- April 28, 2021 at 4:35 pm #31242
Every month or so (depending on how many people post questions), I’ll be releasing a video ROMA exclusively for podcast supporters where I answer your questions — or at least think about them out loud. I’ll be drawing questions from here, so let me know what’s on your mind!
- May 27, 2021 at 5:15 pm #31841ThomasParticipant
Did you have an alternate path in mind when you enrolled in graduate school? What would your life have looked like if you and Cacilda hadn’t written Sex At Dawn, or if perhaps it didn’t catch fire like it did?
- May 27, 2021 at 6:13 pm #31843
Sorry if this shows up twice. The post was lost after an edit.
Almost nobody asking anything this month?
Well, then I am going to write something. More of a comment or a conversation than a question. But if nobody else is writing here, why not? If there will any other real questions like the usual one you could skip this for the more urgent matters.
In March is asked you about your opinion on psychological resilience (https://chrisryanphd.com/community/topic/video-roma-questions-archive/#post-30382). I liked your answer.
What stuck with me were to major points. First, you emphasized how important the near to unconditional love and support from your parents was. I agree that this is a resource of immense power and help to withstand difficulties in life. From how you describe it, I think, I had similar parents and I often recognize that only very few people I ever met do have access to the same resource. I am always finding it truly sad to see how much people struggle because they’ve got that hole in their tank which comes from unloving and unsupporting parents.
And yet I feel that there’s more to resilience than that, because despite of having this self-esteem I always have been somewhat sensitive and fragile, up to a point which one might call neurotic (in the sense as it’s meant in the Big Five). Having had a solid sense of self-worth deep down in me helped me, when I crawled out of the mess of my live six years ago. Yes, I became addicted, and, yes, I fucked up big way, but this didn’t make me less worth as a human being. This feeling, of course, was shaken, but not broken and I recognized how much more work my fellows in therapy had to do.
And it goes both directions: a good sense of self-esteem also makes you appreciate other people more easily, just because you do not feel a need to devaluate other people in order to level yourself up. Encountering other people like that makes life a lot easier, since there are less assholes around and you have less ways to blame them for your own mess.
(One might object that becoming an addict is not a sign of a person with good self-esteem because harming yourself like this is more self-loathing than the other way round. But there are many reasons for becoming an addict, and, more important, self-esteem and self-loathing can exist side by side. What was more significant was that those parts of myself I detested were acquired later in life, but didn’t affect the basic self-esteem.)
What I want to say with this (tangentially writing) is that this self-worth coming from childhood gave me resilience when the shit already had hit the fan. But there’s another – let’s say – fragility I observed. It sometimes seems to me as if I am too sensitive for a lot of things. Sometimes I think I am to “obedient” to my own moods. One word which comes across one’s mind is “sissy”. (Thanks folks, being shamed a “sissy” does not help becoming less sensitive!). A friendlier term would be “Highly Sensitive Person” (HSP). Leaving this one pejorative and the other fashionable term aside: what remains is, that I am lacking some resilience in the “short-term area” (for the lack of a better word). Maybe I am born with it, maybe not, but it is something I am working on now, since it makes my life more complicated.
In one of your latest podcast (I think it was #477 with Paul Saladino) I heard you say that you lately started to think about psychological conditions along the same lines as allergies. Roughly: Allergies are caused by a lack of playing around in the dirt. So maybe psychological issue come from similar circumstance (too much comfort etc.)
I was surprised to hear you say that. Not the idea itself, but that it came to you only lately. I am almost convinced since a long time that this is the case for a lot of psychological difficulties. That is not saying, that there are no other, profound reasons. But it might play an important part more often than one would think.
When I asked you the resilience question in March I was thinking along these lines.
I think the second part of your answer which stuck with me, the recommendation to take up a practice like meditation, can help with that fragility as well as it can with overcoming a lack of self-esteem. Particularly so, if combined with a practice of anti-fragility. These days I am trying to put a little hardship or discomfort in my daily life, just to toughen myself a little up. It’s an arduous way doing that in your 50ies. These things are much easier learned when you’re young. But it’s surely worth the effort.
Alright, that’s it for now. If you like to give your thought, I’d love to hear it.
Perhaps I will write more if there still will be no or few other posts. I am going to post this now because maybe you’re going to do the VROMA right now.
