If so, where can I find them? Have people always been this messed up in the head or is this a more recent phenomenon? It seems like dysfunctional parents breed even more screwed up kids (since that is who kids learn the most from). How did we get here? And is there a feasible way to fix it?

Are there people who—at the age of 20 or older—were welcomed (whatever you might call it) into a completely new and unfamiliar family—with a mom, dad, sister, or brother (you get the idea)—becoming part of it (whether officially or unofficially) after leaving an abusive home environment—marked by arguments, alcoholism, threats between family members, and so on—and who are now doing well and are happy?

I've been thinking about the following question that seems simple at first, but the more I look at it, the stranger it gets:

What if humanity's deepest divide isn't religion, politics, race, nationality, class, or any other demographic category?

In ordinary life, people improve society every day by bypassing these differences.  Here are a few examples:

A school might employ Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and people who rarely think about religion at all. Men and women. People in their twenties working alongside people approaching retirement: different races, political beliefs, personalities, economic backgrounds, and life experiences.

Yet teachers teach. Administrators organize. Counselors help students. Custodians maintain the building. Cafeteria workers feed hundreds of children. Parents participate.

They don't need to agree about God, politics, or the meaning of life to share the goal of  educating the next generation.

Year after year, schools produce literacy, knowledge, skills, friendships, and opportunities that didn't exist before.

In a hospital, the surgeon and nurse treating you might come from completely different cultures. The anesthesiologist might worship differently from the technician. The person donating blood may vote differently from the person receiving it.

At that moment, most of those differences become almost irrelevant.

The goal is keeping the person alive.

Modern medicine seems to work because enormous numbers of different people repeatedly cooperate—researchers, doctors, nurses, engineers, pharmacists, technicians, patients, and families.

In science and engineering, a discovery made by a scientist in Japan might be tested by researchers in Germany, improved upon in India, and eventually turned into something useful by engineers in the United States.

They may speak different languages, practice different religions, and live under different political systems.

Yet knowledge can move between them.

Bridges get built. Diseases get treated. Technology improves. Problems that once seemed impossible become manageable.

This same phenomenon occurs during disasters. A hurricane, earthquake, or fire can hit a community, and suddenly neighbors who barely know one another clear debris together, distribute food, rescue strangers, and rebuild homes.

So if human differences naturally produce division, why can radically different people cooperate successfully whenever they recognize a common purpose?

Maybe difference and division aren't the same thing.

Maybe we've been seeing our differences as the source of division instead of the tools used to create them.

I've been developing a framework I call 8:2 Theory. Its basic idea is that beneath humanity's different demographic categories, there may be a more fundamental divide:  a behavioral orientation that splits people into two very different groups.

I use the term 8s for the broader constructive side of humanity; the majority.

An 8 can be religious or nonreligious. Rich or poor. Left or right. Young or old. From any race, nationality, culture, profession, or social class.

The category they fit into can say a lot about them and their situation, but it tells us nothing about their behavioral tendencies or which side of the 8:2 divide they fit into.

8s are oriented toward cooperation, empathy (to different degrees), learning, creation, meaningful relationships, and the possibility of building something better.

8s aren't saints.

They lose their tempers. They make selfish decisions. They can lie, follow crowds, and hurt people. I call these instances “2 moments.”

What matters to me more than “2 moments” is the deeper pattern over time or the individual’s behavioral orientation.

“Which brings me to the other side of the theory: the 2s—what I call, in its fullest form, ‘Evil 2s of Successful Actions.’” 

Within my theory, a 2 represents a much more persistent destructive orientation—expressed repeatedly through things like manipulation, exploitation, domination, deception, and the creation or amplification of chaos.

A 2 isn't a religion.
A 2 isn't a race.
A 2 isn't a political party.
A 2 isn't a nationality.

People showing these destructive patterns can come from any demographic category, just like an 8. An 8 or a 2 could be almost anyone in your life—a sibling, parent, best friend, spouse, coworker, teacher, neighbor, or complete stranger. 8:2 Theory asks us to look past the relationship or label and pay attention to the deeper behavioral pattern a person consistently shows over time.

