Trustworthy people are characterized by their honor and complete devotion to vulnerability on a spectrum where they are willing to take accountability for their wrongdoings and attempt to grow in order to formulate a vast degree of trust. However, when the term “trust” comes to mind, it is associated with multiple profound notions. Vulgar, love, and lifeless may each appertain as trust fluctuates throughout each relation built by no one other than us. The concept is generally preferred by the majority of people worldwide due to the (primarily advantageous) impact it brings, such as friendships and romance. It is then that the qualities of trust, integrity, and fortitude are necessary to breed a divergent, and the absence of such leaves a nation vulnerable to the pervasive forces of complete division. Moreover, our fair share of spreading information binding courage and intimacy is the trustworthy source prepared to generate a vigor of disparate dynamics whereon it is significant to be meticulous with where trust is given.

Have you ever been broken up with by the one you trusted or, conversely, never felt more admired by a partner you trusted? Each of the two scenarios conveyed that trust, or the absence of such trust, leads to a tunnel of deep-rooted emotional conditions where it may cause reason for specific experiences to occur accordingly. These most likely cause emotional damage or joy through the results, tying into various cognitive drives. Consequently, If we need an instrumental amount of positive trust to sustain a relationship, hardships arise where the relationship is destined to plummet. On the contrary, if there is an immense amount of mutual trust to maintain a relationship, few adversities appear where pleasurable experiences in the relationship will be formed. The range of emotions is each individually pupated by the solitary source of trust, where the increased confidence shown conducts the path to heftier mental alterations in each form probable.

Trust is not only subjective to humans alone, where trust can be found (if observed) everywhere. Each creature to remain on the Earth has maintained a varying state of trust where trust is demonstrated as notable beyond doubt. The sole concept of trust lies as the basis of interaction in every species and environment, where a level of trust through those interactions is conveyed to continue the relationship status, whether it is necessarily beneficial or harmful. Trust is an abundant property continuing for eternity; through it, anything can flourish more robustly as an entirety or slowly perish.

The Sovereignty of Trust was originally published in The Napkin on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Contemplating how to define “normal”

I am not what most people would call a writer or an expert at dealing with philosophical topics. I will presumably fit into the wide category of the general public described as highly critical of every alternate subject that crosses their line of thought, debating at length over it with a disinterested melange of people and finally arriving at a baseless conclusion. Pragmatic people might call it nonchalant talk to escape the realms of boredom, while pessimists will describe it as an utter waste of useful resources and optimists will utilize euphemism to describe it as a refreshing conversation providing insight into the functioning of a human brain. But for me, I adhere to none of those insights. I will rather combine all of them and describe it as a brief moment in my life where I escaped the grasps of reality and was alleviated to a state of euphoria, discussing issues beyond the reach of the common man. Alas, I have been successful in digressing yet again. Having been found guilty of this crime innumerable times, I have decided to embrace it as a fault in my genome (although being a morally obliged citizen I would certainly not encourage embracing an annoying habit as a fault in one’s genome).

So let’s come to one of my usual nonsensical topics of conversation: What is the definition of a normal human being? (from a philosophical point of view and not a biological one because psst we are trying to emulate great philosophers here ). Most people will characterize themselves as normal here to gain the acceptance of the society, but maybe if their penchant for the truth had been greater than the importance of societal acceptance, this highly theoretical study would have certainly benefited from their honest feedback. I believe the definition also varies according to the geographical and cultural factors associated with the location of our home. It may vary based on the social background too and quite frankly speaking I am not surprised by the last factor.

