“He who fears he shall suffer, already suffers what he fears.”
— Michel de Montaigne

Good day everyone, and welcome back to Social Science 43. Today, as those who celebrate it already know, is Halloween.

In theme with the day, we are going to be reflecting on humanity’s fascination with fear.

Every year during October, something unusual happens. People begin surrounding themselves with all sorts of movies and activities they would typically avoid.

Haunted houses open their doors, horror movies fill theaters, and children dress up as monsters. For just the season, fear becomes entertainment and frightening becomes fascinating.

Yet this raises a question for us: why do we deliberately seek out an emotion we would normally want to avoid?

There are multiple explanations to consider when trying to answer this question. One of the biggest reasons people enjoy frightening experiences is the suspense that accompanies them.

When something is keeping you at the edge of your seat, you naturally want to know what will happen next, frightening or not. This element is used often in movies and haunted houses, and is what raises your heart rate.

Along with this, the excitement of being afraid in movies and haunted houses is similar to that of a roller coaster.

Even though you may dread what is in front of you beforehand, the thrill and exhilaration that happens during the event keeps you going back.

Another thought to consider is our fascination with the unknown. Humans have always been curious about what they don’t know, and what they cannot explain. Something about the ambiguity of it creates a sense of fear.

For example, when you look into a place during the daytime, it usually won’t scare you because you can see and explain everything around you.

However, when you look into the same place during the night, a fear arises. You know the place well because you’ve seen it during the day, yet you are still afraid because anything could be lurking in the darkness.

Even when you are positive there isn’t, your lack of knowing will fill the darkness with possibilities.

There is an important distinction to make when considering the psychology behind all of this.

We become much less afraid and curious when safety isn’t guaranteed.

For example, a horror movie or a haunted house may terrify us, but we still know we will be safe once we reach the end. There isn’t normally a threat of being hurt.

However, in an environment where safety isn’t guaranteed, the fun and excitement is lost. These are the types of situations we try to avoid.

Fear, in reality, is created in our minds. Our imagination allows us to experience it before anything truly scary has even happened.

Sometimes, even the anticipation and suspense for something to happen is scarier than the actual thing that happens.

Perhaps our fascination with fear has less to do with the frightening itself, and more to do with our curiosity about what we cannot understand.

So with this, are we truly fascinated by fear, or simply by the unknown that lies behind it?

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and have a spooky day.

“If there is a small dispute about the boundary line, they rush to stones and arms.”
— Seneca

The year is 1648. Across the Westphalian cities of Münster and Osnabrück, years of negotiations are finally reaching their conclusion.

Yet, after thirty years of devastating bloodshed, the conclusion brought little that resembled a traditional victory.

What began as a revolt in Bohemia had drawn in religious factions, political rivals, and foreign powers, devastating communities across Central Europe.

When a battle lasts this long, though, its original disputes become entangled with wider struggles for political power.

And though this conflict sounds pointless and disoriented, it is truly a complex event that is rather difficult to explain.

The peace itself seems rather unorthodox, especially being that no side had achieved what it wanted; they were all simply tired of fighting, so that compromise had become a necessity.

A question arises here then. Something that began as a regional revolt in Bohemia spread across a continent, but why?

At this time of history in Europe, many conflicts can be traced back to religious disputes.

However, religion was not the only force shaping the decisions of Europe's leaders. Religious divisions often intersected with political ambition, dynastic rivalries, and the desire to expand or preserve power.

These competing interests transformed a regional uprising into a much larger conflict. What began as disputes over religion became intertwined with pursuit of wealth and control, and seizing opportunities to weaken rivals.

Take France, for example. France was a Catholic nation, yet in 1635, it openly entered the war against the Habsburg emperor.

Both shared the same religion, but France was politically threatened by the House of Habsburg. This illustrates that the war wasn’t solely about religion, but political strategy and weakening rivals.

But if political ambition helped prolong the war, what actually drew it to an end? The truth was that everyone didn’t just decide to stop fighting.