All the best
- May 30, 2021 at 12:28 am #31850Will StonesParticipant
I’m wondering if you can touch on the subject of loving yourself. I think you’ve mentioned before that you can’t love someone else until you love yourself. Well, how do you love yourself? I’ve been instructed to write gratitude journals, write letters to my past self, do loving kindness meditation or say that I love myself as I gaze at my image in the bathroom mirror. Each begin to feel silly after a while. I’m 28, I think it all stems from body image issues that have never gone away since childhood, but it’s starting to feel like it’s overdue to stop being so hard on myself. I might even be being too hard on myself about being hard on myself.
All the best,
- June 4, 2021 at 2:46 pm #31941
I’ve already posted this in the TS sub-reddit. Arizona wants to use Zyklon B to execute inmates on death row
I cannot believe this. Would you like to comment it, Chris? Perhaps even in a regular episode.
All the best
- June 18, 2021 at 8:42 pm #32135ellioParticipant
Hey Chris and other Tangentialistas,
I’ve been pondering this for a long time, but more recently it has become a persistent focus of mine in relation to my current job.
The question is: How do you know when to leave something good?
My current job is great in many ways, I get paid well, I like my team, I believe in the value of the work we’re doing, I’m excited about our company’s future, and I’m excited about our mission and core values. That being said, the daily responsibilities of my position are intellectually engaging but make me feel emotionally neutral at best, and they are frustrating or anxiety-inducing at worst. In addition, I’ve been working more than I would like and have had little time to see my friends or take the weekend trips I’ve wanted to take. I suppose this is the trade-off of a start-up job, and I understand how important the experience will be for the rest of my life, so I think I’m willing to make that trade. But this persistent feeling that it is not enough has been circling my mind for the past year. This job and the opportunity of gaining this experience is pragmatically important, but it goes against the emotional and psychological signals telling me to do something else. I came into this job with very little “professional” business experience on my resumé so I’ve held on to the job.
But back to the question. How do you know when to leave something good?
Do you have any advice or thoughts on this? When does it become clear that a person should make the choice to leave something good based on a feeling, without any logical or rational explanation to back it up? Most of the hardest choices I’ve ever made fall into this category, but I still don’t have a good method of evaluating these decisions. I usually get tied up in knots for months just trying to reconcile the mismatch between my emotional response to a situation telling me to leave, and my rational mind telling me that I need more evidence to support the decision. I do believe in following my gut, and in this situation that may be less logical in terms of professional experience, and it may mean a more “difficult” journey forward, but maybe I just need to believe that the emotions are there for a reason and they will guide me to a better future that is more aligned with who I am.
For context, I’m a 26-year-old guy and I graduated from college two and a half years ago.
I think the secondary question here is: Should I keep the job and make the most of this unique and important opportunity to gain experience running a business, or should I leave the job so that I can prioritize taking advantage of the unique possibilities and qualities of youth?
On another note, I have a pretty good idea that I want to spend my life making art, doing design work, and building things. The idea is to gain business experience from this job and put that to use in my future design/build business, in addition to saving money from this job to fund my future design endeavors.
I appreciate any and all feedback on this. All the best to all of you.
Thanks for everything you do, Chris.
- June 22, 2021 at 12:33 pm #32224
Hey everyone, here is the link to June’s Video ROMA – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BbdKM7toq0
This month I answer your questions about what it means to love yourself, my opinions about Zyklon B being used to execute inmates on death row, whether or not I had an alternate plan after grad school, and how you know if or when it’s time to leave something good.
Thank you for your support and your questions!
- July 30, 2021 at 6:32 pm #32742Julian KannemeyerParticipant
Can you please talk about vaccines and covid like the mask episode you did awhile ago?
- August 5, 2021 at 10:37 am #32837Andrew AkehurstParticipant
Dear Christopher Ryan,
I know you do not seem to like this subject very much, although it is one that is deeply interesting and pertinent for all of us right now. Please could you take the time to read this essay by Charles Eisenstein, regarding the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and give your views on the ideas raised within. https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/mob-morality-and-the-unvaxxed
Also I am constantly thinking of how this situation fits in so succinctly with the essay you love so much “What we can’t say”. The vaccine situation seems to mirror all the criteria laid out in that essay for finding current biases that are affecting our social psyche. If you do not agree with this view could you please lay out your reasoning for me, so I can see some areas I may have overlooked.
