Scrolling your phone late at night, one video swipes past — what it was about, what numbers flashed across the screen, you basically can’t remember any of it a few seconds later. Your finger keeps swiping down, one video after another, none of them ever really taken in.

That day, on one particular video, the phone suddenly buzzed — a message popped up, a finger pressed down, and the screen just froze there. And it’s exactly in that frozen instant that a line from the video a moment ago — one that had flashed by in a blur — suddenly surfaces, clear as day: wait, that number seems way off. That line had already drifted past your ears seconds earlier, with no reaction at all at the time. Why is it that it only actually got heard, really heard, the instant the screen happened to freeze?

This time lag is worth turning over. The line itself never changed — it was the exact same line before and after. What changed was only whether the screen happened to be moving or frozen at the moment it appeared. The thing was there the whole time; the reaction only arrived late, and only after a pause showed up. This suggests the doubt was never actually called forth by the content itself — it was called forth by the gap that an accidental pause forced open, out of nowhere.

Think back to the experience of reading an article — hit a line that overstates something, and a knot ties itself in your head too. But when you’re reading, no one’s popping up a message for you, no one’s interrupting — and that knot still manages to tie itself.

Reading itself is a process made of pausing, sentence by sentence; the pause is built into the motion itself, no external reason needed to summon it.

Subscribe now

Video isn’t like that. It never stops on its own — it needs some outside force, a pop-up notification, a lag, a misclick, to conjure a gap out of thin air that wasn’t there to begin with. Text comes with this gap built in. Video doesn’t. Video needs luck to stumble into one.

Seen this way, the problem was probably never whether the content told the truth or not — it’s whether it left you any gap you could actually question it in. A piece of text naturally carries this kind of gap — between one sentence and the next, between one paragraph and the next, these are all natural pause points. Even if the reader never deliberately uses them, these pauses are always sitting there, ready to be used at any time.

A video edited airtight, from beginning to end, has none of these gaps — it even deliberately cuts them out. Every editor knows: the moment a shot pauses for more than a fraction of a second, viewers swipe away. So these pauses that should have belonged to the viewer get treated as excess, cut before anyone even gets there, and the reason for cutting them sounds entirely legitimate — no one thinks of it as a problem, some might even call the clean, tight editing a mark of professionalism.

This discovery means that whether doubt gets to surface at all was never, from the very beginning, decided by whether the content deserved to be questioned. It was decided by whether the hands at the editing table were willing to leave a gap for it. And what those hands at the editing table are actually weighing was never whether to leave the viewer room to think — it’s how to keep someone watching, keep them from swiping away. These two goals run in opposite directions by their very nature.

And more and more content today is designed precisely along the lines of how to leave no gaps at all. The tighter the pace, the fewer the gaps in between, and the doubt that was supposed to surface gets systematically squeezed out of existence.

This isn’t some single video accidentally achieving this — the entire logic of content production is being optimized in this exact direction. Content full of pauses can’t hold an audience; content with few pauses is what keeps people swiping. Over time, what survives is the airtight kind, and the content that would have naturally left gaps gets eliminated in this competition instead, slowly vanishing from the recommendation feed, judged by the algorithm as having a pace that isn’t good enough.

By the time you actually catch on, the content has already landed and taken effect. This “catching on” is usually just some moment, long after you’ve already swiped away, when it suddenly strikes you that something felt off about it. Maybe you’re lying down about to fall asleep, and you suddenly recall that some video you watched during the day doesn’t actually hold up under scrutiny. But by then, the emotion has already passed, you may have already shared it — and that belated doubt, aside from leaving you with a slightly bad taste in your mouth, changes nothing at all.

So what’s truly worth paying attention to isn’t only what a piece of content says. It’s whether it quietly took away a pause that was supposed to be yours. Taking it away once doesn’t mean much — everyone gets caught up in the moment and forgets to think it through sometimes; scrolling through dozens of posts a day, you were never expecting to stay sharp on every single one anyway.

But take it away enough times, and a person forgets they ever had this pause to begin with — forgets they could have left a bit of space between every sentence, for that doubt to slowly surface in. It’s only on some day when you genuinely need it to show up right on time that you discover this pause, once such a familiar habit, hasn’t been used in so long that it’s hard to find again.

Subscribe now

Someone selling paid courses posts to their feed, the caption usually something like “three years ago I was making three thousand a month too, now I’m here helping all of you get better.” The nine-photo grid includes an old shot of a rented room, and a recent group photo in a conference room.

Most people scroll past this post without thinking much about it, taking it for common marketing patter, swiping on. But what these two photos, placed together, actually do isn’t contrast poor and rich — poor and rich is just the surface.

What’s really happening is that a single message accomplishes two mutually contradictory moves at once: telling you he was once just like you, and telling you he’s now different from you. Neither line can stand on its own — they have to appear together to add up to the persuasive power that follows.

If it only emphasized being once just like you, the story would stall right there. A rented room, three thousand a month, a starting point about the same as most people’s — taken on their own, these things earn, at most, a “oh, you were like that too.” No one would think this person worth following just for that; at best, it feels relatable, no different from scrolling past an old classmate’s post — you see it, you move on, nothing sticks.

But if it only emphasized doing better than you now, the effect flips over in the other direction. A conference room, a group photo of a team, results that look glossy — put on display alone, these instinctively make people want to push back: you just got lucky, or, your background was better than mine, what does that have to do with me.

Subscribe now

The moment the distance stretches too wide, the sense of identification is the first thing to collapse. Neither effect can hold up the stage on its own — one is too close, close enough to lose all persuasive power; the other is too far, far enough to lose all sense of relatability.

But the moment these two lines are stitched together, the effect changes completely. That “once just like you” blocks off the challenge of “what gives you the right to teach me” before it can even land, dismantling half the defenses right away — he’s not the kind of person born with a silver spoon, who has no idea what ordinary people’s lives are like. He’s eaten the same hardship, lived in the same kind of room. This shared experience closes the emotional distance between the two of you first.

And then, right on its heels, comes “doing better than you now,” giving you a concrete reason to follow him — he isn’t someone from a different world than you, he’s just someone who’s already reached a place you haven’t gotten to yet. Those three words, “already reached,” are the single most crucial part of the whole persuasive structure — they translate a kind of superiority that should, by rights, feel off-putting, into a path you can borrow for yourself.

This setup is almost impossible to refuse, because it seals off every entry point for pushing back. Refute the first half, and you’re admitting your own past circumstances weren’t worth mentioning — you’re denying that you, too, once walked a path like that. Refute the second half, and you’re denying a visible result sitting right in front of you — a conference room, a comfortable-looking income — these things are just there, hard to deny with words alone.

The two lines lock together too tightly, and there’s no seam left to pry open and question independently. Question either half on its own, and you end up looking like you’re arguing against yourself.

And once this setup takes hold, what a follower invests emotionally is no longer simple admiration. Because simple admiration is a kind of looking up — the object of that gaze is someone on a different level from yourself, and looking up for too long wears a person out, makes the distance feel impossible to close no matter how hard you try, and it slowly fades.

But what happens here is a kind of expectation with self-projection built in — following him is, in a sense, a way of drawing an advance on the possibility that you too could become like him. Every result he shows off isn’t only his own; it’s him scouting out a path first, on behalf of everyone still stuck at the rented-room stage, proving that this path can actually be walked. This psychology isn’t entirely trust in someone else — it’s more like a bet placed on yourself, betting that you too can walk this same path to the same result.

Precisely because this bet is riding on it, the intensity of following him runs far higher than ordinary admiration, and the time, money, attention invested comes far more willingly. Buying his course, taking his advice, imitating the methods he shares — while doing these things, what’s actually running through a person’s mind isn’t “I’m spending money on him,” it’s “I’m paving the road for my future self.”

This sense of self-projection repackages an act of consumption into an act of self-investment. The moment the money leaves your hand, it doesn’t feel like an expense — it feels more like buying, in advance, a ticket for your future self, on a route that’s already been confirmed.

And precisely because this sense of self-projection runs so deep, when the person is exposed for faking results, padding their story — the ones who react most fiercely are usually not outside onlookers, but the people who once took this path seriously, treated it as a model for their own future.

What angers them isn’t just being cheated out of money — it’s that the proof that “this path could actually be walked” has suddenly been yanked away. The moment it’s yanked away, it also negates, by extension, the bet they’d once placed on this person. This kind of collateral defeat is far harder to bear than simply losing a sum of money, because what it shakes loose is a person’s own concrete picture of their own future.

This mechanism can be endlessly replicated precisely because it never actually needs the person “who ran ahead first” to be particularly special. It only needs two conditions: an ordinary starting point that can be told as a story, and a present-day result that can be put on display. How the process in between actually went matters far less — it can even be left deliberately vague, and that blank space actually leaves more room for imagination. The audience will fill in a reasonable, worth-imitating path all on their own.

This is also why this type of persona always looks so similar — a photo of a rented room, a photo of working late into the night, a later photo of a team, a later photo of traveling — practically a template that can be applied wholesale, that anyone can use to package themselves as “just like you, but already a step ahead.”

Once a template is proven effective, it gets used again and again, because what it’s really aimed at was never the unique charisma of any specific person. It’s the longing sitting inside every ordinary person’s heart — the hope that someone, somewhere, could prove that this path can actually be walked.

What truly wins someone’s undivided loyalty was never some idol perched high above. It’s someone from the same starting point as you, who’s simply already gotten ahead. This setup turns following into an investment in your own future, rather than simple looking-up.

And it’s precisely because of this investment-like nature that followers find it very hard to walk away — walking away means admitting your original judgment might have been wrong, means having to face, all over again, the unresolved question of whether this path can actually be walked at all, and that uncertainty is exactly what you were trying hardest to avoid when you first chose to believe in this person.

Subscribe now

Someone posts a photo of their feet, blistered from running — toenails gone purple, heels rubbed raw and red — the caption written with real pride, saying this is what genuinely pushing yourself actually looks like. Plenty of people post themselves lifting weights until their hands shake, the caption usually something like “today’s version of me really gave it everything” — and the likes pile up underneath.

Think about this phenomenon a little, and it’s actually somewhat strange. Under normal circumstances, a person’s first instinct when they suffer is to deal with it quickly, to want to avoid it — no one wants to actively show off their own rough state. But here, the pain isn’t hidden at all. It gets earnestly photographed, edited, captioned, and deliberately put on display, for as many people as possible to see. Pain goes from a private discomfort belonging only to yourself, into a public exhibit.

