I work in the industry and understand the nuances of everything from data analysis to acting, and I keep a broad, multi-faceted view of the field. Life is unpredictable, often placing us in unfamiliar territory where we must constantly adapt to new human perspectives. Throughout the history of theatre on this Earth, we have seen art transform to mimic our social and economic landscapes. As both business professionals and artists, we displace the logistical and humanistic ego, transporting the public into a world of difference.

This section of my website is dedicated to the patterns that fuel the fire of the arts—the very essence of why I do what I do. My goal is to take people out of their world and into a controlled environment. But how is that achieved? While the human brain can be restructured and reshaped, there is a global, observable philosophy regarding how everything operates. How does the music sing? How do the birds fly? How does art breathe life into an audience and inspire the perspective shifts needed to re-evaluate life itself? That is what makes the observational side of theatre so inspiring for others to witness.

Here are the patterns and internal systems I’ve noticed co-existing in our world.

Coming Soon- Theatrical Marketing Thesis 

What’s your role in the theater?

I am an Assistant Producer for a show contracted within the theater organization. I handle assignments given to me by the Executive Producers, which includes managing social media, handling production paperwork, serving as props master, and generally holding down the fort.

What's your favorite part of working here?

My favorite part of working here is the theater's rich history and its ongoing commitment to experimental work. La MaMa provides a solid foundation for creative development alongside a team of professionals who share the exact same mindset. On top of that, it is a state-of-the-art facility specifically researched and built to accommodate shows with complex technical demands.

What do you know about the origins of the theater?

I'm familiar with the theater’s origins through public archives and history. The founder and original Artistic Director, Ellen Stewart, wanted a space where artists were free to experiment without being held back by commercial pressures. Founded in 1961, it started in a basement, evolved into a cafe-theater, and had to stay relatively underground for a while due to zoning and public pressure. Over time—especially during the downtown arts boom of the 1970s and '80s—La MaMa emerged as an international theatrical powerhouse. Landmark shows like Godspell and countless celebrated artists got their start here. There’s a common saying in the community: you’re only two steps away from Broadway once you do your first show at La MaMa.

What is something significant that you’ve learned from working at La MaMa? It can be regarding theater itself, or maybe even a life lesson you’ve learned from the people around you.

The most significant lesson I've learned is that the sky is the limit. Every day here showed me that you can put whatever you envision on stage and make it compelling. Traditional theater often dictates that everything must be rigidly structured and executed by the book—yeah, no. La MaMa E.T.C. proved to me that rigid structure is just someone else's convention. We are meant to be expressive and build our own rules, whether that’s on stage, in the production office, behind the scenes, or out in real life.

Do you think that the theater's mission statement remains true through time, from its initial opening to now and into the future?

Beyond remaining true, every production I see reflects deep respect for La MaMa’s founding purpose. Whenever an artist experiments with lighting, reimagines how sound moves through the room, or directs abstract conceptual themes, the mission is clearly upheld at the highest level. Getting work produced here is still a rigorous process because leadership is fiercely protective of that legacy; they refuse to let commercial trends dilute the space. That strict curation guarantees the original vision stays intact for the future.

The journey of business ownership is rarely an easy thing to master; it is more of a complex production where the script is constantly being rewritten. In the business of entertainment, much like any other industry, the job requires the ability to switch to wearing multiple hats. Understanding the concept of business ownership will lead to greatness and also the ability to see a profit at the end of the day. Every entrepreneur eventually starts from scratch, and also has the ability to, where everything seems to go wrong. When you are trying and failing, this is the first con that is found in being a business owner.  However, the most daunting negatives of ownership can often be re-engineered into strategic advantages. In the early stages, the lack of a steady paycheck can feel like a ground for fear of failure. However, this instability forces a level of fiscal discipline and lean operation that a corporate salary never could. By treating variable income as an incentive to diversify revenue streams, much like a production company balances several shows at once, you build a resilient financial structure that offers far higher equity growth than a fixed wage ever would. You are giving yourself the advantage of not being secure, therefore a higher survival rate later on, and the ability to work harder in the near future. This selectivity can lead to significant isolation. Yet, this "con" is actually the seed of uncompromising leadership. When you are the final say on quality, you ensure the integrity of the vision. By leaning into this responsibility, you can curate an ensemble of collaborators who trust your direction because they know the stakes are as high for you as they are for the brand. In certain businesses like entertainment, this is the idea of choosing the shows that will break the 20% “1 out of 5” shows that will make money back. Selecting and ensuring the quality of your shows is the best way to ensure the business ownership becomes a pro, rather than a con. 

The 24/7 nature of ownership can lead to burnout. To turn this into a pro, one must shift from "working" to integrating. When your business is a reflection of your own intellectual or creative property, the time spent "on" becomes an investment in a legacy. By automating the mundane and focusing your energy on high-impact creative decisions, the "always-on" lifestyle becomes a pursuit of passion rather than a chore. The ability to set your own hours is a major draw, but in practice, it often becomes a lack of structure. For many, total flexibility results in a "drift" where the urgent-but-unimportant noise of daily operations sidelines high-priority tasks. I’ve learned this, and I’m still learning this over time; it’s not an easy thing. Even the most celebrated benefits of ownership have a "dark side" that can manifest if they aren't managed with a grounded sense of realism. Having total control is the dream, but without the safely of a traditional structure, it often leads to decision issues and opportunity costs being missed. Without a board or a superior to push back on bad ideas, an owner can easily fall into a trap of their own making, losing the objectivity needed to pivot when the market shifts.