You are often a guiding light for me in my life, thanks you deeply for this.
- August 5, 2021 at 11:12 am #32838
(Because Andrew asked for a textual analysis, I decided to respond in writing to this one.)
As usual, I find Charles’ writing to be interesting, but long-winded. His argument appears to be that there are ancient fears of contagion that intersect with out-group fears and various historical atrocities. OK.
“It is not my purpose here, however, to present a scientific case. My point is that those in the scientific and medical community who dissent from the demonization of the unvaxxed contend not only with opposing scientific views, but with ancient, powerful psycho-social forces.”
Fine, but I’m interested in scientific cases in this discussion. The fact that there are powerful psycho-social forces at work is interesting, but pretty much always the case. As long as dissenting scientific views are being published in the scientific literature, those forces aren’t powerful enough to block the discussion of whether vaccines are working or not.
“To say that official sources exclude all dissent overstates the case. In fact, peer-reviewed publications and highly credentialed medical doctors and scientists concur with much of what I’ve said. Admittedly, they are in the minority. But if they were right, we would not easily know it.”
So the conversation is happening among experts. That’s important, and basically undermines his argument here. The fact that “we would not easily know it” is irrelevant, in that we don’t “easily know” anything — especially about something as complex as a global pandemic.
“The science on the issue is so clouded by financial incentives and systemic bias that it is impossible to rely on it to light a way through the murk. The system of research and public health suppresses generic medicines and nutritional therapies that have been demonstrated to greatly reduce Covid symptoms and mortality, leaving vaccines as the only choice. It also fails to adequately investigate numerous plausible mechanisms for serious long-term harm. Of course, plausible does not mean certain: at this point no one knows, or indeed can know, what the long-term effects will be. My point, however, is not that the anti-vaxxers are right and being unjustly persecuted. It is that their persecution enacts a pattern that has little to do with whether they are right or wrong, innocent or guilty. The unreliability of the science underscores that point, and suggests that we take a hard look at the deadly social impulses that the science cloaks.”
So his “point is not that anti-vaxxers are right and being unjustly persecuted.” Then why write this overlong essay at all? The overwhelming scientific consensus at the moment is that the vaccines work to reduce transmission, to dramatically reduce severe illness and hospitalization in the vaccinated, and that negative side-effects are extremely rare. Is there a chance that this consensus is wrong? Yes. Certainty is not available. Such is life. We operate with limited information, we often have to choose between bad options. From my perspective, the vaccines are a far less bad option both for myself and for people I may come into contact with. I really don’t want to argue about this. This is my assessment. It could be wrong, but the evidence I see is pretty overwhelming.
- August 7, 2021 at 3:16 pm #32886
Hi Chris. I am not sure if this a continuous thread or not, but I have a question for you. I am always impressed with your consumption of information and I find it incredibly informative. How do you find the articles you read? Are there specific news sources you regularly check? How do you know about the books you often discuss and/or reference? Thanks.
- August 10, 2021 at 8:32 pm #32919TristanParticipant
I’m a 22 years old man (soon to be 23) and I’m a virgin. I’ve dated a couple people, but I’ve never had a relationship that lasted more than 3 months. I’ve done stuff with girls but I have never gone all the way. After high school, I assumed it would happen in college, But I went to a community college, and that really wasn’t the social experience that you seem to get at a university where everyone is living in dorms away from home. I looked into going back to school, but it would have only been for the social aspect and I decided it wasn’t worth the debt. I still haven’t left home, but I’m considering going to live and work at a national park, which I’ve heard can be like college without the college bit.
I guess my question is “do you you think that this a problem?”. I imagine you’ll say no. But you could imagine how insecure it makes me feel. Like there must be something wrong with me. Do you think I would be better off finding a Tinder date and having sex with a girl ASAP, eve if I don’t like her that much (not that I think I could) just to get it out of the way? Or should I wait until it just happens naturally. My gut tells me it’s the ladder, but what if I wait and the years go on and it still doesn’t happen? Let’s just say “the 40 Year Old Virgin” isn’t as funny to me anymore.