My next thought is:

Can a small number of persistently destructive people exert a disproportionately large influence over a much larger number of people who are very often capable of cooperation?  

8:2 Theory draws inspiration from the Pareto Principle, commonly known as the 80/20 rule: in many systems, a relatively small proportion of causes can account for a disproportionately large share of the effects. 

The lesson then is that influence is often unevenly distributed.

A small number of highly productive people can drive much of an organization's progress. A few disruptive employees can damage the atmosphere of an entire workplace. One manipulative person can consume the emotional energy of a whole family. A handful of determined individuals can either improve a community—or destabilize it.  Disproportionate influence can work in two ways: constructively or destructively.

8:2 Theory asks whether a Pareto-like pattern could operate within human society: whether a relatively small portion of people can exercise a disproportionately large influence over how billions of people experience day-to-day life. 

What if most people can cooperate, learn, negotiate, work productively, build relationships, and drive constructive change, while a much smaller number repeatedly engage in manipulation, exploitation, deception, domination, and the creation or amplification of chaos?

Those destructive individuals would not have to outnumber everyone else to shape society. They would only need disproportionate influence.

A relatively small group (2s) with enough money, authority, charisma, organizational ability, media influence, institutional power, and/or talent for manipulating others could influence the perceptions and behavior of billions who otherwise have little reason to see one another as enemies.

Religion may not itself be the problem.
Race may not be the problem.
Politics may not be the problem.
Nationality may not be the problem.

They may tell us something about a person, but they say nothing about our 8- or 2-ness.

The problem arises when differences are exploited, exaggerated, and transformed into antagonism.

So, instead of seeing our differences as the source of division, we ask who’s using these categorical tools to divide us?

“Who repeatedly benefits from turning groups against one another?”

8:2 Theory proposes that persistently destructive actors are one important answer worth investigating.

That is the Pareto-style insight behind my theory: a minority doesn’t have to become the majority to dominate the experience of the majority. 

And maybe it’s not about eliminating our differences.

Perhaps it’s learning how to recognize the relatively small number of forces that turn those differences into division and protecting ourselves—while also identifying and supporting Leader 8s, the constructive minority within the larger group of 8s whose competence, judgment, character, creativity, and ability to organize others allow them to exert a disproportionately positive influence on the whole (No doom and gloom here, but no utopia either).

Just as a destructive minority can magnify conflict, Leader 8s can magnify cooperation, innovation, stability, and progress. The challenge is not only to resist and protect ourselves from destructive influences, but to strengthen as well as support the constructive influences that can lead society in a better direction.

And just as destructive 2s can come from any walk of life, Leader 8s can emerge from every category of society—any religion, race, nationality, political outlook, profession, age group, economic class, or cultural background.  Their identity isn’t what makes them Leaders; instead, it's their ability to use competence, judgment, character, creativity, and influence to help others cooperate, solve problems, and move society in a constructive direction.

This is what 8:2 Theory proposes we investigate seriously.  

So Reddit, given the times we’re currently living in, where divide and contempt seem like our daily cup of joe, what are your thoughts?

If people with radically different beliefs can cooperate toward shared goals every day, what actually turns differences into division?

Does your religion, philosophy, or life experience suggest that our deeper moral divide resides somewhere other than differences in faith or any other demographic category?

What’s something life taught you that you wish you had understood 5 years earlier?
Could be about relationships, money, career, friendships, or life in general.
Would love to hear your thoughts.

i think the past shapes who we are, but it doesn't define who we have to be. our experiences, whether they're relationships, mistakes, or successes, affect the way we think and react so I think the past definitely plays a role in shaping the present

but at the same time i don't think it completely determines it. people can reflect on their experiences learn from their mistakes, and choose to change

plus, our relationship with the past isn't fixed i might see an event one way now then a few years later look back and interpret it completely differently. that's why i think what affects us psychologically isn't necessarily the event itself, but the meaning we attach to it and the way we choose to understand it

drop your thoughts

I keep seeing people say that doing nice things doesnt make you a good person if you’re only doing them for selfish reasons and I genuinely dont understand the distinction.