While the ability to execute your vision exactly as you see it is rewarding, it can lead to myopia. A business that is too closely tied to the owner’s singular taste may fail to resonate with a broader, more diverse audience, eventually limiting its growth potential. To understand the cost of failing to innovate, we need only look at the rise and fall of Blockbuster Video. Once the undisputed king of the home entertainment market, Blockbuster’s collapse is a textbook example of the "sunk cost fallacy." Blockbuster’s failure wasn't just a lack of technology; it was a failure of imagination. They were so anchored to their physical retail infrastructure and the high-margin revenue of "late fees" that they failed to recognize the shift toward digital convenience. When Netflix offered itself for acquisition for $50 million in 2000, Blockbuster famously laughed them out of the room. They viewed their massive network of stores as an impenetrable moat, when in reality, it was becoming an anchor. The primary lesson is that customer experience issues are a death sentence. Blockbuster relied on a business model that scared the customer (late fees), while Netflix innovated by removing that friction entirely. Furthermore, Blockbuster proved that a company must be willing to cannibalize its own successful product (physical rentals) to embrace the future (streaming). Blockbuster could have corrected its trajectory by leveraging its brand recognition to launch a "hybrid" model much earlier. Had they used their physical locations as local distribution hubs for a mail-in service or invested that $50 million into the Netflix partnership, they could have owned the transition from physical to digital. Instead, they focused on maintaining the status quo of the "20th-century stage" while the rest of the world moved into the 21st. Business success, much like in the theatre, requires knowing when to close and when it’s time to innovate entirely. Companies that think forward, like Netflix, will always remain on top. 

Sources: 

Satell, G. (2014, September 5). A Look Back At Why Blockbuster Really Failed And Why It Didn’t Have To. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/09/05/a-look-back-at-why-blockbuster-really-failed-and-why-it-didnt-have-to/

‌Smriti. (2023, April 19). From Industry Giant To Bankruptcy: Blockbuster’s Failure - InspireIP. InspireIP. https://inspireip.com/blockbuster-failure-story/

Philosophy

Are We Living in a World of Punishment?

We are born into a world full of adventure and fun—an Earth worth exploring and discovering. More importantly, however, we are born into a life that we don’t truly understand. If we follow the knowledge we do possess, we know that nothing in this world is free. I know personally that one must work hard to play hard; but in the world we were born into, shouldn’t things be perfect? As a society, we have always tried to make this world as stress-free, conflict-free, and problem-proof as possible, yet with every effort put into solving a problem, we always seem to find new ones. This brings me to my question: are we living in a world of punishment? I believe we are living in a punishment, and I believe that humans are the punishment within that world.

The play No Exit was written by Jean-Paul Sartre, who is famously known for his views on existentialism as well as being a renowned playwright. No Exit is a concept play focused on what happens after we die. Three people are trapped in a room for eternity and discover that they are their own torturers; they are unable to solve the conflict of being together. If we examine this—people trapped in a room together for eternity, torturing each other and unable to resolve anything—the meaning of the play becomes clear: "Hell is other people." With the Earth full of other people, conflicts are sure to arise, and humans will inevitably turn Earth into Hell.

Additionally, people can turn simple, happy events into a "Hell on Earth." For example, consider a three-year-old’s birthday party with cupcakes. If the cupcakes aren’t the right flavor for the child’s liking, he might throw a temper tantrum, causing the party's fun to come to a complete stop and resulting in every child and parent leaving in an upset, depressed mood. Why is that? Because people create "Hell on Earth" (a very popular term) and constantly affect those around them with their emotions and actions, shifting the entire atmosphere. Another example is a police officer arresting an innocent person. The human wearing the uniform made a mistake, not the concept of policing in general, but because of that incident, the falsely arrested individual had a terrible day. In general, you can have a great world, but humans will disrupt the system and become each other’s hell.

We are living in a world of pain and suffering. For every moment you are alive, there is suffering; you will never have a moment of pure happiness because there is always something to be worked on or worried about. We can experience happiness, but no one in life can ever be 100% worry-free and problem-free. Consider all the hard work and suffering you have endured to get to this moment in your life. If you won a world championship in racing, think about all the suffering that took place beforehand to achieve that tiny, blissful moment. It doesn't last. Life isn’t always rainbows and butterflies; you usually have to suffer through hardship to achieve goals and earn praise. We are living in a world of punishment where moments of bliss and hope can be crushed in minutes. Life is full of suffering both before and after these moments, and we have become so accustomed to receiving such small bursts of hope that we completely forget the pain that went into securing that peace. The way the world works is a punishment, and we are living in a cycle that is never-ending.

However, some might argue that we aren't living in a world of punishment, but are merely experiencing temporary moments of suffering and conflict. I see this as a counter-argument to my statement, suggesting that suffering and conflicting views are simply human traits. I am not denying that these traits exist in human personality, as everyone thinks differently about certain events. However, I am denying the idea that people aren’t suffering all the time. As a human myself, I know that I suffer day in and day out; it is not just a passing feeling. I know how hard I work and the suffering I endure just to experience one moment of relief.

Furthermore, I know that the world around me is suffering. For example, consider the ongoing wars in Israel and Palestine. Those people are suffering as we speak—how is that merely a "trait" of my personality? People all around us are suffering, and that is a constant punishment of the world. If I were arguing only about the suffering of one individual, such as a person named Travis, my question would be worded differently. Instead, I am arguing that the world itself is a punishment. To say only one individual suffers would be narcissistic. As a community, we are suffering in this world together; we have a combined experience of hardship and must live together in conflict. I cannot agree with arguments that focus only on the individual rather than considering our shared experiences of suffering.

In my final thoughts, I believe we are living in a world of punishment in which there is no solution to the suffering everyone must experience, save for specific moments of hope. We are in an age where we can minimize suffering—for example, through the benefits of therapy or the technological advancements we have today compared to 100 years ago—but these are not "solutions" to life, nor are they the meaning of life. Until we can understand the meaning of existence, I cannot provide a solution for how to stop living in a world of punishment. I am stating that we do live in one, which I believe has been proven in this essay, but I cannot offer a cure.

My final theory is that when we pass away, we will find out why we were living in this state. Perhaps we are here as a "jail sentence" from an alien world—a past life we once lived where we did not suffer. Acknowledging that the world is a punishment does not mean we cannot live happily; it means acknowledging that we will suffer and that life will never be perfect. We as humans are going to make mistakes and have conflicts. That is just the part of life we are accustomed to—we are the punishment of life.

Reference

Sartre, Jean-Paul. No Exit. 1944. GradeSaver LLC, 2007, p. 45.