It took years of negotiation to finally come to a compromise. The Peace of Westphalia addressed the competing interests which made the conflict so difficult to end.

But after so many years of fighting with no side getting what it wanted, what was it that settled things?

The Peace of Westphalia achieved a compromise for coexistence between Catholics and Protestants, alongside political and territorial settlements.

It did not get every side what it wanted, nor did it end every conflict in Europe. Instead, it established a settlement that the opposing powers could accept, despite their differences.

After so many years of fighting, peace became dependent on not defeating an enemy, but negotiating with them.

Perhaps this is the greatest lesson of the conflict: when competing ambitions make agreement difficult, peace becomes possible not when every side gets everything it wants, but when each recognizes the necessity of coming to a compromise.

The war took thirty years to reach its conclusion, but the question it leaves behind is timeless: how much must we be willing to concede to achieve peace?

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and have a tranquil day.

“I am still learning.”
— Michelangelo

Good day to all, and welcome back to Social Science 43.

Oftentimes, we lose sight of how far we have come as a result of pondering what we want to be. Looking ahead toward something greater, we blind ourselves from our current position.

Not just this, but we forget about what it took to bring us to where we have gotten.

Instead of this, we should recognize our accomplishments and strip away the guilt of being proud of them.

For some, it may be easy to recognize their accomplishments; for others, it may not be. However, across a vast majority, it is common to overlook the work it took, and focus on where it got us. But why is this?

Perhaps the main reason we overlook our accomplishments is because success has a strange way of becoming ordinary.

Something that had seemed difficult at once becomes that which we expect of ourselves rather quickly.

A goal that once felt distant becomes our new standard, and we immediately keep looking ahead, rather than looking back at what it took.

In this way, our achievements become invisible to us. Not because we cannot see the destination, but because we forget how we got there.

However, it is still correct to look forward and focus on how we can improve. The problem occurs when our wanting for more makes what we already have feel insignificant.

We must remember that where we are now is enough, but there is always a reason to want more.

There should always be a drive to move forward, even while recalling the past. For what came before us is a guide, not something to be dismissed.

There is a significant difference between believing we are enough and believing we are completely finished.

Being enough does not mean that there is nothing left to learn, improve, or accomplish. It simply means that our worth is not defined by reaching a hypothetical version of ourselves.

We can appreciate who we are now while still working toward what we aspire to become.

Maybe this is the balance we should strive for. It is important that we be proud enough to recognize how far we have come, yet humble enough to recognize how far we can still go.

All of us are just enough right as we are, but that does not mean we cannot become more than this.

The past should neither be something we are ashamed of, nor something we are trapped in. It should be a reminder of what we have accomplished, as well as a guide for what comes next.

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and remember that you are enough, but you can be more.

“The greatest danger to our future is apathy.”
— Jane Goodall

Not too long ago, I saw a speech made by Telegram CEO Pavel Durov. In the speech, he used the sinking of the Titanic as a metaphor for the current state of global personal freedom and privacy.

Those who were on the ship were so sure that it was unsinkable that they treated the iceberg like a minor inconvenience. It was not until it became too late for most that they evacuated.

The most frightening part was not necessarily the moment when everyone realized it was sinking. It was everything that had happened beforehand.

Problems rarely first appear to us at their worst. They usually begin as something that seems small enough to dismiss.

The reality, though, is that a warning becomes an inconvenience. An inconvenience becomes a problem. A problem becomes a crisis.

And by the time that everyone agrees something must be done, the real opportunity to prevent it may already be gone.

We become accustomed to problems quickly, which makes the real danger not the problem itself but the way we treat it.

Our familiarity with something can make it feel normal, even when something is clearly wrong.

Just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesn’t make it right. It just makes it something that we are used to.

We don’t always act against these things because action doesn’t feel necessary until consequences become obvious. We often wait for certainty before responding to uncertainty.

Acting before a problem becomes obvious, however, can be difficult. When there are no immediate consequences, taking action can feel unnecessary and wrong.