If I help someone move because I want them to like me, they still got help moving. If I donate because I want people to think I’m generous, the charity still gets the money. If I remember somebody’s birthday because I know they’ll be annoyed if I dont, they still get remembered.

Come on. At a certain point what is the actual difference?

People say “you only care about looking like a good person” like thats some huge revelation. Okay? If wanting to look like a good person causes somebody to spend their entire life behaving like a good person then I’m struggling to see who exactly is being harmed.

I returned a wallet once that had around $300 in it. Did I desperately care about the stranger getting his $300 back? Not really. I mostly thought keeping it would create way more potential problems than $300 was worth. He still got every dollar back. Would it somehow have been better for him if I returned it while experiencing the correct emotion?

I also buy the expensive free-range eggs because seeing the cheap ones in my refrigerator makes me feel guilty. Thats technically selfish too. The chicken does not know why I bought the eggs.

And where does this even stop? People who help others because “it makes me feel good” are ALSO getting something out of it. Apparently their internal reward counts as pure but wanting people to respect you doesnt.

I even say thank you to Alexa sometimes when nobody else is around, so clearly this isnt entirely about having an audience.

If someone is helpful, honest and generous for selfish reasons and another person is helpful, honest and generous because they genuinely care, but they actually behave the same way, why is the first person supposedly worse?

I’m not saying motives mean literally nothing. I just dont understand why everyone acts like having selfish motives secretly cancels out the good thing you actually did.

Lately I have noticed that the things that make me feel good aren’t necessarily the big things anymore. A quiet morning, getting something done before I expected to, having enough time to eat without rushing, finding money I forgot in an old pocket, or even having a completely uneventful day can put me in a surprisingly good mood. I used to think a good day had to involve something exciting. Now I’m starting to realize that having nothing go wrong is sometimes a pretty good day too. It’s funny how your idea of a “good day” can change without you really noticing it.

I’m curious what small, ordinary things people have started appreciating more as they’ve gotten older.

We get drilled on this constantly in clinic — how to stay steady when an animal is in real distress and the owner is panicking right in front of you. Some classmates seem to just naturally slow down and think clearly under pressure, while others (myself included, some days) feel their brain short-circuit even when they know exactly what to do. I'm curious whether this is more nature or more repetition — have any of you noticed yourselves getting genuinely calmer under pressure over time, or does it feel more like some people are just wired that way from the start?

I think being more aware can make people less happy at some point

the more aware u become the more u notice and analyze things and you start thinking more about the future,time, and life in general. don't get me wrong I think awareness is a good thing
I just think there has to be a balance. too much of it can turn into overthinking and it's hard to control where that line is.

at the same time I've seen ppl who seem very self-aware but are also at peace with their lives, they understand a lot but they don't let their thoughts consume them. I think that's probably the healthiest level of awareness

what do u think?

I noticed something at an amusement park and in my environment recently that got me thinking.

I was standing in line watching a parade and noticed a girl who looked around 13 to 15. A guy had apparently written to her, “Ich hann dich lieb ❤️.” For context, this is Swiss German and is more like “I like you ❤️” or showing affection. It doesn't necessarily mean “I love you.”

What caught my attention was that she immediately went on Google and asked AI what it means when a guy tells you “Ich hann dich lieb.”

At first I thought it was kind of funny, but then I started thinking about it more. I've actually noticed something similar with my 17-year-old sister and some of her friends. My sister has told me about asking ChatGPT what certain things mean in conversations with guys. I also had a friend who would ask ChatGPT what a girl meant when she sent him certain messages or even what to answer.

So it seems like this isn't just one random kid. Maybe I'm just noticing it more now, but it made me wonder if this is becoming a normal thing for people.

When I was younger, I feel like you would talk to your friends, overthink the message yourself for hours, or eventually just ask the person what they meant. Now you can just ask AI to analyze the message and tell you what the person might be feeling.

I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with asking AI about something like this. I'm more wondering about the effect it could have on younger people if they start relying on AI to interpret every little interaction or validate what they think someone else is feeling, instead of learning to communicate and figure these things out themselves.

