theoutgrowersworld-blog - Tumblr blog

theoutgrowersworld-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Education & Democracy

Consider a ship. The ship is to undertake a journey - it has to sail through several oceans to reach a land far away. On its way, it will encounter difficult waters, storms even - it is guaranteed to be a difficult journey. Such a voyage requires a skilled captain. In order to determine who should command this ship, a committee of people is going to be established. These people will decide which person is best equipped for this task.

You are the first member of this committee, and you are assigned with the task of recruiting other people for this committee. Note that your task right now is not to choose the captain, but to simply assemble a group of people who will make that decision. Contemplate for a moment - on what basis should this committee be chosen?

The objective of this committee is to choose the best candidate for captain. To do this, we begin by defining a criteria to judge whether a person is a good fit for captain or not. There are, broadly speaking, two categories of concern here.

The first one is technical: what route does the captain plan to take, how does she plan on dealing with storms, etc. The other is not technical: the voyage is not simply about going from point A to point B, it is to ensure that the people onboard are safe and that there is peace and harmony on the ship. For this, we question: is the captain prudent? Is she wise and careful? Is she aggressive? Is she kind?

As average people, it is not possible for us to be experts in each technical aspect - however, in order to judge whether the captain is qualified, it is necessary for at least some of us to possess basic knowledge regarding the technical aspects of sailing.

Now that we’ve established the qualities that we seek in a captain, we can determine the qualities that our committee members must possess.

To judge whether someone has a certain quality, we must possess an understanding of that quality itself. We must understand the benefits of such a quality, and if we seek our captain to have this quality, it must be a good quality, and if it is a good quality, we must ourselves wish to have it. Hence, the people who select the captain must possess the same qualities that they seek in the captain. Our task then boils down to looking for people who possess a subset of the qualities that we wish for the captain to have. Note that if they possess all the qualities that the captain should have, then perhaps they should be captain themselves. Therefore, we restrict our search to people who are strictly less qualified than required for captaincy - they possess certain but not all qualities that are required to become captain.

The people who select the captain, therefore, must be a partial reflection of the captain: the committee must be comprised of people who possess the basics of the technical know-how in order to judge whether the applicant is qualified or not, and also, the values required to judge whether the applicant is the right person to lead and manage the voyage in its non-technical aspects.

* * *

The idea of democracy emerged in ancient Greece. The word comes from ‘demos’ - common people, and ‘kratos’ - strength. Democracy is a Greek concept, and interestingly, one of the strongest criticisms against democracy comes from the founding father of Greek philosophy, Socrates. The story above is simply an extension of the argument that Socrates offered - the ship is the society, the captain is the elected government and the committee of people are the voters.

In a democracy by birthright, each citizen that has attained 18 years of age is allowed to vote. That is to say, each citizen’s opinion is given equal weight in the democratic process. This is equivalent to allowing all the sailors on the boat to be a part of the committee that selects the captain - it is, naturally, ‘equal’, but logically, it guarantees an inefficiency in the outcome of the democratic process - it accounts for the opinion of those who do not possess the skills necessary to make an informed decision. In a highly literate society, this would be a small cost to bear - as long as the majority is capable of critical thinking, the outcome would be efficient, along with the positive side effect of creating a sense of equality amongst the citizens. However, we are not living in a highly ‘literate’ society. Statistically higher literacy rates have failed to account for the limitations of the education.

Education all over the world has been moving further and further away from humanities, closer to natural sciences. Particularly in this part of the world, the education system involves very little amount of compulsory education in philosophy or political science. As jobs in these fields are not economically rewarding, students too lack the incentives to take up these fields or study them. However, what this has created is a society of highly educated illiterates - we understand trigonometry but we do not understand how to reason outside the realm of numbers. Engineering is held in high regard, but political literacy, an education in reasoning, in morality and ethics, it is often dismissed as ‘unnecessary’ for the simple fact that these do not lend themselves very easily to jobs that the capitalist society can absorb. By the virtue of understanding calculus or the laws of motion, one is not naturally equipped to make better decisions. The tools necessary to calculate the trajectory of objects are not the same tools that can be used to differentiate between right and wrong, good and bad - the progress of society has been lopsided.