Most of the time, we question the person raising the alarm before questioning the problem itself.

Why worry about something that has not happened yet? Why change something that seems to be working?

This kind of complacency is what makes disasters happen. But prevention rarely feels urgent. That is what makes it so difficult. By the time prevention becomes urgent, it is no longer prevention.

We cannot prevent every problem. Likewise, every warning may not turn out to be correct.

However, that doesn’t mean warnings should be ignored simply because consequences haven’t yet occurred.

The goal is not to live in fear of every possible disaster, nor is it to completely disregard them. It is to recognize that waiting for certainty can sometimes mean waiting until there is nothing left to prevent.

The ship does not begin sinking when everyone agrees that it is sinking. It begins when the water first gets in.

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and stay afloat.

Before I begin today’s article, I would just like to acknowledge the major milestone this weekend marks. Exactly one year ago tomorrow, September 6, 2025, Social Science 43 officially began.

Over the last year, this publication has seen its growth spurts, struggles, and major improvements. But most of all, the journey and experience that SS43 gave me was nothing short of amazing.

I would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to read our articles and support us. It means so much more than you realize.

Sincerely, thank you.

Now, back to our regular scheduled program.

“To define is to limit.”
— Oscar Wilde

Without definitions, we would be unable to communicate. Words give us boundaries, which help us organize our enormous world.

They give us a much simpler way to understand each other and express what we want to express.

Definitions stabilize the much more vast and confusing reality of life. They help turn concepts that are difficult to understand into things that we can comprehend.

Simply knowing that an entity is finite can be somewhat comforting. If we are able to comprehend their limits, they are undeniably easier to understand.

However, the same boundaries that help us understand something can also bring us to believe we have completely understood it.

When we encounter something whose limits we cannot see and try to impose our own limits upon it, we restrict our own understanding.

Disregarding the remaining parts of it can lead to false knowledge and stop our own boundaries from growing.

Defining something before we know its actual limits is simply lying to ourselves.

In our eyes, someone may be quiet, intelligent, rude, or many different traits.

When we see this from our perspective, we define them by instinct. Suddenly, that label becomes our entire perception of them.

The way we see it, they are nothing more than this. This act differentiates our perspectives from the truth.

Limiting someone to a label so small is hiding yourself from what is true.

We don’t only define others, and it is not our biggest mistake in this case. Defining ourselves is much more of an issue.

Saying something like, “I’m just not good at this” is simply limiting ourselves from what we are capable of.

The reality of the situation is that we may not be good at something, but it doesn’t mean we must remain the same forever.

We can define our state in the present, but the same cannot be said for the possibilities of the future.

Definitions are by no means wrong, but we should hold them loosely rather than fully relying on them.

A definition should help us understand something, not prevent us from discovering what else it can become.

To define is to limit. But perhaps the real danger isn’t the act of defining. It’s believing that the definition is all there is.

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and have an unlimited day.

“The best revenge is to not be like your enemy.”
— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations (6.6)

Revenge is usually understood as getting even with your adversary.

They hurt us, so as a result we hurt them back. They insult us, we insult them back. They treat us unfairly, so we search for a way to make them feel the same pain.

It feels like justice because we believe that returning what was given to us somehow restores the balance.

However there is a problem with this idea. When we become like the person who wronged us, have we truly defeated them? Or have we simply allowed their actions to alter who we are?

We often think that we are simply responding to someone else. We let our emotions control us and wrong them like they have done to us.

When we do this, we are not moving towards justice. We are simply making ourselves worse than we were in the first place.

This mindset allows the same behavior that hurt us to continue through someone else: us.

Letting the person who wronged you control you can actually be worse than anything they did in the first place.

You put them into power when you let their actions influence yours.

The most difficult part about this is that in the moment, refusing to retaliate can feel like weakness. When someone hurts us, our instincts tell us to prove that we cannot be pushed around.

We believe standing up for ourselves means returning the same behavior to them. There is a difference, however, between standing up for yourself and being controlled by anger.