What makes pain worth displaying is that it’s been reclassified. As long as it’s no longer treated as an ordeal that needs sympathy, comfort, but instead treated as proof of willpower — proof that this person can endure more than most, understands discipline better, deserves the words “getting better” more than others do. Once it’s reclassified this way, the act of posting it about-faces entirely — no longer complaining, it’s boasting, a measured, dignified kind of pride.

And once this boasting gets liked, gets validated, it doesn’t stay still. The more likes it gets, the more it inspires more people to go find a similar kind of pain to show off — training until they throw up, until their legs give out, until they need to hold the railing walking downstairs the next day. This exhaustion, which was originally supposed to be resolved through rest, slowly turns into material that needs to be actively manufactured and traded for validation.

Subscribe now

And this is when some strange scenes start to appear — someone deliberately doing a few extra sets just to get a more convincing photo of soreness. Pain stops being a side effect of exercise and becomes the goal itself — deciding what to photograph first, then working backward to make the body endure the corresponding amount.

The fact that pain can be turned into a boast shows it has already been redefined as a virtue, rather than something worth questioning. A hardship that should, by rights, make someone frown, once packaged as admirable persistence, makes the very thought of asking whether it was necessary at all start to feel out of place.

And once a competition like this gets going, you’ll find the people standing on stage aren’t only the ones gritting their teeth for photos. Gyms and supplement brands make money off this enthusiasm for competitive suffering — whether a tub of protein powder sells or not largely depends on how many people are willing to believe that taking it long-term, combined with training, will earn them that liked, celebrated pride in their feed.

The platforms hosting all this content get their traffic off this intense engagement — a post showing off pain usually earns more attention than one showing an easy, ordinary day, so the platform naturally becomes more willing to push this kind of content to more people. The fiercer this competition over who can endure the most becomes, the more all these parties get to divide up between them.

But get down to any specific person gritting their teeth for a photo of their own sore expression, and what they actually get is usually just a few dozen likes and a handful of comments — “you’re really pushing yourself,” “inspired by you.” That payoff doesn’t seem quite proportional to a pair of genuinely blistered feet.

So once a competition over who can endure the most gets moving, the ones who actually come out ahead with nothing to lose were, it seems, never the participants gritting their teeth out on the track. It’s the spectators standing along the sidelines, steadily collecting money and traffic off this enthusiasm — they don’t even need to step onto the track and taste a single bit of the suffering themselves. All they need to do is stand off to the side and make the competition a little more exciting.

Those blistered feet are still real. That sense of accomplishment from seeing something through is still worth being happy about. But the next time your finger’s about to press the shutter, it might be worth asking yourself one more question first — is this photo really a keepsake meant for your own eyes, or has it, without your quite noticing, already become material prepared to be handed over, in exchange for something in return?

Subscribe now

Over a hundred years ago, British gunboats arrived off the coast of China, rows of black cannon mouths lined up on deck, firing round after round at the tightly shut ports. What they were battering was a door — and standing behind that door wasn’t some abstract “nation,” but the day-to-day lives of countless households: farming the fields, weaving cloth, going to market, marking the holidays according to rules handed down from their ancestors — an entire self-sustaining order that never needed anyone from outside to keep it turning.

What the gunboats were really trying to destroy was exactly this self-sufficiency. By the time the door was smashed open, before the gun smoke had even cleared, opium and foreign goods came flooding through the blasted opening, and that sense of steadiness — the kind you could get just by shutting your own door — was never coming back. Even the doorframe raised again on the ruins came out crooked.

Not many people talk much anymore about what became of that door afterward. But it actually already changed its face long ago, and reappeared in the palm of everyone’s hand — smaller than a palm itself.

The phone screen is the latest shape this door has taken — no soldiers, no gunsmoke, not a single cannon blast. Notifications pop up one after another, videos autoplay one after another, and the gap in the door gets pried a little wider, bit by bit.

Subscribe now

In the moment you first pick up your phone, no one feels like they’re opening anything at all — you just want to check the time, or reply to a message. But the instant your fingertip swipes across the screen, the gap is already open, the screen’s light glowing on your face, far gentler than the muzzle flash of those cannons back then.

The most cunning thing about this new invasion is that it never forces anyone. It even seems polite — the pop-up says “watch later,” says “not interested,” even considerately asks “want to see fewer posts like this?” The power to choose looks like it’s always in your own hands, one tap away from turning it off.

But by the time you actually come back to yourself, the sky outside is already pitch dark, and that rhythm of life that used to belong to you — when to focus, when to zone out, when to get up and pour a glass of water — has already been sliced into pieces by these images constantly barging in, like a perfectly good piece of cloth cut into a pile of unusable scraps. It never broke down a single physical door. It just gets you, again and again, to reach out yourself and push the door open a little wider.

When the gunboats approached, people at least knew what to guard against — they could see the masts, could hear the cannon fire, someone would run to the village entrance banging a gong to sound the alarm. But this time, there isn’t even the slightest warning — because the door was pushed open by your own hand, and even with a certain contentment.

Compared to the gunboats of that era, this invasion goes even further. The gunboats forced open the nation’s gates; what today’s images force open is **consciousness itself, in every single person.** It isn’t satisfied with getting someone to accept a single product — it wants people to accept an entire set of rules: life has to be put on display, emotions have to be consumed, and even solitude first has to prove that “I’m not wasting my time.”

Curl up alone on the couch for an entire evening of doing nothing, and a flicker of guilt surfaces first, before any sense of quiet ever does. Where that guilt comes from is hard to say. It’s just there, hanging overhead like the air itself, so pervasive that even taking a deep breath carries a trace of unease.

Back then, opium at least still had a concrete body — a dark brown paste packed in small boxes, something that could be weighed, something that could be set on fire and burned. The fire at Humen that destroyed the opium burned for more than twenty days, and what it burned was something you could see, something you could touch.

But this invasion now, you can’t even find a single thing to set alight. It has no shape, no smell. Once it gets in, it moves straight into the most ordinary gaps in your mind — the ten minutes before sleep, the dead time in a line, the few seconds waiting for an elevator.

The real Opium War, back then, at least left behind a clear boundary once it was over. Victor and vanquished, treaties and reparations, written down in black and white — who struck whom, who owed whom.

That boundary was humiliating, but it at least left something for later generations to point to, to resent, to write into textbooks as a warning to themselves. **But this invasion without any gunsmoke doesn’t leave you even a boundary at all.** There’s no treaty to point to, no specific enemy to resent.

The door stays open, the wind keeps coming in, and by now it’s impossible to tell whether what came in was forced on you, or whether you simply let it in yourself, without even thinking.

Even wanting to hate some specific person, you can’t find where that person is standing. All you can do is stare, blankly, at your own finger, sliding downward on its own, again.

Subscribe now

Waiting for the elevator, the screen shows it’s still twenty seconds away. The hand has already reached for the phone. The screen lights up, the lock screen swipes open — the twenty seconds haven’t even passed, and the phone has already lit up first. The person standing next to them is doing the exact same thing. Neither of them glances at the other, each head bowed, each face lit by the glow of their own screen.

The motion is so fast it barely passes through thought at all. In that moment standing at the elevator door, no thought ever surfaces in the head — it skips right past the step of “should I check my phone” and lands directly in the state of “checking my phone,” as if the body made the decision on its own, and by the time consciousness catches up, the screen is already lit, the finger already swiping.

There’s not even a single moment in this whole sequence that could be called a “choice.” A choice requires a pause, requires at least a flicker of hesitation, but there’s not half a second of hesitation in this motion at all. It’s more like a conditioned reflex — the same speed as flinching instinctively when something flies toward your face.

Thinking back on it afterward, you can’t even say for sure whether you saw the elevator’s waiting indicator first, or felt your hand already reaching for your pocket first — the two motions nearly overlap, impossible to tell which came before the other.

But thinking back, anything at all could have happened in those twenty seconds. You could have thought about what to have for dinner, what’s left in the fridge, whether to stop and buy something on the way down. You could have gone back over some line from that meeting a moment ago, wondering if there was something meant between the words, whether it was worth thinking through further.

Subscribe now

You could have simply stood there, staring at your own reflection in the elevator doors, checking whether today’s outfit actually worked. Or you could have thought about nothing at all, just stood there, feeling the faint chill of the building’s air conditioning.

Not one of these possibilities was ever given a chance to happen. The phone beat all of them, so fast that none of them even got the chance to poke their heads up before being replaced by that lit-up screen. This isn’t the phone winning some race. It’s that the thoughts that were supposed to surface on their own never even made it to the starting line — the gun hadn’t fired yet, and the track was already empty.

This “faster” isn’t because the phone itself is so tempting — it’s that leaving something blank hasn’t been allowed to happen in a long time. The instant even the slightest gap appears, the body’s first response is to find something to fill it with, and this response is fast enough to make you think it’s instinct.

In reality, it’s just a conditioned reflex, trained into you through endless repetition. Like Pavlov’s dog salivating at the sound of a bell — here, the bell has simply been swapped for any stretch of blank time, and what flows isn’t saliva, it’s the hand already reaching for the pocket.

The process of building this reflex is almost impossible to feel happening. No one consciously trains themselves to “pull out the phone the moment a gap appears” — it gets quietly welded into daily motion through thousands upon thousands of tiny repetitions, welded so firmly that now, trying to get around it actually requires a deliberate reminder to yourself.

This training happens across countless twenty-second stretches just like this one — twenty seconds waiting for coffee, twenty seconds waiting for the elevator, twenty seconds waiting at a red light — and every repetition reinforces this reflex arc a little more, until, eventually, consciousness can’t even find a way in anymore.

It’s not hard to imagine: if you forgot your phone one day, those twenty seconds standing at the elevator would feel unusually long, even leave you a little restless, unable to sit still. And that restlessness isn’t because twenty seconds is genuinely that long — it’s that the capacity to generate something of your own to fill that stretch of time hasn’t been used in so long that, all of a sudden, you can’t find anything to fill it with at all.

Your mind is like someone asked a sudden question, stammering, unable to answer — you stand there, not knowing where to put your eyes, not knowing where to put your hands, left to just watch the floor numbers tick upward one by one. That awkwardness feels a little like the embarrassment of forgetting your lines the first time you speak in front of an audience.

