An Educational Miss

Click here to get more!

If kids can vote at 18 and everyone thinks they should vote then why is there essentially no formal education related to political philosophy? They should also be practiced in evaluating candidates and understanding the process and its consequences.

There seems to be a gap between whose role it is to teach life skills and job skills. Formal education was originally a supplemental experience that would prepare one with a means to know how to do something valuable. Something that would ensure they get a skill-based job. I'm sure that it all originated with apprenticeships and other on the job training and then, in time, turned into more and more of an institutionally based endeavor. Education, it seems, has become bastardized by laziness, bureaucracy,  and politics. (Yet another example of how the government corrupts a good idea.)

More and more people started sending their children to school. This allowed them to get a head start on reading, writing, and math, which was becoming more and more of a necessity in industrialized nations. As occupations went away from farming, parents spent less and less time at home and needed somewhere for their children to be during the day. Soon, and with the help of the efficiency born of the factory, schools started taking up more and more of the role that parents once held.

Life skills were traditionally taught by parents by both modeling and direct teaching. Parents would teach their children about household duties, sex, religion, politics, and all the things that are involved in navigating once's culture. It was the role of the parent to truly prepare their children for the outside world and it was the role of the school to prepare their mind for fundamental cognitive abilities that would become financially viable.

Throughout much of American history, mothers stayed home and took care of household maintenance and fathers went off to work somewhere for most of the day. As women started joining the workforce and the government decreased the value of money through inflation in an effort to increase tax revenue children became more and more neglected. Now we have a situation where the vast majority of citizens live in the working class, which means that they typically need a two household income in order to pay bills. This means that there is less time to teach their children life skills and with schools teaching nearly everything under the sun, parents don't know what their children are missing. Also, because they were never formally taught modern life skills they assume that their children will learn as they did, just by doing it.

I think that we would all be better off defining the roles of both parents and educational systems. I think that the government's "free" schools should either provide life skills or not. If they are going to take on the role of educating the youth to create effective, successful and productive adults then they should teach the things necessary to accomplish this. This includes teaching skills such as sex education, finances, political philosophy, cooking, health, computers, typing, etc. If this was the case then this would be on the top of the goals list of teaching children job skills as well, such as math, science, geography, English and the like. This is a lot of work for the government and it seems that they are already in charge of much of this and yet don't seem to have a clear goal in mind. If you are going to take on the task of educating the future entirely then you should do it well.

If the government is not the right choice for the job of educating children in life skills then it would fall to either the parents or a private agency such as a private school. The nuclear family seems to be falling apart and one thing that is helpful about the nuclear family is it relieves the parents of some of the burden and allows for a more stable, nurturing and ultimately healthy environment for the development of a child's capacities. As single-parent households rise parents are more stressed, less attentive and more absent in their children's lives, leaving less room to teach life skills. Also, because the parent is struggling it does not provide a hopeful example for the child either. Why would a child listen to the advice of someone who is barely making it? They won't. They will go somewhere else.

Where do children go to learn life skills? Now, it's the internet. If they want to learn about sex they look it up online. Not just porn but articles about how to be in relationships. Or they just watch porn. Only the more intelligent look deeply into their own potential and seek out experts. Many just do as others do and will end up just like their parents even though they despise them. They look to celebrities and emulate their personalities in a naive attempt to become someone important instead of becoming themselves.

The world is becoming more and more complicated and young people have more possibilities ahead of them than ever. Even if parents take the time to teach their children they are most likely unaware of the current considerations that young people should be made aware of. Every year there are new technologies, industries, laws, and cultural mores that parents can't keep up with and therefore cannot educate their children in a way that will be relevant for them in the future. The government takes so long to update their curriculum and continually changes their standards that they cannot educate the youth in a way that prepares them for our complex and rapidly changing world. It makes sense that so many young adults (and many not so young adults) find themselves scrambling to understand the world that they are thrust into when they turn 18.