You can simply defend yourself without becoming cruel. You can demand justice without seeking revenge.

You can recognize wrongdoing without letting it control you.

The person who wronged you should not get to decide what kind of person you become afterward.

There is a simple solution to this problem. Treat those who have done you wrong with respect.

Not because they deserve it, but because you deserve an image in their minds of someone whom they couldn’t control.

When you respect them, you respect yourself because you are being the bigger person. Now they aren’t living rent free in your head, you are living rent free in theirs.

That is what someone who has done you wrong truly deserves. This is greater than revenge. It is what truly defeats the enemy: refusing to become them.

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and have a composed day.

“The map is not the territory.”
— Alfred Korzybski

Ideas are meant to help us understand the world. They surround everything.

Through them, we can express ourselves, organize what we know, and make sense of things that would otherwise seem confusing.

However, sometimes the ideas that are meant to help us understand things actually prevent us from doing so.

We become so focused on defending an idea, following its principles, or proving its importance that we forget what truly matters: what is it supposed to mean in the first place.

That is when ideas begin to lose their meaning.

An idea can begin by posing a truly important question about things like humanity, society, or life.

Then hundreds of years later, people may begin arguing over increasingly small distinctions within that idea, until the original question barely matters anymore.

When someone eventually discovers an answer within these increasingly narrow distinctions, the results end up being completely fruitless.

Yes, something was proven, but does anyone care? Does the answer actually mean anything?

This thought came to me while I was exploring modern philosophy and intellectual writing.

I found countless discussions surrounding increasingly complex questions, arguments, and distinctions.

The truth is, there is nothing inherently wrong with complexity, as some ideas require deep thought to actually be understood.

However, something I noticed was this: frequently, the discussion becomes more important than what is actually being discussed.

People could spend thousands of words debating the precise meaning of an idea, without ever asking what difference the answer would make.

At that point, knowledge can begin to feel disconnected from actual understanding.

We can learn more and more about an idea, while understanding less and less of what it means for the world outside of the conversation. And this problem is not at all limited to philosophy.

In fact, it happens much more often than we realize.

Whenever we become more concerned with preserving, defending, or arguing over an idea than with the reason that idea existed in the first place, we fall under this oversight.

In reality, complexity is not at all the problem. Complexity without purpose, however, is.

There is nothing wrong with thinking deeply. The real problem occurs when we begin digging so deeply into an idea that we forget why we started digging in the first place.

What matters most is remembering the purpose of an idea. That is how we make progress.

Ideas never lose their meaning; we just forget them.

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and have a meaningful day.

“Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.”
— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

You are alone. No one can see you, nor can you see anyone.

There is money sitting in front of you; someone else’s money. You know it doesn’t belong to you, and you know it would be wrong for you to take it. But do you take it?

In reality, most of us would. If no one sees us, we believe that makes it okay. But what really matters; if others know you took it, or if you know you took it?

The truth is, you don’t always have to face people, but you always have to face yourself. For your guilt is much greater than what people think of you. Others’ thoughts don’t define us. But ours do.

This is what integrity truly means. It is not simply about being honest when honesty is convenient, nor is it about doing the right thing when someone is there to reward you for it.

Integrity is the consistency between what we believe, and what we do. It is choosing to follow our own principles, even when breaking them would be convenient to us.

Anyone can appear to have good values while they are being watched. The true test is if those values remain when there is no audience to observe.

Integrity is rarely tested upon one major decision. Rather, it is tested through what appear to be the smallest points of our lives.

That can mean choosing the more difficult path because it’s better in the long run, being honest not because it's good for you, but because it’s right, and many more things.

All these little things seem tiny from our perspective, but when they all add up together, they can be much bigger than one large thing.

You see, when we begin to make small, honorable choices, it adds to our character. How, you may ask? The truth is, our materials don’t define us.

Nor do other people’s perspectives of us. Simply doing the right thing because we decided to do so, makes us better people every day.