Sometimes I feel like we spend our entire lives chasing normalcy rather than in a pursuit to achieve excellence. We move up the ladder of social status but always try to fit into the definition of “normal” associated with that particular social bracket. Sometimes in this pursuit, we tend to lie to ourselves regarding our own selves, and soon we become a living embodiment of the lie we keep reciting in our head. Yes, it may help you to achieve the goal you were aiming for but in the process, you destroy the extraordinary creature residing inside of you. A literature graduate will probably quote a famous author right about now, a quote that connects with the soul of this essay. But, I am going to do no such thing since I do not want to ruin my writing experience by googling(sorry chatgpting now, tch tch old me)for a quote and in turn, feel guilty of plagiarism by echoing someone else’s profound thoughts.

So, after diverting slightly over there I will try to weave back into the topic by imploring you to trace back your steps and ponder how your definition of a normal hermaphrodite ( trying out some fancy wordplay there) changed with age. I can only hope my attempts to reconnect with the 7-year-old self (yes, we are going that far back) won’t end up with a really twisted amalgamation of an adult’s version of a child’s brain and a puppy. What does a 7-year-old even know about a human being, and that too a normal one? Maybe instead of testing the boundaries of my creative genius(preposterous word choice for the lack of my creative genius thereof, quite the irony ), and abandoning my obdurate resolution of emulating the world-renowned philosophers like Aristotle, Socrates to name a few. I could ask a few 7 year olds what they think, though that’s probably a thought experiment best kept in my head

Well maybe all this ranting is neither a philosophical question nor a quest for an answer but merely questioning my sense of belonging while also trying to grasp with my sense of self. If you ever happen to conduct a successful social experiment on this, do let me know what you arrive at.

In search of a normal human being was originally published in The Napkin on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

We assume something too quickly.

If someone doesn’t go to college,
we think they’re lost.

If they don’t follow the usual path,
we assume something went wrong.

If they choose something different,
we quietly label it as a mistake.

But what if nothing went wrong at all?

We were told there’s only one “safe” path.
But no one told us what happens when that path doesn’t work for everyone.

The Quiet Decisions Nobody Notices

Not all decisions are loud.

Some happen quietly.

Someone choosing to learn a skill instead of chasing a degree.
Someone stepping into real work earlier than expected.
Someone walking a path that isn’t widely discussed.

These choices don’t trend.
They don’t get celebrated.

But they’re happening — more often than we think.

You see it in small ways.

A friend getting ahead faster than expected.
Someone earning while you’re still figuring things out.
Someone building something real while others are still preparing.

And suddenly, it feels like you’re late — even when you’re not.

Not everyone is falling behind — 
some people are simply stepping into paths that were never clearly shown.

A Different Way to Build a Career

For a long time, success followed a single structure:

Study first.
Work later.
Earn eventually.

But not everyone connects with that.

Some people want something more direct.

Learning while doing.
Earning while learning.
Building real experience from the very beginning.

And surprisingly, many of these paths are more structured than people realize.

They aren’t random decisions.
They’re organized, step-by-step ways of building real skills in real environments.

They just don’t get talked about enough.

The truth is, some of the most stable careers today are not built in classrooms — 
they’re built in real-world skill environments most people never seriously consider.

Some people move ahead through completely different paths — 
paths that don’t follow the same timeline.

And because those paths are less visible,
they’re often misunderstood.

Why More People Are Starting to Question the Default

This shift isn’t about rebellion.

It’s about awareness.

People are asking better questions now:

What am I actually building here?

How long will it take to become stable?

Is there a more practical way to move forward?

And once those questions are asked,
the answers don’t always point in the same direction anymore.

The Problem Was Never the Path

The real problem was visibility.

Most people only see one option growing up.

And when you only see one path,
it doesn’t feel like a choice — it feels like an obligation.

But once other paths become visible,
everything changes.

Not Better. Not Worse. Just Different.

This isn’t about saying one path is right and another is wrong.

It’s about understanding something simple:

Different people build their lives in different ways.

Some thrive in classrooms.
Others thrive in real-world environments.

Both are valid.

Final Thought

Maybe the real shift isn’t people getting lost.

Maybe it’s that they’re finally seeing options that were always there — 
just never clearly shown.

