Things holding you back

I hate to admit it, but I’ve held myself back a lot in life. And now, a lot of life has passed me by, but at least I’ve gotten over holding myself back. But perhaps I wouldn’t be so driven now if I hadn’t held myself back before, having the anger and regret of what I missed to motivate me to not make that same mistake again.

While Paul Carter writes about “The things that are going to hold you back in training” from an exercise/powerlifting/weightlifting/gym perspective, the issues here really apply to anything life. Even if you don’t lift (bro), you should still give the article a read because:

  • Information overload
  • Conflicting goals
  • Inability to embrace discomfort
  • Success
  • Confidence
  • Inconsistency
  • Listening to the wrong people
  • Life

… hopefully you can see those eight things apply universally as things that can and do hold people — probably yourself — back.

The one that speaks most to me these days is “inability to embrace discomfort”.

I had to embrace something I wasn’t really comfortable doing in order to get to where I needed to be.

And THAT is what lifting and life is going to be about sometimes. I could machine gun off a million cliche’s about that right now but I will spare you. The point is, nothing that is worth attaining will come easy. If it does, good for you. However 99.99% of the time getting to a place you desire to be will mean spending a lot of time embracing discomfort.


Great things generally just don’t fall on our doorstep via UPS.  If you want to find your own personal greatness, then get comfortable with being uncomfortable.  The amount of discomfort you are willing to submit yourself to is generally in parallel with the amount of greatness you’re trying to attain.

Lifting weights has taught me much in life. While I’ve lifted on and off since I was a teenager, never has it been as profound in my life as the past 3.5 years. If I wanted to get stronger, I had to embrace the discomfort of heavy weights on my back, the fear of getting pinned or injury. Or just the simple hard work that has to come, because getting stronger isn’t easy. But I’ve learned to embrace it, and I’m getting stronger as a result.

Or more immediate is my fat-loss effort. I’m down 20 lbs. in just under 3 months. It’s not been easy, and just about every day contains some level of discomfort. Lord it’d be so much easier right now to eat a tub of ice cream, but that ice cream is what created my tub. I have to go through this discomfort. I know there are many more months ahead of this discomfort (probably at least 6 more), but I will never achieve my goals if I don’t go through this discomfort. And yes, what makes it easier to manage is to embrace it instead of fighting it. No it doesn’t make it any more enjoyable, but when you know the pain will bring your greatness, the pain is easier to bear.

I think about my recent career change to having my own business, basically going indie/freelancer making my own products and taking on contract work. I put it off for too many years because I didn’t want the discomfort for myself or my family. But the discomfort of not doing it became greater, and so here I am. And yes, the startup of it all has been quite a struggle, filled with daily discomfort that I never imagined. But that’s what keeps it exciting, and that’s what causes me to learn and grow. It’s like the scene in the movie Parenthood when Steve Martin’s character finally learns to embrace the rollercoaster.

That’s not the ending scene, but it’s the seed for the allusion. And grandma’s right:

You know, it was just so interesting to me that a ride could make me so frightened, so scared, so sick, so excited, and so thrilled all together! Some didn’t like it. They went on the merry-go-round. That just goes around. Nothing. I like the roller coaster. You get more out of it.

Violence is still golden

Some years ago I came across an essay by Jack Donovan called “Violence is Golden”.

Recently, Scott Faith revisited Jack’s essay.

Violence should not be a first resort, but sometimes it is the only resort. I think deep down everyone knows this, but there are those that want to deny it. Or at least, they cannot see themselves performing violence, consider it icky, and thus others shouldn’t partake in it either. But somehow they know that violence is sometimes necessary – without it, laws have no ground, no meaning., and society has no structure. And I think everyone has a line, it’s just a question of finding it. I hear many women that go on about how they could never hurt someone else, but are very willing to get “momma bear” protective if someone tries to hurt their children. There you go, there’s your line. Let’s look at forcible rape (forcible, as opposed to statutory); this is not a time for negotiation, this is a time for violent response because it’s demonstrated that rape victims who fight back fare far better than those who do not. Is there anyone not willing to draw a line here?

Have you ever trained a dog? When training a dog, you have to think like a dog. Dogs don’t understand human, they understand dog. For example, petting a dog is an act of reinforcement. If the dog is doing something and you pet it, the dog says “hey, whatever I’m doing is good, keep doing it”. But to a human, petting can be a comforting behavior. So for example, if your dog is afraid of thunderstorms, many people will pet their dog in an attempt to soothe and comfort the dog. This is bad; that’s human-think, not dog-think. What happens is the petting reinforces to the dog that being afraid of thunderstorms is what to do, and that’s not the behavior we want. To successfully work with a dog, you have to think and speak and act dog. You have to speak their language.