We don’t need an app to see our character become greater. Sometimes, we don’t need to see things, we just need to feel them in our heart.

This sounds cliché, but it helps give us a sense of happiness and pride through doing what’s right.

The truth is, you are not defined by what you do when people are looking. You are defined by what you do when they aren’t.

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and have an honorable day.

Read it on my website here ➡ Social Science 43 - The Value of Integrity

This is the beginning of a series called “Obscure Traditions”, where I tell the story of fascinating cultural tradition around the world.

Hope you guys enjoy. If you like the series, tell me if I should continue it!

Cinnamon Singles

In Denmark, there is an extremely weird and hilarious tradition.

Those who are unmarried on their 25th birthday are tied to a post or chair, and doused by friends and family in cinnamon.

This tradition seems completely random, but there is actually an interesting history behind it.

Though uncertain, many claim the story dates back to 16th century Northern Europe, when spice merchants (pebersvends), lived nomadic lives.

Because they were constantly moving, never settling down, many of them remained single throughout their middle-aged years.

Single men in their mid-twenties starting to become teasingly associated with these nomadic merchants.

Over time, their linguistic association with spices became a physical reality.

Friends began dumping spices on single people to playfully rub in the fact that they had reached a quarter-century without marrying.

Along with this, those who are still single at the age of 30 are doused in black pepper, rather than cinnamon.

At age 25, cinnamon seems like it’s used as a lighter warning shot because it is sweet and aromatic.

If the person remains single 5 years later, the joke escalates to raw black pepper, which seems to act as a sharper, more pungent reality of prolonged singlehood.

Denmark's cinnamon tradition may be strange, but it's far from the only unusual tradition found around the world.

From celebrations to superstitions to rituals that have survived for centuries, humanity has created some truly fascinating ways to mark important moments.

This is only the beginning.

What obscure tradition should I investigate next?

“The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world.”
— Bill Bullard

You can know that someone is struggling without understanding how they feel.

You can know someone’s beliefs without understanding why they hold them.

You can know someone’s story without understanding the person that lived it.

Knowledge gives us information about the world, but empathy allows us to see it through the eyes of others. It allows us to truly understand why people feel the way they do, and why things are the way they are.

We must look at the roots before we see what is above the surface. It takes the power to forget about ourselves, and live in the world of someone else.

This poses a question. Is knowledge really just about knowing things? Or is it about understanding them?

The difference between the two is not always as easy to recognize as it seems.

We often believe that knowing all of the facts of a situation allows us to fully understand it. The moment we see someone’s actions, we immediately form an opinion about them, without knowing what led them there.

We hear someone’s beliefs and judge them right away, without taking the time to understand the experiences that shaped them. It is much easier to look at a tree and say that it is dying than to figure out why that may be true.

Empathy allows us to do something extremely difficult: take a moment before we judge.

Along with this, a common mistake we make is believing that we have to agree with someone in order to understand them.

However, that could not be any further from the truth. We all have different experiences, different perspectives, and different walks of life. Someone else’s beliefs can be different from yours, but you can still understand them.

They have just experienced life differently from you, and it is still possible to understand that.

It is still possible to learn the experiences of others and see why they lead to the way they are today.

In reality, the highest form of knowledge does not include believing things, nor does it include knowing them.

It is understanding them, and knowing why they are the way they are.

We mustn't just focus on ourselves and what we think, but also that of others. For we are one humanity, and every person has a story we may never fully know.

The highest form of knowledge is not simply knowing more about the world, but understanding those who live in it.

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and have a knowledgeable day.

Read it on my website here ➡ Social Science 43 - The Highest Form of Knowledge

On the first day, one of them drastically changes their diet, does an intense workout, and pushes themselves to their absolute limit.

The other starts small by gradually changing their diet and workout routine. They leave time in the day to be productive and have free time.

Who is more likely to fail?

The first person.

Their routine was extremely difficult, and soon, they will lack the motivation to continue.

On the other hand, the second person will slowly improve, staying consistent. Eventually, they will have great improvement because of their dedication over time.