Waiting for people to "figure it out" on their own is terribly inefficient and wastes so much potential. Well before someone graduates, they should be immersed in the real economic world. Diverse and extensive job experiences before the age of 18 would help transition the young into the world that they are already a part of but are separated from partly out of necessity and partly out of fear. People learn from doing and so if you want people to understand the world they must experience it. For children, this is facilitated by adults and for teens, mentors can help transition them into the world. If parents don't take the time to mentor and educate their children then there will exist a gap between the real world and the insulated world of children. On the other hand, some children are thrust into the real world too early and are forced to engage in adult activities before they understand them.

Maybe companies like Youtube, Kahn Academy, Udemy and others will bridge the gap that exists but children don't know what they don't know and if they don't actively engage in educating themselves then they will go through the growing pains that most of us deal with when we have to fend for ourselves. While people make due and some will be very successful and some will fail miserably with the majority somewhere in between the world could be improved by taking education more seriously, not for the sake of the state but for the sake of humanity and freedom.

Online Ethics: Some Thoughts

Sign up to get notified when I post a new blog and other updates!

What considerations should be examined when looking at business ethics on social media?
Is it ok to promote yourself through multiple accounts? Why not just create thousands of accounts and follow yourself? 

Is it ok to compile other people's articles just to get views?

Is it ok to pretend to be someone else or create bots that pretend to be something else?

Is it ok to friend everyone on Facebook and then spam them with ads or emails? Linkedin?

In an age where attention is currency what behavior/s should be shunned or prohibited from being exhibited? 

Nudity? Violence? Or should it all be allowed in the name of transparency, freedom, and entertainment?

Is it all ok if it's on the internet? Is it even real? 

Or is it a reflection of the culture at large? The internet acts as a metric for human activity and thought. It also facilitates human activity and thought. It is a feedback look that can internally track and analyze its own variables as long as someone programs it to do so. If the internet is merely information we can treat its content as we do any piece of information:

1. Attempt to understand it.

2. Asses its importance. 

3. Asses its validity.

4. Accept, deny or remain agnostic. 

Roughly speaking we should be skeptical of anything online including the motivations, authenticity, and context of any content produced. This is why reputation and trust are so important to establish online. If you want people to trust you-you need to have integrity online just as in real life (Probably because the internet is real and the activities existing on it are real). Since your online reputation is an extension of your offline reputation you should take it seriously. 

But with the internet, it is easy enough to hide behind an online persona so you may be able to shield your offline persona from any damage you desire to cause.  I can't imagine it is likely that any good can come from the purely anonymous online threat, lie or shaming that comes from those protecting themselves with fake accounts. But just because I think it is repugnant what is the line at which force must be taken?

What do you think? 

You're Not In Control

The modern world is full of communication channels and with everyone expressing their opinions it seems that everyone knows best. Along with their criticisms comes their prescriptions for others. So much of the internet is just people telling other people how to think, how to live and how to vote and I find it to be overwhelming pretentious, self-righteous and annoying.

I'm not sure why everyone wants to control everyone else. Ok, that's not true. I get that everyone is power hungry but why are they so confident? They speak with such certainty and aggression it is as if they think that if everyone just did as they said the world would be perfect. This sounds like an overbearing parent to me. Maybe those who demand subjugation are reenacting their perception of moral nurturing. In demanding others adhere to their ethical framework they are telling others they care and want the world to be better but since their only model for teaching such methods is through demands they bark orders instead of negotiating toward a solution.

This applies more obviously to those that lobby the state to enact their brand of justice. Many hold the government as the ultimate in paternal enforcement and moral justice and it is reasonable to think this way as the government does have the power to take, punish and demand but for those that do not accept that these means are justified, the government is merely a group of control freaks trying to tell us what to do. What is curious is how everyone seems to think that they are in control of others and while many comply with the will of others it is not because the demander is in control.