And so it goes with 2-legged predators as well. There are some people out there that only understand the language of violence. They will not listen to your begging, but they will listen to a gun muzzle pointed at them. Which speaks their language? Which will they understand? You cannot apply your standards, your morals, your behaviors and modes of thinking to all people because all people do not and will not think and behave like you – if they did, they wouldn’t be violating you right now, would they? Sometimes you have to speak their language, whether you like it or not. As Faith writes:

Violence should not be, and usually isn’t, the method of first resort in man’s dealings with his fellow man. But you’ve got to talk to people on a level that they understand; sometimes the only language they understand is that of violence. This is especially true when it comes to halting violence after it has already begun. After all, when people cry out for someone to “Do something!” about places like Syria and Iraq they don’t mean send in the State Department or the United Nations; in situations where “reason” fails, you don’t send memos you send the Marines.

What really touched me about Faith’s article was his addressing of the “Coexist” bumper sticker. Every time I see one (usually on a Prius), all I can think to myself is “Great! But I’m not the one you need to be proselytizing to; tell that to the people who are trying to kill me.” Or how wonderful it is to preach that from the safety of our country, behind the laws (force, violence) and law enforcement (police, military — you know, people with guns willing to perform violence by proxy for you). Faith writes:

Coexistence is a wonderful thing, as long as everyone is an equally-committed partner in the process. But if one player in the coexistence game decides to not go along with the program, then you could “coexist” yourself right out of existence. It’s the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma; at every level of human interaction, everyone is better off with cooperation. But the incentives to cheat are such that the fear of defection of others creates incentives to be the first to leave the collective. When it comes to pacifism, anyone declining to at least maintain the capability of violence will be at a distinct disadvantage, and the first to resort to violence will likely be the one left standing at the end of any conflict between them. This is why programs like “Global Zero” will never work; it overlooks a fundamental aspect of human nature. After all, in a society of the blind the one-eyed man in king; and in a society that has beaten all swords into plowshares, everything belongs to the man who kept his sword whole… unless another man with a sword stops him first. Si vis pacem, para violentus.

Faith concludes:

So we need not like violence, but we need to acknowledge the role it plays in securing our lives, liberty, property, and way of life. More than that; we need to embrace it, and stand eternally vigilant to carry it out either individually or collectively if (when) the need arises. There will always be someone who cheats, who defects, who simply doesn’t get with the “ideal world” program. If we don’t prepare for that, we are at the mercy of those who do. And on that note, I think that the best way to end this article is the same way it began, with a quote from Violence is Golden: “It’s time to quit worrying and learn to love the battle axe. History teaches us that if we don’t, someone else will.”

He (and Donovan) are right: we need not like violence, but we need to acknowledge the role it plays. Too often people want to just look at violence as a bad thing and believe that doing away with all violence is the solution and thus the goal to which we must strive. But not everyone will share your lofty goals, and there will be those that see your lofty goals as your weakness and use it against you. And then what will you do? As Donovan wrote:

However, the willful submission of many inevitably creates a vulnerability waiting to be exploited by any one person who shrugs off social and ethical norms. If every man lays down his arms and refuses to pick them up, the first man to pick them up can do whatever he wants. Peace can only be maintained without violence so long as everyone sticks to the bargain, and to maintain peace every single person in every successive generation — even after war is long forgotten — must continue to agree to remain peaceful. Forever and ever. No delinquent or upstart may ever ask, “Or Else What?,” because in a truly non-violent society, the best available answer is “Or else we won’t think you’re a very nice person and we’re not going to share with you.” Our troublemaker is free to reply, “I don’t care. I’ll take what I want.”

Violence is the final answer to the question, “Or else what?”

We cannot have a civilized society without violence. Violence is neither good nor bad; like all things, it’s how people use it that determine it’s merit. Striving to rid the world of violence is laudable, but naive, because how else can you enforce your mandate (as ironic as that would be)? Instead, acknowledge the role violence plays in creating a civilized society, and work to enable good people with the means by which to help maintain that vein of civilization.