Art

Art is subjective to the human subconscious, but it is also a source of relaxation and a revolutionary force for the viewer. Throughout history and various movements, art has spearheaded the concerns of the people. From political drawings in The New York Times and bold fashion statements on the red carpet meant to inspire others, to show-stopping moments, the mechanical movements of a robot, or even a banana taped to a wall providing visual balance, art takes many forms. Each artist has their own statement and motto to progress a world in constant change and reestablishment—offering a breath of fresh air in a polluted world.

 Most people value theatre merely as a method of entertainment in a shortsighted world. They go to the theatre for smiles and joy; believe me, I am one of those audience members myself. I want to walk into a building or space and leave feeling joyful and open to life again. However, my time in playwriting has put me in a role that can bring thoughtful discussions of subjects not commonly presented to 21st-century theatregoers. A clear example of this is my play, The Man I Am, The Man I Will Become.

 The Man I Am, The Man I Will Become isn't for the average theatregoer; the show is for the viewer whose story hasn't been told yet. Shawn is an American hustler whose life is turned upside down throughout the show. He contemplates life on the streets in a search for meaning. My playwriting career represents what writers in the Middle Ages once did: creating stories for the common people. Like Shawn's story, theatre needs to represent America and its everyday citizens; not everything has to be all bells and whistles. When I am writing, Shawn's music is inspired by Tupac, a figure whose heart was always on display, and the monologues represent Shawn's album. Most of the greatest hustlers who hustle just to make a living never get to sit down and simply breathe in art.

 He dreams of a place where his passion can thrive, allowing others to see themselves reflected in the art world—specifically in theatre.

 In Act 3, during Mama's funeral, all of Shawn's stress comes crashing down on him. He almost gives up because no one feeds his passion, and it takes his own inner goals and motivation to keep him going. People in Texas never thought a gay, mixed-race boy would do anything with his life. However, just like Shawn, I never gave up. 

\When Shawn walked into his recording studio for the first time, it wasn't the last time he would walk in to create music and tell his story. People walk in and out of doors all the time, but I will never forget who allowed me through the doors first, nor will I forget the people who will be inspired by the work I create. 

Professionalism

In a workplace environment, being professional is highly expected of an employee by the company. Being professional includes, but is not limited to, dressing nicely, using proper email communication, utilizing proper formatting, and being kind, open, and receptive to constructive criticism. Regarding professionalism, dressing nicely just means dressing for business, not the prom. Also, constructive criticism involves talking about the project without attacking the person behind it. For example, saying, “I don’t like that scene lighting; can you possibly look at adjusting the hue?” rather than, “I think you are stupid,” which is completely unprofessional. There are many other aspects to being professional in a workplace, but another part of professionalism is simply healthily being yourself.

 Having professional accountability is a skill that is easy to attain. Personally, having this skill has helped me grow within a company and has made work life much easier. Professional accountability means accepting responsibility for mistakes that had something to do with you. When you do this, your team can all share the blame for a major problem evenly. Part of being accountable is showing the people above you that you are not perfect, but that you can handle mistakes professionally and with ease. Humans make mistakes all the time, but acknowledging them can help you learn from those missteps, grow, and become better. Professional accountability is a great skill to keep handy.

 Being professional is an important skill in any industry, and having it can really help someone stand out faster than everyone else.

TRAVIS

Hi, I’m Travis. I wake up every morning with no memories of my life before. I become a new blank slate every second of my day. I can’t remember the hour before, the day before, or the month before; I can’t remember anything about my life. I was diagnosed with severe amnesia when I was a child; for every second I live, I haven’t remembered the last. Am I a person? Do I have a soul, or just a consciousness, or neither? I can see, but I can’t recall. I can’t reflect, but I can still "think." Am I just a human that can breathe and walk, or am I a proper "thinking thing"?

The "being" whom I am researching is someone with beyond terrible and severe amnesia; he/she has never been able to remember anything since birth. I’ll name him Travis. Travis’s level of amnesia is at the point where he is always confused in life (he doesn't even know the objects he is looking at). Is this being (Travis) a person, or a being just existing? Using the philosophies of Locke, Parfit, and Descartes, I will explain why Travis isn’t experiencing proper personhood, but instead is a human being—a being that exists with no identity of oneself and no self-realization of his state of being, meaning there is no continuous consciousness.

To quickly remind the reader: Travis has never had any continuous memories. This level of amnesia would require constant support, and he was born with this condition.

The ideal person is someone who has a soul, a personality, and a consciousness; these are the requirements that (in my opinion) are essential to be considered a person. Without those, you are just a "being" that exists (not a person). Travis, with severe amnesia, would lack the ability to remember anything. He would also lack a personality and a thinking consciousness, but not a soul, because he is alive and living.

Philosopher John Locke wrote in his 1689 work "On Identity and Diversity" that people are the same throughout their lives; even if their whole body is replaced, their identity remains the same. However, due to this "being" having no memories, he truly wakes up daily and lives throughout the day with the exact same thought: Who am I? Locke can answer part of this question with this quote: “For it is by the consciousness it has of its present thoughts and actions, that it is self to itself now, and so will be the same self” {Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690)}. He explains that the "self" of a person is a collection of consciousness (memories), ideas, personality, and traits. Without the ability to remember, the self isn’t the same now as it will be later, meaning the "being" lacks the idea of an identity. This is a major issue that prevents a "being" from becoming a person, because without identity, one simply cannot become a person.

Locke also suggests that a person is a “thinking thing” with the ability to reason, justify, and reflect. A person with amnesia can still think because they can reason and justify, but without memory, they cannot reflect on earlier actions. To further explain, Locke's theory implies that to be a person, you need constant memories to form a "self." Otherwise, you are basically a new person every second, which is what Travis is experiencing. Therefore, Travis isn’t considered a true “thinking thing”; rather, he is in a state of mere existence.

Additionally, philosopher Derek Parfit, who authored the book Reasons and Persons (1984), explains this using a thought experiment. He suggests that when you step through a teleportation machine, you lose your current body and regain a new body while keeping the same consciousness. Let’s switch the machine to relate more to amnesia: the being (Travis) would “step into the machine” (lose all memories), meaning he would lose all consciousness of any previous thoughts.