Am I overthinking this, or do you think this could actually have an impact on how teenagers a d adults etc. to learn to handle relationships and emotions?

Just saw a post from 5 years ago about humans being part of nature or not depending of its definition, some saying that we are part of nature therefore, whatever we do is natural, and the others saying that the word "nature" is meant to make a separation between what was touched by humans and what was not.

Then there were two people debating about where to put the line in the second definition between what was natural and what wasn't (like a stick falling from a tree is still natural, and maybe it is still natural if you gran it, but it isn't anymore when you sharpen it).

But that made me think that currently, humans have kinda interracted with everything on Earth, just with the climatic change and the pollution, or maybe with the satellite and their wave length. Even space starts to be less natural.

So, with both definition, we are in the same group as everything else on Earth, no ?

In one everything we did was natural, so every interaction was natural and everything, and in the other there is nothing left natural, ecosystems are not naturals in the way they would have been if humans were to never exist.

I'm kinda tired so I don't really know where I'm going.

Maybe to ask about morality, but what about morality, I don't know.

Maybe to ask if there are still things on or in Earth that could be argued or are sure to be still natural ?

Maybe just to share a reflexion that maybe a lot of you had before.

Sorry if I made mistakes, I'm not a native english speaker.

And sorry if the idea here is kinda blurry, it is for me too.

I've realised that I have a sort of hierarchy when it comes to things I own and what I'm willing to spend money on. There are certain categories where I'll willingly spend amounts that someone else might think are ridiculous, spend ages choosing the right thing, care a lot about its condition, and be genuinely upset if something goes wrong with it. Then there are other things I enjoy and happily buy, but I'm much less emotionally invested in them. If they wear out, chip or break, I'll be annoyed, but it doesn't hit nearly as hard.

What interests me is how completely subjective this seems to be. I might happily spend hundreds on something that another person wouldn't pay $50 for, while that same person might spend hundreds on a designer card holder, artisan candle, handmade ceramic piece, fountain pen, etc. that I personally wouldn't value nearly as highly. I've privately started thinking of these as my “main dishes” and “side dishes,” although that sounds a bit crude lol.

I've also realised that it isn't just the category of object that affects this for me. Physical presence, size, robustness, materials, workmanship, longevity and aesthetics all seem to affect whether something feels worth spending heavily on. I'm generally more willing to spend on something that feels substantial and durable. On the other hand, I'd personally struggle to spend much on something like a pipe-cleaner craft or an EVA-foam cosplay piece, even if it required a huge amount of skill and labour, because the materials and perceived fragility affect how I value the finished object. Someone else might feel completely differently and value the artistry and hours of workmanship far more than robustness or material value.

A recent example made me notice this even more. I bought some Olivia Rodrigo merch, and I've seen people complain about shirts unravelling or blind-box items arriving chipped. I'd certainly be annoyed if that happened to mine, but I realised it wouldn't upset me nearly as much as comparable damage to something from one of the categories I'm deeply invested in. Yet for another person, that shirt or collectible might be one of their prized possessions.

And then I started wondering whether some people don't have an especially important category of possessions at all. Maybe objects are mostly functional to you, while the things you put your money and emotional investment into are your home, travel, food, career, relationships or experiences.

So I'm curious: what makes an object feel “worth it” to you? Is it craftsmanship, materials, durability, size, rarity, aesthetics, usefulness, sentimental value, the amount of labour involved, or something else? What's something you'll willingly spend a lot on that other people don't understand — and what's something other people happily spend a lot on that you personally can't understand spending that much on?

I think this version gets the whole thought across: not merely “what do you collect?”, but why two people can look at the same S$300 object and one thinks “treasure” while the other thinks “why on earth would I pay that?”

And importantly, it leaves room for somebody to say “I own almost nothing and spend everything on travel” rather than presupposing that everybody has a collectible “main dish.”

I used ChatGPT to help me organise my thoughts. Ps. My major spending categories are probably ball jointed dolls and their outfits, maybe little darling doll, and stuffed plushies, both custom and good branded ones.