I think there are a few reasons it has never happened for me. I’m only 5’4 and that just seem to be a problem for a lot of girls, but those aren’t the girls for me. However I am a singer, songwriter, standup comedian, and filmmaker. So it’s not like I have nothing to offer. I think my biggest problem is that I over think. I used to think that that was the way to go because I never made big mistakes, but now my biggest regret is that I haven’t made more mistakes. All my friends slept with people they probably shouldn’t have or did drugs where it was illegal, etc…you know, teenage shit. but now they’ve all got these mistakes that they’ve learned from, and I don’t. It makes me feel dumb.
Seeing that your the sex guy, I’d really love to hear your take.
I hope you know how much you help people. stay genuine.
- August 20, 2021 at 11:16 am #33054ellioParticipant
Hey Chris and others,
Any thoughts on the evolutionary purpose of the subconscious? Why the split between conscious and subconscious? And what about the subconscious for humans living in the modern world? How does the subconscious function for us now compared to pre-history humans?
Also, when it looks like my dog is having a vivid dream and is twitching/running in place, does that mean he has a subconscious too?
Hope your well,
- August 21, 2021 at 11:36 pm #33081
That is definitely an interesting question you ask. It can become an expansive conversation very quickly; however, I do have a few thoughts. First, I am curious how you define subconscious and/or unconscious? That may help to focus the direction of the conversation.
Second, as a behaviorist I lean toward eliminating all terms that describe mental processes in metaphorical or analogical terms. Terms like the subconscious, the id, the ego, self-efficacy, resilience, narcissism, memory bank, etc. I do think they have utility – as long as we recognize that they are constructs that describe a phenomena and are not real “things” that exist. They describe a set of operant behaviors that can be somewhat slippery to define because they are most often covert.
Skinner wrote a good article entitled, “Why I am not a cognitive psychologist” that explains mental constructs in more detail. The first half of the article is a bit pedantic, but you can skip to page 9 for the main point of the article. So in conclusion, I guess my answer would be that I do not believe that as humans we possess a subconscious/unconscious. I think “what we do” that is typically ascribed to our subconscious can be explained through our operant behavior that has been shaped by our environment. At least for now I believe that. Who knows, maybe subsequent comments will change my mind. I have included the link to the Skinner article if you or any one is interested in reading it. You definitely asked a great question and I am curious what others have to say.
- August 23, 2021 at 1:37 pm #33103
I spoke with a friend of mine the other day who made an off-handed comment about how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in perpetual fear and we don’t (i.e., modern life in a developed country). I thought about that statement for awhile. I have heard bits and pieces of similar arguments before, but never so crystalized into one coherently bad observation. I thought of your book, Civilized to Death, and shared with him some points you mentioned regarding the anxiety suffered by millions today. It was a good conversation that I feel informed him. However, the thought that so many people people believe that our HG ancestors were constantly in fight or flight syndrome due to lurking Sabre-Tooth Cats potentially attacking them every moment of their fear-filled lives bothered me.
Out of curiosity I googled “Hunter-gatherers fear” and read the first article that came up. It was a Slate article. Here is the first line, “In the developed world, we live in the most peaceful, healthful time in history.” Stephen Pinker would be proud, ala Enlightenment Now. To be fair, the article is from 2012, so maybe the author has read your book since then. It references the book The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. Ironically, even though I have some issues with Sagan and his take on science being a cure-all for our problems, he is very respectful of our HG ancestors and did not imply they live in fear anymore than anyone else (at least from what I remember of the book).
I also find that people have a concept of our HG ancestors as being fearful due to a lack of not knowing the scientific explanation for how the natural world operates. Many people think they “made up” explanations because they needed to be comforted. However, I think they had an explanation that worked for them. Was it scientifically correct? Many times it was not. But it did not make the explanation any less credible to them. It was simply their current understanding.
With all of this said, I guess I have several questions. (1) Why do so many people continue to believe and/or promote the narrative that our HG ancestors were in constant hide and seek mode from predators, while not realizing the fears we live with every day (housing, retirement, adequate medical care, depression, raising children, getting an education, WW3, etc.)? (2) Can you discuss the worldview of our HG ancestors and why so many people come up with theories to try and explain why they “needed” explanations for things they observed?
At this point I am rambling. I have included a link to the article I referenced below. Keep up the great work. Thank you.