* * *

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people” - nearly every introduction to the idea of democracy is built around this quote by Abraham Lincoln. It successfully highlights the essence of a democratic institution: people. The people are essentially the engine of a democracy. They participate in the process by adopting different roles: as citizens, journalists, civil servants, political leaders, etc. A democracy works only when all of these perform their functions effectively. Essentially, people are the ground upon which the 4 pillars of a democracy stand.

Our goal, then, becomes to ensure that this ground is firm, that it is fertile, which is to say, to ensure that people are not just well trained but well educated. This is an uncommon belief, in the sense that nobody would rationally disagree with this statement but there are not many people who understand its implications as well as what it demands from us as human beings - it demands a process of constant education - of learning, unlearning and relearning.

The reluctance to devote time and energy to human sciences is a product of several things. The present job market is one of those factors - but then, we don’t do everything just for the sake of work. There is another factor, one that discourages people from moving beyond newspapers and TV and social media - it is the subjectivity.

Society and its functioning does not have a basis in science, at least not in the same sense as the science of the physical world - there are no exact rules that dictate how society works, or how society should work. There are different schools of thought, and each of these lead us on different paths - perhaps, then, there is no objective measure to navigate this space, to understand this world. This belief is only amplified by the environment - the primary source for information in these matters is the news channels, the newspapers. Information has increased, sensationalism has increased, and without being familiar with the fundamentals the govern the debate, we watch news anchors spit over each other, fact after fact, accusation after accusation. With no simple way to understand and to catch up, it seems, the act of being an informed citizen demands far too much these days - how can we be expected to follow the chain of thought and to verify the information being thrown at us, when all of it is happening so quickly? Most people resort to making their own judgements about this information, then, and here too, our judgement is affected by the limits of our knowledge - without a real ‘education’, not just training, but education, our judgement is simply a byproduct of our sentiments - perhaps, this news channel is reliable, or this anchor seems to make sense, or in the past, he has been correct, or his stance is popular. We employ shortcuts in thinking - heuristics - to arrive at what seems to be an approximately correct answer. However, it is far from correct.

Human sciences are subjective, there is no doubt to this - but how subjective? There is no rule, no method that works in every situation - but are there rules that work well in most situations? Is there a way of thinking that can guide us, generally at least, in processing information and understanding society? This is exactly the purpose behind studying history, political science, economics and philosophy. An education in these subjects is essential in developing an understanding of society and participating efficiently in it. People dismiss the study of history - it is true, I gain nothing from learning the exact date that Hitler came to power. However, that is not the true objective of studying history - it is to understand the world that existed before us, so that we can understand how we got here. It is to learn from the mistakes of the past, so that we are not doomed to repeat it. Philosophy, perhaps, receives the strongest criticism - outside academic spaces, it is considered to be a form of intellectual masturbation, with no meaning to be derived from it. Logic is a branch of philosophy that enables us to understand how to reason for ourselves, to determine the validity of a belief, an idea. It is through philosophy that we study ethics, that we learn about morality, the differentiation between right and wrong, good and bad - terms that we encounter every day in our lives, not only in the broader political domain but the personal one too. Yet, most of us receive nearly no formal education in philosophy, and our education in history is limited to learning dates and listing out, in a formulaic manner, the cause and effect of historical events - 8 points for 4 marks, 10 points for 5 marks. To compensate for the lack of critical thinking, some schools have introduced sessions for moral values - to teach kids what is right and what is wrong. Still, the vision is missing - society continues to evolve - the challenges our parents faced are radically different from the ones we face today. It is not enough to teach them what is right and what is wrong - what is necessary is to introduce them to a method through which they can determine this for themselves, for the countless challenges that they will face.

Democracy is flawed because its foundation is flawed: most people are not ‘educated’ in the true sense of being educated - they are highly trained to perform specific jobs. They work as engineers, doctors, businessmen, scientists, designers. The difference between training and education is subtle - but it counts, in every way. Our goal then, to be better people, to be better citizens, involves an education that does not end. It is a pursuit without a fixed answer, and as long as the answer keeps changing, we must keep learning.

Written by Shivam Gangwani

0 notes

theoutgrowersworld-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Kashmir

This piece will attempt to understand the implications of decisions taken by the Government of India in the context of democratic values. We will not attempt to answer any questions - we will only attempt to rationally examine the situation, to see whether the current ruling party has incentives to act reasonably and to do what is good for the citizens of this country.

The Story

On the morning of 5th August, Section 144 was imposed over Kashmir, barring the assembly of five or more people. This was followed by a communication blackout - mobile, internet as well as cable TV services were shut down in the valley.