Parfit discusses “Numerical Identity” versus “Qualitative Identity.” Numerical identity refers to being one and the same thing over time; qualitative identity refers to shared properties or changes in the self that happen after a decision. Someone with amnesia always creates a new "qualitative" consciousness since there is no numerical identity—Travis can’t even remember what he was before. Parfit writes: “Though our chief concern is our numerical identity, psychological changes matter. Indeed, on one view, certain kinds of qualitative change destroy numerical identity. If certain things happen to me, the truth might not be that I become a very different person. The truth might be that I cease to exist—that the resulting person is someone else” {Parfit, Reasons and Persons (1984)}. Putting two and two together, Travis is constantly losing all earlier consciousness because of memory loss results in having no permanent numerical identity. Therefore, Parfit would not define Travis as having personhood.

A “thinkin thing” is someone who can reason, justify, and reflect. A being who doesn’t have memory can’t reflect, so they aren’t considered a true “thinking thing.” They can still think, but they can’t think consistently, and they would simply forget anything they just thought about. Descartes, the famous philosopher who proposed that everything around us might not be real, suggested that a being that thinks has a soul: “Thinking is another attribute of the soul” {Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, 1641}. This justifies that a being that can think has a soul, so our being with amnesia does indeed have a soul.

So, Travis does have a soul, but he still isn’t a proper “thinking thing.” He can still breathe, so I will give him the status of a human being, but not a person, because this being cannot complete the actions of a person. Travis also lacks an identity because he forgets any earlier self-identity (numerical identity). The writings of these philosophers suggest this being is not a person because personhood requires a constant, continuous self. Travis, therefore, is just a being—not a person with personhood.

However, an added belief is that this "being" knows that it is a being. You could counter-argue that he is a person based on Descartes' observation: “I find that I still feel assured of my existence” {Descartes, 1641}. I would agree that Travis would know he exists—that he sees himself and has a highly limited idea of self-realization—but I wouldn't take that thought beyond simple self-realization. Moreover, because of his severe amnesia, I argue that he would constantly forget and lose that self-realized identity.

In conclusion, he/she does not hold personhood, but is instead a respectable human being. Keep in mind that this theory only holds if the person truly never regains control over their memories. If they start to remember, even barely, they can begin to reflect on memories and become a “thinking thing,” gain consciousness, and eventually gain an identity and personhood.

References

Descartes, René, and Donald A. Cress. Meditations on First Philosophy: In Which the Existence of God and the Distinction of the Soul from the Body Are Demonstrated. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.

Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. OUP Oxford, 1984.

Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. 1844.

Does the internet limit the growth of exploration and curiosity, creating a tunnel-like mindset? 

People have always been naturally curious. It is quite literally how we have survived, adapted, and made our lives easier over thousands of years. Think about it: almost every new idea, tool, or invention builds heavily on the struggles and questions of the past. The conceptualization of the wheel, figuring out how to domesticate dogs, or engineering the steamboat- all of these milestones started simply because someone got curious about a better way to do things. Fast forward to today, and the internet ranks right up there as one of the biggest game-changing inventions in history. It has completely reshaped how modern society functions. But like any massive leap, this discovery comes with a serious catch: the internet is holding back our natural curiosity.

To understand why this is such a huge problem, you have to look at how curiosity actually works in the human brain. It is not just some random, passing thought or a fleeting interest. Back in 1954, Berlyne wrote about something called "epistemic curiosity." Basically, he argued that this specific type of curiosity operates as a psychological drive that kicks in when you are faced with a puzzle, a contradiction, or a situation you cannot answer right away. When you realize you don't know something, your brain experiences a literal kind of cognitive tension. You feel an intense, undeniable drive to fix that discomfort by finding the answer. That tension is exactly why not knowing everything instantly is a crucial part of the human experience. We aren't computers, and we aren't built just to download and store facts on command. Berlyne’s (1954) point was that you gain the most valuable knowledge when you aren't handed the answer directly. 

This idea ties directly into how our brains find the motivation to learn anything at all. According to Silvia’s (2012) research on curiosity and motivation, curiosity is the primary emotional engine that pushes humans to learn simply for the sake of learning. When you are genuinely curious, you aren't just trying to cross a task off a list or win a trivia game. You want to see the bigger picture, understand the underlying mechanisms, and figure out how new facts connect to what you already know. True curiosity is expansive; it naturally wants to branch out in a dozen different directions. The internet, however, completely short-circuits this motivational structure by offering the path of least resistance. It leaves us settling for a very surface-level understanding instead of digging deeper (Silvia, 2012).

Before all of this technology, finding information meant you actually had to engage with the physical world. You had to ask around, talk to experts, and have conversations that might go off on completely random, unexpected tangents. You had to physically go to the library, scan through card catalogs, and flip through actual books. You might go to the stacks looking for one specific historical date, but on the way to the right aisle, a completely different book catches your eye, and you spend an hour reading something entirely new. You learned by exploring the real world, and the knowledge you gained was broad and connected. Now, most of the time, all you have to do is type a few words into a search bar to get an exact, pinpointed answer. It’s incredibly efficient, which sounds great in theory, but it creates a major psychological issue: tunnel vision.

This hyper-efficient setup is actually changing how our brains retain information. A 2025 study by Kim et al. looked closely at how mindful versus mindless online searching affects our ability to recall what we read. Their research highlights that mindlessly typing questions into a search engine—or just asking an AI to summarize things for you—leads to an incredibly passive form of learning. You get the answer immediately, but because your brain didn't have to put in any effort to find it, the information doesn't stick. You forget it almost instantly. To actually retain what you search for online, the researchers suggest you have to manually put the friction back into the process by using an "answer-first" strategy (Kim et al., 2025). Basically, before you run your search, you need to pause. Try to retrieve the answer from your own brain. Doing this forces your brain to engage with the puzzle and manually triggers that epistemic curiosity Berlyne talked about. By putting in that initial effort, you prime your neural pathways to actually remember the answer once you finally read it. But if you just reflexively Google everything without a second thought, you heavily limit how your brain functions and risk long-term mental issues. 

