"The nice guy finishes last," "no good deed goes unpunished," sayings that remind us of the unfair world that we live in where following the rules does not always ensure our good karmic energy is returned. In fact it more often seems like yin and yang or a balancing of the scales where if a good deed is in fact done it now must be balanced out with a negative force. 

It sounds very "woo-woo" or spiritual to describe these things as forces or energy. I'm sure some would argue that it's all just a matter of coincidence. Like of course you picking up litter did not then lead to you stepping in an ant hill. It all in fact could just be the human desire to give a name to abstract things to ease our minds. But, how come it feels real. 

How else can we explain what is happening right now. We have a president that breaks all the rules and gets away with it and seemingly always get what he wants. We are seeing someone act so boldly in their own self interests, other peoples lives be damned and has faced none of the supposed repercussions we as a society are told we would face if we were to do similar things. What about tech businesses whose whole idea is to break businesses in working in a way where they can avoid all the rules. Then once they cause enough damage and have their billion dollar evaluations they are taken to court to get a slap on the hand. What about cyber scammers spending their lives tricking, confusing and taking advantage of a person to make money off of them. 

Forsaking their connection to community, to people for their own greed. 

But, if you want to win and win fast thats how this game must be played. I mean why else do we have the saying "ask for forgiveness, not permission." I guess the funny thing is these people are not sorrowful or seeking forgiveness. They gloat and think its ridiculous that anyone would even try to play by the rules at all. And to be honest, looking up at these cheaters getting things they don't deserve makes me want to cheat too. If it weren't for my black skin, sex and conscience. Because you see not all cheaters win, only the ones who look a certain way.

When I look back on my life (at 27 years old) I have played it relatively safe for someone of my age as I am in the time of my life where I should be taking the most risks. I've pretty much always followed the rules, played by the rules, and enforced the rules. Why? I always thought it was easier to do things the right way. Go to school, get an internship, get a job, get an apartment. Very rigid definitions on what I was supposed to do. I did try and play the game differently but then ended up just going back to what I know. But has it all been worth it for my mediocre, unfulfilling life? I mean they say "High Risk, High Reward" or "you gotta play big to win big." Have I been mistaking being in alignment with what I thought was my purpose as actually being in alignment with the way society's rules govern?

I'm not saying I'm going to turn around and become so self-interested, selfish, or individualistic. I'm just asking have I been playing it too safe? Should I have broken the rules? 

If there is a yin and yang keeping the world in balance I've always said that I have pretty good luck usually. I don't do anything positive like giving a dollar to someone in need and I don't do anything negative like killing a spider. My actions as I've gotten older has been as neutral as possible. What if I don't have the good luck I believed I have, what if crazy bad things don't happen to me as often simply because I don't do crazy good things. My life on the surface, has not really been one of extremes. In other words I have been coasting. If karma is real, that probably why crazy good things don't happen either because I don't do crazy good things. 

How can I take more risks and reap more reward without divorcing myself from humanity? Do I even need to, does my life need to have extremes? Seeking fulfillment and having an interesting life might not need that I need to break rules. Taking more risks doesn't mean breaking the rules necessarily either. 

But why follow them if arguably the most powerful person in the world doesn't abide by any. 

 I've been listening to this book called Range by David Epstein, and one of the stories he told has captured my attention and has my thoughts racing. 

He's describing how during the rise of socialism in Uzbekistan there was a rise in industrialization, and a guy who was interested in studying what happens when more secluded "primitive" Uzbek villages go under this industrialization how there ways of thinking change. This guy had a constant group, the ones who were not yet affected by industrialization and then compared it to different villages and villagers who have had more education and exposure. I think the guys name sounded like the word "fairy" or something. Anyways he asked theses people across the spectrum of industrialization exposure abstract questions. For example bears in the north are always white Iceland is in the north, what color are the bears? The villagers who had not yet been industrialized refused to answer the question because (if I am recalling correctly) they only know things in the context of their life. They were unable to categorize items together too like if you had the words, Hatchet, Hammer, Screw driver and Log, they would say things like well you need all of those things to complete a particular task. They couldn't parse through them and say these are tools so the log is not apart of the group. 

My first thought is, wow thats crazy because imagine only basing your world with what is right in front of you and then meeting a person from a far away land you have never even heard of before. Some of those people when confronted with that exact scenario weren't able to think abstractly like for example not asking questions like what are the people like there, do the same rules govern that land etc.

Anyways the author was saying that generation after generation, the IQ of people around the world rose. I don't yet know when this book was written but he must not have heard the news. For the first time the IQ of people has been lowering. People are no longer able to think as conceptually, as critically.

Since this new study came out after the book was published I wonder if there is a correlation between the books goal of emphasizing how having a range of knowledge causes us to come with more creative solutions and think critically versus how we learn and work in this current society which is to specialize as much as possible. What I'm saying is, yeah sure I think social media has made us idiots but the goal all along in industrialization is to have more specialized workers. Now we have heralded the savants, prodigies, experts and specialists to our detriment, we are now moving backwards in our abstract thinking. 

We now live in a world where thinking is the way we make money. All of the jobs people want are behind a computer, we've become too specialized as a society. 

The thing is I also finished listening to the book The Mind Extended by Annie Paul she was making the argument that because the questions that we are encountering are more complex than ever we now need to start thinking as a group. Of course, she was speaking more scientific writings and how one paper had over 5,000 contributors or something wild like that. But, I do wonder if there is some validity to that in the day to day world. We are now encountering such complex societal questions, and problems that we are simply incapable as individuals to think about it. That triple decker burger with an onion ring in the middle is simply too big for us to eat by ourselves. So, we are taking short cuts, we are taking things for exactly how we see them rather than asking questions. I think the rural Uzbek villages lacked abstract thinking because of ignorance, I think we lack abstract thinking because 1. we were taught to specialize and 2. its too much for one person to think by themselves. 

I'm excited to finish the Range book, I don't think I am interpreting the book the way it was intended rather I am trying to "think abstractly" and correlate things that seem disconnected. He also mentions a bit about AI in the book and again I have too look up when this book was published but if he mentions it some more I would like to think about how it correlates to todays landscape.

Brazil 2025 IJ