Following this, the BJP-led Government of India revoked Article 35A and Article 370 of the Indian constitution, which defined India’s relationship with Kashmir, and introduced the bill for the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, splitting the state into two separate union territories.

The Government

Any decision can be evaluated on the basis of two factors: the intention, and the impact. Moreover, the impact itself is not independent of the intention - it depends upon the policies created and their implementation, which in turn, are dependent upon the intentions behind a particular decision. Consequently, it becomes important to evaluate, what is the precise intention behind this decision?

Intentions are twofold: those that are clearly stated, and those that aren’t. The BJP clearly stated some: it justified its stance by claiming that Article 370 has been a hurdle to development in the region, that it has enabled corruption in the region and promoted terrorism. However, this is not the full story. In order to infer what has been left unsaid, it is important to understand the dynamics of the political parties that contest elections to form governments.

Ideally, in a democracy, the government has one objective: to promote general welfare. Even as they adopt different paths to attain this, the objective itself does not change. On the other hand, politics is different - it begins with the same objective - of making change and contributing to the society. However, in order to make any change, you need authority and power, which can only be gained by competing with the other political parties in the country. Competition is a double-edged sword - economics lends itself to political science here - more competition is better, because each party will have to prove itself to be better in order to win the elections. What this ignores is the irrationality of the voters - what is the criteria for a party to be ‘better’?

Under this, the public sentiment and opinion dominates. The mobilization of nationalist sentiment becomes a powerful political tool. It is the public sentiment that eventually determines the result of the elections and hence, determines the party which comes to power, more so than the policies or the values of a party.

For any political party to matter, to make a difference, it needs power. Everything else comes later. Consequently, the primary motive of any party on the political spectrum can be boiled down to this: to come into power and retain it. This is not to say that all politicians are simply power hungry, but to be conscious of the fact that power is the currency which governs this system. Without power, the policies and ideas remain just policies and ideas. With power, you can shape the future.

It is evident from the above that the government has a different objective than the political parties. While governments attempt to maximize welfare, political parties attempt to maximize political power, which does not necessarily lead to higher welfare. To stay in power, they must mobilize popular support - they are disincentivized from making decisions that would not be taken well by the public. They may opt to make a decision that is, ethically and logically, ‘bad’ for our society, only on the basis that the majority of the people would support it. This is only to demonstrate the fact that the political parties have more incentive to do that which is popular, as compared to that which is unpopular but possibly better.

This reveals the dual identity of the ruling party: firstly, that of the government, to promote the general welfare in the country, and secondly, that of a political party that is due for elections within the next 5 years. In a truly rational setting, these two goals could be achieved in harmony, so much so that the goal of promoting the welfare of the people would in itself lead to the achievement of mobilizing popular support. However, in the real world, the irrational world, there is another possibility - one where, by mobilizing popular support and invoking nationalist sentiments, the ruling party convinces the public that its actions are indeed for the welfare of the people. Note the difference carefully in the two cases: in a truly rational world, the starting point is welfare, the incentive is welfare and the popularity comes as a natural consequence of good governance. In the real world, a possibility is that the starting point is to ensure public support, the incentive is the power that comes with it, and the welfare of the people need not actually be a concern, so long as the people are convinced with the illusion that whatever the government is doing, it is in their best interests. In such a case, it is simply sufficient to convince the people that whatever is happening, it is for their own good - and here, there is incentive to distort information, to discourage dissent, to use ‘security purposes’ to silence, detain and arrest anybody who may as much as bring up the idea that the government may not have the best interests of the people at its heart - there is incentive to create a narrative that promotes the correctness of the government in absolutes, and that is where the death of democracy lies.

It’s important to understand what incentive means. Incentive is essentially motivation. When we say that somebody has incentive to do something, it means that they are motivated to do so, that it is in their self-interest to do so. Your acceptance or rejection of the above paragraph regarding the incentives of the government is simply based on your sentiments regarding the current ruling party - if you truly believe that the current government would do what is right for our country, even at the risk of losing popular approval, thereby losing the next elections, then you are likely to reject what is being proposed above. However, if you believe that the decisions of the current government would be guided by its need to retain popular support and please its vote-bank, then perhaps, you will agree. We leave it up to the reader to make his/her own inference regarding this.