This tunnel vision doesn't just affect our memory; it completely changes our behavioral patterns when we try to learn new things. Another 2025 study, this one by Schumacher et al., looked at the behavioral traces of intellectually curious people to see how they actually navigate online spaces. They found that truly curious people don't just grab the first snippet of text they see. Their behavioral traces show them opening multiple sources, comparing conflicting information, reading more deeply into an article's context, and critically evaluating the quality of what they are looking at. They treat the internet like the massive, complex library it is (Schumacher et al., 2025). The problem is that the modern internet isn't really built to encourage that behavior anymore. It actively cuts off those complex behaviors and deep dives that lead to actual knowledge attainment. For anyone who isn't actively fighting against the grain of the technology, the internet basically trains them to just take the first answer they are given, bypassing their own critical thought process entirely.

In conclusion, by constantly handing us frictionless, immediate answers, the digital world traps us in a tunnel-like way of thinking that completely discourages exploration, nuance, and deeper understanding. This lack of curiosity isn't just a minor modern annoyance; it is a profound, long-term problem. We are looking at a future where coming generations are being raised in an era where they never have to read deeply, investigate thoroughly, or figure out a tough problem by themselves. If we don't realize what is happening and consciously force ourselves to stay curious, we are going to lose the exact drive that pushed humanity to invent the wheel, explore the world, and build the future in the first place.

The Moral Dilemma: Stealing to Feed a Family

Based on and inspired by an age-old question: A father of three children walks into a supermarket and realizes he has no money and no food at home to feed his children. Without hesitation, he swipes some cans of soup, vegetables, and additional food items. Are the father’s actions—stealing food to feed his family—considered morally wrong or right?

Shoplifting and stealing are deemed morally wrong in almost every culture and country; in some places, such as Iran, theft can even result in severe physical legal punishment. Yet, how would a Utilitarian view this situation? A Utilitarian might view the father's actions as morally wrong because they believe that taking actions that benefit ourselves over others to attain the most happiness is not a part of duty and "deprives mankind of the good" (Utilitarianism, p. 5). However, a Kantian might also deem this specific instance of shoplifting morally wrong because of the Categorical Imperative; since the father's actions are a reflection of a rule he is setting for everyone, the situation could be viewed as morally compromised.

The Utilitarian Perspective

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory founded by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. The theory suggests that actions should be taken which maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Utilitarians also distinguish between "higher" and "lower" pleasures. According to Mill, “some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others” (Utilitarianism, p. 2). This suggests that certain aspects of life bring a higher quality of pleasure than others. A common example is that going to a bar and having fun is a lower pleasure, while writing a book is a higher pleasure.

The concept of higher and lower pleasures is used to explain which actions bring the most meaningful happiness. Utilitarianism, however, does not typically support actions rooted purely in self-interest and generally discourages lying or cheating to get ahead.

In the case of the father stealing food, how would a Utilitarian judge him? First, the goal is to maximize overall happiness. While feeding the children is a "high pleasure" (essential for life), the act of shoplifting results in a "fib" or a dishonest act. Utilitarians generally do not approve of lying or stealing to get ahead, as it causes suffering to the shopkeeper’s net sales and undermines social trust.

Using Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism, one might argue the overall aim is to "create the best results possible" (Act and Rule Utilitarianism, p. 5). While the food brings happiness to the children and prevents the suffering of starvation, philosophers like Mill and Nathanson often argue that stealing is not a sustainable way to maximize happiness. Nathanson describes such actions as a "false morality" that promotes individual interest over the collective good. Mill also suggests that attaining an object useful to ourselves through dishonest means is not morally right. Therefore, a strict Utilitarian approach would likely deem this situation morally wrong.

The Kantian Perspective

On the contrary, Kantianism states that everyone should act on moral principles and conduct themselves in ways they would want to see reflected in the world. For every action taken, one should ask if that action should be followed by everyone else. Kant theorizes this in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, focusing on the idea of Goodwill. He states:

“A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects... but simply under the volition; that is, it is good in itself... to be esteemed much higher than all that can be brought about by it” (p. 2).

This means if the intent is of a good nature, the action has moral worth. Kant also uses the Categorical Imperative, the idea that we should act only in ways we would want others to act. He explains duty using examples like the fair shopkeeper: “it is always a matter of duty that a dealer should not overcharge an inexperienced purchaser” (p. 5).

A Kantian analysis might suggest that the father is setting a precedent (Categorical Imperative) that enables shoplifting for personal benefit. However, Kant also notes that it is a duty to maintain one’s own life. The father was stealing specifically to maintain the lives of his children. While a Kantian might argue the father should have sought help from a food bank or charity first, the father was fulfilling a "duty" to provide for his family. If the father only stole food—and not a luxury item like a TV—he was completing his duty as a parent, suggesting goodwill was present. Because the father’s action was based on the duty to "maintain life," a Kantian might actually deem this situation morally right regarding duty, reason, and goodwill.

Comparison and Conclusion

Both theories suggest that while the father's actions were not ideal, they were born of necessity. Utilitarianism often argues for the benefit of the community and the decrease of overall suffering, while Kantianism focuses on the nature of duty and goodwill. To contrast the two:

• Utilitarianism might see the father as a "criminal" because his dishonest act harms the shopkeeper and the social rule of law.

• Kantianism might see the father as "morally right" because his duty to preserve the lives of his children is a fundamental rational requirement.

In conclusion, I believe that the father was morally right because he prioritized the lives of his children over his own reputation or the law. If he had shoplifted luxury items, his goodwill and reason would have been "evil" or selfish. However, because he took only what was necessary for survival, his actions were goodwill-based. He chose a path of natural care and duty to maintain life, which makes his actions fair under the circumstances.

Competition Before Success. 

There is competition everywhere you go, whether that be in the office, at the park, skating, skiing, socializing, or communicating. But competition is needed for success because, without a certain level of competition, you couldn't keep the success you worked so hard for going.

 Competition and success are the driving forces of human nature. Wherever humans have been, there has always been competition and success. In Ancient Egypt, for example, Cleopatra's siblings wanted her power; therefore, they did whatever they could to steal it for themselves, even attempting to kill Cleopatra to seize the throne. This is a clear example of competition that impacts success. But one can argue that, to have competition, you need to be successful first. While this may be true, success requires hard work, effort, and tons of motivation. To keep that success from falling and failing, you need competition to motivate you even more to be better and get better. It is the driving force for many people after finding success, benefiting from the accomplishments of success.

