyone who is required to complete a job with any kind of competence at all. It would seem to follow that when it comes to deciding who the leader of my country is, I should want people with some kind of competency to decide.

The underlying insinuation from all of this is that the accessibility to the amount of power highlighted above is very odd. Of course, if asked about what a possible solution to this is, the immediate answer would be to test the competency of the voters in terms of political, historical, and social knowledge. Only those who have displayed adequate, relevant knowledge would be allowed to vote. In the same way a prospective drivers, job applicants, sports athletes, and police officers need to display competency in their domains, so should a prospective voter.

The fact that the situation as it is now is not like that seems to undermine the seriousness of voting and the actual impact it could have. It might indeed suggest that the process of voting is a meaningless exercise altogether.

As it was wonderfully put in the excellent 2001 movie, “Waking Life”, “You want the puppet on the right, or the puppet on the left?

The Two Tragedies in Life

tragedy

“There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.” Oscar Wilde

The reason I love this quote is because of how gently, poignantly, and cynically it depicts life as an inevitable tragedy. However,  a few things came to my attention when looking more closely at it. Wilde obviously did not mean this quote as an irrefutable philosophy, it was meant to be a provocative poetic expression that is both witty and informative. It does, however, raise an interesting philosophical point about the meanings we place on our goals, and that is what I’ll discuss.


The obvious deduction one would have from the quote is that Wilde is implying that achieving goals is a tragedy, because one loses his purpose, ambition, and desire. And of course, that is the ultimate tragedy. The other obvious implication is that not achieving your goal is another tragedy for you have failed at what you’ve set out to accomplish. The final deduction is that life is by definition a tragedy. No matter what you do, you will always be unhappy.

Achieving your goal and not achieving it are both equally tragic and painful. One way to get around this is not have ambition. Since ambition inhibits goal seeking, it also prevents failure. To not have a goal, however, ought to have been considered the third tragedy in life, and most people would agree that this isn’t a viable solution; albeit a much practiced one.

As Ted Danson once said as Dr. John Becker“You see… no expectations, no disappointments.”

There was an interesting observation made by a comedian. I cannot remember who it was. The idea was that in sports, sprinting for example, the third and fourth placed finishers often finish the race fractions of a second away from first, and these are people who have spent months training intensely for this race. It’s interesting how we place so much emphasis on achievement, on being the very best, when what separates the very best from his competitors in many fields in life are often fractions of a unit.

In many people’s lives, a single moment of good or bad fortune could decide whether or not they are remembered as successful, whether they consider themselves as being successful. There are professionals who work their entire lives to become recognized and valued, some do eventually, some do very early, but the vast majority don’t at all. Not because they didn’t have the talent, or they didn’t work hard enough, but because the line between failure and success was that thin.

To relate this to the Oscar Wilde quote, I would add that it’s infinitely more tragic to have ambitions that are aimed at finishing first in a race. Most people who do, necessarily fail. The first part of the quote that related achievement to failure I think is very interesting. There are many people who, after having achieved what they had worked so hard for, they find themselves without a purpose, desire, or reason to live. Many professions inherently breed this kind of mentality. The most obvious is sports. Once a professional athlete is forced to retire, they often report feelings of depression.  Boxing legend Sugar Ray Leonard famously quoted, “Nothing could satisfy me outside the ring… there is nothing in life that can compare to becoming a world champion, having your hand raised in that moment of glory, with thousands, millions of people cheering you on.” 

Of course, many professionals feel relief after retirement. Some retired workers choose to finally go on that vacation they always wanted but never had time for, to spend more time on their hobbies, but there are many others who feel there simply is no value outside of their work, outside of what they’re so good at doing. I think to avoid the first of the tragedies Wilde expresses is to do one of two things.

Either work in a profession that has no expiry date, something that you will always be able to do for the rest of your life. Or find a hobby that will always be with you, something you can always improve in, something that is not trendy, but permanent, not social but personal, and not physical but mental.

By doing so, you cannot be doomed because you don’t have to value your life according to achievement or non-achievement in one particular field that has an expiry date, only those who have trapped themselves in this philosophy are doomed to fail no matter what. If what you do is all you have, and all you ever will have, but will inevitably end one day, then so with it will your ambition, life meaning, and self-affirmation. References: http://www.thesportinmind.com/articles/life-after-sport-depression-in-retired-athletes/

The Lonely Race to Nowhere

race

One of the most alarming and unsettling trademarks of today’s society seems to be the universal urge to be involved in some kind of race. People race to get an education, to make money, to get into relationships, to get a job, and to find happiness. Oftentimes, they end up with an education they never even wanted, money that made them more miserable, relationships that they never really wanted to get into, and jobs they hate doing. Most tragically of all, they almost never achieve happiness.

I think the main problem with this ‘racing’ approach, is how easily it tends to get mischaracterized with efficiency. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with efficiency as long as it is geared towards the right objectives and goals, but when it isn’t, there’s nothing more dangerous and damaging. Efficiency, like many other things in life, can effectively blind us. It can make us believe that our purpose is to get to a location, a vision, and downplays the importance of reflecting on why we should want to go to this location in the first place.

In general, the main culprits seem to stem from social pressures including family and friends, as well as media based ideals that advertise quick success, and immediate happiness. Many of the most popular shows on TV idealize those who achieved their dreams when they were young, and try to encourage you to do the same. I can’t think of any that promote introspection and careful thought. But regardless of what these external factors may be, the fact that we can choose to ignore them means that we ought to.

This cultural promotion, I think, gives birth to insecurity, anxiety, and feelings of inadequacy and failure. For every success story, of course, there are a countless number of failures, and what happens when we only see success stories being advertised to us on a regular basis is the illusion that most people succeed.

Of course, this isn’t to say that one shouldn’t strive for success, that is the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m making the point, that to be successful, it’s essential to understand the reasons for why you are doing what you’re doing before you design the most efficient ways of doing them.

I think people can only be more successful if they truly believe in what they’re trying to accomplish. A lot of us seem to be driven to go somewhere, trying to get there as fast as we can, and what I find bizarre in these cases is that, oftentimes, the destination has nothing to do with what we really want. Many have gambled away their finances and health, their psychological well being, happiness, and compromised their relationships with family and friends to try to get to where they want to be, which paradoxically, are all of the things that they have gambled away.

Many people look for shortcuts because they believe that if they can do it faster than everyone else, then they’ll be the last ones laughing, that the joke will be on everyone else. The reality is quite different.  Trying to find such shortcuts ends up consuming most of your life.

Asking ‘why’ instead of ‘how’, being unrealistically optimistic about the things we really love instead of the things we think we should love, prioritizing the things that matter to us now instead of the things that we think will matter to us in the future, doubting everything instead of believing everything, listening to ourselves more than listening to others, are some of paradigm shift that I think need to happen.

Another problem is society’s condemnation of indecisiveness. I find that to be one of the most puzzling features of our time. Indecisiveness, of course, can be harmful if it was about things that don’t really matter. What to pick on a menu, what to get from the supermarket, which movie to watch, and what color socks to wear. These things are harmful because they take up too much time, and they won’t yield an amount of value that would make the time you spent deciding on them worthwhile.

But when it comes to deciding what you want to be in life, what you want to get out of it, and who you want to be with, and why, then surely, if there was ever a good reason to waste time, it’s to reflect on and ponder these questions as much as we feel is appropriate.