So far, we’ve analyzed the government. Only possibilities and incentives have been presented, no objective conclusion can be drawn yet. Now we move on to the system of checks and balances in place that protect the democratic foundation of a country and we look at this in the context of Kashmir.

The Fourth Estate

There are 3 pillars of democracy - legislature, executive and judiciary. The fourth estate refers to the press and news media - it is the pillar that completes the foundation of a democratic society.

The journalists are observers of the political process, with one and only one objective: to ensure that the participants do not exploit the democratic system. This is such a vague objective that we must specify the part which is relevant for us.

The democratic society is based on participation of the people. Initially, there existed ‘direct’ democracy - one where every citizen of the country has a say in what is happening. As populations exploded, this became impossible, so we moved to a model of indirect democracy, where we elect people to represent us in the democratic process. While this creates convenience, it also creates a gap between the people and their representatives - the media is essentially the bridge for this gap, it is what amplifies the voice of the public to ensure that it reaches our representatives.

Moreover, we have seen that governments have incentive to do that which is popular. Equivalent to this statement is another statement - governments have incentive to ensure that whatever they do, they present the positive side of it. Keep in mind, the end result for a political party is to mobilize public support - this can be done either by doing what the public wants, or doing something that the public feels is correct. Note that there is no place for good or bad, right or wrong in this. Under this framework, right/good decisions may be taken, but if they are, they will only be a consequence of doing what pleases the people.

Since the government has incentive to present only the positives of any decision and action, it brings us to understand the need for the opposition as well as the journalists: to criticize, at each step, what the government does. Dissent in our society has been reduced to a bad word - there is nothing bad about dissent. Without dissent, without opposition, without criticism, democracy cannot exist, and it is here where the journalist serves the most important role - this must not be equated with ‘anti-nationalism’ or ‘creating unrest’ - without debate and dissent, democracy cannot exist.

Moreover, power is strongly associated with corruption. It is not so much that power breeds corruption, it is that it amplifies corrupt human tendencies. We are not stating that all authorities are corrupt, but that all authorities have power, and power tends to amplify our corrupt tendencies. It is the role of the journalists to counter this imbalance - through investigative reporting, by creating awareness and reaching out to the people, by being whistleblowers when necessary, the authorities are prevented from abusing their powers, which, if left unchecked, can be catastrophic.

However, journalists have limitations too - dissent comes at the cost of being under constant threat, at the disapproval of the authorities that are in power presently, and in our society, at the possibility of being labeled ‘anti-national’ for the simple act of presenting an alternate view. These social disincentives affect the behavior of journalists too, giving them incentive to keep shut.

On the other hand, under the conditions of competition, media houses have certain incentives: they have motivation to sensationalize news and events, to be controversial for the sake of being controversial. In order to turn profits, they must attract viewers, and while this goes strongly against the ethics of journalism, there are economic incentives to engage in such behavior.

The Questions

Keeping all of the above in mind, we would like to ask you to think about the following things:

How does one react to the idea that Indian officials as well as media houses have reported peace in Kashmir whereas BBC, Reuters and others have reported protests with over 10,000 people? Which of these have incentives to paint a false picture of what’s happening in Kashmir, if any?

How does one react to the idea that Kashmir remains under absolute communications and information blackout presently (9 days and counting), with highly restricted flow of information in the valley? Without internet, without mobile phones, without landlines and cable TV in Kashmir, when the Indian government states that there is peace in the valley, that Kashmiri people are celebrating with us, what can we infer? What can we say about the Indian government? What can we say about the Kashmiris?

How does one react to the idea that Kashmiris have been left out of the process entirely, and with the communication and information blackout along with imposition of curfew-like conditions under Section 144, they are not allowed to express their views either? Additionally, how does one react to the detention of political leaders in Kashmir? What can we infer about the democratic process in Kashmir in the context of the current situation?

How does one react to the claims of the current government that the decision has been made keeping in mind the objective of development in the region? How do we account for the claim that this might be a move by the government to change the demographic makeup of the region, to get rid of the Muslim majority in the state? How do we reconcile the difference in claims of the government with the national statistics that prove Kashmir is not as backwards as claimed? Do the statistics truly reflect development in Kashmir or do the numbers fail to account for other non-quantitative factors?

We leave it to the readers to infer the answers to these questions, keeping in mind the context and incentives for each agent involved in this event.

Those in power have the incentives as well as tools necessary to distort information. The point of writing all of this was not to establish a certain version of truth to be absolute, but to demonstrate the thinking with which we must approach such situations, as individuals.