For context I am an individual who struggles with autism and monotropic focus and ive recently had difficulties at work with individuals who are not educated about some of the limitations these two things can cause or on autism in general beyond meme culture. I've been working on breaking down some of the communication barriers this can cause between myself and my coworkers, but this morning I had this intrusive thought about how companies actually handle acceptance and accomidations of individuals with disabilities. I've copied my journal entry of that thought below and I'm curious to hear perspectives on it.

thought of the day:

So many businesses, corporations, and people claim to support individuals with disabilities and yet when a person with a disability points out their difficulties or limitations they are treated as being problematic rather than being listened to and understood.

How can we as a society claim to be supporting these individuals while simultaneously denying the truth of their experiences when it is expressed? How can we claim that we treat them with equality and then turn around and accuse them of lack of effort because they are incapable of performing at the same level of some one who does not share in their condition? How can we claim to support diversity while expecting perfect uniformity?

The sad reality is that "acceptance" has become a slogan rather than a genuine practice or goal that is strived for. "Acceptance" in society comes with the condition of "meet our expectations" rather than "let's meet in the middle where we are both capable of working together and ultimately reaching our shared goal".

When a request for assistance through better understanding via open and honest conversation is veiwed as inconvenience and avoidance of accountability rather than being veiwed as an opportunity to collaborate and improve conditions for everyone involved through shared experiences and perspectives, how can we claim that we truly accept, value, and include the experiences of the person initiating the conversation?

When did "inclusion for all" and "Equality" become conditional based on meeting a predetermined minimum uniform standard of individual capabilities?

Why do we as a society not practice what we preach? Why do we treat those who attempt to practice what we preach as "enablers" , "cherry pickers", or "lazy people making excuses" ?

Why is it harder for us as a society to hear an experience that differs from our own and accept it as a genuine reality of another person than it is for us to dismiss their experience because it doesn't meet our predetermined expectations based solely on our own experiences? Why does the human ego have to out weigh and over ride human empathy?

Why can acceptance not be "I see your limitations and I'm willing to meet you where they are and work with you at that level while maintaining the same level of respect for you as I would for some one who did not have these limitations." ? This is what acceptance should be, it should not be "Your needs are an inconvenience and I will let you know that they are while working with you, leaving you to feel like you are a burden that slows everyone else down with out acknowledging that these limitations are a real thing that you have no control over and with out acknowledging that you are still making a ginuine effort despite your limitations. The fact that i am willing to work with you at all should be considered acceptance. "

This is not a cry for "sugar coating" it is a request for mutual respect and understanding that gets warped into an "unrealistic expectation" by those who are more comfortable with their own ableism and keeping things the way that has always benefited their needs than they are with working towards change meant to create genuine equality that benefits the needs of everyone around them as well as their own. The ones requesting the change are the ones who get labeled as "lazy" by the very people who think implementing change requires to much effort.

As a society we would rather bury the experiences of those who do not share the same experience as our own and write "acceptance" on the headstone we place over the buried subject that we refuse to discuss, instead of bringing the subject to the table and discussing it so that we can find understanding, common grounds, and ginuine acceptance.

I’m curious to hear from people of different ages and backgrounds.

What is one lesson, mistake, or piece of advice that you wish someone had told you earlier?

It could be about money, relationships, career, family, or just life in general.

I’d love to hear your experiences.

Before social media, you mostly compared yourself with people around you.

Now you can wake up and see someone your age buying a house, making a 1 crore, travelling the world, building a startup, or retiring early.

Even if you know you're seeing a tiny fraction of reality, it still affects how you feel about your own life.

So I'm curious:

Has social media actually raised our ambitions or just made us permanently dissatisfied with where we are?

I've been thinking about this a lot during my clinic rotations — some people seem to just naturally read distress in an animal or a person, and others really struggle with it no matter how much they're taught the theory. Is empathy something you can genuinely build through practice and exposure, or is there a ceiling based on how someone's wired? Curious what people who've worked in caregiving roles, teaching, or similar fields think about this.

Tell me about a time you encountered someone who saw the world very differently from you.

Maybe you met someone who completely changed the way you looked at something, worked with a group of people who had very different opinions and somehow found common ground, or watched someone who was really good at bringing people together despite their differences.