This awkwardness is actually the most honest moment of all. Nothing covers it up — it lays the gap bare, directly, forcing you to face a question: once every habitual filler is taken away, what’s actually left in you to pass the time? The answer is often a little embarrassing — almost nothing is left. That once-natural capacity to effortlessly conjure up a thought seems to have quietly exited, at some moment that went entirely unnoticed.

The elevator hasn’t arrived yet, and the phone has already lit up first. What this sequence exposes isn’t who’s more impatient — it’s that the capacity to generate your own thoughts, to pass your own time, has been trained, by this very “lighting up first,” into something you use less and less.

Subscribe now

In the stock clerk’s earpiece, there’s always a voice ready to jump in. Whenever her scanning speed drops below a certain number, the backend fires off an alert, a small line of text popping onto the screen in a glaring red. Her coworkers call this system “the electronic scythe” — it cuts fast, cuts precise, and shows no mercy.

When she’s stocking shelves, her hands have to move to a fixed rhythm, every product facing forward, the angle of every label exactly right — off by even a little, and a passing supervisor will frown; nothing needs to be said, that look alone is enough.

Eight hours in, her ears are ringing, and that feeling of being watched, pinned down, stays hooked to the stopwatch on the machine the whole time, impossible to shake — even during her ten-minute meal break, she can feel something like an invisible thread, tugging at her.

After her shift, she changes clothes and decides to wander through a nearby mall, stepping into a boutique counter. A sales associate glides over, light on her feet, smile arriving first, the first line already carrying a warm current — “Welcome, gorgeous, what are you looking for today?” — soft, warm, worlds apart from that cold alert in her earpiece eight hours ago, as if the very temperature of the voice had been recalibrated.

She pauses, caught off guard — that feeling of being treated gently is unfamiliar enough that it startles her, and her shoulders, without her meaning them to, drop a little, as if some string that had been wound tight inside her all day had just been loosened, gently. But the moment that warmth lands on her, some part of her knows exactly who it’s really aimed at. Not at her, the person — at the card she might pull out of her bag any second now.

Subscribe now

The same body: eight hours ago, treated as an efficiency unit to be squeezed to the last drop; eight hours later, treated as a valued guest to be coaxed and pampered. No gap in between — just a switch of roles, without even needing to change clothes a second time, makeup still on, shoes still on, sliding from one identity straight into another.

Put these two roles side by side, and they look like polar opposites — one cold, one warm; one rushing her to go faster, one begging her to slow down and look a little longer; one making her feel small, one making her feel doted on.

But look closely, and both sides are running the exact same math. The efficiency-squeezing logic at work, and the flattery-driven consumption logic after work, are, at bottom, both calculating how to squeeze a little more value out of her — the only difference is what gets squeezed: labor by day, wallet by night. The attitudes are exact opposites, but the goal is completely identical.

One uses an icy stopwatch to push her not to waste a single second; the other uses a scorching smile to coax her not to waste the credit limit on her card. The stopwatch pushes out speed; the smile coaxes out spending. Pushing and coaxing land in the exact same place.

The stopwatch and the smile look like two different people. They’re actually the same pair of hands, pushing in a different direction — the force never changed, only the angle.

The moment she walks out the mall’s front doors, she thinks she’s finally entered her own time. That sense of relief, of the weight lifting off, is real. But it doesn’t hold up under closer thought. She’s only switched from one squeezing system into another. The first one exhausted her; this one delights her. Pleasure sounds like it should be the most private of feelings, but right now its role is to serve as fuel keeping this system running.

The more warmly the sales associate calls her “gorgeous,” the more likely she is to browse a little longer, try on one more item. The fitting room lights are tuned to a warm yellow, the mirror angled to make her look slimmer — all these details stack up, quietly stretching out the minutes she stays. That feeling of being treated well becomes the hook that keeps her willingly lingering.

The whole idea of “the customer is god” was never actually about respecting any particular person. It’s just this same ongoing extraction, wearing a nicer-looking skin.

From cog to god, all it takes is one turn at the register. In the daytime, that register scans the goods she hands over; at night, this register scans the card she hands over herself — same motion, even the same “beep,” just standing in a different spot. She thinks she’s finally escaped the state of being used. In reality, she’s only switched to a more comfortable position, and kept on being used.

The earpiece comes off, and that alert really does stop. But another, softer voice picks up the exact same thread. The sales associate’s smile, the counter’s warm light, the fitting room mirror — all of them dress that thread in a skin that won’t prick the hand. But the thread itself was never actually cut.

Subscribe now

A friend of mine loved baking, and had been at it happily for years. On weekends, he’d bake a loaf of bread or a cake at home, take a photo, post it — the caption always in that light, easy tone.

Then the people around him started urging him: “Your skills are so good, why not open a shop?” After hearing it enough times, he actually did. Talking to him again half a year later, he said just the sight of the oven annoyed him now.

A lot of people have probably gone through this same transformation — the only difference is which prop each person happened to use. For some it’s photography, going from casually documenting life to having to edit photos exactly the way a paying client wants, style no longer allowed to be too personal.

For some it’s writing, going from writing just for fun to having to hit an update schedule, forcing out a piece even when nothing comes. Baking just happened to be the prop this particular friend used — swap in any other hobby, and this same logic could be copied over almost without change.

But at bottom, the thing itself never actually changes. What changes is always the same one part — the relationship between the person and the thing. Baking itself hasn’t changed. The flour is still the same flour, the oven is still the same oven, the recipe hasn’t changed either. But it used to be: bake whenever you felt like it, bake a batch when you were in the mood, skip it when you weren’t, no one waiting, no one pushing.

Subscribe now

Now it’s: must bake, must deliver on order, must keep the flavor consistent — a customer places an order, the deadline is locked, the recipe can’t be tweaked on a whim, because repeat customers come back for that exact taste. The moment this “must” appears, the very core of liking the thing disappears first — what’s left is just the process, and it’s no longer the same thing at all as that old spontaneous joy.

At bottom, this process is forcing a hobby into the evaluation system that belongs to work. Output, efficiency, repeat-customer rate — standards that were only ever supposed to measure work — the moment they get applied to something you love, that thing instantly turns into another job, just wearing a nicer-sounding name.

It used to be, if you ruined a batch of bread, you’d just laugh it off — no one was waiting to eat it anyway. Now, ruining a batch means a delayed order, an apology owed to a customer, a review that might take a hit. The exact same mistake carries a completely different weight depending on which identity you’re wearing, and that change in weight is exactly the first thing the love for the thing can’t withstand.

What’s even more worth turning over is that “why not open a shop” from the people around him sounds like a compliment — you’re skilled enough to take it out and make money. It’s supposed to be a nice thing to say, but hidden behind it is a judgment: something only counts as truly valuable once it can be monetized.

Simply liking something, simply doing it because it makes you happy, starts to look not serious enough, not worthy enough of the skill involved. As if liking something, on its own, isn’t a good enough reason for it to exist — as if it needs one more layer, the test of “can this make money,” before it can truly be justified.

Once this test becomes the default, almost no one pushes back against it. Who’s going to stand up and say, I just want to simply like a thing, I don’t need it to produce anything? Saying that out loud actually starts to sound like you’re making excuses — as if, without volunteering an explanation, you can’t quite justify yourself.

And the deeper this standard of judgment penetrates, the harder it becomes for a person to hold on to any space that’s purely their own, that owes no account to any output at all. Almost every single thing people love eventually gets asked the same question — can it be monetized. Love photography, and you get asked why you don’t take on paid gigs.

Love writing, and you get asked why you don’t take on commissions. Love running, and you might get off a little easier — but run fast enough, and someone will inevitably ask why you don’t enter a race and go for a ranking, some prize money.

Ask it enough times, and liking something on its own starts to feel embarrassing to justify — as if, without tacking on “maybe I can make money off this someday,” the liking itself can’t stand on its own, as if it needs some future use to earn the right to the effort being put in right now.

My friend probably got asked enough times that the idea of opening a shop finally took hold. At first, maybe he just thought — his skills were good enough, no harm in trying. But once he actually opened it, he found that the ease of “no harm in trying” had already been crowded out by orders and reviews long before he noticed.

What my friend lost wasn’t a skill. It was the instinct to simply like doing something, without ever needing to prove its value to anyone. And once this instinct has been absorbed into the logic of work, it’s very hard to get back — even if he closes the shop someday and goes back to just baking for fun at home, that original ease will probably never quite come back the same way it was.

Subscribe now

The word “division of labor” was first used to describe the assembly line. One person does nothing but tighten bolts, one person does nothing but manage the books, one person does nothing but watch over a single stage of the process, and efficiency shoots up as a result.

This logic helped factories produce more, and quite naturally walked straight out of the workshop and into the office, into every position getting sliced ever thinner — a person spends eight hours a day, getting to a certain line in a spreadsheet, a certain function in the code, the motions repeating like one gear meshing with another. No one can quite say when this became the taken-for-granted way things are now.

Push division of labor to its extreme, and efficiency really does go up. But the ledger behind that efficiency has never actually been settled honestly. A person spends eight hours a day repeating what might be one single, tiny motion, and the price paid for that efficiency is this: their lived experience gets compressed into that one tiny motion, while everything else that was supposed to be lived — adventure, romance, ups and downs, living a life to the fullest — can’t find even a foothold anywhere in this system.

Collapsing into a chair after work, that indescribable emptiness isn’t exhaustion of the body. It’s all the parts of you that got squeezed out, knocking at the door, with no one there to answer.

Subscribe now

This squeezed-out lived experience doesn’t actually disappear — it just grows back somewhere else. The place it grows back is in celebrities, influencers, idols. Their profession, in a sense, is to experience — on behalf of everyone whose lived experience has been hollowed out by division of labor — that rich, free, romantic, successful, glamorous life, and then film it, edit it, post it.

Watching that post scroll by for a few seconds, it feels almost like you went somewhere you’ve never been, fell in love the way you never have, and this compensation arrives fast and light — light enough that no one stops to ask whether this experience of “living vividly” was ever supposed to be something you earned yourself.

Follow this line of thought further, and you’ll find that “living vividly” itself has already been absorbed into the division-of-labor system — not everyone is supposed to experience excitement; instead, one segment of people is specifically assigned to experience it, while the rest are assigned to watch and envy.

Excitement gets processed into content, distributed to those fixed in place on assembly lines and in cubicles. Living excitingly has become a job title — the same kind of thing, in nature, as tightening bolts or filling out spreadsheets — both are products of division of labor. It’s just that tightening bolts produces components, while experiencing excitement produces footage other people are willing to pause and watch for a few extra seconds.