I think we are only as free as our ability to choose but we are not infinitely free. Nor are we infinitely oppressed. We long for freedom and find those that impede it an enemy. It seems that given enough time humans tend to rebel and fight oppression. I suppose that those that wish to fight the power structure require the means to fight and the alternative has to be worse than fighting so some choose comfort and stability over revolt. This seems true in North Korea, although I am not sure if a significant proportion of their population actually believes they are being oppressed. They might be brainwashed into thinking they are free or at least protected, loved or otherwise part of a meaningful group.

But if the people of North Korea decided to band together and fight their "Great Leader", Kim Jong Un would find that he is not in control anymore. And if someone from inside his own party decided to assassinate him he would find that he is not in control. If he were to get cancer and die he would find that he is not in control. We are not in control of much it seems.

We humans can barely take credit for controlling ourselves but somehow so many think they deserve to control others. We should not be so quick to offer our cure for the world's troubles. Instead, we should focus on our immediate environment, make that better and then work outward. This does not mean we should not act to help others or create change but it does mean we should not be attempting to control others through megalomaniacal demands, force, or shame. We should be humble and honest about our lack of understanding about humanity and about what is best.

I would prefer to think of the Freedom From perspective. This means that I want to be free from others' oppression and impediments. Freedom of association and participation means not being forced to be on someone's team or contribute to someone else's notion of morality. Freedom from laws that force me to go against my beliefs about what is right and wrong. It also means taking responsibility to deal with the consequences of my associations and actions that affect others. I don't believe we should be seeking Freedoms To do whatever it is we want or make others act in a way we want.

I realize that I am prescribing what people "should" do in this while criticising those who do the same but I think that what I want to do is highlight the difference between trying to influence thought and trying to control behavior. Those who try the quick route of influence via force and coercion are adding tyranny to the world while those that use words and ideas to influence are introducing alternatives that can be disregarded or adopted based on its value and accuracy.

A sentence about free will.

My consciousness is my rudder and my will is my strength to guide myself to a better tomorrow.

My Thoughts On: Free Will Revisited: A Conversation with Daniel Dennett

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFa7vFkVy4g


After listening to the conversation between Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris about free will was instructive and scintillating and I can not contain my thoughts and must put them down. I would like to offer a thought on a potential mechanism that acts as the bridge between determinism and free will.

During the conversation, you addressed the divergence in talking points which was an important distinction to make. There is a practical side to the implications of a free will concept on society and justice systems and then there is a scientific and physical reality to the mechanisms that influence and govern physical phenomenon. Dennett didn't seem to be convinced of the "all the way down" argument and instead talked about specific cases where behavior and randomness effects how we talk about and hold people responsible. While you both agreed that people have some control it wasn't clear from either person where this comes from or how it works.

I do not believe that free will is some kind of complete control over my thoughts and actions. I can see why people subjectively think this is the case when they observe themselves acting in a way they intended or taking credit for actions that turn out favorable. I think that free will is a skill that must be fostered and exercised and that most people are on the less than free side of the spectrum of potential free will. Now if authorship exists and free will can be attained I believe it is through the mechanism of observation and conscious conditioning. A kind of top-down feedback system that is where agency and free will come into play.

If all actions come from the bottom up then there doesn't seem to be an agent doing anything. It seems that people offer a special case where the conscious observer can take actions to affect subconscious processing. For example, breathing is automatic but if one were so inclined they can consciously control their breathing and effect their physiology. This requires observation and conscious effort and certainly involves an agent. One can permanently change their automatic responses by training their subconscious. One example occurs with immersion therapy for people with phobias.

Asshole Ideologies

Some causes are worth fighting and dying for, but some causes are merely justifications for assholes to group together to enact their hatred on others. They resent humanity, life and their own lack of worth so they project their insecurities and malice outward to those their cause deems evil. And in the name of slaying the "evil" they become evil. Their misguided morality leads them to cause chaos and harm to the innocent and guilty alike. They're not guided by reasonable moral principles but instead they lash out at their enemies whom they have labeled their enemy based on superficial reasons. They hate those that do not share their race, gender, political affiliation, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation and boil all of ethics into an use vs them race to the grave.