 While many people say, "Competition only scares people and slows them down," in my opinion, it only speeds them up. A popular idea brought up by many is that once you have success, you can't be stopped—you can only continue to rise and climb. While this mindset is common, it can also be disproven by the popular statement, "What goes up must come down." When you have success, it can fall right back down. The music industry is a popular example of this. Lady Gaga's success from The Fame and The Fame Monster caused her to rise into the world of stardom. However, competition from Katy Perry's Prism album brought Gaga back down when her own album, Artpop, flopped. This was a clear example of why competition is important and why you need to be watchful of your competitors.

 What this topic points out is an interesting thought, and examples can be found everywhere in life and in our mindset. My belief about competition is that it is a necessary component of the overall driving power of success. It shapes how your work is going to last in the world or on the social ladder, and it shows how mature an idea is. I believe in competition as a whole and the idea behind it.

Blog

 Duty is a basic human relationship towards others; it’s our duty to provide a child with nature, save a person’s life, or help the elderly. People always have intentions behind an act, to always gain/achieve. 

Principles aren’t very useful because they can’t adapt to the situation and are structured rules, rather than “ethical ideas” that are adaptable morally and can connect with the issue presented.

Behaving morally and showing respect toward an object of disliking and learning from a different perspective than your own, because people are different than one another and no one deserves hatred because they are unique. 

The last of the last is coming to an end.

For once, the whole is now fully empty.

The final statement is bare and hollow, and now very shallow.

Moments scream of a former blooming flower,

shedding away beneath the crying wall, gleaming even harder.

Those that were shining have no faded away

screaming to the end, only to make it more sour.

Walking on the streets holding back their shining smiles,

taking the final bow and the final moments before bright laughter.

Knowing the work they all put in to help one another,

surviving with each other, only to get a smile as thin as a flower.

Walking away with a thought of being in power

watching their lives start again with no signs of failure. on the streets of the Great White Way

Entrepreneur’s Story

An entrepreneur’s story matters because of the concept that every product needs a form of reason why it was invented. For example, hair growth because someone they knew was going bald. An entrepreneur’s story would go great with the concept that many people value authentic products, rather than pure profit. If an entrepreneur wants to get their product out to the world, they would need to come up with something that would make sense to buy, and has a practical use or has a history behind it. Which is why the story matters to the investors because it proves that this product isn’t something stupid. Additionally, it also indicates that the entrepreneur would work hard for that product, and therefore have a sense of worthiness and trust with the investors. Rather than investing in someone who doesn’t have a personal preference for the product, they won’t have that natural hustle with what they are selling or providing. 

Yes, there are ways to do so; it’s the involvement of finding the right investors and pitching something directly to them that would draw their interest. Which would make for the best product, but also the best investor for their products, and someone who would naturally have more interest in the story, and the consumer would have more of an interest in the product being handed. For example, if you have a product that is worthy of having the attention of an investor who lost their child to texting and driving, then you also invented a product that stops texting and driving because you lost your own child, and then market it to people who are also against, or have personally lost someone to texting and driving. This is the best sense of connecting to the whole market and finding a great investor. This would cause the idea and ability to conduct a better investor relationship between all and all of the ability to provide a real sense of pride with the product. Additionally, this can create a sense of having the ability that would be present in a good idea.

Theatrical Leadership: 

The theatrical tradition of placing the director in charge has been a cornerstone of storytelling since the earliest performances took shape. A director’s fundamental purpose is to ensure that a play or musical runs seamlessly, free of disruption. But what makes this dynamic so effective? A great director ensures that every member of the company stays focused on their objective, while holding themselves to that same standard. Similarly, a corporate leader must keep their team aligned to ensure the organization thrives. In both realms, exceptional leadership requires a visionary mindset—one capable of taking a playwright’s script or a company's mission and guiding it into a mind-blowing, once-in-a-lifetime production.

Furthermore, an effective leader must approach the perspectives of others with an open and receptive attitude. Active listening is a defining skill of leadership; no single leader possesses all the answers, nor can any one individual remain entirely free from blind spots. A truly great director or executive recognizes their own limitations and actively welcomes the ideas of their team, seamlessly blending the best external suggestions with their own creative insights.

 Leadership also demands a level of dedication that extends far beyond regular hours spent in the office or the rehearsal space. Exceptional leaders invest their own time and energy behind the scenes to ensure projects are completed efficiently and masterfully. This off-clock commitment does not go unnoticed. When a team witnesses its leader pouring immense effort into the shared mission, it acts as a powerful catalyst. The leader becomes a role model, naturally motivating everyone around them to elevate their own performance.

 Ultimately, these core qualities form the bedrock of impactful leadership. When leaders sharpen these skills, they can successfully guide their organizations through inevitable times of need. Without strong, balanced leadership, minor friction quickly escalates into catastrophic failure, making it impossible to stage a production or sustain a business. In the absence of a focused, collaborative leader, productivity grinds to a halt, and organizational chaos inevitably fills the void. True leadership is the vital anchor that keeps the entire collective moving forward as one.

My Room

In my room, there is space for sleep, rest, and tests. When you enter, there's the door that opens into my world, my life, and my store. When you walk in, you can say, "Turn on the light," and the light will turn on, shining just for you. Then, you can turn on the TV hanging on the wall and turn on the PS3, the Xbox, the PS4, or just watch TV. After watching TV, you go to bed to dream or to snooze. When you wake up, say, "Turn on the lamp," and the lamp will turn on to start the day. Then, my Google Assistant will brief you on the weather, the news, and social media.

 After that, you get up from the bed and walk over to my first closet to find the dirty clothes hamper. Then, you go over to the shoe area and choose from 45 different pairs of shoes, ranging in color—white, red, blue, brown, and green—and put them on. Next, you decide what you're going to wear for the day: a casual 1980s outfit, a classic '70s outfit, or you can choose from bell-bottoms, distressed jeans, classic painter's style pants, or short jeans. Then, you choose from my hundreds of shirts and jackets, followed by many accessories like hats, fans, and plaques.