- August 24, 2021 at 5:19 am #33120
well, the Slate article could almost be right, couldn’t it? If it was saying “in the developed world, we live in the most peaceful, healthful time in history”, and if it would really mean only history and not pre-history. But, of course, the way Dunn uses the word, it means both…
It is even misrepresenting scientific research. In the fourth paragraph it quotes from the work of “Thomas Headland, an anthropologist” who “recently conducted a study of Agta hunter-gatherers in the Philippines.” The article says he interviewed 120 men about attacks of pythons and that “six [people] had been killed by a python” concluding that this would be “a death-by-python rate of 1 in 20.”
With a very quick google search for “Thomas Headland Agta” I found a National Geographic article (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/meet-the-agta-a-tribe-where-a-quarter-of-men-have-been-attacked-by-giant-snakes) about Headland’s research and things are a little bit different there. Yes, he interviewed 120 individuals, but out of a population of 600. Therefore the dead rate would be one 1 in 100 instead of 1 in 20.
But it gets worse. “Only six people have actually been killed in the span of 39 years, including a man who was found inside a snake, and two children who were eaten by the same python on one fateful night.”
I think it’s safe to assume that over the course of almost 40 years the total size of the population we should take into account is bigger than the currently 600 living people. So we’re down to 1 in 200 or whatever number now?
A little bit later in the article: “We should be careful before making specific claims about how snakes affected our evolution, since earlier attempts to address this question have been somewhat fraught. While some scientists have suggested that fear of snakes is innate, young babies don’t show such fears …Headland and Greene don’t make any such claims.”
To sum it up: the Slate article is useless bullshit. (I know you didn’t you’ve said otherwise).
All the best
- August 24, 2021 at 11:56 am #33124
Great info Andreas, Thanks for the reply.
- August 24, 2021 at 5:40 am #33121
since you’re for sure more knowledeable about hunter-gatherers than me and because I am too lazy to research it for myself now: What do you know about how they dealt with menstruation.
I am not only thinking of culture or morals which probably weren’t as uptight as during later millenia, but I am particularly interested in the practical side. I mean, there were no tampons around then. Or were they?
I’ve heard, that groups of women living together tend to menstruate all at the same time. Perhaps the band was just taking some time off at the lake when the “red days” were there, because it was a little impractical for the ladies to walk around while the blood was dripping?
You perhaps get the idea now, about what I am asking.
- September 3, 2021 at 3:10 pm #33285
I am currently reading “Yanomamo: The Fierce People” by Napoleon Chagnon (1968, p.85), and he mentioned what the Yanomamo women do during menstruation. “The Yanomamo word for menstruation translates literally as “squatting” (roo), and that fairly accurate describes what pubescent females (and adult women) do during menstruation. Yanomamo women do not employ tampons; they simply remain inactive during menstruation, squatting on their haunches most of the time.”
- September 6, 2021 at 1:59 pm #33332
thanks a lot for this information. Very kind of of to share it. I’ve seen your post a couple of days ago but it took my a while because I didn’t see the “reply” button when opening the site in my Smartphone.
- August 24, 2021 at 9:23 pm #33132
Hi everyone – thank you for your questions! Here is a link to this month’s Video ROMA – https://youtu.be/dXkYJZcqkzM
I speak about what media outlets and individuals I get my news from, I give some advise to a 22-year old who happens to still be a virgin, discuss the evolutionary purpose of the subconscious and touch on why there are so many myths about the quality of life of hunter-gatherers.
- August 25, 2021 at 8:33 am #33136
you missed my question. Or did you think, that the lazy bastard should do his research by himself? 😉
- August 25, 2021 at 8:40 am #33137
Hey Andreas. Your question came in after I’d already recorded the last video (a few days before posting). Anyway, many societies have “menstruation huts” a little apart from the village where menstruating women can be off on their own a bit. Some anthropologists think this shows signs of fear of women’s blood. Others think the women enjoy a break from dealing with kids and see it more as a benefit to them. No tampons, but certainly most groups cover the genitals with leaves or some kind of woven cloth, so the bleeding would be obscured.
- September 6, 2021 at 1:56 pm #33331
sorry for responding so late. I wasn’t notified by mail that there was a reply to my question and I only saw it a couple of days ago. And I didn’t expect you to answer it by writing. Thanks. I really appreciate the effort and the generous gesture behind it!
- September 1, 2021 at 4:22 pm #33243jwquon1Participant
My name’s Jack. I hope you’re well!