As the violence escalates and ideologies clash it is up to individuals to decide whether or not they will be an asshole today. What's an asshole you ask?

Assholes wear masks because they do not want to be responsible for their actions. Assholes go to pick a fight when the other person clearly doesn't want one. Assholes blow up civilians because they know that if they were to enact their irrational war on their true enemy they would lose in a second. Assholes shoot drive cars into crowds hoping to hurt and kill people with signs. Assholes go around hating on people instead of building them up or ignoring them. Assholes don't negotiate. Assholes sign away lives in wars for selfish and psychotic reasons. Assholes sign laws into place for the sake of votes alone, neglecting philosophical principles and decency.

Assholes steal your stereo face plate but leave the stereo. You stupid mother fuckers!

Ideologies that include justifications for violence based on superficial features are problematic for anyone interested in peace.

What if all the sentences for criminals were voted on by large numbers of people online? After a trial takes place and someone is found guilty, the public is given a set of choices for sentencing and the outcome is determined by a mix of public vote and judge consensus. Certified judges would get paid to listen in on the trials and determine whether or not the public came to an acceptable decision. If the public were to write-in a sentence that was outrageous then the judges would reject the decision and it would go up again or be put to a smaller judgement pool of deciders. I think the American public would eat this idea up in a second.

That last paragraph aside I wonder how I would instill my value system in others if I could. How would I justify my moral presuppositions? How would I convince someone that they are wrong when they believe so passionately that what they are doing is right. So much so that they are willing to kill and/or die to prove it? I do know that it is impossible to have the kinds of conversations that lead humans toward more peace when you are being bombed, poisoned, bashed, stabbed, gassed or otherwise threatened by someone else's ideological battle ax.

Maybe I just haven't seen enough strife or misery in my life to feel the need for the hopeful embrace of ideological warfare but I think that part of what has lead to more and more people living lives free from violence comes from sticking to universal moral principles such as respect for property rights which includes bodily rights. It's not that you punish someone for breaking laws but that you protect those worth protecting from those that would take their property, life or general freedom.

Thoughts on Postmodernism

If Postmodernism can be characterized as a philosophy predicated on the denial of logic, science and reason, then by what standard do they substantiate their claims?

Without a standard measurement tool to judge the validity of a claim all claims are valid, therefore, in order to decide which claim should be followed one must rely on some form of scheme or model that becomes a mechanism to reach an ideal outcome.

There have been no better tools for exacting change in the world than those of the logical and scientific kind.

Why should I believe that logic, debate, math, science and capitalism are only tools of "the oppressor" without appealing to some attempt at a logical argument?

You can't just say that it is true because you say it's true. Then anything anyone said could be true. "That's a rock," one could say. "That's a tree," another might say. But if they are both pointing at the same thing and have distinct definitions of the words rock and tree, then both cannot be true. If there is any kind of truth it would be one that helped people navigate the differences between a rock and a tree.

The degree to which two people can communicate honesty and accurately is related to the degree to which they agree on the definitions of the words they use. In other words, the less agreement in definitions the more communication breaks down, and without rational discourse the only options left are fight, flight or submit.

If one person defines freedom as freedom to forcing others to act and another person defines freedom as the freedom from other people's actions and another defines freedom as freedom to act then a discussion on freedom between these people will most likely become contentious. Especially because they all prescribe their own boundaries of the others' precious freedoms.

In order to persuade others, in a world where the value of intelligence is increasing, you would be advised to utilize the tools of the intelligent.

A reason that Postmodern believers are achieving so much at certain Universities, in that they are achieving violence, suppression, destruction, etc., is because that type of behavior is strictly prohibited in the normal world outside certain Universities. The Universities that allow for mayhem to occur on their campuses are not setting a good example to their students about how the real world works.

In the real, working world, you don't get to foist your opinions on others by way of force. In order to succeed in a free market economy you have to get along and cooperate with others. If you want to use force then you will be met with force and if you break the law you will be met with an unbalanced return of force in order to swiftly punish those that cause violence.