Consistency matters most, and that goes for many other situations, including Substack. Thank you for reading Social Science 43 Substack Exclusives, and have an amazing day.

“Nostalgia is a file that removes the rough edges from the good old days.”
— Doug Larson

When we hear a song that we haven’t heard in years, we experience something fascinating.

We may have completely forgotten about this song, but in seconds, we travel somewhere else.

It may take you back to a vacation with your family. It could bring you back to an old friend you haven’t seen in years. It could take you back to the halls of an old school.

The amazing thing is, the song hasn’t changed. The moment is long gone, yet somehow, for a few seconds, you feel as if you are living it again.

This is the strange power of nostalgia. A moment that isn’t happening, and only exists in our memories, can be taken and seem as if it is the present again.

The strange thing about nostalgia is, we have no control of it. It is very hard to bring back a moment on our own without triggers.

These triggers, such as memorable events, intense emotions, or simply things that stood out to us, can be used to help bring back things surrounding them.

Along with this, a song, a smell, a sight, a taste, and many other things can bring us back to a moment.

I believe all of these things stuck with us for a reason. They give us memories that are either perfect or terrible, with hardly any in between.

Negative memories that stick in our head are exaggerated, as are positive ones. The thrill of a roller coaster at an amusement park can make you forget that you had a sore throat.

Going the other way, the death of a loved one can make you forget about the amazing dinner you had that day.

Nostalgia doesn’t just remind us of the past, it changes the way we experience it.

Oftentimes, we remember moments as much more beautiful, meaningful, or significant than the way we lived them. The past becomes something of a story we tell ourselves, letting certain inconsistencies fade away.

This does not make our memories false, but rather an inexact representation of what happened.

Our mind naturally fills in blank spaces of what we don’t remember with a similar mood of what we do remember.

If we remember a certain point in our lives as happy, the moments we have forgotten may become colored by that same feeling, even if they were not all equally happy when they actually happened.

The truth is, the present is constantly changing, and the future is uncertain. The only certainty is the past.

Sometimes when we feel uncertain, or life becomes difficult, we look to the past for certainty. That is the origin of nostalgia.

Even if we cannot experience the past, we can give ourselves a small piece of it. However, the illusion brought by nostalgia can hurt us if we don’t recognize its flaws.

But when we do, the illusion can become a good thing, the beauty of nostalgia. Because it’s not about living in the past, but recognizing the way the past has shaped who we are today.

Whether the moments we remember are joyful or painful, they are all pieces of us. And though we cannot experience them again, we can remember.

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and have a nostalgic day.

Read it on my website here ➡ Social Science 43 - The Psychology of Nostalgia

“More is lost by indecision than wrong decision.”
— Cicero

You are standing at a fork in the road. One path may lead to failure, while the other may lead to success.

Yet instead of choosing one or the other, you wait.

Time goes on. Hours pass, then days. Eventually, the opportunity to choose disappears altogether. You can no longer choose a path to take.

This brings you to a worse point than you would have been in, even if you chose the wrong path.

In life, the greatest mistake is not always choosing the wrong direction, but refusing to choose one at all. We often believe that delaying a decision keeps every option available.

In reality, indecision is a decision of its own. Every moment we spend waiting, the opportunities move without us.

Whether that means applying for a job, pursuing a passion, ending an unhealthy relationship, or simply speaking up, our fear of making the wrong decision can become what is actually hurting us.

So why is it that we hesitate?

Most of the time, it’s not because we lack options, but because we fear the feeling of regret. We imagine the consequences of making the wrong choice far more clearly than the consequences of never choosing at all.

We become so focused on the cost of failure that we overlook the greater cost of standing still.

Yet, failure teaches us something valuable. It gives us a reference on how to improve, and what we can change in the future. Indecision, however, rarely teaches us anything other than dwelling on what could have been.

Think about how many opportunities would disappear not because they were rejected, but because they were never tried.

Friendships are never formed because we were afraid to say hello. They start when we quit thinking about the worst that can happen.