And once you realize there are multiple ways to build a stable, respected life — 
it becomes very hard to blindly follow the path everyone else is taking.

The real question isn’t whether you’re ahead or behind.

It’s whether you’re even measuring the right thing.

If this idea feels familiar, it often starts much earlier — in that quiet feeling of being “behind” without knowing why.

It’s something I wrote about separately, because that realization changes everything.

Not Everyone Is Lost — Some People Are Just Choosing a Different Path was originally published in The Napkin on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

I am reshaping my life to spend less of it working. Going down to 4-day workweeks for example.

It works, but there is one problem: I don’t know what to do with all this free time.

I wake up on Fridays paralysed by the fear of squandering it. Typically this looks like a wrestling between what I want to do (read in bed, clear the workweek mess) and what I feel I should do (visit places before the weekend crowd), aggravated by repeated checks of the weather forecast, to-do lists, and WhatsApp notifications. There, an hour gone.

I want to use my hard-earned free time more intentionally. I analyse things for a living, so naturally I need a taxonomy:

• The bottom quadrants (‘Auto-Pilot’ and ‘Adulting’) are the non-negotiables. But I can decide when to do them. I suppress the urge to frontload my day to ‘get it all done’ at once, to save time and energy for more fulfilling activities. I deliberately pace myself on the Adulting chores, and save what can be done on auto-pilot for weekday nights.
• The ‘Meaningful’ quadrant: this is what life is for. What to be proud of on my deathbed, or regret not doing. Yet that’s the one that’s easiest to neglect, for years, decades, (lives?) when we let the other 3 quadrants take over. Meaningful activities requires regular dedication and uninterrupted attention. I plan my weekends to create these conditions.
• The ‘True Rest’ quadrant: I am learning to go of the guilt. Nothing productive will come out of it; this is the contrast I need to enjoy being productive again. If I let my completionism run loose, I will work until bedtime. Without a buffer for true rest however, I don’t sleep well: I see spreadsheets as soon as I close my eyes. That being said, to not slip into complacency, I avoid this quadrant when I’m high energy (mornings).

I’m wired so that I will most naturally devote my free time to the bottom quadrants (‘Adulting’ and ‘Auto-Pilot’), until I crash and need a week of ‘True Rest’.

So I try to remember this old proverb, popularised by The Shining, with a second part added by Irish novelist Maria Edgeworth:

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy,
All play and no work makes Jack a mere toy.

I am learning how to stop striving and enjoy life more. I post regular observations on my Substack, From Achieving to Living. You can subscribe to new articles directly in your inbox.

What is free time for? was originally published in The Napkin on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

For a long time, I thought something was wrong with me.

Not in a dramatic way. Nothing had “failed” exactly.
But everywhere I looked, people seemed to be moving forward — choosing careers, committing to paths, sounding certain. And I was… still thinking.

I told myself I was being careful. Thoughtful. Responsible.
But somewhere underneath that explanation was a quieter fear: maybe I was just late.

Late to decide.
Late to settle.
Late to become someone who knew what they were doing.

I didn’t say this out loud to anyone. On the surface, I looked functional. I worked. I stayed busy. I kept learning things that felt useful “just in case.” But every decision felt provisional, like I was afraid to put my full weight on it.

The strange part was that nothing was obviously wrong with the options in front of me. They just didn’t feel right. And because they didn’t feel right, I assumed the problem was me.

I remember one evening sitting alone, scrolling through updates from people I knew. New roles. New titles. Clear directions. I felt an unexpected wave of embarrassment — not jealousy, exactly, but the sense that I had missed a cue everyone else seemed to hear.

That night, for the first time, I admitted something honestly:
I wasn’t afraid of hard work.
I was afraid of choosing the wrong life and calling it commitment.

Until then, I had treated uncertainty as a personal flaw. Something to outgrow quickly. Something confident people didn’t have. But sitting with that realization, it occurred to me that uncertainty might not mean confusion at all.