If a Postmodernist were to propose laws that infringe on other's freedoms then they will be making the claim that their laws are just and lead to some ideal outcome. Luckily there is a mechanism for determining how strong this statement is. Unluckily though, the mechanism is logic, reason, science, debate and all the things Postmodernists believe are only tools of the oppressors.

Isn't someone who is currently oppressing others' freedoms, such as the freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom from violence, a tool of the oppressor?

If you want to fight oppression then at least fight the real oppressor, the government, not fellow citizens trying to pay their rent and shit. Taxes, unjust acts, wrongful imprisonment, corruption, etc., all all products of the governments around the world. What mechanism is in place to squelch these indiscretions in the government? At least in capitalism one can opt out of supporting a business regime they find destructive and immoral.

If words can oppress then any words a Postmodernist says can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion.

30 Days of Fiction: 7

That morning the silence was wearing on me so as to become an incessant distraction. It stalked me in the bathroom as I brushed my teeth with the new Multi-Morning Brush and Comb, in the shower with it's low-flow hyper-efficient technology, at the sink, with it's patent pending vibration ending metal and faucet and in the dead silence the electric car produced on the way to work. There were no longer sirens or car horns. Music was only allowed in ear and only at a low level set by the government and only approved music deemed acceptable for the public was allow. Even if I wanted to listen to what passed as music now I wouldn't since it was all just the same slow beat accompanied by a whining overtone of boredom.

At work everyone sat in individual cubuals where they typed using Anti-Clacking keyboards and only looked up from their screens to see what time it was. The massive clock on the wall was the only thing in the room that regularly made any noise with it's dull throng each hour to help people remember who was in charge. I sat down in the soft chair, my fat roles bunching up above my waist, and looked at the list of tasks due that day.

1. Cross reference digital data collection system protocols, for all criminal databases, with current data backup and recovery protocols and identify potential errors and log associate ID responsible.
2. Report associate IDs for any above identified errors to upper management.
3. Recover lost data, if possible and create file backups and restore protocols where dissolved.
4. More tedious bullshit!

I clicked on the number 1 and the program began to run and indicated a four hour wait time. While that ran it was now time for the daily intelligence and information gaming procedure, which seemed to have no end of content for disseminating information and mini-games that tested and developed intelligence in every domain. The news of the day was about how city crime was at an all time low of .2%, depression rates were at .01% and China was finally adopting the progressive Noise and Other Pollution Prevention Coalition after ten years of sanctions from 25 nations. The mini-games taught advanced math, science and English lessons with the use of frogs, bunnies and other furry and non-offensive creatures. Today's lessons were difficult enough and in no time four beats of the dull clock had passed, the program was ready for the next step and it was time for lunch.

Everyone stood up and waited for the announcement which came via a text prompt on both screens and after it arrived it counted down from 30 minutes. If the eye sensor didn't recognize your presence at your station when the clock hit zero you would be flagged as insubordinate and face a disciplinary hearing the next day. I walked into the cafeteria where the slight sounds of rummaging humans was almost audible, although I might have been making the sound in my head as everything in the cafeteria had been designed to reduce sound from any angle. From the noise cancelling soft floor, plates and utensils to the absorbent walls. People chewed quietly, never coughed, burped or farted and no one talked. Sometimes they would look at each other with blank expressions but mostly they just looked down making sure to eat just slowly enough to not make noise but no so slow as to be late back to their cubual.

I wasn't hungry that day so I just started walking around the cafeteria wondering around, looking at the faces of so many silent people dutifully eating their pre-made lunch portions as a sick feeling came over me. I didn't know what to think about it all and as I looked at them I realized that the silence I really feared was the silence that had arisen in my own mind. My mind had become void of judgement and understanding. Had life always been like this? If so, then what is this sinking feeling deep in my body telling me to fight, to run, to scream?