Conclusion

There are facts and there are counter-facts - in a post modernist society, the elusive truth escapes us. India right now is bleeding, it is bleeding two shades of the same color - we bleed red for Kashmir, and we bleed saffron for a new India, one without the open wounds of Kashmir. The idea behind this post is not to convince you to take a particular stance - it is only to elaborate on a particular way of thinking, to demonstrate why, even if the truth is out of reach, even if we are surrounded by confusion, we must be willing to block out the noise and think for ourselves, to question the intentions of those in power, and to think. Several questions have been left unanswered for the simple fact that we acknowledge the limitations in our knowledge - even in the above analysis, there are surely missing pieces. No claim is made regarding this being a holistic model of understanding what is happening today, only one way of looking at it and analyzing it.

Written by Shivam Gangwani

0 notes

theoutgrowersworld-blog · 5 years ago

Text

We can all win.

Last time, we talked about how we all are racers. This we will talk about how each one of us racers can win the race.

But how can everyone win?

By running the race best suited for you. Most of us make the mistake of running the race that we see others running. The right thing to do is find your race, run, and win.

Now the question arises, how do I find the race best suited to me where I have the most chances of winning?

By running different races or watching other people run different races and then deciding which race gets you most pumped. Which race makes you cheer aloud. Which race make you leave your seat and shout aloud. That's your race. That's where you can win.

Run that race!

-written by ChoubeySahab

0 notes

theoutgrowersworld-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Race against yourself.

Each one of us is a racer. We are all racing, because there is so much competition, you know right? There's no way to avoid this race. You have to be better than 95% to make it to a good college.

But is all this all running and racing really helping us? Or is it just another game that's not for us but for those who made the game?

The present education system is not a game made for you but a game for the society to function properly. If you think about it, most of what we call education today is just rote learning stuff and putting it on paper. We don't really get better while getting "educated", our memory skills sure do.

Hence, it is important for each one of us to understand what race are we running and against whom. Scoring the most marks feels good but doesn't help you as a person, except ofcourse getting you a seat in a college. But as a person you are the same.

You must be wondering, then what should we do? What is it that will make me better personally? What race should I run and against whom?

Simple answer is run a race against yourself.

And how do you run a race against yourself?

By defeating your previous self.

Get better with time at everything you do. Work on your health both mental and physical. Challenge yourself. Push yourself to new limits.

Or to put it the way we like:

Outgrow yourself!

-written by ChoubeySahab

0 notes

theoutgrowersworld-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Doing our bit.

The question that we should keep asking ourselves is "Are we getting selfish?", "Are we too self centered?", "Are we doing our bit for the society?".

Well frankly, most of us aren't. We are the first ones to complain if there's something wrong with our surroundings. But when we look at it, we ourselves are not doing our bit towards bringing any positive change.

It isn't our fault, we don't have the resources to help, right? We don't have so much money to help everyone?

Here's the deal, you can bring positive change without spending a dime. Here's how?

To do this exercise with me, you'll need the following: an internet connection (which you already have) and a willingness to not be ignorant and do good for all.

If you have the above, you're all set. Now read on the internet about the things that concern humanity, you'll find a ton of things from hunger to Climate Change to inequality. Read about these issues in depth and write about them to share it with everyone.

This would help raise awareness and when awareness increases, more people know about the problem and when more people know about a problem, more people think for a solution.

But again reading on a topic and then writing something would take a lot of time and time is money. Here's a hack, you simply share the writings of other credible sources, it will have the same impact with so much less effort.

When it comes to spreading awareness and sharing knowledge, it is the best form of good you can do while sitting on the internet instead of just scrolling through random memes.

You can be a part of change just by pressing the share button on an important piece of information. That's all it takes to affect positive change. Not even a single penny. Just the right attitude would do so much good.

-written by ChoubeySahab

0 notes

theoutgrowersworld-blog · 5 years ago

Text

What it means to be an Outgrower

I get this question a lot. Who is an Outgrower? What does it mean to be an Outgrower? How does one qualify to be called an Outgrower?

I'll answer it for you today. An Outgrower is a person who constantly wants to get better as a person. Anyone who wants to constantly grow as a person is an Outgrower. Ok wait, what I just told you is wrong. The above explanation does not define an Outgrower. It defines a wannabe Outgrower.