Don’t be a turd

Social media hasn’t turned people into turds, liars, and thieves. Social media just provides an opportunity and puts them under the microscope for all to see. Shitty people will be shitty people with or without the Internet, but with the Internet comes opportunity for people to do things the wrong way and sometimes even make money at it. You essentially have two ways of approaching how you’ll get noticed in this industry—either be honest and have your own ideas or imitate others and pretend the ideas are your own. The thing is most people won’t know the difference. You need to decide if your moral integrity is worth anything to you. The Internet is full of pieces of shit like turds floating in a giant toilet. Don’t be just another turd in the Internet shit bowl.

Skip Hill

It doesn’t matter what the industry is — this is the way it is in any industry, in life in general.

Honesty, integrity, consistency. These are the things that matter.

Make meaningful contributions.

Have a reason

I know.

“It’s cool.”

But so what? What does it really gain you? What true purpose does it serve?

In his book, Strength, Life, Legacy, Paul Carter writes about having a reason for everything:

Every movement, set, rep, volume, frequency, everything you do, you should know WHY you are doing it. Are you doing this because someone said you should, or are you doing it because someone said you should be doing it? If they did, did they tell you why you should be doing it?

When you sit down to write out your routine and your programming, everything should have a reason for being on that piece of paper. And it shouldn’t be vague, like “I do this because I wanna get jacked.” That’s not really a clear cut reason.

I bench press because I need to build my bench for competition. I do inclines after that because I have found that inclines help my bench press very much. I get very good carryover from it.

I do pause squats to build my bottom position strength.

I do block deadlifts and shrugs because block deads have helped me off the floor as do shrugs (yes shrugs have helped me off the floor). This is where I am weak in the deadlift.

I do some curls because it helps keep my elbows feeling good.

I do ab work because I compete beltless, and I know my abs need to be very strong.

That’s basically my whole competition routine breakdown. Everything I do has a very particular reason for being in there. If you have movements in your routine, have a reason for each one being in there. Otherwise why is it in there?

Always ask yourself these kinds of questions in order to help make yourself a better programmer and planner.

Yeah, it’s about powerlifting, but it applies to anything in life.  If you are doing something, you should have a specific, known, and articulable reason for it.

I’m going to apply it to firearms.

During classes at KR Training, we see all sorts of equipment selection, we see people that come from having other training backgrounds. We question people as to why they have this equipment, or why they do some skill in some way. This isn’t to prove that our way is right and theirs is wrong, it’s about ensuring there is a solid reason. I can think of two illustrations.

I remember we had a student that had a lot of training from another school. At that school, they taught to always rack the slide. Yes, this often meant they ejected a good round. We asked why he did what he did; “because it’s what I was taught”. Of course, but why? “To ensure there’s always a round in the chamber.” So far, so good, but didn’t you know there was one? “Yes, but it doesn’t matter because always doing it eliminates the need and time consumed doing a diagnostic check.” Fair enough. He understood the trade-off of losing the round (and being “down by 1”), and he knew that in a more administrative situation to just do things like press-checking. But when he was “in the fight”, it was a far simpler mode of operation to just always rack it and ingrain that motor habit, instead of having diagnostic branching and decision making. That’s not how we do it, but he knew what he was doing, why he was doing it, the trade-offs, was willing to accept the trade-offs, and basically had a thoughtful decision instead of blindly following tacticool dogma. No problem there, man.

We have seen various types of equipment, including those ultra-minimal holsters that are nothing more than a clip of kydex that covers the trigger guard, with a string attached so the kydex breaks away when you draw the gun. OK, why do you use this equipment? What does it gain you? What are you losing? Is this the best equipment for a class (you’ll be drawing and reholstering numerous times; is this going to facilitate or inhibit class)? Outside of class, how do you expect to reholster? If you did have to draw your gun in self-defense, how much fiddle-farting are you going to have to do to reholster that gun (because you will need to)? and do you think you’ll always have a nice, calm opportunity to do so? Let’s not get into the SERPA holster either…

In the end, there’s not always One True Right Answer to things. Those little clips may wind up being the right answer given your particular daily circumstances. Me, I don’t like carrying really small guns, nor do I like changing my carry gun to match my pursue or the weather. But time to time it happens that circumstances force me to make choices I wouldn’t normally make. At least I can explain and articulate my choices and reasons.

Don’t take this as a dis on your personal choices. In fact, don’t let ego get involved in the first place. Make sure you have solid, articulable reasons for your decisions and choices. Make sure they are helping you achieve your goals.

Death is winning. Do something.

The Hyena is the Lion’s natural enemy.

What is yours? Fear.

Fear that you will fail. That you won’t be good enough, or measure up enough. Fear of change.