Once this division of labor takes hold, even the word “excitement” itself starts to carry a professional quality, as if it were naturally something certain specialized people should be responsible for carrying, separated from ordinary people’s daily lives by an invisible job description.

This division of labor hollows out ordinary people even more thoroughly than the factory kind did. Because the person tightening bolts at least still knows what kind of life they should be fighting for — they just don’t currently have the time or the conditions, but that longing is still there, intact.

But a person who’s grown used to watching someone else live excitingly on their behalf gradually has even the thought of “should I be experiencing this myself” worn away. And since excitement has already been outsourced to professionals responsible for it, going out and fighting for it yourself starts to look almost redundant, even a little clumsy.

“Not having time to experience it” and “giving up on experiencing it firsthand” are two entirely different degrees of loss. The first kind of person still has an unredeemed hope in hand. The second kind doesn’t even know when they quietly set that hope down.

Division of labor was originally meant to raise efficiency, to manufacture more things. But once division of labor extends to the act of living itself, what it manufactures isn’t more life at all — it’s an entire class of people hired to live on other people’s behalf, and an entire class of people who have given up living for themselves. The more completely this division of labor is carried out, the further humanity drifts from experiencing its own life with its own hands.

A hand that’s been tightening bolts can still be lifted to do other things — it’s just never been given the chance. But once you’ve grown used to letting someone else claim your right to live on your behalf, taking it back for yourself becomes, ironically, one of the rustiest, most unpracticed skills of this entire era.

Subscribe now

A quartz clock hangs on the office wall, its hands giving off a cheap silvery gleam, the second hand ticking forward notch by notch, steady and precise. Measure the distance between each notch with a ruler and you’ll find it dead accurate — one notch is one second, sixty notches is one minute, forever precise, forever even.

From the day it went up on the wall to now, it’s never run a notch fast, never run a notch slow. Even the cleaning lady, wiping down its glass cover as she passes, barely dares to knock it crooked.

But think about this evenness for a moment, and you’ll find it’s actually a rather unnatural thing. Those five minutes waiting in line for coffee — shifting your feet in place, watching the person ahead of you inch forward cup by cup, swiping your phone three or four times without finding anything new — those five minutes feel like they’ve been stretched hard by someone, refusing to end no matter how long you wait. Those five minutes having dinner with family in the evening — a bit of small talk, a second helping of rice, a bite of something your mother cooked — you look up, and the meal’s already over, gone in a blink.

Two stretches of time exactly the same length, and yet they feel like completely different things — one as long as the sting of a slap, the other gone like the wind before you know it. But the clock doesn’t care about any of this.

It measures both five-minute stretches as exactly the same length, the second hand ticking through exactly the same number of notches, not one more, not one less — never once letting a notch linger a little longer just because that stretch of time was more worth keeping.

Look back at earlier days, and you’ll find humans never really lived by this kind of even measurement. They lived by the sun rising and setting, by whether the wheat was ready to harvest, by the solar terms cycling year after year, or by the old tree at the edge of the village — when its leaves turned yellow, when they turned green.

Subscribe now

This way of keeping time, following nature’s own rhythm, had its fast stretches and its slow ones. During the busy farming season, people went out to the fields before dawn and didn’t stop until well after dark, the days wound tight as a rope. During the slack season, the sun hung in the sky warming the whole courtyard, men leaned against the doorsill smoking, children chased chickens around the yard, the days loose enough that you could hear the wind passing over the eaves.

The shape of time followed the shape of life itself. No one took a ruler and insisted on measuring two completely different stretches of time as the exact same length.

And this even measurement the clock represents was pushed into everyone’s life alongside the factory. Factories needed workers clocking in at the same time, clocking out at the same time, needed the time each stage of the process consumed to be precisely calculated, compared, optimized — because only that way could output be scheduled, costs be accounted for, every link in the chain continuously improved.

So this measurement was never, from the very start, designed to match the rhythm of human life. It was designed to match the production process, and people were simply stuffed into it, made to match it instead. Time stopped asking “how long does this thing need” and started asking “how many pieces should this be cut into, how long should each piece be, what’s the standard labor-hour.”

Which means what this clock measures was never “days” at all — it’s “labor hours.” No matter how precisely the second hand ticks, every notch it measures out is, at bottom, a unit of production that can be calculated, exchanged, compressed. Take this measurement and lay it over the five minutes spent eating dinner with family, and lay it over the five minutes spent tightening bolts on an assembly line — it’s the exact same ruler either way.

But these two stretches of time were never the same kind of thing to begin with. One is lived, alive, actually lived through. The other is calculated. One is filled with the smell of a home-cooked meal. The other is filled with an output report.

This clock was never meant to measure a person’s life. What it measures is how much calculable output can be squeezed out of a person. The second hand moves at exactly the same speed because what it’s actually serving was never that meal, that time spent together, those rhythms that were supposed to run fast or slow according to life’s own decision — it’s the production cycle waiting to be calculated cleanly, somewhere down the assembly line.

Once days get stuffed into this measurement, the difference between fast and slow gets smoothed flat, just like that. The second hand on the wall keeps ticking, notch by notch, the glass cover giving off its cold gleam — it doesn’t know, and doesn’t care, whose life this notch it just measured out actually belonged to, or what it was spent on. Either way, when quitting time comes, it finishes its lap the same as always — not one second held back, not one second given extra.

Subscribe now

A religious organization, a fan club, a startup community, or some activist advocacy group — on the surface, these look like completely unrelated things.

One person chanting sutras in a temple, another voting in a livestream, another pitching a vision in a conference room, another forwarding evidence in an advocacy group chat — put these four scenes side by side, and it’s hard to imagine what they could possibly have in common.

But take apart how they actually operate internally, and one shared move keeps showing up: each one requires members to hand over part of their own judgment first, in exchange for a place within the group.

On the surface, these groups differ so much that they seem impossible to lump together. The reasoning they use is worlds apart — one talks about faith, another about traffic and views, another about fundraising, another about seeking justice.

The goals they pursue differ too — some want peace in the next life, some want their idol to debut, some want their company to go public, some want a fair outcome. Even the language is completely different — one is scripture-like, one is fan-chant-like, one is pitch-deck-like, one is accusation-like.

But squeeze them all against the single line of group identity, and the way they actually operate turns out to be strikingly similar — all requiring a unified stance, a unified line between “us” and “them,” a unified interpretation of events.

Subscribe now

And anyone who drifts even slightly off that line gets treated in a strikingly similar way too — first persuaded, then given the cold shoulder, then marginalized. Swap a few words around, and the process is almost identical.

This similarity isn’t a coincidence. It’s because what these groups are actually solving, most of the time, was never the specific problem in question at all. They’re more like solutions to the exact same psychological need — the unbearable loneliness of facing uncertainty alone.

The moment a person realizes they have to judge some complicated matter alone — with no one to share the blame if they’re wrong, no one to cheer if they’re right — that loneliness can grow heavy enough to leave you gasping for air.

Especially when the thing itself is significant enough, uncertain enough to leave you genuinely unsettled, the urge to find somewhere to lean on is often more urgent than the urge to figure out the truth.

As long as it can solve this loneliness, it genuinely doesn’t matter what name it’s packaged under — doctrine, idol, equity, slogan, these are all just the outer shell. However elaborate the shell’s design, what’s inside is always the same thing: a heart urgently in need of somewhere to be set down.

This also explains why a person can jump from one group to a completely different kind of group and still end up repeating the exact same experience of being swept along. It’s not that they’re unlucky, always running into “bad organizations,” as if switching to a more trustworthy circle could avoid all of this.

It’s that what they’re actually looking for was never some specific idea — it’s a container that can carry the loneliness for them, and this kind of container almost always demands the exact same price.

They quit one group that always demanded “thinking the same as everyone else,” relieved to finally be free of that swept-along feeling, and the next day join a completely different-sounding circle, maybe telling themselves “this one’s different, this one actually reasons things through.”

A few months later, looking back, they find themselves weighing their words the same way all over again — checking which way the wind is blowing before they open their mouths, whether to say something, how to say it without standing out — no different at all from the group they’d once looked down on and left.

What’s even more unsettling is that once this sameness is clearly seen, it’s actually very hard to solve by “switching to a better organization.” Because the problem was never in the group’s banner — it’s in that inner feeling of “I can’t hold this up alone.”

Until that feeling itself is resolved, no matter how many circles you switch through, you’ll keep walking straight back into the exact same transaction. It’s like someone who keeps getting hurt in the same kind of relationship — the problem was never which partner they switched to, it’s the recurring position inside themselves that never actually got moved. The container gets swapped, again and again, but the person sitting inside it never changes posture.

No matter which flag is flying, as long as the content of the deal is “trading independent thought for a sense of belonging,” the nature of that deal has never actually changed.

Recognizing this matters far more than recognizing whether any specific organization is good or bad — because organizations can be swapped many times over, and banners can be renewed year after year, but that urgent impulse to trade away your own judgment for a sense of security, if it’s never actually seen clearly, will simply happen all over again, unchanged, inside the next container that looks completely different.

Subscribe now

The bluestone paving, the shopfront façades, the spacing between the lanterns, even the exact color temperature the lighting should be set to — all of it was marked out, clear as day, on the blueprints.

He and his team had stayed up through several nights drawing every line of it by hand. Coffee cups piled up in the corner of the conference room, the plan revised seven or eight times before it finally settled into what it is now.

The day the renovation was finished, he specifically brought his family to walk through it. Strolling down the old street he’d designed, a breeze picked up and set the lanterns swaying, casting small shadows.

He pointed at one particular corner and told his kid, they’d debated three different plans before settling on this one — a note of pride in his voice. That sense of accomplishment was real.

A street that used to be run-down, its tin signs rusted black, had become this — lanterns lit up, tourists holding up their phones, snapping away nonstop. Standing there in the crowd, the solid feeling of watching his own craft hold something up — that isn’t something you can fake.

A few years later, the neighborhood where his own hometown sat also launched a similar renovation project. When he went back, he made a point of turning first into the alley he used to frequent as a kid, still thinking about buying another bag of preserved plum candy from that little corner shop.

He turned that familiar corner — and the shop was gone. In its place stood a handicraft soap store in a uniform style, wooden sign, gold embossed lettering. He recognized the typeface instantly — it was the exact same font used on that old street he’d helped design years ago.