Businesses were never created because someone waited for the ‘perfect’ moment. They took the determination and risk to become great.

Dreams are never pursued because certainty never came. Most of the time, our greatest regrets are not the mistakes we made, but the opportunities that we allowed to pass us by.

However, this does not mean that we should rush our decisions.

Most choices deserve careful thought and research. But there is a difference between thinking and postponing.

One prepares us to act, while the other makes us forget to act at all. In the end, the wrong decision can often be corrected. You cannot correct, however, the decision you never made.

In reality, the greatest opportunities in life do not come to those who waited for certainty. They come to those who were willing to move forward without it.

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and have a stellar day.

Check it out on my website here ➡ Social Science 43 - The Cost of Indecision

“Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson

Imagine standing alone in a forest. You have a choice between two different directions to go in.

In one direction, there is a clear, stable, paved path. It is safe and reliable, but it doesn’t lead exactly to where you want to go.

Then there’s the other direction.

Over on that side is no path, just bushes and plants. Getting through this side will be extremely difficult compared to the other. It will be exhausting and monotonous.

Even though this direction may be much harder, it will give you freedom. You are the one that gets to decide where the path takes you. You can go wherever you want.

Most people would choose the path that’s already there. Why wouldn’t they? It’s safe, easy, and can get you somewhat of what you want.

However, the path that is already there started the same way the other way is.

Like I said, most people would choose to walk the path that is already there. This path gives them the comfort of certainty.

It promises a reward at the end of the path, along with an easier journey to get there.

We choose this path because of our fear of failure, and our fear of being different. We do it because everyone else does it, and they’re doing just fine.

But maybe that’s the point, that they’re doing just fine. Are they doing amazing? Not necessarily, because they didn’t pave the path they walked across.

They are restricted by the boundaries of the existing path. It may be okay, but it also may not be what they truly want.

So what is the result of choosing the other path?

Let me give you an example.

In 1978, Sir James Dyson had the idea to create a vacuum that didn’t lose suction. Traditional manufacturers completely rejected his idea, so he chose to make his own path.

He spent 15 years creating 5,127 failed prototypes, while surviving on his wife’s salary.

Because he endured this grueling hard work, he retained 100% ownership of his company. Not only did this give him the total freedom to engineer whatever products he wanted without any shareholder interference, but it also allowed him to build one of the world's most successful engineering companies.

Today, Dyson’s net worth has reached $14.9 billion (Forbes). This shows that sometimes freedom is more valuable than comfort.

This does not mean to avoid every existing path, however. In reality, sometimes the existing path is the right one.

The important thing is to choose your own path because you believe in it. Leave the example you want to leave, create the things that you want to create.

Don’t do things because they are easy, do them because they will give you the results you want. At the end of the day, it takes great strength to be the first, but the freedom to go where you want to go is much greater.

Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and have a congenial day.

Check it out on my website here ➡ Social Science 43 - Make Your Own Path

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
— Thomas Jefferson, United States Declaration of Independence (1776)

Today, the 4th of July, is celebrated as Independence Day in the United States.

However, this year is particularly special, as it is being celebrated as the 250th anniversary of the country.

Now, it is obvious that it is the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. There is no doubt about that. The question I am posing here is about what truly defines the birth of a nation.

Since the American Revolution ended in 1783, is that the true anniversary and birth of the country? Or is it the day where the Founding Fathers declared independence? Is the birth of a nation defined as its official recognition, or is it the day the revolution was initiated?

Let’s explore that idea.

The argument for 1776 is remarkably straightforward.

It displays the idea that a nation is not defined by the recognition of others, but by the recognition of itself. On July 4, 1776, the people of the thirteen colonies no longer saw themselves as British subjects.

They recognized themselves as free and independent, without needing official recognition.

In this sense, the Declaration of Independence wasn’t just a document, but the true birth of a nation. Maybe the revolution that was sparked that day didn’t just begin a war, but gave birth to a nation, and an ideology. That would prove that today truly is America’s 250th anniversary.