So I kicked a chair softly at first. The woman in the chair barely flinched so I kicked it harder. This time she stood up and opened her mouth but nothing came out. After a second of exchanging looks the woman sat back down defeated but I couldn't shake the feeling I had to do something. In my head I heard a voice say, "What are you gunna do about it?" Then, I kicked the chair again, only this time I hit the woman in the leg and a soft "uh," exited her mouth which she quickly threw her hands up to cover. Just then the silent doors to the cafeteria swung open and two men, in black jump suits, entered and made a bee line for me.

I stood there unsure of what to do but when they came close enough to grab me I was overcome with rage and yelled,"Whaaaaaaattt?" The two men stopped in their tracks. I couldn't remember how long it had been since I used my voice and it hurt to do so but it also felt amazing. The two men looked shocked as they probably hadn't heard anything like that before and didn't know how to act but they were resolute enough to start walking forward toward the monster that had asked a question.

I jumped up on a table and started to run toward the door, narrowly missing the grasps of the two men in black. In the hall, as I was running toward the stairway, I muttered the word, "what" over and over until all that I could do was cackle with laughter. The hysterical sound reverberated and echoed all throughout the stairway as I ran as fast I could could down the stairs until the outside world was only a door away. Stopping with my hand on the door knob I took a few deep breaths and then opened it and stepped out.

The world was quiet again. Only a few cars passed by, perceptible only by their bright blue or yellow chassis, with no one on the side walks as it was still lunch time and no one, except myself, looked up to see the amazing sun surrounded by a bright blue sky. I laughed until my neck and throat began to hurt from the strain from so such laughter and exuberance. With my arms spread out and tears running down my cheeks I felt a jerk as two men tackled me from behind, my face making a soft crash into the grassy sidewalk. The last thing I felt was a knee on my back and a pin prick in my leg and then the lights went out.

I woke up in bed some time later wondering why I felt so groggy and tired. Normally I felt refreshed and ready to go but now my back and neck hurt and I had slept in. I ate my normal pre-made breakfast portion, brushed my teeth with the amazing new Multi-Morning Brush and Comb and combed my hair with it and everything began to feel normal again. It was quiet as it should be and I'll just explain that I wasn't feeling well and they won't mind that I'm late, right? I made my way to the door when a notice flashed on the screen that normally just showed the time. It read:

1. You have been given a day off.
2. Please stay at home and come to work normally tomorrow.
3. Thank you for your service and get well soon.

In all my years I had never seen anything like that. Especially from the government and hoping I get well. I must be pretty special to get this treatment, I thought. Just then a loud, single knock came from the door. I'd never heard such a noise and it frightened me but I opened the door none the less. On the other side was a woman and man, both dressed in all black but with white hats that made them look like upside down exclamation points.

"Hello Jim," the woman said with a smile. "We'd like to talk to you about yesterday, can we come in," she continued as she and the man walked past me, my mouth agape.

The man sat down in the soft white chair in the corner and asked,"Do you ever feel like screaming?"

I couldn't answer. I couldn't even remember how long it had been since I had used my voice. I managed a tentative,"What?"

"Well," the woman began. "We are part of a different order of people who value freedom. Freedom of voice. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and we want you to join us." Her smile was intoxicating and a ball of excitement started to boil in my belly. The recognition of something lost and important started to flood my mind with thoughts of a world that once was.

I stared at the two exclamation points for what seemed like an eternity, until suddenly, I found myself uttering the phrase, "Tell me more."

Rant: Inequality is Not a Problem

Wealth inequality is not a problem. Poverty​, violence, force, coercion, child abuse. Those are problems but the fact that Bill Gates has a billion dollars in his bank account and I have a thousand dollars in my bank account isn't a problem. We are both doing fine. The only way for anyone, other Bill Gates or myself, to even out those two statistics is to use force.

So what are you willing to do to force equality? After you create this universal policy of wealth distribution will you feel the same when they come to take your earnings and property to enact your "just" prescription? Or are you only happy to take from other's?