The same layout spacing, even the ratio of blank space on either side of the sign, all calculated from the exact same template. He stood there, frozen for a few seconds, still holding the things he’d brought for his parents.

Subscribe now

That sense of familiarity was, at first, a little gratifying — it meant the plan was genuinely mature, genuinely effective, that even other teams taking it over were willing to follow the same logic. Proof it could hold up to scrutiny.

But standing at the mouth of his own hometown alley, that gratification didn’t hold for long — it soured fast. He could recognize the design logic, but he couldn’t recognize the alley anymore. The road was still the road, the wall was still the wall, even the old tree at the corner was still there. But the life that used to fill both sides of the road had been swapped out for something else entirely.

That familiarity wasn’t the familiarity of coming home — it was recognizing a template he himself had once had a hand in, one that had now been stamped onto a place that was supposed to belong to his own childhood. Like seeing, on someone else’s face, makeup he himself had once applied.

He suddenly realized that what he’d been doing, this whole time, was never really renovating any one specific street. It was taking an entire piece of logic — “how to make a space more convenient for displaying merchandise” — and copying and pasting it, over and over, onto different place-names.

What lay beneath the bluestone paving underfoot was no longer this particular street’s own memory at all. It was a template he and his colleagues had written together, one that could be dropped onto anywhere — just swap in a new place-name, and it would run, and once it ran, it would end up looking more or less the same everywhere.

What hurt most, maybe, was that he had no way to lock this logic away at other people’s hometowns and leave his own as an exception. Because once this system starts running, it doesn’t pick and choose places, doesn’t recognize people. It uniformly turns every corner suitable for renovation into the same shape, including the very alley he grew up in.

He’d never once thought to touch his own home, had never signed his name to any plan for this street. But this logic never needed his consent. It pushes forward at its own pace, and wherever it reaches, the signs get swapped for the same font, the corner shops turn into the same handicraft soap stores, and as it pushes forward, it never once stops to ask whether this happens to be someone’s hometown.

He raised a hand and touched the edge of the new sign. The wood had been distressed to look old, but it still carried the roughness of raw new timber under his fingertips — he could feel the trace of sandpaper. It was nothing like the texture he remembered, the wooden threshold of that old corner shop, worn smooth and glossy by countless hands over the years.

So what he’d built was maybe never a street at all. It was a method that could swallow any street whatsoever. And when that method came back to his own doorstep, it showed him no mercy at all. Standing at the mouth of the alley, he couldn’t pretend anymore to be the one steering this renovation.

Right now, he was standing in the exact same position as any tourist visiting this alley for the first time to snap a photo — raising his phone to capture the gold-embossed new sign, from the exact same angle everyone else did, even the composition matching the sample images he himself used to walk his team through, back when he was explaining the plan.

He used to stand in front of the blueprints believing he was the author of this logic. But standing in this alley he could barely recognize anymore, he finally understood — this logic had stopped needing an author a long time ago. All it needed was one street after another for it to pass through. And once it passed through, it left behind the same signs, the same lanterns, and the same unrecognizable street corners.

Subscribe now

This week, you tried three different directions. You wrote up proposals, talked to a few people, ran a few small experiments. None of them worked out.

Reviewing it at night, the first line that pops into your head is — this week, it feels like I got nothing done. That sense of defeat is real, and familiar — almost every time you fall into this state, it’s the exact same script.

But it’s worth pausing to ask first — what standard are you actually using to evaluate this week? If the picture in your head is “I should have something presentable to show” — a finalized proposal, a deal closed, a model that actually worked — then what you’re actually doing is measuring this week with one particular ruler.

That ruler cares about outcomes, cares about the finished product you can finally set down on the table. It’s not a bad ruler — plenty of things genuinely should be measured with it. The problem is, it might not be the right one for what you’re actually doing.

First, think about what it feels like to assemble a piece of IKEA furniture.

You really are assembling it with your own hands, start to finish, no one doing it for you. But what you care about most is inevitably whether the finished cabinet is sturdy, whether it looks good. If you’re clumsy along the way, misread the instructions three times, spent an extra hour on it — you don’t go around telling everyone about that.

Because assembling a cabinet has always been measured by the finished product. The process is just a means to reach that product — and the means itself, even if skipped, optimized, or outsourced, loses nothing by being treated that way.

But trial and error in the early stages of a startup is, by nature, nothing like assembling an IKEA cabinet at all — it’s closer to an improvised basketball game.

Subscribe now

There’s no instruction manual written in advance telling you what to do next. Every step you take is generated on the spot, in real time, and even you yourself only find out what the next step is by taking it.

Once this distinction is fully clear, you’ll find that this week’s real value was hiding inside those three attempts themselves.

This isn’t the comforting kind of line — “you didn’t succeed, but at least you tried.” It’s something more specific — through these three attempts, you figured out which path doesn’t work, sharpened your instincts to judge a little faster next time, or even just came to understand, a little better, exactly where the real complexity of this thing lies.

All of these gains belong to the process itself. They can’t be packaged into a presentable product, can’t even be clearly written into the “this week’s results” line of a weekly report.

This reminds me of something — what actually makes an experience worth remembering isn’t just “beating the level” as an outcome. Very often, it’s the specific missteps, the adjustments, the sudden moments of realization along the way to beating it.

The later Wittgenstein made a similar observation when discussing “understanding” — roughly, that some capacities can only grow, bit by bit, through the process of doing something; you can’t work out the answer first and then go execute it. Trial and error is, more or less, exactly this kind of thing.

Once you realize this, you’ll find that a large part of that sense of defeat was manufactured by you yourself.

It’s not that you truly accomplished nothing this week — it’s that you took a ruler that can only measure length and used it to measure something that is fundamentally a matter of weight. Of course it comes out to zero. That’s not a problem with the thing itself. It’s the wrong ruler.

The question truly worth asking was never “did I produce results this week.” It’s “did I genuinely go through that struggle this week, did something grow out of those three failures — even if that ‘something’ still can’t be named, still doesn’t have a shape to it yet.”

Of course, this distinction is much harder to actually use than it is to describe.

Because most of the time, when we evaluate ourselves, that “there should be results” ruler is the first one to surface, the most natural one — it’s the default standard we’ve been drilled into since childhood, while the judgment that “this thing never had an instruction manual to begin with, the process itself is the point” only surfaces once you stop and think one extra step further.

So next time you feel like a failure because “this week had no results,” it’s worth pausing like this first — asking yourself, does what I’m doing fundamentally have a pre-written standard answer at all.

If it doesn’t, then the struggle itself might be the one genuine result this week actually deserves to have recorded — it just doesn’t look much like a result. Or rather, it’s a result you need a different pair of eyes to even recognize.

Subscribe now

When Kant talks about autonomy and heteronomy, the “autonomy” he means isn’t the everyday sense of “self-discipline” we usually toss around.

He’s talking about something else — where the law comes from. Autonomy is law you legislate for yourself, law that grows out of your own reason. Heteronomy is law stuffed into you from outside, regardless of whether you personally agree with it.

Both words are really asking the same question — who is the legislator. That question sounds a little abstract, but it plays out every day, in the most trivial places — no one just ever bothers to take it seriously.

The word “legislation” sounds solemn enough, as if it only counts when there’s a meeting, a document — something that has nothing to do with an ordinary person’s day. But in fact, a person is doing countless tiny acts of legislation every single day; they just never realize any of it counts as legislating.

Whether to speak your real mind in this particular setting, whether to skip a rule you’re technically supposed to follow just to save yourself some trouble, whether to make up the extra few minutes you went over on your lunch break — these split-second judgments each have some law standing behind them, backing them up.

That law might come from a line drummed into you as a child, might come from a video you scrolled past yesterday, might even just be the words “that’s what everyone does.”

Subscribe now

It’s just that, most of the time, no one ever stops to ask which set of law they were actually citing in that judgment. The judgment gets made, the moment passes, and no one ever gives a second thought to where the grounds for it came from.

If a person gets into the habit of directly citing some ready-made external law — what the workplace policy says, what everyone usually does, what society’s default practice is — what they’re actually doing is handing over legislative authority, again and again.

Handing it over once looks like it doesn’t matter, even makes you seem sensible, easy to get along with — no one would blame you for it. But hand it over enough times, and it quietly hardens into a reflex.

At any moment that calls for a judgment call, the first thing that surfaces in your mind isn’t “what do I think about this,” it’s “what does the policy say,” “what does everyone else do.” Once this reflex takes hold, judging no longer starts from yourself. The starting point has already moved outside, from the very beginning.

What’s interesting is that this process rarely feels, to the person going through it, like giving anything up. It often comes with a sense of relief instead — no longer having to shoulder the responsibility for the judgment yourself, and if something goes wrong, there’s somewhere to point — “I was just following the rules.” That sentence itself carries a built-in lightness, the relief of offloading blame.

Once a reflex like this settles in, it brings a consequence that’s easy to miss. That external body of law always has blind spots it can’t cover — run into something the policy never wrote down, something with no precedent to match, and a person who has never once made up their own mind will suddenly find their hands empty, standing there, feeling for the first time the genuine bewilderment of having no one to ask and no precedent to copy.

It isn’t that they don’t want to judge — it’s that they’ve never actually practiced how to derive a judgment of their own, directly, from their own reason.

That capacity has sat unused for so long that by the time it’s actually needed, it turns out to be so out of practice it can barely be grasped at all — like a piece of clothing not worn in years, the size somehow no longer fitting.

What’s even more worth pondering is that this entire process of handing it over never needs anyone to design it deliberately, never needs anyone scheming to seize it. External law is, by its very nature, far less effort than working things out for yourself — a ready-made rule sitting right there, just follow it, is far faster, far easier than sitting down and thinking through “why should I do this.” People are naturally drawn toward this ease; no one is forcing them from behind, no one has even told them what it costs.

This is exactly the part that’s easiest to overlook — people are used to imagining “relying on external standards” as something forced on them, but more often, it’s simply the convenient choice anyone would make, one made so easily you barely even notice you’re making a choice at all.

And once this convenience gets repeated enough times, once a person has had a taste of how easy it is, they won’t be satisfied with just the occasional shortcut anymore — they’ll start actively seeking out that ready-made answer in more and more situations that really should have called for their own thinking.

One instance of ease is just an interlude; repeated enough, ease slowly settles into a character trait — not because the person was born lazy about judgment, but because the path was so smooth that, walking along it, they simply stopped thinking to try a harder road for once. This is how legislative authority gets given away, bit by bit — not seized from you, but handed over, on your own initiative.