 Moving over to the hobbies section of my room, I have 3D puzzles lining the walls and reaching all the way to the ceiling. Among my favorites are the New York collection, my Paris collection, and my Asian collection. With the hobbies section coming to a close, we move on to the storage section. I have under-bed storage for outdated clothing, as well as unused or in-repair clothing, shoes, hats, necklaces, and jackets. In my closets, I have a drawer system filled with even more clothing, including belt buckles, crazy socks, and glasses. Outside of my closet, or on the side of it, are all 10 of my belts that get used; I have cowboy belts, dress belts, and belts and more belts!

 On the very back wall is a window. I have a window sill with metal mesh storage baskets, and next to the window is my dog's kennel, where his bed sits next to my dresser, because he keeps moving it over there.

My Room When I Was 15

Math Is Fun

James Charles' Sub Count dropped from 15 million to 13.45 million in over 5 days. Solve to find how many subs were lost per day?

Jojo Siwa's hair loss is 14 hairs per minute. Find out how much hair she will have in a year?

Lil Pump just released a new song, with over 14 million dislikes on that song after it was released 5 hours ago. Find out how many dislikes per second he’s getting?

Does the internet limit the growth of exploration and curiosity, creating a tunnel-like mindset? 

By Matthew D. Foster 

People have always been naturally curious. It is quite literally how we have survived, adapted, and made our lives easier over thousands of years. Think about it: almost every new idea, tool, or invention builds heavily on the struggles and questions of the past. The conceptualization of the wheel, figuring out how to domesticate dogs, or engineering the steamboat—all of these milestones started simply because someone got curious about a better way to do things. Fast forward to today, and the internet ranks right up there as one of the biggest game-changing inventions in history. It has completely reshaped how modern society functions. But like any massive leap, this discovery comes with a serious catch: the internet is actively holding back our natural curiosity.

To understand why this is such a huge problem, you have to look at how curiosity actually works in the human brain. It is not just some random, passing thought or a fleeting interest. Back in 1954, Berlyne wrote about something called "epistemic curiosity." Basically, he argued that this specific type of curiosity operates as a psychological drive that kicks in when you are faced with a puzzle, a contradiction, or a situation you cannot answer right away. When you realize you don't know something, your brain experiences a literal kind of cognitive tension. You feel an intense, undeniable drive to fix that discomfort by finding the answer. That tension is exactly why not knowing everything instantly is a crucial part of the human experience. We aren't computers, and we aren't built just to download and store facts on command. Berlyne’s (1954) point was that you gain the most valuable knowledge when you aren't handed the answer directly. You learn because you are forced to sit with your own lack of understanding and actively search for a resolution. The friction of the search is what makes the information actually matter.

This idea ties directly into how our brains find the motivation to learn anything at all. According to Silvia’s (2012) research on curiosity and motivation, curiosity is the primary emotional engine that pushes humans to learn simply for the sake of learning. When you are genuinely curious, you aren't just trying to cross a task off a list or win a trivia game. You want to see the bigger picture, understand the underlying mechanisms, and figure out how new facts connect to what you already know. True curiosity is expansive; it naturally wants to branch out in a dozen different directions. The internet, however, completely short-circuits this motivational structure by offering the path of least resistance. It leaves us settling for a very surface-level understanding instead of digging deeper (Silvia, 2012).

Before all of this technology, finding information meant you actually had to engage with the physical world. You had to ask around, talk to experts, and have conversations that might go off on completely random, unexpected tangents. You had to physically go to the library, scan through card catalogs, and flip through actual books. You might go to the stacks looking for one specific historical date, but on the way to the right aisle, a completely different book catches your eye, and you spend an hour reading something entirely new. You learned by exploring the real world, and the knowledge you gained was broad and connected. Now, most of the time, all you have to do is type a few words into a search bar to get an exact, pinpointed answer. It’s incredibly efficient, which sounds great in theory, but it creates a major psychological issue: tunnel vision. Instead of wandering through a landscape of different ideas and perspectives, we just grab what we need and leave.

This hyper-efficient setup is actually changing how our brains retain information. A 2025 study by Kim et al. looked closely at how mindful versus mindless online searching affects our ability to recall what we read. Their research highlights that mindlessly typing questions into a search engine—or just asking an AI to summarize things for you—leads to an incredibly passive form of learning. You get the answer immediately, but because your brain didn't have to put in any effort to find it, the information doesn't stick. You forget it almost instantly. To actually retain what you search for online, the researchers suggest you have to manually put the friction back into the process by using an "answer-first" strategy (Kim et al., 2025). Basically, before you run your search, you need to pause. Try to retrieve the answer from your own brain, or at least take a wild, educated guess. Doing this forces your brain to engage with the puzzle and manually triggers that epistemic curiosity Berlyne talked about. By putting in that initial effort, you prime your neural pathways to actually remember the answer once you finally read it. But if you just reflexively Google everything without a second thought, you heavily limit how your brain functions and risk long-term mental under-stimulation.

This tunnel vision doesn't just affect our memory; it completely changes our behavioral patterns when we try to learn new things. Another 2025 study, this one by Schumacher et al., looked at the behavioral traces of intellectually curious people to see how they actually navigate online spaces. They found that truly curious people don't just grab the first snippet of text they see. Their behavioral traces show them opening multiple sources, comparing conflicting information, reading deeper into the context of an article, and critically evaluating the quality of what they are looking at. They treat the internet like the massive, complex library it is (Schumacher et al., 2025). The problem is that the modern internet isn't really built to encourage that behavior anymore. With AI-generated summaries, algorithmic feeds, and featured snippets placed right at the top of the page, the web is designed to give you the fastest possible resolution. It actively cuts off those complex behaviors and deep dives that lead to actual knowledge attainment. For anyone who isn't actively fighting against the grain of the technology, the internet basically trains them to just take the first answer they are given, bypassing their own critical thought process entirely.

When you lose that deep-diving curiosity, you also lose a massive chunk of your creative potential. Creativity, at its core, is just the ability to connect two seemingly unrelated ideas to form something brand new. But if you only ever consume the exact, hyper-specific answers handed to you by a search algorithm, you never stumble across those random, unrelated ideas. You never get the chance to connect the dots. The innovators of the past did it by observing the world around them, making mistakes, and pulling inspiration from completely different areas of life. We are quickly becoming passive consumers of information rather than active explorers or creators.