Ok I won't bother you much. Here are the 3 must have qualities of an Outgrower:

1. Doesn't just want to grow but actually puts effort towards personal growth. Eg. excercising/journaling everyday.

2. Takes up challenges which make one go out of one's comfort zone. Eg. A writer taking up fitness challenge.

3. Consistency and commitment.

Many take up challenges but only a few finish them. Those who finish are the real Outgrowers.

Are you a wannabe Outgrower or a real Outgrower?

It's not bad to be a wannabe Outgrower, actually it's good. Everyone is a wannabe at first. Now you just need to start putting in effort to grow yourself.

If you feel you are a real Outgrower. Then great but you need to keep in mind that you will be required to constantly outgrow yourself to keep being called a real Outgrower, else you'll fall back to a wannabe Outgrower. Real Outgrowers never stop, they keep growing beyond all limits.

So what are you waiting for?

Get.Set.Grow!

-written by ChoubeySahab

0 notes

theoutgrowersworld-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Why Write?

Writing, to most of us, is not an enjoyable activity. It is not something that we do on a regular basis - sure, we use language to communicate, and most of us write for work, for education, and some of us, for art too. But other than these highly specialized applications, what is the point of writing? Really, the natural question arises - is there anything that the average person stands to gain from writing? I’m in no position to develop some theory about this, neither do I have statistics to back my claims. What I do have is a bit of experience - I’ve been writing, more or less, for the past 11 years - In the form of journals, in the form of letters (love, and hate), in the form of plans (for work and for myself), and so on. Of course, most of these words never saw the light of the day - they were never meant to. Why, then, write? For myself, of course.

I’ve used writing as a way to understand ideas and situations that are simply too layered, too complicated to be dealt with otherwise. For me, writing works well as a condenser - when I attempt to convert a thought to words, I must improve my understanding of it - it forces me to simplify where I can, to seek the very basic definitions of things, to find the underlying assumptions and relationships that are often unstated. Many people would consider a process like this to be too ‘abstract’ - of course, most of life is not reducible this way, but I was never here to create a science - I was only here to understand things better, approximately. In my personal life as well, writing has served an important purpose. In the most turbulent periods of my life, I have journaled extensively - I have written about myself rigorously, often using the process to step out of my mind and be an observer to my own thoughts and feelings. In a lot of ways, writing has served a meditative purpose. I have used writing as a dumpster too - to vent anger, sadness, feelings and thoughts that I was never comfortable sharing with anyone around me, I have confessed to the pages of a notebook I keep safer than my wallet. Whenever I felt emotionally overwhelmed, I would experience something that I describe as ‘brain fog’ - there would be an impenetrable layer between me and the rest of my world. Things that I normally enjoyed would become less fun - because my mind was so occupied with everything else, I struggled to be present to life around me. Writing helped with that the most - as the words came out, they felt meaningless, hollow, angry and lame. But later, in those same words, I could see the state of my mind - disturbed, chaotic, jumpy. I started to see what was wrong. I started to see where it was coming from. And now, I could finally fix it. Words have done something unexpected for me - they are a mirror that reflect what lies beneath the surface. I struggle to write - not because I lack the language required for it, but because I am scared. I am scared of being imperfect, I am scared of saying the wrong thing, I am scared of not being good enough. Perhaps I feel that I don’t have anything worth saying. Words have shown me that I don’t write about love, even though I think about it so much - perhaps I think a little less of myself for writing about what seems to be a cliche. I try to write as little as I can, but still, there is so much on my mind. And so I ponder, endlessly sometimes, upon each word, censoring myself, making my mind more palatable for those around me. Writing has shown me my tendency to hide - I have always thought of myself as ‘shy’ but now I can see, I have really just been trying to squeeze into the smallest space possible and to attract as little attention as possible because I’m just scared and unsure of myself. Writing has become an essential part of my thought process - I think as much in my head as I do on the paper. Only, now I don’t carry the burden of remembering everything at all times. — The idea behind the 200 words a day challenge is to experiment with writing as a form of expression, meditation and self reflection. Words aren’t just for some people - we all use language every day of our lives. This challenge is meant to broaden those horizons and see what place we can find for words in our lives. If you’re participating in this challenge, we’d love to hear about your experience, your journey with words, what you gain from it and what obstacles you had to tackle while trying to outgrow yourself, one word at a time.

Written by Bloop

1 note · View note