Legislative authority is the kind of thing that, if you don’t use it, you’ll end up quietly handing it to someone else without even realizing it. And this “someone else” never actually needs to reach out and seize it — it only needs to keep standing there, being less effort than thinking for yourself, and that’s enough. It doesn’t even need to know it’s being relied upon.

By the time you actually need a judgment that’s truly your own, you’ll find that the seat has already, quietly, been occupied for a long time by some ready-made answer — occupied for so long that it’s become almost impossible to tell whether the thought that just surfaced in your mind is something you decided yourself, or something that long-familiar external law is simply saying on your behalf.

Subscribe now

A person is sitting in a pretty decent restaurant, eating. Their phone suddenly pushes a notification — a new restaurant nearby, rated even higher, has just opened.

That notification doesn’t actually make the food taste any worse — the plate is still the same one that was just set down, still steaming. But when they pick up their chopsticks for the next bite, it’s no longer entirely this dish they’re eating. Part of their attention has already drifted over to the doorway of that new place, sizing up its sign, even starting to imagine what the decor might look like, what the menu might have on it. The dish in front of them is clearly still hot, and yet half of their tongue is already tasting something else — not this dish’s flavor, but the imagined flavor of a dish that doesn’t even exist yet.

The food hasn’t changed. The chopsticks haven’t changed. But part of them is no longer at this table. This bit of distraction is light, barely noticeable, and won’t even stop them from finishing the meal just fine — but it quietly shifts something basic: eating this dish used to be the one thing they were doing, right now. Now, eating this dish becomes the thing they’re doing for the time being, with a thin crack left open beside it, leading somewhere else.

Cracks like this probably open more than once in a single day. Halfway through a movie, you suddenly recall that another film supposedly has better reviews. Lying down to rest, a thought drifts through your mind — should you be using this time on something more productive instead. Each of these thoughts is short, short enough to barely take up any space at all, but they all show up in almost exactly the same way — each one reminding you that whatever you’re doing isn’t the only option, that something else might be better.

Subscribe now

You still finish the movie, still get your rest, but looking back at the day, it feels like you were never truly settled anywhere. The meal got eaten, the movie got watched, the things got done — everything got finished, and yet everything is left with some small unfilled space. It’s as if the day got sliced by countless thin cracks into pieces of uneven length, none of them heavy enough on their own, and put back together they still add up to a full day, but a day that can’t hold the thickness a full day should have.

In the end, all these cracks are the same motion, repeated over and over: the moment you know another option exists — a higher-rated restaurant, a better-reviewed film, a more efficient use of your time — whatever you’re currently doing quietly gets demoted one rank, from “the thing I am doing” to “the thing I’m doing for now.” “Demoted” sounds heavy, but when it actually happens, it’s nothing heavy at all — just a flicker, almost as if nothing happened. But it’s exactly that flicker that turns something that should have been whole into an interlude that could be pulled out and swapped at any moment — like a play where the actor might get replaced at any time, while the audience keeps right on applauding as usual.

So an enormous physical freedom of choice can, at times, make it even harder for the mind to genuinely settle. But this isn’t about having too many options and getting overwhelmed. Follow those thin cracks back, and you’ll find the problem isn’t that you can’t pick one — it’s that there was never really any intention to pick one and then stay put. Every option is kept open, ready to be reopened at any moment — like every door in the house left deliberately ajar, the wind constantly moving through, not a single room ever truly closed.

Here’s the interesting part: these notifications, these ratings, these “there’s something better” prompts — every time you open one, what you get in exchange is a more fragmented day. And yet people still can’t help opening them, again and again. Probably because comparing gives you the feeling that you’re getting closer to the answer — as if every comparison brings you one step nearer to the best option.

But that higher-rated new restaurant won’t have been open a month before yet another one, rated even higher, pops up ahead of it. This game of comparison genuinely has no endpoint, because the endpoint was never something comparison could arrive at in the first place — the endpoint is a moment when a person decides, on their own, to stop comparing, and closes the door.

If a person keeps waiting for that moment when “comparison is finished” before they’re willing to hand their full attention over to whatever’s in front of them, they’ll probably wait their whole life — because that moment was never actually going to arrive. It only ever gets pushed further back, pushed to tomorrow, pushed to the next time a notification pops up.

Looking back, the moments that actually felt truly settled were rarely the “optimal choices” arrived at through endless comparison. They were the times when the thing itself left no crack open at all — whether a meal tasted good, it turns out, doesn’t depend so much on whether some better restaurant exists somewhere else. It depends on whether, while eating that meal, a person was actually, fully, at that table — instead of half-drifted off somewhere else.

Subscribe now

The concert ends, and tens of thousands of people flow out together, packed shoulder to shoulder — moments ago you were shouting the same lyric along with the entire crowd, the atmosphere blazing hot, a sea of light sticks swaying in unison. In that moment, it’s hard not to feel connected to everyone around you. You’re all inside the same song, the same emotion, all struck by the same instant at once. You might even feel that the stranger who was standing next to you a moment ago doesn’t seem so much like a stranger anymore.

Ten minutes after it ends, you call a car home. You don’t know a single person around you, and you probably never will again. That feeling of being wrapped inside one huge shared emotion starts fading the moment you walk out the venue doors. You look down at your phone, and your feed is full of that same show, the captions all sounding about the same — the excitement was real, but that excitement suddenly feels like it has nothing to do with you anymore. That drop feels strange — a moment ago you were sure you were with tens of thousands of people; how did you turn around and become just one person, alone?

Music festivals, pop-up stores, viral exhibitions — they’re all the same kind of thing. They’re a one-time stimulus, exciting, but they can be replaced at any moment by the next event just like it. This one ends, and next month there’s another; the theme changes, the venue changes, a whole new batch of people shows up, but the feeling is about the same, sometimes even more exciting. That photo-worthy wall you went to pose in front of will be torn down in a few months and replaced with an even trendier installation, and no one will feel any regret over its disappearance, because it was never built to last in the first place. There’s no real bond between the participants — they just happened to consume the same product at the same time. This isn’t anyone’s fault. It’s simply what this kind of event is — designed, from the start, to be replaced by the next one.

But this is exactly where the problem lies — it doesn’t always show up wearing this obvious a face. Some kinds of excitement look, on the surface, a lot like real connection. Take a concert built around the memories of people born in the ‘80s or ‘90s. Tens of thousands of people sing along together in a stadium, many of them crying, getting goosebumps, feeling suddenly pulled back into some particular era. That isn’t fake. There really is a generation’s youth in there, a stretch of time genuinely lived through together, a very real collective memory. You can’t just dismiss it as “consuming a one-off thrill,” because it genuinely touches something deep inside people. But this is exactly where things get most delicate. The feeling of being moved is real. The connection isn’t necessarily real at all.

There’s a difference here that’s easy to overlook. The connection at a concert is, more often than not, a refraction. The bond between you and the stranger crying next to you isn’t actually each other — it’s the cultural symbol on stage, the singer who grew up alongside you, those few songs that pull you back into the past the instant they start playing. You’re both resonating through one enormous cultural vessel. The thing you’re each moved by looks like it’s each other, but it’s really more like each of your own separate pasts being lit up, at the exact same moment, side by side.

Subscribe now

So you’ll notice that the intimacy in a setting like this has a strangely weightless quality to it. Everyone sings together, shouts together, cries together — but the moment the lights come up and the show ends, that intimacy exits, fast. You leave the venue, and the people who were singing along with you a minute ago instantly become strangers again. What you shared was an emotion. Not a relationship. Real relationships don’t work this way.

Real relationships don’t need an external stage to mediate them. Old friends can sit together, and even if half an hour goes by without a word, that sense of steadiness is still there. Family gathers around a table to eat, the dishes about the same every year, the topics repeating themselves every year, even a little dull — but the connection doesn’t vanish the moment the meal is over. Because you yourselves, to each other, are the anchor.

This is exactly where the difference lies. The intense resonance at a concert is refracted through a cultural product; the connection between family and old friends is direct. You don’t recognize each other through some symbol — you’re simply, already, part of each other. Of course it also has its dull stretches, its hassles, its obligations, and it can even be exhausting sometimes, but it doesn’t depend on a performance to exist.

This also explains why something like a concert can be so addictive. What it offers is a togetherness that’s highly concentrated, but very light to carry. You can spend two hours surrounded by tens of thousands of people, struck by an old song, lifted back up by the memory of your youth — but once it’s over, you don’t have to answer to anyone, don’t have to maintain a relationship, don’t have to explain yourself, don’t have to shoulder tomorrow. It’s like a grand shared ritual, with the whole element of commitment deliberately removed.

This is exactly what makes it so modern. Modern people are growing more and more used to this kind of relationship: wanting intense resonance, without wanting to be tangled up in a real relationship. Wanting to well up with tears alongside a crowd of people, without wanting to take on long-term responsibility for any single one of them. So the culture industry has turned this need into a product — turned it into concerts, into brand collaboration exhibitions, into limited-time pop-ups, into every kind of “we all get it” emotional scene.

What it gives you is a prepackaged sense of community. But something prepackaged is, in the end, not the same as a real community. A real community isn’t just “we were moved in the same place, once.” It also means that tomorrow, the day after, many years from now, you still have some connection with these people that isn’t easily broken. That connection has commitment in it, has hassle in it, has responsibility, has long-term friction. It isn’t light. It’s even a little cumbersome. But it can pass through time.

What the culture industry offers strips all of this away. It keeps the excitement, keeps the resonance, keeps that feeling of “we really get each other,” but takes away the part that would actually require you to carry something. So, at the venue, you feel briefly like you belong to some vast group — but that feeling of belonging recedes fast, like a gust of wind, arriving hard and leaving just as quickly. What you get is emotional value. Not a bond.

This is the most hidden part of it. It doesn’t crudely deceive you — it satisfies you with extreme precision. It knows you’re lonely, knows you long to be understood, knows you want, at some moment, to sing loudly alongside a crowd of people, want to confirm, inside some atmosphere, that you’re not alone. So it gives you all of this, and gives it to you so precisely that it’s hard to spot the problem right away.

The problem is that this kind of connection is too light. Light enough that it can comfort you exactly when you need it most, while leaving almost no weight behind in your life at all. What can actually hold you up usually isn’t these highlight moments — it’s the specific relationships that look mundane, boring, even a little troublesome. It’s the meal you have together every year, the person who still reaches out every so often, the things that aren’t intense at all, but are simply there, year after year. They’re not as thrilling as a concert. But they’re still there, standing beside you, long after the excitement has faded away.