I have a friend who’s coming to terms with the potential ending of a five-year relationship. Judging by the differences between the couple, they seem incompatible in many ways. Their differences are unbridgeable, and my friend has said so themself. Namely, my friend is on the more agreeable and adaptable side, while their partner is highly neurotic and plenty aggressive.
My question is this— how do you recommend someone think through the conundrum of being in a committed relationship, one built on a history of love, yet finding they must set hard boundaries? These boundaries, we’ve discussed, could very well non-negotiable. How do they ward off unnecessary anger, resentment, and confusion to their partner?
I would love to hear your advice. Thank you.
- September 14, 2021 at 4:51 am #33426Riku MParticipant
Greetings from Funland
You have wished that your body would be burnt after your death. You have also said that one “should not burn every house they ever lived in”. If the body is a house for your consciousness, how do you justify burning it, releasing the energy into the air, heating the atmosphere and creating greenhouse gasses, INSTEAD of burying it into the ground, feeding the circle of life, letting the micro organisms in the earth absorb your energy and turn your body into nutrient rich soil for the plants to grow? You have consumed the plants and animals your whole life, storing the energy in a form of new chemical bonds and maintaining the functioning of your body. Would it be time to give something back to the earth for a while? After-all isn’t this whole cremation thing just another side of the death denial coin? We want either to make ourselves believe that the person we love will live forever by sealing their body into hermetically sealed casket or over-emphasizing that “The SPIRIT will live for ever!” by vanishing their body with a ceremonial fire and drumming. Wether you burst into the air because of methane gasses or ceremonial fires would it be time to end all this fear of death and just die slow. It takes a person +70 years to grow into old age. Dig a hole, put your friend in there (you can hide the face with a piece of cloth if you want) and start filling it with the dirt. The worms and the earth say thanks and if you want, you can plant a tree on top of the grave. Isn’t that what it was all about with the native Americans? The ground and the forests are sacred because the ancestors are buried there. It is likely emotionally the most difficult thing to pour dirt over friends or family members cold body, but it would be really beneficial for the whole life circle if people would return their meat vehicles back to the earth like a good friend who returns the sprinter van he borrowed – in one piece with a full tank of diesel.
- September 14, 2021 at 11:35 am #33449
I recently watched the documentary, “The Woman Who Wasn’t There,” about a woman who falsely claimed to be a survivor of 911. She was a well-known activist and the President of a non-profit organization for victims of 911. The documentary interviewed friends and co-workers who were real 911 survivors. Towards the end they are asked if they forgive her. Some people did and some people didn’t. However, they all struggled over this dilemma. This got me questioning the whole concept of forgiveness. In the broad Western culture the concept of forgiveness is a dichotomy where a person decides to forgive someone or not. What about all of the nuance in-between these polarized choices? Should we even be asked to forgive? What does forgiveness mean to most people? If it means letting go of resentment and finding a way to move on, why don’t we say that? I am curious what you think about the concept of forgiveness?
- September 16, 2021 at 3:06 pm #33576SamsquanchParticipant
On your podcast, I’ve heard you ascribe the concept of “work” as something you would necessarily rather not do if you could avoid it. Your lifestyle is a great example of someone who has made it by not “working” by conventional means – I certainly admire that!
That being said, do you really think there is no value had in taking pride in your job or whatever “work” you do? For example, I currently work as a Grade 7/8 teacher. You bet it’s fucking exhausting, annoying, and difficult to deal a lot of time. Overall though, I get immense personal satisfaction and meaning from the connections I make with my students and my role as a guide to them. Also, I used to work as a tree planter in B.C., a job which had me plant 2-3 thousand trees a day in all kinds of rain, bugs, hills, and bears. Hell yeah it was hard, but those experiences have shaped me as a person more than anything else.
As well, you’ve discussed how the body/mind needs to be challenged in order to remain sharp (a prevalent theme in recent episodes with the body movement guys and Wim Hof). Can “work” not be a part of this? I have multiple friends who have chosen to not “work” because they would rather not do it, but I find that they aren’t challenging themselves and generally seem stuck in a rut. They look down at my current “real job”, but ultimately I think I have grown and learned so much while they have stayed the same.
I certainly recognize that many people find their jobs unfulfilling, and some occupations may be necessarily so. However, I question this general idea that “work” as a concept is truly a thing to avoid, when it can be a valuable tool for self-actualization and learning. Any thoughts on this topic are appreciated.
Cheers and thanks,
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.