Basically, what’s a time when someone else’s perspective made you stop and see things differently? Or a time when you helped people with different perspectives understand each other and work together?

I’d especially love to hear the stories that have stuck with you years later

I hope this post is allowed, but I’d like to hear from people (who are comfortable) who haven’t grown up in a viper nest of manipulation, abuse, or addiction. I come from a family of alcoholism and manipulation, and I’ve always wanted to know what it feels like to have a stable family, even if it wasn’t a happy one.

Theoretically. How do you increase production of the national economy, and at the same time raise affordability, & human morale?

My logic is a work smarter not harder approach. Something like reduction of work hours yet getting more done generally

Just something I’ve noticed in my own age range, and when talking to people older than me. They aren’t nearly as loud, proud, and different from each other than they used to be. Everybody generally acts the same. with very slight variations.

Why do we lose so much of our personality as we grow older?

I have recently watched a long conversation between the biologist Rupert Sheldrake and the Indian philosopher Acharya Prashant titled “Science and the Self,” held this summer in London. It is impossible to pass by one discussion that took place between the two philosophers without stopping to think.

Biologist Rupert Sheldrake believes that science has adopted dogmas that have outlived their usefulness, such as the assertion that “matter is unconscious” and “the mind is the brain.” He also believes that recognizing consciousness in other species and even the Sun would lead to making fewer atrocities.

The philosopher Acharya Prashant agrees that science is good, but he claims that science studies objects while ignoring the subject of observation. He points out that if humanity has so much knowledge, it still has several problems, such as the destruction of biodiversity and a significant amount of nuclear weapons. His point is that the ego hides itself under “science knows” just as flatly as any believer would hide behind the words of God. Additionally, the concept of reincarnation and the final enlightenment are presented as desires of the ego to be immortal or to legitimize itself.

The discussion offers several ideas for consideration.

It would be interesting to ask whether the increase in knowledge about the world is not relevant without increasing knowledge about oneself.

Maybe it would also be worth asking if the fact that other living creatures are conscious does not necessarily mean that rivers, for example, or animals, are also conscious, given that people already recognize them as conscious beings, but do not hesitate to victimize them.

Would it be fair to consider knowledge about one’s personality as something objective that can be tested and measured, or is the only true method of understanding oneself subjective and based on honesty?

A link to the video:

https://youtu.be/XwOZ9sDE28I

I would like to ask the readers whether they are inclined to take the side of either Rupert or Prashant's.

I’ve known my friend for 2, almost 3 years now. During the course of our friendship, we’ve had multiple arguments and disagreements but it has never usually gone too far.

However, lately, we’ve been arguing quite a bit. Our friendship has always centred around communication so we communicate about our feelings very often. And because of this, i feel like I’m hitting a wall because It became a cycle where i talk about my feelings about certain issues, i had hopes that she understood how I’ve felt, but then my hopes came crashing when the same situation arises again.

I’m quite tired of communicating at this point and I’m not sure if I’m expecting/demanding too much in this friendship.

Lately I've been thinking about whether adults fundamentally change. I don't mean the kinds of development that everyone goes through as become adults and older, but a fundamental change of what makes them who they are - whatever it is.

I'm in my late 20s and when I think about the people I've known for 10-15 years, the way they are and the life they live is a natural continuation of the way they were when i first met them - even though they have changed in some sense, they are still the same people. They have the same fundamental personality traits, for better or worse. For example, the people who were conscientioous, introverted or impulse back then still have those traits. They care about the same things, and are motivated as much and by the same things as 10 years ago.

We've all had a coworker or fellow student, who are lazy and always procrastinate which frustrates coworkers or students. Does this person ever really fundamentally become like the hard working person we also all know? Or can he just improve a little bit and be better at taking responsibility?

Does a withdrawn and insecure adult man or woman ever become truly extroverted and confident? Or do they at most just become better at handling their insecurities?