Fear is the driving force behind people making subpar decisions in their life.

Fear is what puts you on your knees, with your assassins and demons standing behind you, laughing at what a weak little bitch you have become. Persuaded so easily, you fall to your knees, gladly taking one in the back of the dome without even the slightest protest. You fail to make the tough choice because you succumb to your fears, over and over again. And it gets easier each time. Each time that you give in to your fears, it makes it a little easier the next time to do so.

Your life slips away, and so does all of the dreams you had for it.

Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Death is winning. Do something, besides getting on your knees over and over again.

Rise up against the adversity in your life, against your demons, and shove that weapon straight up that would be assassin’s ass. Then tear his skin off and wear it around as a suit. There’s not a damn thing wrong with being afraid. Use that fear to motivate you.

Embrace the fact that you could fail, but with failure comes learning, and with learning you get better. And when you get better, you fail less and less.

If you have been getting on your knees, it’s time to reload who you are, and what you are about.

You need to envision the person you want to become. Be honest with yourself about all of the cracks and weaknesses that currently exist in you. You need to repair those cracks, and make the foundation stronger than ever.

Because strength reigns….strength is king. Now is the time to become stronger.

It’s time to prepare to win.

It’s time to become the fucking lion.

Paul Carter

Survive or Prevail

I read a posting on Facebook about a man on death row for 33 years before being executed. Think about it from the victim’s family’s perspective — waiting 33 years for some sort of closure.

How old are you today? Think about your age 33 years before today, and your ages 33 years after today. That’s a mighty long time.

But it’s not so much his story that I want to focus on here. It’s something posted in the comments on the story.

They mentioned the writings of Dr. Alexis Artwohl. It was Chuck Haggard that wrote:

Her statment [sic] was to a class I was in, she was addressing mindset and training for cops. She thought that the “officer survival” idea was setting the bar too low. If you set the bar at “survive”, and you fall short, then where does that leave you? She thought officers should be training to prevail, to dominate a fight, not just survive, then if they fall short of the goal hopefully they will at least survive. Then she said; “And if you can’t survive then you need to take the motherfucker with you, do not make your family sit through a murder trial”.

Dr. Artwohl makes a good point when it comes to mindset: to survive? or to prevail?

You’ve heard people say things like “shoot for the moon, because if you miss at least you land amongst the stars” or other such sayings. The point is to aim high, strive for as much as you can. If you achieve it, life will be awesome. But if you fall short, you’ll still be in pretty good shape. There is also the implication that if you strive for anything less, life won’t be so good. It’s about “margin of error” allowing for the fact that life may not always come out like you want or plan it, so you need to aim high enough, far enough, so if things don’t work out precisely as planned, at least they’ll work out acceptably. Else, things could be pretty bad.

So if we consider this a reasonable procedure for the rest of life, be it our jobs, the people we marry, our hobbies, sports, whatever pursuits we have in life… why don’t we follow the same procedure for our very life itself?

Perhaps it’s because it sounds too aggressive to “win”. It’s more socially acceptable to be a survivor. It seems like you have to go on the offense to prevail, when we’re taught so much that it’s better to be defensive (never mind that the best defense is a good offense). Social conditioning at work? Perhaps to our detriment?

Consider your focus, consider how you frame things. Is it to just survive? or is it to prevail? If you fail to survive, you certainly did not prevail. But if you fail to prevail, you may still be able to survive.

Strive to prevail.

This is why we can’t have discussions

Marc MacYoung posted the following on Facebook:

Conflict and violence are very human behaviors. They serve a very important survival and social purpose.

Having said that we’ve kind of put ourselves into a self-eating watermelon situation about them because we’ve allowed our understanding of the subject to be controlled by an extremist ideological position.

There’s an old joke with the punchline ‘We’ve already established that. Now we’re negotiating the price.” That ‘negotiation’ is critical when we look at conflict and violence. Where do we set the line as to how much (and when is it) is acceptable?

This is where we need to recognize the extremists. Specifically those who think violence is always the answer to any problem on one side. But the other extremist position are those who maintain ‘violence never solved anything.’ The first are obvious, the second, not so much. But it is an extremist position.

If you ask the right questions, you’ll find that yeah, overwhelmingly people acknowledge there are times that violence IS the appropriate answer. And ‘now we’re negotiating the price.’ Where are those lines? When is it appropriate? When is it not appropriate and to what degree? These are all damned good questions that we need to hash out among ourselves.