In conclusion, human curiosity is taking a massive hit because we rely so heavily on the internet. Having the entirety of the world's information in our pockets feels like an evolutionary upgrade, but the reality is that tools like immediate search engines and generative AI are seriously messing with how the human brain naturally learns. By constantly handing us frictionless, immediate answers, the digital world traps us in a tunnel-like way of thinking that completely discourages exploration, nuance, and deeper understanding. This lack of curiosity isn't just a minor modern annoyance; it is a profound, long-term problem. We are looking at a future where coming generations are being raised in an era where they never have to read deeply, investigate thoroughly, or figure out a tough problem by themselves. If we don't realize what is happening and consciously force ourselves to stay curious, we are going to lose the exact drive that pushed humanity to invent the wheel, explore the world, and build the future in the first place.

Sources

Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology: General Section, 45(3), 180–191.

Kim, J. A., Kim, J., Kim, S., & Bong, M. (2025). How mindful and mindless online searching affects curiosity and information recall. Educational Technology Research and Development, 74(1), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10570-2

Schumacher, A., Kammerer, Y., Scharinger, C., Gottschling, S., Hübner, N., Tibus, M., Kasneci, E., Appel, T., Gerjets, P., & Bardach, L. (2025). How do intellectually curious people learn and attain knowledge? A focus on behavioral traces of information seeking. European Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070241309124

Silvia, P. J. (2012). Curiosity and motivation. In The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 157–166). Oxford University Press.

Immigration Reform: A Logical and Ethical Analysis. Introduction: The debate over illegal immigration is one of today's most polarizing issues, largely because it clashes with deeply entrenched worldviews. These worldviews act as frameworks that help people make sense of the world, bridging the gap between descriptive facts about reality and ethical beliefs about how we should act. In this debate, you usually hear two main frames: one focuses on market economics, domestic regulation, and the strain that unchecked migration can put on local municipalities. The opposing side centers on human rights, pointing to the humanitarian crises driving migration, the essential labor undocumented immigrants provide, and the systemic flaws in our current legal pathways. To thoroughly and objectively explore this issue without getting lost in emotional appeals, we need to evaluate the arguments from both sides of the aisle through the strict lens of formal logic.

Reconstructing the Reform Argument: 

We can break down the necessity for comprehensive immigration reform into a straightforward deductive argument:

 Premise 1 (P1): If a policy causes widespread humanitarian suffering without resolving the root causes of migration, then that policy is ineffective and must be reformed.

Premise 2 (P2): Current border enforcement policies cause widespread humanitarian suffering and do not resolve the root economic and political causes of migration.

Conclusion (C): Therefore, current border enforcement policies are ineffective and must be reformed.

Evaluating the Reform Argument:

 In formal logic, this specific structure is known as modus ponens (If A, then B; A; therefore, B). It is a logically valid argument because if we assume the premises are true, the conclusion absolutely has to follow.

For an argument to hold real weight, however, it needs to be sound, meaning it’s logically valid and the premises are actually true. Premise 1 is a normative claim: it sets an ethical standard about what ought to happen. This is critical because of David Hume's "is-ought gap", the principle asserting that you cannot deduce what should be done purely from facts about what is. Premise 1 bridges that gap by establishing the ethical baseline that government policies causing pointless harm without achieving their functional purpose are fundamentally flawed. Premise 2 is a descriptive, factual claim. It relies on causal reasoning, and extensive socioeconomic data shows that migration is largely driven by systemic political and economic crises in people's origin countries. If we accept the ethical standard in Premise 1 and the empirical facts supporting Premise 2, the argument is sound.

Reconstructing the Opposing Argument

To avoid creating an intellectual echo chamber and to build a project capable of actually changing minds, it is equally necessary to reconstruct the opposing argument prioritizing domestic regulation. We can represent this position as follows:

Premise 1 (P1): If a national policy framework allows for unchecked migration that severely strains local municipal resources and circumvents established legal processes, then that framework must be restricted through strict border enforcement.

Premise 2 (P2): The current policy framework allows for unchecked migration that severely strains local municipal resources and circumvents established legal processes.

Conclusion (C): Therefore, the current framework must be restricted through strict border enforcement.

Evaluating the Opposing Argument

Like the reform advocate's argument, this opposing stance is structurally valid; it also utilizes the modus ponens form. The conclusion is guaranteed if the premises are accepted.

The soundness of this argument similarly relies on navigating the is-ought gap. Premise 1 establishes a normative, ethical standard prioritizing the rule of law and the fiduciary duty of local governments to protect domestic resources for their existing citizens. Premise 2 is a descriptive claim relying on municipal economic data—such as the sudden budgetary impacts on city shelters and public services. To successfully persuade individuals who hold this worldview, comprehensive reform advocates cannot simply dismiss the conclusion; they must logically dismantle or provide alternatives to the descriptive realities outlined in Premise 2, proving that reform, rather than strict enforcement, better alleviates that municipal strain.

Critical Reflection on Competencies: 

Navigating a heated, multifaceted issue like this requires rigorous analytical discipline. This logical analysis directly ties into the course goal of using critical thinking skills to assess information, solve problems, and make decisions. By explicating the arguments on both sides and separating them into premises and conclusions, we can objectively evaluate the reasoning and avoid bad habits like intellectual laziness, cognitive dissonance, or getting swept up in the fallacious appeal to emotion.

This analytical foundation is also strongly linked to the NACE competencies of using sound, inclusive reasoning and effectively communicating while recognizing diverse perspectives. Reconstructing the opposing argument ensures that professional judgments remain objective and acknowledge the valid, logic-based concerns of different stakeholders. Ultimately, being able to clearly articulate a logically sound argument while staying empathetic to the lived experiences and worldviews of all parties is essential for ethical problem-solving and professional success.

References: 

Knachel, M. (2017). Fundamental methods of logic. Philosophy Faculty Books.

Myers, B., Elsby, C., & Baltzer-Jaray, K. (2013). Clear and present thinking. Northwest Passage Books.

SolutionsU. (n.d.). Solutions for immigration and refugees. Solutions Journalism Network.

Van Cleave, M. J. (2016). Introduction to logic and critical thinking. Open Textbook Library.