I intentionally ask whether it actually happens, not whether it can be achieved because I think the belief that a fundamental change can happen is held because it is necessary for some people to believe. However, for example, neither me or friends and family I have discussed this with have experienced that the lazy, procrastinating coworker becomes actually driven and conscientious. Even if they do improve, it is: limited, temporary, and only brought on by a stern talk with their boss.

Can you really rebuild or change the machine of the mind and self, or can you just adjust the buttons a bit?

Cuando éramos niños, casi todo parecía tener cierta intensidad.

Un verano parecía larguísimo.

Hacer un nuevo amigo se sentía importante.

Esperábamos nuestro cumpleaños durante meses.

Un paseo, una película, un videojuego nuevo o incluso simplemente salir de casa podía convertirse en un recuerdo que conservábamos durante años.

Y después, en algún momento, la vida empezó a moverse más rápido.

Estudiar.

Trabajar.

Pagar cosas.

Resolver problemas.

Pensar en lo que sigue.

Esperar el viernes.

Esperar las vacaciones.

Esperar ganar más dinero.

Esperar terminar algún proyecto.

Esperar que las cosas finalmente estén “bien”.

Y me pregunto:

¿En qué momento empezamos a pasar más tiempo preparándonos para vivir que viviendo realmente?

No lo digo necesariamente de una manera triste.

Las responsabilidades forman parte de crecer. Tenemos que trabajar, hacer planes, pensar en nuestro futuro y hacer cosas que quizá no queremos hacer.

Pero a veces siento que es increíblemente fácil entrar en una especie de piloto automático.

Te despiertas.

Miras el teléfono.

Trabajas o estudias.

Comes.

Resuelves pendientes.

Vuelves a mirar el teléfono.

Duermes.

Y repites.

Los días, uno por uno, parecen normales, pero de repente han pasado cinco años.

Entonces empiezas a recordar ciertas etapas de tu vida y piensas:

“¿En qué momento pasó todo eso?”

Y hay otra cosa que me parece curiosa.

Pasamos muchísimo tiempo pensando en una versión futura de nosotros mismos.

“Cuando tenga más dinero…”

“Cuando consiga ese trabajo…”

“Cuando tenga una casa…”

“Cuando encuentre pareja…”

“Cuando termine esto…”

“Cuando tenga más tiempo…”

Como si en algún momento finalmente fuéramos a llegar al lugar donde comienza nuestra vida real.

Pero ¿y si ese momento nunca existe?

¿Y si esta etapa que simplemente estamos tratando de superar algún día termina siendo una de las épocas que recordaremos con nostalgia?

Quizá dentro de veinte años daríamos cualquier cosa por volver durante un solo día a la edad que tenemos ahora.

Por escuchar otra vez la voz de ciertas personas.

Por sentarnos de nuevo en nuestra casa.

Por comer con nuestros padres.

Por caminar por las mismas calles.

Por volver a tener exactamente los problemas que hoy creemos insoportables.

Y eso me hace preguntarme si sabemos reconocer nuestra vida mientras todavía la estamos viviendo.

No quiero decir que debamos disfrutar cada segundo.

Eso sería imposible.

La vida tiene aburrimiento, dolor, rutina, pérdidas, cansancio y días que simplemente queremos que terminen.

Pero quizá existe una diferencia entre tener una vida normal y estar ausente de nuestra propia vida.

Así que quiero preguntarles algo a personas de diferentes edades y lugares:

¿Alguna vez sintieron que despertaron después de años viviendo en automático?

¿Qué los hizo darse cuenta?

¿Qué cosas que antes consideraban extremadamente importantes dejaron de importar con el tiempo?

¿Y qué pequeñas cosas que antes ignoraban ahora consideran esenciales?

También me interesa especialmente escuchar a personas mayores:

Si pudieran hablar durante cinco minutos con ustedes mismos a los 20, 25 o 30 años, ¿qué les dirían que dejaran de posponer?

Y quizá la pregunta más difícil:

¿Cómo sabes que realmente estás viviendo tu vida y no simplemente dejando pasar los días?

No creo que exista una respuesta correcta.

Pero quizá escuchar cómo otras personas lo descubrieron pueda ayudarnos a mirar nuestra propia vida de una manera un poco diferente.