Being right some of time, fuels all full-time skeptics

James Randi with some expensive art (Photo credit: Wikipedia) If you are skeptical all the time, you would be right at least once. Being skeptic doesn't means being against anythings nor does it forward another alternative. Being skeptic is creating doubt around something but not enough to dismiss is outright. You can even go ahead dismissing something, knowing that if the that thing fails just once, you are proven right. Your position is save even if that thing is just right only one time. The skeptic can be right once to be proven true, the target of the skepticism, on the other hand, cannot fail.
The position is non-committal. If you are wrong, then you can just shrug it off because you didn't say it was wrong in the first place. But you have gloating rights when your skepticism is proved justified, even though only in hindsight.

Blessed are, those who share their blessings in silence

In a world where vanity is a virtue, it can be hard to be sincere to oneself. Where the action of doing good clashes with the desire to be a visible example of good.
Being visible doing something means allowing others to join and do likewise. A kinship of common action creates community. In community, we find acceptance, affirmation and support.
While visible is the start to this path, the path is not without devious junctions. The hunger the first drives us can cloud good judgement. Being visible is becoming the example. And becoming the example does not require self-promotion but recognition. And while recognition should not be the goal, preparing to take advantage of recognition, is.
Be hungry still.

Photo by:
unsplash-logoElaine Casap

I'm don't share my knowledge because I know more, I know more because I share my knowldege

Nothing is an example of the mastery of a knowledge than the ability to teach it. Answering questions increases the knowledge of both person who asked the question and the person providing an answer.
Conversely, hoarding knowledge is a sign of little one knows, and hoarding the knowledge is a way to keep something for themselves as a way to show some things others know not of.

If eveyone is a leader, who is left following?

I love it how empowerment is being commercialized through "the lie of leadership". Like "individuality" before it, it's being packaged, dolled-up, re-processed, promoted and available at the right price. While the irony of "individuality" was that while following the urge and advice from everywhere to be a unique individual, you just ended up looking like someone else, one of exactly like others of a group (or someone touted as a model of individuality), the "lie of leadership" plays up the old "youth before age" schism as the drive to be a leader, eschewing experience for cookie cutter slogans and pop-philosophy.
No more clearer is this exemplified in the TV series Silicon Valley. Being from the industry, the caricatures are painfully accurate, Dilbert-esque and enough for me to stop watching (let's face it, we watch TV to get away from reality, not have it thrown in the face). But in the tunnel-vision of "leadership&quo…

Either the world is full of imperfections or you're really good at finding fault in everything

You can look at life from a variety of ways. Some people call them rose-colored lenses. Others call it shades of blue.
Since how we see life affects how we feel and make others around us feel, our view of life is basically how other people see us. They see what we do to what we see. They see what we do with the world around us. And they decide how to engage us based on this.
Even if all you see are problems, what you do next is what others see you as. If all you do is complain and whine about the problems, then you make the people around you miserable. If all you do is point out the problems and blame others for it, you will drive the people around you away.
But if you try to solve the problems you see and if you help others who are facing problems, then you make the world around you better.

Want less, fulfilled sooner

Why is it the more we crave, the less content we feel? Everywhere around us, everything tells us to ask for more, aim higher and get more stuff. But does stuff actually fills that hole? Or does it just make it feel deeper, more space to stuff things in. If fulfillment is what we seek, maybe we should do the logical thing. What is shorter than a straight line between two points? A shorter line. So maybe we should stop along the way to that second point. Make more points. Make a shorter line. In short, want less. If we want less, it's likely we can get what we want sooner. Be satisfied sooner. Fulfilled earlier.  And because we are human, we will want more later. Another point along they way. And another. And another. till we reach the other point.

In the absence of work, success is temporary

We are always told that we need to work hard to succeed. However we are less often told about how success itself needs to be maintained. People often think of success as a destination. That success is in of itself a permanent condition. Experience always prove otherwise.More rather than success and failure is more often than not two sides of the same coin. It can also be a cycle of which success follows  failures and failures follow success.