What makes people think that they are capable or qualified to solve other people's problems? How is it that twenty year olds, who have never had a job, think that they have solved anything in the way of social prosperity? Why do people think that their way should be forced onto others and if only they were in charge it would all get better? Why is everyone so interested in forcing others to do and think their way?

Freedom depends on people not using force to solve their problems. Freedom from coercion, violence, theft and fraud allow people to thrive. Free trade and capitalism, in spite of corruption by the government, has led the western world to a level of prosperity like none other in history and yet so many demean it's values and deny it's by-products. 

How and Why I Quit Biting My Nails

I know what everyone's been wondering. And I mean everyone. They've been wondering about my fingernails. They look normal now which is saying a lot considering a year ago they were horrifying. They looked like the mutilated remnants of a carnivorous beast. They were as scarred as the creature tormenting them and creating in them a physical manifestation of what happens to the soul when repressed emotions, self-doubt and anxiety rule the mind.

I started biting my nails when I was very young. I know this because I can remember biting them when I still lived in California. We moved from California to Oregon when I was 6 so I was definitely under that age. If I were to guess I think I was more like 3 years old. Even as the memory is fading with time it remains one of my most vivid early memories.

One night my parents were fighting and screaming at each other. I was in a room, possibly all alone, and I remember a soft blue light coming through a window near me. I was worried and I imagined my father throwing my mom through the window and her falling to her death. This was all in my imagination but the fear was real and I can remember biting my nails then.

Since then biting my fingernails became a constant part of my life. It got to the point that they never really bled or hurt anymore even when they got so low the nail was just a sliver. I would nibble at them constantly and when I wasn't nibbling I was scanning them for imperfections and edges to later devour. Sometimes I would notice myself doing this and others would tell me I was doing it. The sound of it was nauseating to some and frustrating to others.

The look of my nails was concerning to most but to me, my nails were just a product of a deeply ingrained compulsion. One that I would most likely never stop engaging in. I am 32 now and for at least 25 of those years biting my nails had been an automated behavior. I was ashamed of my lack of self-control, of repressing the roots of my anxiety and feeling helpless to change.

But things do change. A couple of years ago I decided to take care of myself and stop punishing myself for not living up to an ideal I hadn't defined yet. I never felt good enough and I'm sure I didn't feel safe for a lot of my life but I began to ask myself questions to better understand who I want to be and where I'm from. How much of my current situation is my fault? I decided I would start to test myself as if I could achieve something good for myself and maybe help others too.

I started to look at the virtues and principles that I was actually living by and asking myself what virtues and principles do I want to live by? How do I act in accordance with my ideals and not let excuses and history drag me down? How do I live with meaning, purpose, and love and not with guilt, anxiety, regret, and resentment?

People who care about their future protect it by how they act today. So I decided I would lose weight. Not to look better but in order to be stronger, more disciplined and live longer. Looking better is a nice bonus and a long life will be hell without the muscles to keep you going. I lost 50 lbs in 9 months and after a while maintaining my weight was less of a challenge and I decided I needed a new self-esteem boosting challenge. A few months into 2016 I decided to tackle a big one.

Instead of attempting to quit my nasty nail biting habit overnight I simply gave myself until the end of the year. I wasn't going to give myself a hard time if I bit my nails because the goal was to be mindful of my commitment​ to quit and work on paying attention to my actions. A couple weeks in and I was already biting my nails less and the more I notice myself noticing myself biting my nails the more I noticed myself biting my nails and I could stop more and more.

I've made it well past 2016 and I've nearly completely stopped biting my nails. Every once in a while I nibble a bit and I still constantly monitor the tips of my fingers but I think I'm doing well. I've had to learn how to clip and file them which has been interesting because it always seemed like a solely feminine thing to do. Now I see it as another tool for maintaining my commitment to not biting my nails.

I believe that it's good for the brain to engage in novel tasks and new challenges and I also think living according to one's values strengthens self esteem. Taking freedom and personal responsibility seriously takes self awareness, curiosity and effort.