It might mean awareness.

Awareness that not every path fits every person.
Awareness that momentum can look like progress even when it isn’t.
Awareness that choosing slowly is different from choosing poorly.

That thought didn’t give me clarity overnight. It didn’t magically point me toward a perfect answer. What it did was quieter, and far more important: it removed the shame from not knowing yet.

I stopped framing my situation as “being behind” and started seeing it as being misaligned.

That shift didn’t happen instantly — it took time to understand that not everyone who looks “lost” is actually off track, just on a different path.

And misalignment, unlike failure, can be corrected.

Once I let go of the idea that I needed to catch up, I noticed something else. The people I had been comparing myself to weren’t necessarily more certain — they were just louder about their certainty. Many of them were still negotiating their choices privately, the same way I was.

The difference was that I had been measuring my inner process against their outer presentation.

I don’t have a neat ending to this story. There was no single decision that resolved everything. But there was a shift. I stopped demanding that my next step prove something. I allowed it to simply be honest.

And that changed how everything felt.

I still move forward carefully. I still question paths before committing to them. But now I understand that this isn’t hesitation — it’s discernment. It’s me paying attention.

I wasn’t behind in life.
I was just trying to find a path that actually belonged to me.

I Thought I Was Behind in Life was originally published in The Napkin on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

There’s an uncomfortable irony in life: the deepest thinkers are rarely the most conventionally successful. Thinking deeply is supposed to lead to better decisions. But the people who question their motives, examine their values, and interrogate their assumptions often move more slowly than those who simply decide and execute.

Meanwhile, the tunnel‑visioned, action-oriented personalities who tend to be “Type A” — the ones who don’t philosophize too much — pick a target and charge. And it works. They rise faster. They accumulate visible markers of success. They appear decisive in a way that deep thinkers often don’t.

Underneath these differences lies a simple pattern most of us follow:

Think → Act → Think → Act.

Call it the TATA Chain.

We all operate this way. But some of us are think‑heavy (THINK → Act → THINK → Act), while others are act‑heavy (Think → ACT → think → ACT).

This essay explores the functional roles of both components.

The value and power of action

1 — Action reveals information.

Some variables are inaccessible through thinking alone. You don’t know:

• How you’ll actually feel in an MBA
• What working in ‘prestigious’ jobs will really do to your energy and quality of life
• What unexpected doors will open
• How your preferences will evolve

Action is not just execution — it’s an effective mechanism that expedites discovery of things you didn’t know.

Information in the universe can be divided into 3 categories: (i) what you know you know (ii) what you know you don’t know and (iii) what you don’t know you don’t know. Action converts category (ii) into (i). But more importantly, it exposes category (iii). Unknown unknowns are like uncharted regions beyond the edge of your current map. From where you stand, they do not exist.

You don’t discover them by thinking harder but by stumbling on to them. Trying new things — or just doing something — might be that random trigger. Action is the magic ink that reveals previously invisible paths and terrain, redrawing and expanding the borders of your map.

2 — Action causes the system to update

Until you move, reality does not respond. Once you move, your situational context updates.

It may help to relate this to the butterfly effect, which is a chaos theory concept describing how tiny, initial, or seemingly insignificant changes in a complex system — like the flapping of a butterfly’s wings — can lead to vast, unpredictable, and significant consequences.

In complex systems, you cannot plan ten moves ahead because the board changes after each move.

The more a system is dynamic, the more it is unstable and the lower the visibility you have into the future. And the more reason there is to bias action as opposed to thinking or planning.

The value and power of thinking

Good decision making in life actually has nothing to do with intelligence or the ability to make “rational” choices consistently. It is about being clear of what your values are — “what do you want?” (an exercise that is harder than most people think). And the ability to order and reorder them in terms of priority.