Personally I come from a place where that bar is set pretty damned low. Having said that, I like living in places where the bar is set high. But this experience gives me an understanding that people will have different standards of where that bar should be set.

This includes an important understanding, that is ‘no matter what your use of force’ decision, someone is going to disagree with it.

Now being a cynical bastard I will often point out that the people who tend to disagree most strongly are the ones who didn’t get what they wanted because you chose to act. Those folks seem to take the approach that any level of force beyond which they are comfortable using to get what they want is ‘violence’ — and therefore bad (especially when it is used against them). But what they’re doing isn’t violent and therefore they don’t deserve to have violence used against them. This especially because it hurts their feelings.

That last paragraph may seem like a rant from left field — and maybe it is — but it is also common theme among the extremists who maintain that violence never solved anything. Or, and this is another weird form of mental gymnastics, physical violence is always bad and wrong. Hence anyone who uses it is also bad and wrong. And while we’re at it, if you agree that sometimes violence is the appropriate response then you’re …

Yeah, that’s a good way to encourage mature discussion, understanding, education and coming up with effective coping mechanisms to deal with conflict and violence.

The problem with the extremist position isn’t that it exists, it’s that they won’t shut up about it. In doing so they don’t allow other people to have different points of view and, by extension, a discussion. They will constantly attempt to control the conversation or — if they can’t do that — shut it down with outbursts about how violence is wrong and evil, should not be tolerated and how society must change.

Uh actually that’s what we’re trying to do by ‘negotiating the price’ and gaining a fuller understanding of the subject than ‘it’s evil and wrong.’

Oh you want society to change in particular waaaaaaay…

He’s quite right… we are negotiating on price.

I used to hold onto the notion of violence never being an answer. For anyone that reads even a bit of my writing, you should know I no longer hold that position. I believe that violence can be an answer, and sometimes it is the right and only answer. Case in point, if a woman is being raped, should she not respond with violence? Isn’t a kick to the groin, a palm strike to the nose, thumbs to the eyes, pepper spray, kicking, biting, screaming…. fighting (back). Is this not violence? Is this not a violent response? Is this not an aggressive action? Think about it for a moment. If violence is never the answer, then what other recourse does this rape victim have? lie back and enjoy it?  Because even responses like to vomit or pee on your rapist are arguably a violent response, if perhaps just on the lower end of the scale. If you truly stand by the notion that “violence is never the answer”, then you are damning women to being raped. However, I don’t think this is what you mean, nor what you want.

So in fact, if you think about it hard enough and if you’re honest with yourself, you do accept that violence can be an answer and that sometimes it is the right and only answer. As Marc says, we’re just negotiating price.

Pay heed to the latter point Marc is making. If you really are an open-minded person, you’ll shut up and listen. You will earnestly allow for the possibility that you could be persuaded, even if it means giving up all you know and have built for yourself, if in fact Truth shows you were wrong and “the other way” is right. If you are unwilling to admit you could be wrong, if you are unwilling to give it all up, then it becomes rather difficult – and perhaps pointless – to have any discussion, because you don’t want to discuss, you just want to be right.

Alas, today more people are interested in being right than in finding truth.

Do you have ownership over yourself?

Do you own yourself? Do you have ultimate dominion over yourself, your body, your mind?

Or does someone else, like the state?

An interesting question put forth by Nico Perrino

Do you own yourself?

It seems like a simple question, doesn’t it? Not so, apparently. It has always been my belief that I own myself. That the individual is sovereign. That my body and mind is a ship that only I can captain, that only I can steer. This is one truism that I have always taken for granted. Call me naïve, but I didn’t think many people thought otherwise because to do so would be to admit to a state of enslavement.

Thinking about it, I guess I figured I always had ownership over myself. I cannot fathom it otherwise, that someone else could own me. I mean, ever since my childhood exposure to “Free to Be… You and Me” I thought we had that sort of freedom, right? OK, maybe my Mom has some right and dominion over me, but Mom’s get special dispensation here. 🙂  And even tho I take others into deep consideration, like Wife, ultimately I still own me, I still control me.


I mean, if it’s “my body, my choice”, doesn’t that imply one has ownership over themselves? That they do not want the State to interfere and control them? That you do not want the State to interfere with, control, dictate, harm, you?

From that, doesn’t it also flow that then you must take responsiblity for yourself? That you cannot, should not, and/or are unwilling to delegate ownership, control, and responsibility for yourself and your life to someone else, like the State?