Out of every “many people together” occasion you’ve ever taken part in, is there even one where the connection was still there after it all ended? If you can’t think of one right away, it isn’t because you haven’t made enough friends. It’s because most of the places you’ve been were never designed to leave anything behind in the first place. And the reason you still get moved by them is that they resemble the real thing so closely.

Subscribe now

“I’m so bored.” You’ve said this line too many times to count. It comes out too smoothly, too naturally, almost without needing to pass through your brain at all. You say it while waiting for the bus, halfway through a party, at some random moment scrolling your phone. It’s become a reflex, an automatic broadcast that just slips out — you’ve never once stopped to question it, never thought to check whether this sentence is actually accurate.

Try checking it, just once, right now. Almost every time you say “I’m bored,” can it be solved by one small, light action? Bored waiting for the bus — the bus arrives, and it’s fine. Bored at the party — go home, lie down, and it’s fine. Bored scrolling your phone — swipe, switch to the next one, and it’s fine. This works so smoothly that you never notice how suspicious it actually is — a “boredom” that disappears the instant you swap out whatever specific thing is in front of you isn’t some bottomless emptiness at all. It has a very clear target: this damn bus, this dull party, this unappealing video. Swap the target, and the boredom swaps out right along with it.

This points to something rather deflating — the “boredom” you keep naming was never boredom itself. It’s just a more polite way of saying “this thing in front of me isn’t to my liking.” It’s as shallow as a thin film of water — one flash of sun, one gust of wind, and it’s gone. It doesn’t even need you to do anything; time only has to inch forward, and it dissolves on its own. The “I’m so bored” you’ve been saying your whole life may never have actually happened, not once.

So what would real boredom actually look like? Push a little closer to it — what would it feel like if, one day, you were bored to the point where you couldn’t even answer the question “what am I bored of”? Not that this party is dull, not that this video is unappealing — you can’t find a single concrete thing to point at at all. No target, nothing to swap out, no single thing that, once finished or replaced, would make the boredom dissolve.

Subscribe now

That isn’t “this thing is dull.” It’s everything, all at once, falling silent toward you together. Ordinarily, you never even notice that everything around you is silently deciding your next move for you — a notification pops up on your phone, and your finger moves on its own; a to-do list sits there, and your body has already started the next item before you even have to think. All of this has been quietly telling you which way to go, and you’ve never once felt what it’s like without them telling you.

But in that true kind of boredom, all of these guides go dark at once. Nothing looks more important than anything else, and nothing looks less important either — it’s as if every gradation has suddenly been pulled out of the world, and you’re left in a completely boundless emptiness, with nothing telling you what to do next. Not even “you yourself” can answer that question.

This isn’t boredom turned up a notch. It’s something else entirely, a different kind of thing altogether. It forces you, for the first time, to hear a question that’s normally buried under a life crammed too full to ever let it surface — if nothing is telling me what to do, who am I, really, and what am I actually living for. This question won’t make you comfortable. But it’s precisely because it’s uncomfortable that it becomes possible, for the first time, to actually be heard — when you’re busy, as usual, this question can’t even knock on the door.

So — you think you’ve been bored to the absolute limit, that restless feeling where you can’t sit still and just want to find something, anything, to do. In reality, you’ve never even come close to touching the real boundary of boredom. Because that shallow kind of boredom always leaves you an escape route — switch to something else, swipe, take a walk, and it’s gone. But real boredom gives you nothing to swap. It takes away every escape route, leaving you alone, face to face with that question.

That true kind of boredom — you may never have experienced it, not even once. Not because your life is too full, but because there’s always something within reach that can be swapped out — and that thing, every single time, closes the door before it ever truly gets the chance to open.

Subscribe now

A lot of people have said this line, or at least heard someone else say it — “I’m just an anxious person, I overthink things.” When people say it, the tone usually carries a little helplessness, a little self-deprecation, as if describing an innate personality trait, something as inborn as your height or your taste in food.

But stop and look at this sentence a little longer, and you’ll find it doesn’t actually explain anything at all — it only describes a result, “I’m anxious easily,” without ever answering where that anxiety actually grew from.

When a person is genuinely overthinking, what they’re overthinking usually isn’t anything earth-shattering. It’s an email with a slightly harsh tone, read over three times, wondering whether there’s something meant between the lines. It’s one number on a checkup report, not really a big deal, slightly elevated, and you spend the whole night researching it online. It’s checking the door before you leave, again and again, even though it was already locked the very first time you checked.

Taken individually, each of these things is lighter than the last — light enough that it barely deserves to be called a “thing” at all. And yet it’s precisely these weightless little things that eat up an enormous, genuinely real amount of mental energy for so many people. That’s a bit strange, isn’t it — if the thing is really this small, why is the reaction this big?

The explanation that comes to mind most easily is that this person’s “mental fortitude isn’t very strong,” or that they’re “just sensitive.” This explanation is convenient — convenient enough that you barely need to think any further. That’s just how they are, nothing worth digging into. But if this explanation were correct, you’d expect to see a pattern — a sensitive person should be equally sensitive to every small thing.

Subscribe now

But reality is often not like that. A lot of people stay unusually calm in the face of genuinely big things — they can take it, can hold up, can even keep steadier than most. And yet it’s precisely these petty, trivial matters that break them. This contradiction suggests the explanation of “sensitive personality” might be missing something more crucial.

If this overreaction to small things isn’t really a matter of personality, then it looks more like something else entirely, surfacing just a little, borrowing these small things as its vehicle. This sounds a little roundabout, but follow it through and it actually makes sense — an emotion that can be fully felt, called out by its proper name in the open — clearly knowing “I’m really scared right now” — at least has a concrete shape to it, something that can be faced, even spoken aloud, talked through with someone, or simply sat with for a while and then set down.

But a more fundamental fear, one that has never once been allowed to appear openly and legitimately, doesn’t disappear just because of that. It only finds a more fragmented, more scattered way to seep back out. That fear, very often, is the fear of death itself.

This might sound a little exaggerated at first — it’s just agonizing over an email, does it really need to be dragged all the way to something as big as death? But think carefully about death itself, and it has a particular quality — it’s too big, too final, and most people simply can’t stare at it directly, continuously; its weight exceeds what an everyday mind can bear for very long.

But here’s the problem: this fear doesn’t just disappear for no reason. It’s only pushed down, pressed into the cracks of daily life, and then it seeps back out, bit by bit, borrowing countless smaller, more concrete, more manageable things as its vehicle. A little pain, a little uncertainty, a little risk — the neural response these things trigger is, structurally, the same system triggered by actually facing death. It’s just that their “scale” is so much smaller — small enough that we hardly ever realize the tension we just went through and that fear buried deepest, almost never spoken of directly, come from the exact same source.

Heidegger said that a person is “Being-toward-death” — meaning that the awareness of death is embedded in every person’s structure of existence from the moment of birth. It isn’t something you only need to face at some specific moment — it’s a background that accompanies you the entire time.

If this background is always there, just pressed most of the time into a place beyond conscious awareness, that explains one thing — why that tension with no clear source almost never truly rests. It doesn’t need a big, specific reason to appear. Any small thing in daily life, a little bit of uncertainty, is enough to give it a gentle tug.

Looking back at “I’m just an anxious person, I overthink things” this way, you realize it actually has the direction backwards. The problem isn’t “this person overthinks.” The problem is: that truly heavy fear has never once been allowed to be felt in full. It can only surface, quietly, bit by bit, through one unremarkable little thing after another, then rapidly retreat again.

Anxiety, in a sense, isn’t a redundant emotional reaction — it’s the lowest-cost expression that a fear with no real outlet at all could ever find. Reducing this reaction to a simple “I’m just an overthinker” is the equivalent of shutting a deeper question down before it’s even asked. Once it’s shut down, that tension really does quiet down for a while — but it was never actually dealt with. It just found, once again, a more hidden place to hide.

If you genuinely want to understand why small things keep leaving you unsettled, you might try asking yourself a different question — not “why am I so anxious,” but: if this tension isn’t really about the thing right in front of you, what was it originally trying to say?

This question isn’t easy to answer, and it might even feel a little uncomfortable, because it means looking, one more time, at the place you usually never want to look at directly. But that one look might be the only thing that can actually let that tension loosen, even a little — not by pushing it back down, but by letting it, for the first time, actually be seen.

Subscribe now

Someone asks you to describe your mother. As you talk, you notice that a lot of your sentences can’t seem to avoid yourself — she always brings in a cup of hot water when I’m up late; when she’s worried about me, she suddenly goes quiet. Even if you try to talk about her alone, you keep finding yourself mixed back into it.

This is completely different from describing a stranger. Describing someone passing on the street, you can just list height, weight, appearance, mannerisms. But the moment you start describing your mother, you almost always need “me” as a reference point before you can say clearly what kind of person she actually is.

Thinking about it this way, you realize it’s probably not that you’re bad at objective description. It’s that this relationship, from very early on, already wired the two of you together — a lot of her responses grew shaped around the variable of “me,” and some of my own deep habits grew shaped around her. Trying to lift either side out on its own, to describe it clearly, always seems to leave something missing.

Subscribe now

So what happens if you really do remove “me” entirely from this description, and just talk about your mother as a person on her own? You find what’s left is just a handful of hollow adjectives — very caring, very traditional — still separated by a thick layer from truly knowing her. The part of her you truly know is precisely the version of her that only ever shows up in interaction with “me.” She might be caring, might go quiet, in front of other people too. But the exact shape that caring and that quiet take, when they land on “me,” is different — and that difference is the thing that truly belongs to her, even though it can only ever be held up by the two of you together.

This difference, in the end, was never meant to exist independently — it isn’t a part of my mother that was already there, that I just happened to notice. It’s something she and I made together, on the spot, in real time. By habit, people assume there’s already a complete “her,” contained inside a body, waiting to enter into a relationship with “me,” with other people. The relationship is something that comes later, something added onto a person who is already whole. But if the part of her that’s truly known has never been able to exist apart from “me” — then the sequence “the independent her comes first, the relationship comes after” might need to be reversed.

The philosopher Martin Buber said that a person doesn’t first exist as an isolated “I” and then go looking for a “Thou” — it’s at the moment of meeting the “Thou” that the “I” first truly takes shape. That line fits perfectly here — it isn’t that there’s first a mother, and then an “I” who relates to her. It’s that “mother,” from the very moment “I” came to exist, was already being defined together, alongside the variable of “me.”