However, there is another argument that is equally reasonable.

A declaration alone does not necessarily create a valid nation. Until true independence and sovereignty were recognized internationally, Britain still saw the United States as part of its empire.

After the declaration, the country’s independence was still not yet decided. Had the war gone the other direction, the United States may never have become an internationally recognized nation.

It was not until September 3, 1783 that the Revolutionary War had officially ended. When the Treaty of Paris was signed on that date, the United States was formally acknowledged as its own independent nation.

That truly validated the United States as its own country, but does that make America not 250?

The short answer is: no.

250 years ago, America was not internationally recognized as its own sovereign nation, and that is that.

However, that doesn’t change what happened on July 4, 1776. On that day, the dream and idea of the United States was sparked, no matter the lack of recognition.

You see, the real question here is not about the age of America, it is about what truly defines a nation. Is a nation defined by the claim of the people, or international recognition?

Maybe it’s defined by both. Recognition validates the country, but the claim of the people births its ideals. The Declaration of Independence gave America its identity. The Treaty of Paris gave that identity recognition.

And in reality, both were just as necessary as the other.

Happy 4th of July to all celebrating it, and thanks for stopping by to everyone else. Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and have an enjoyable day.

Check it out on my website here ➡ Social Science 43 - Is America Actually 250?

Whether that means helping a friend through a hard time, motivating others, or simply making somebody laugh, it is something that immediately makes us feel great. That reaction is hard to explain, but it demonstrates the true subconscious good in each of us. It shows that we don’t just feel good when something benefits us.

That leads me to this analogy, that all of our actions are just like starting a fire. Not just to others, but inside of us as well. Our actions spread something inside of us, whether it’s an act hurting others, helping others, or anything. It only takes one small spark.

Along with this, our actions take a toll on the actions of others. When we do something kind, it seems to come back around. All it takes is a small action, and here’s why.

When we are treated with kindness, it gives us the motivation to keep it going. Whether that means being kind to the person that was kind to you, or to spread it to others, it’s something that keeps moving.

However, negative acts have this same effect. A single insult can ruin someone’s day, and continue to be spread around like a virus. Just like a wildfire spreads from one tree to another, these actions rarely stop with the first person they affect.

This doesn’t just go for positive and negative acts, however. Being bold, brave, and trying to make a change can spread encouragement to others as well.

This can mean crushing norms, reforming outdated and unfair laws or ideologies, and so much more. You just have to be strong enough to do the hardest thing: be the first. That is how we create so many great things.

Someone who played this role historically was none other than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He left an amazing example of being the outlier, being brave enough to stand out, and making a lasting difference.

Not only does he act as an example to us, but he also showed that the greatest things come from being the first, and letting your actions spread like a wildfire.

He had been speaking out for many years before, but on August 28, 1963, he did something that sparked an even larger-scale movement over the next decade, and even on to the present day.

When he gave his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech, he showed everyone how important it is to stand up for what is right. And even though the fire that this event started may look dull at times, it still burns to this day.

Sometimes, we think our actions are far too small to matter. In reality, the greatest changes begin with the smallest-looking actions.

A lighter looks small, but it can burn a bridge. In fact, if the fire that it sets is maintained, that lighter can burn the world.

Just like this, the actions we make can spread throughout the world if maintained correctly. But our fires don’t have to burn things, they can grow them instead, for the better.

It was never about starting with the largest spark, it was about making it the largest fire. You see, the spread of our actions is unavoidable; what truly matters is what fire we choose to ignite. Thank you for reading Social Science 43, and stay kind.

Check it out on my website here ➡ Social Science 43 - The Spread of Your Actions

Read more here ➡ Social Science 43 - Juneteenth: The Meaning of Freedom

Read more here ➡ Social Science 43 - The Problem With Opinionated Arguments

Read more here ➡ Social Science 43 - Music's Significance In Society

Read more here ➡ Social Science 43 - The History of Lies, Pt. II