The cognitive dissonance I’m experiencing here is saying it’s my body, it’s my choice, that on the one hand one doesn’t want the State involved in my life and controlling me, telling me what I can and cannot do. But then on the other hand, demanding the State control me and alleviate me of being responsible for myself, and telling me what I must do. Look around at the mainstream political issues going on right now, be it abortion, birth-control, self-defense, health care, whatever. Doesn’t matter what mainstream media, talking head, or politician we look at, because just about all are guilty of this behavior in some manner or other.

I don’t get it.

But this seems to be a common affliction these days, of wanting things that we perceive will achieve our desired end, even if the means conflict, even if the means are inconsistent, even if the means are hypocritical. But in many regards, it comes back to one issue:

A desire to alleviate the need to be responsible for yourself and your actions.

We want the good and not the bad. We want the benefits and not the cost. We want the glory but not the sacrifice. And if someone has to pay, you will pay for me.

And are you willing to give up your ownership over yourself to get there? I’m not, but apparently many are. Worse, they want to force me to do the same.

Wither society.

How to lose friends and alienate people

So long as you deny our humanity, so long as you malign our dignity, intelligence and wisdom, so long as you seek to shade us under a cloud of evil that we do not partake in or support, so long as you tell us that because we own guns we are terrible people, you will prove yourselves absolutely right in that we won’t come to the table to talk with you.

This. So very much, this.

Read the full article. It’s long, but well-written. (h/t Jon Thomas)

They want to have a “national conversation on guns”, but there’s no conversation. It’s just a lecture, a scolding. Who wants to listen to that? When someone dresses you down, how much do you listen to them? How much do you want to cooperate with them? If they call you names, tell you you’re evil, put words in your mouth… do you really want to listen to what they have to say? Are you going to be receptive to anything they propose? It has nothing to do with guns; that’s just a human reaction.

Here’s a PDF from Dale Carnegie.  Just about every rule gets violated in this “conversation”, and so we’re losing friends and alienating people.

To be fair, it’s not just the anti-gun folk that are like this. I see pro-gun folk that are this way as well. I cannot stand looking at my Twitter feed because I see so much  … well… asshole-ish behavior going on. Conversations in less than 140 characters is not a conversation. I see name-calling, baiting, and just general rudeness. I mean, there’s assholes in every crowd, alas they tend to be the ones creating the most jibber-jabber, thus they create the perception. This sort of behavior won’t win anyone over to our cause. There’s no attempt to educate, just more violations of Dale’s rules. Really, what Mr. Snell’s article concludes cuts both ways: that so long as pro-gun folks treat anti-gun folk in a bad way (denying humanity, maligning their dignity, intelligence and wisdom, etc.), well… they won’t come talk to us either.

We can even step back from guns. Look at abortion, LGBT equality, environment (e.g. global warming), food (GMO, etc.), race, religion (including a-religion), whatever. Ever notice how divisive things are today? How the media no longer maintains a facade of neutrality but now blatantly takes and panders to “sides”? How politicians hammer on “the other side” for being in the way of progress, instead of they themselves trying to progress? How there’s so much spitting of venom and hate? There’s so much talk of tolerance, but little is given, especially to those that don’t agree with me. It doesn’t matter the topic. So long as we deny humanity, malign dignity, shade “the other side” under a cloud of evil… we’ll never come to the table and break bread together.

If united we stand and divided we fall… then it looks like we’ve fallen, and at this rate, we’re not going to get back up. Because while our humanity is crumpled on the ground crying for help, you’d rather Instagram ‘dat shit’ and walk away laughing at the ‘dumb bitch’. We need people to put their smartphones away, give our collective humanity a humble look in the eyes, and offer it a helping hand.

Never be afraid to fail

In an old article, Jim Wendler lists 10 nuggets of wisdom. While they’re all good, #5 stands out:

5. One of the best things I ever learned in football (and this was a big turning point for me in college) was to never be afraid to fail. This paralysis keeps too many people from trying – keeps people from doing their first meet, submitting their first article, or asking out the girl you’ve had a crush on for two years.

Emphasis added.

As I’ve gotten (much) older, my fear of failure has decreased. Because yes, it caused me to miss opportunities in life, be it fun events, career opportunities, ways to improve life, or yes… that girl. 🙂

I’m sure you can look back on your own life and see how fear of failure held you back. In fact, I can still see places in my life where the little demon creeps in; I’m working on that.

This would be something to tell my younger self, and so I must tell my children – don’t be afraid to fail.