So if relationship comes before “the independent self,” then the whole question of “knowing a person’s true self” might not be an answerable question to begin with. People often say they want to know what their parents were like when they were young, before having children; want to know what a friend is like alone, apart from the friendship. This curiosity sounds natural enough, but think about it closely, and what these questions are actually asking about is something that never truly existed — the gap between “the mother before she had children” and the person she is as a mother isn’t just “one more layer of identity added on.” It’s two fundamentally different states, each co-defined by a different relationship. Trying to step outside “me” to find some purer, more real version of her won’t necessarily get you a truer answer — it might just get you another version, defined by another relationship.

It isn’t that two independent people are each whole first, and only afterward draw close to each other. It’s the relationship that comes before “the independent self,” and defines the two people together. This means there’s no version of a person that’s truly “hers alone,” waiting somewhere deeper to be discovered. But looked at another way, this unease can actually be flipped around — trying to find, within a person, a “true self” that has nothing to do with any relationship at all, you’ll usually only find a hollow outline with the soul drained out of it, not the person herself.

The real person was never a core hidden behind the relationship, waiting to be peeled out. She lives in every specific moment spent with “me” — that cup of hot water brought in while staying up late, that sudden silence when she was worried. Take “me” away, and these moments stop existing. But that isn’t something to mourn — it’s exactly what proves that this relationship once truly held the two of you up together.

Subscribe now

Almost everyone who has seriously studied psychology or sociology has had a strange feeling. What these fields say feels real, important, personally relevant. But somehow they don’t quite feel like physics, don’t quite feel like mathematics, don’t quite feel like biology. The boundaries are blurry, the methods keep getting borrowed from elsewhere, the conclusions keep getting overturned, and everything stays tangled up with words like “critique,” “expose,” “liberate.”

You can’t quite say whether they count as science. But you also wouldn’t call them nonsense. This feeling isn’t a misperception on your part. There’s a very precise reason behind it.

Modern knowledge is divided into several distinct territories. Mathematics and physics have their own deductive logic, where the relations between propositions are clear and can be formalized. Biology, economics, linguistics have their own empirical research methods; they study laws that objectively exist — whether or not people are aware of them, those laws keep operating. Philosophy has its own fundamental mode of inquiry, its questioning of being and meaning.

Psychology and sociology don’t sit on any of these territories. They live in the gaps enclosed between these territories. They borrow statistical methods from mathematics, the concept of “function” from biology, “system” analysis from linguistics, the questioning of “meaning” from philosophy. They have no original epistemological foundation of their own — every tool they use is borrowed.

This isn’t because psychologists and sociologists aren’t smart enough. It’s structural — they’ve always lived in the gaps, and they’ve never had an independent territory of their own to begin with. That feeling of “blurry boundaries” comes exactly from this.

But the deeper reason lies in what they actually study. There’s a distinction that needs to be made here. What biology studies is the mechanism of life itself — how cells divide, how organs function. That process is objective; whether or not people know about it, it’s simply there. What linguistics studies is how phonetics evolves, how grammar is structured. Those laws are objective too, not dependent on whether the speaker is even aware of them.

Subscribe now

What psychology and sociology study is not these objective processes themselves. What they study is this: when a person lives, labors, speaks, how does he understand and represent these activities within his own consciousness. This is exactly what “representation” means — not the thing itself, but the shape the thing takes in a person’s mind, the way a person understands it, the image a person uses to describe it. Psychology doesn’t study neural mechanisms — it studies how people experience and understand their own psychological states. Sociology doesn’t study relations of production themselves — it studies how people understand the power, interests, and conflicts between them.

To put it in a single sentence: what they actually study isn’t what the world is like, but what people believe the world is like. This difference changes everything. Because the world people believe in is itself unstable, historical, full of misunderstanding. People frequently have mistaken understandings of their own activities, engage in self-deception, unconsciously conceal things from themselves. So the task of psychology and sociology is almost inevitably to expose — what’s being concealed behind the way you think things are. This is why they’re always entangled with words like “critique,” “expose,” “liberate.” It isn’t incidental — it’s determined by the very nature of what they study.

But what tools do they use to do this? Foucault said the human sciences have only three sets of tools, and all three are borrowed.

The first, borrowed from biology: function and norm. It treats the person as an organism, with functional needs that must be met, and anything that deviates from normal function is a “disorder.” This is, roughly, the basic logic of psychology. That sounds objective enough. But where’s the problem — where does the standard of “normal” come from? Who decides what counts as normal function? That “norm,” which looks like a fact of biology, is quietly packaging some particular historical period’s expectations of “the normal person” as if it were a natural standard. When you’re diagnosed with “anxiety disorder,” it’s done in a seemingly neutral medical language — but hidden inside that language is a historical judgment about what a normal person is supposed to look like.

The second, borrowed from economics: conflict and rule. It understands society as an arena of competing interests, with law and morality as the rule systems that manage that conflict. This is, roughly, the basic logic of sociology. But who has the authority to make the rules? Is the rule itself the result of power operating, rather than some neutral solution? Marx was asking this same question too, but he never actually stepped outside this toolkit — he simply swapped the source of the rules from “the social contract” to “class interest,” while still using the exact same framework of conflict and rule.

The third, borrowed from linguistics: signification and system. It treats every human behavior as a sign, as a text that can be decoded, with a discoverable system of meaning lying behind it. Freud is the key figure here. The moment he began analyzing the unconscious in a linguistic way — treating dreams, slips of the tongue, symptoms as chains of signs that needed to be decoded — he did something unexpected. He erased the boundary between “normal” and “abnormal.” Within the function-norm framework, there’s a clear divide between health and pathology. But within the signification-system framework, “pathological” behavior is simply a system of meaning following a different set of rules — dreaming and waking thought aren’t a relationship of healthy versus pathological, but two systems of signs with different grammars, with no essential ranking between them. Your compulsive behavior isn’t “broken” — it’s expressing some meaning through a logic that other people simply can’t read.

This shift was a quiet but profoundly consequential displacement in twentieth-century intellectual history. So, back to that feeling. That vague, hard-to-name strange feeling you’ve always had about psychology and sociology — it’s correct. They really are different, not because they’re worse than other disciplines, but because they’re doing something structurally harder — studying not the objective laws of the external world, but people’s understanding of themselves, an understanding that is itself full of misunderstanding, concealment, and historical drift. They always work in the gaps, always borrow other people’s tools, always work at exposing what lies behind representation. This doesn’t signal weakness. It’s simply the nature of the task they’re bound to carry.

So — the last time you described yourself using the language of psychology — “I have anxiety,” “I need security,” “I have boundaries” — which toolkit was that description actually using? What did that toolkit help you see — and what did it, at the same time, conceal?

Subscribe now

A blank sheet of paper sits in front of a painter. Right now, it could become anything at all — a sea, a face, a sentence. Every possibility is still intact, none of them ruled out.

This blankness looks like it’s nothing at all, but think about it carefully, and it’s actually the richest this piece of paper will ever be — it contains every possibility this paper could ever become, without a single one missing.

But the moment the painter actually puts down the first stroke, everything changes. That single stroke draws a line, and at the same time, quietly closes off thousands upon thousands of shapes this paper could otherwise have become — it can no longer be a sea, can no longer be a face, it can only become more and more like the thing currently being drawn. To put brush to paper is to create, and at the same time, to exclude — these two things have always happened together. No one gets to keep the first half without the second.

Thinking about it this way, “blankness” and “the specific” seem to stand, by nature, in two different positions — blankness contains every possibility; the specific can only ever be the one possibility chosen out of all of them, and choosing one means giving up every other. The further the painter goes, the more determined the paper becomes — but with every degree of determination gained, an equal degree of everything else it could have become is simultaneously shut off.

When a person starts believing solely in some specific god, some specific doctrine, they’re actually going through the exact same act of putting brush to paper. They really do get a clear answer, a shape they can rely on — but the price of that gain is that they must constantly exclude every possibility outside that answer, in order to keep that answer intact. “This is right, that is wrong” — this is nearly the unavoidable refrain of every specific belief system, not because believers are naturally fond of rejecting others, but because “the specific,” by its very nature, carries this quality of exclusion built into it from the start — just as, the moment that first stroke lands on the paper, the sea and the face and that sentence are all, together, struck out of that paper’s future at once.

Subscribe now

This cost is rarely something people actually realize while they’re busy believing — they think what they’ve gained is simply an answer, without realizing that, at the very same time they gain that answer, the possibility that was once wide open is, bit by bit, being quietly closed by that very answer.

So why is it that so many specific belief systems, further down the line, end up needing constant reaffirmation, constant defense — almost never able to truly relax? Because that boundary was already drawn the moment the brush first touched the paper, and a boundary, by its very nature, is easy to challenge and always needs someone standing guard over it.

The more specific the object of a person’s belief is, the more clearly that boundary is drawn, and naturally, the more effort is needed to hold that line. A specific belief has to keep saying “this is right, that is wrong” just to maintain its own shape — this tension isn’t a sign that the believer isn’t devout enough. It’s a cost that “being specific” is fated to pay, no matter what.

So what would it look like if a person believed not in some specific object, but in the blank page itself, before any stroke has been made — not the sea that gets painted onto it, not the face, but the room, the latitude, that exists before any stroke ever falls, the capacity to become anything at all. This kind of belief sounds abstract, even a little hollow, because it has no specific object of belief that can be pointed at.

But precisely because it has no specific shape, it also has no boundary that needs to be constantly defended — no boundary, and there’s nothing that’s “wrong,” nothing that needs to be excluded. This kind of belief doesn’t need to belittle other possibilities to prove itself right, because it never shut any possibility out in the first place.

To believe in “nothing” may really mean believing in the blank page itself, before the first stroke — it doesn’t need to exclude anything, because it hasn’t yet become any specific shape at all. A person who truly believes in this blankness isn’t necessarily incapable of making specific choices in life, of putting down specific strokes — they’ll still have positions, still have preferences, still decide some things are more worth doing than others.

It’s just that, somewhere at the bottom of their heart, they keep hold of what that paper originally looked like, knowing that every stroke put down is only one temporarily chosen out of countless possibilities, not the one and only correct one. That remembering makes every stroke they draw a little lighter — not because they’re painting carelessly, but because they’ve never forgotten that the paper could once have become anything at all.

Subscribe now