The value of thinking is that it helps you define your values which would form the key guiding principles to your life and, in that sense, make life easier. The logic is a bit akin to the logic of solving a problem once — thoroughly and properly — so you never have to solve it again (or at least not until 2–3 years later). Your set of values can change over time, subject to thoughtful adjustments, but not be easily disposable.

The costs of not thinking

What are the costs of not thinking? As mentioned in the beginning, there seem to be people who totally get away with not thinking and are succeeding. Are there even any costs?

• Premise 1: Everything has a price. We make trade-offs on a daily basis — every choice, every decision.
• Premise 2: Society and our capitalistic systems condition us to ‘want’ certain standard things and push us to pursue outward expressions of success.

My hypothesis is that Type A’s have an easier time with life because their innate values and natural disposition happen to align with societal definitions of success. They happen to want what we are told to want. There is little internal struggle so therefore they don’t need to think or process as much.

That is a very specific set of values and type of disposition, so many of us fall outside of that mould. In this case, forcing yourself to be a “Type A” imposter can be a practical solution, but mean living a life just “going through the motions” lacking in deeper fulfillment. Many people are doing this as I write, forced by economic survival needs.

Opportunity cost in the personal realm

‘Thinking’ in this piece primarily refers to decisions in a personal context, although it can certainly be generalised to thinking about more objective problems at large. ‘Not thinking’ in the personal context refers to not bothering to figure out the price tag of intangibles that you give up as a trade off for your decision. In the broader context, it refers to not figuring out the opportunity cost of your decision.

In professional contexts, we are trained to think rigorously, analyse risk‑reward trade-offs, perform cost‑benefit analyses. But when it comes to personal decisions, opportunity cost is often invisible — and therefore easily overlooked.

If you don’t bother to figure out the price tag of intangibles that matter to you, then you risk making suboptimal trades. This is what people mean when they warn against living “disingenuously” or “not true to yourself.”

Imagine you could assign numbers to everything — even intangible goods like sleep, health, time with loved ones, inner peace etc.

In small everyday decisions, trading the authentic part of you for the inauthentic part of you is like trading $10 for something worth $7 in return. Foolish but a $3 loss doesn’t kill.

This is a bit different when it comes to big decisions. When you face a meaningful decision, you’re not just choosing between options but choosing between parts of yourself. For example:

• the ambitious part vs the enjoying life part
• the status‑driven part vs the autonomy‑valuing part
• the expansion‑oriented self vs the inner growth self

Take ambition versus enjoying life. Let’s particularise ‘ambition’ — to be a magic ticket to guaranteed career success and prestige. Let’s particularise ‘enjoy life’ — to be a magic ticket to ultimate freedom to go where you want, do what you want, epic travels and just experience the world. Which would you choose?

Clearly, there is no correct answer.

• Type A individuals will choose the former - they genuinely want it and are further encouraged by societal norms.
• Others will either:
  → choose the latter - they genuinely want it and are brave enough to go against societal pressures.
  → choose the former - they don’t genuinely want it and are either just acting out of autopilot following societal norms and/or not brave enough to deviate.

The tragedy is in the last type of people — when someone chooses a path not because they truly value it more, but because they never paused to evaluate the trade. It is as if the ambition version of themselves is worth $70,000, and the enjoying life version of themselves is worth $100,000, but they opted for the former. The risk of not thinking is that you accidentally end up in this bucket.

Putting the TATA chain back together

Action is powerful. It reveals information and forces reality to respond. Thinking is equally powerful. It clarifies values and sets direction. Tunnel vision can reduce friction internal debate, but reflection ensures that momentum is aimed where you actually want to go.

From a practical perspective, it may be wise to bias one over the other depending on the situation and the phase of life you are in. In highly dynamic environments, act more. At existential crossroads, think more.

Two useful questions to ask yourself are: Am I moving to discover? Or pausing to define?

The TATA Chain: When to Think, When to Act was originally published in The Napkin on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.