Involution Labs

Tag: writing

  • The Same Book. Two Completely Different Experiences.

    “I didn’t expect a book to understand me.”

    I’m fourteen and I’ve spent years feeling like adults hear me but don’t actually listen. Like school decides who I’m supposed to be before I even know myself. Like being young means waiting for life to begin.

    I picked up Warriors of Change expecting another story about brave kids changing the world. I was wrong.

    This book made me feel something stranger: recognised.

    It felt like someone had taken all the thoughts I’ve had but never said out loud—the anger at unfair rules, feeling different, questioning things everyone else accepts, wanting adults to guide instead of control—and put them into words.

    The Declaration of the Children of the Universe made me cry. Not because it was sad, but because for the first time I read:

    Maybe children are people now, not future people.

    I know some adults will think this book is rebellious or unrealistic. Maybe it is. But I think what scares people is the idea that young people might already know who they are.

    I didn’t agree with everything. I argued with parts. But weirdly, I think the book wanted me to argue.

    My favourite idea was that questioning isn’t wrong and change isn’t betrayal. I’ve always felt guilty for wanting different things from my family, my school, even my culture. This book made me think:

    What if becoming yourself isn’t selfish?

    After finishing, I didn’t feel inspired in the usual way. I felt… braver.

    I think some readers will hate this trilogy. Some adults especially.

    But if you’ve ever felt too loud, too sensitive, too imaginative, too rebellious, too different—or like no one takes you seriously because of your age—this book might feel less like reading and more like finally being heard.

    I wish I’d found it sooner.

    “Interesting, strange, and surprisingly sincere — but I’m not sure who it’s for.”

    I’m 16 and picked up Warriors of Change because the title sounded dystopian and rebellious. I expected something more like The Hunger Games or a YA fantasy about overthrowing a system. It’s not that.

    This book feels less like modern YA and more like someone trying to remember exactly what being young felt like before adulthood took over. Sometimes that works really well. Some parts made me stop and think:

    Why do adults always assume they know better?
    Why are children treated like unfinished people?

    The ideas about school, freedom, questioning beliefs, and being allowed to become yourself are interesting. I liked that the book doesn’t automatically side with authority.

    But I also kept wondering:

    Was this written by someone who was raising children or thinking about their own youth?

    Because sometimes the characters sound less like teenagers now and more like what adults wish teenagers would say if they could explain everything perfectly.

    Also… almost no phones? No social media obsession? No constant notifications? No AI? No influencers? No group chats exploding every five minutes?

    At first it made the world feel dated.

    Then I started thinking maybe that’s intentional.

    The book seems weirdly uninterested in trends and more interested in older questions:

    Who decides who you become?
    What if school isn’t helping everyone?
    Can traditions stop people becoming themselves?
    What do children know that adults forget?

    Those questions don’t really age.

    Some parts (especially the declarations and speeches) felt long, and occasionally it sounded more like a manifesto than a novel.

    But I respected that the book actually believes in something. A lot of books now are ironic about everything. This one isn’t embarrassed to care.

    I didn’t agree with all of it, and I’m not sure I was supposed to.

    I think readers will either feel deeply understood or roll their eyes completely.

    I ended up somewhere in the middle:

    I questioned it.
    I argued with it.
    But I kept thinking about it afterwards.

    Which might mean it succeeded.

  • The Courage to Think

    Thinking is often treated as something automatic. We assume we’re already doing it because we have opinions, reactions, beliefs, and conclusions, but real thinking requires something more demanding. It requires openness.

    To think isn’t just to process information; it’s to allow ourselves to be changed by what we encounter. That isn’t easy. It means letting go of certainty, questioning what feels familiar, and staying with ideas that don’t immediately make sense. That takes courage.

    Inspiration is often treated as something external, something that arrives when the conditions are right. But it’s closely tied to thinking itself. It emerges when we stay open, when we’re willing to engage without needing immediate answers or clear outcomes.

    When I was growing up, characters like Pippi Longstocking, created by Astrid Lindgren, suggested that it was possible to move through the world differently, without needing to fit neatly into expectations or social norms. That kind of influence doesn’t just inspire behaviour; it changes how you think about what’s possible. In a different way, Tove Jansson, the creator of the Moomin books, encouraged a deeper kind of reflection, a willingness to examine and question rather than accept things as they are.

    Thinking doesn’t happen in isolation. It’s shaped by what we read, what we experience, who we encounter, and also by the language we move through every day. Language does more than communicate ideas; it shapes how we understand them. The words available to us influence what we can describe, question, and even notice.

    When language becomes simplified, shortened, or reduced to immediate reactions, thinking can become narrower too. Quick responses replace reflection. Nuance disappears behind slogans, captions, and certainty. Even digital forms of communication—text language, constant scrolling, emojis, and rapid exchanges—change the rhythm of thought itself. They’re expressive, efficient, and useful in many ways, but they also encourage speed over depth. And deep thinking rarely happens quickly.

    There’s a tendency to avoid discomfort by simplifying things, by turning challenges into easy explanations. Phrases like “everything happens for a reason” don’t open thinking. They close it. They offer resolution without understanding.

    Challenges aren’t interruptions to thinking; they’re what make it possible. To think well, we have to be willing to learn, unlearn, and relearn. That means meeting new situations without assuming we already understand them and allowing doubt, uncertainty, and contradiction to exist without rushing to resolve them.

    In that sense, thinking isn’t just an intellectual activity. It’s a way of being. And it begins with something simple but difficult: being open enough to change.

    Excerpt from Thinking Out Loud: Notes on Being Human

  • What Astrid Lindgren Understood About Children That We Still Don’t

    We like to believe that we respect children. We say we care about them, we protect them, we educate them, and we make decisions for them in what we call their best interest. But respect is something else entirely, and if we’re honest, we’re not very good at it.

    Astrid Lindgren understood that, not as an idea, but as a way of being. She didn’t just write stories for children, she wrote from their perspective, which is a very different thing. Most adults write down to children, simplifying, correcting, shaping, but Astrid entered their world without trying to control it.

    That’s why characters like Pippi Longstocking didn’t make sense to adults. She was too independent, too strong, too unpredictable. Adults were uncomfortable with her, but children weren’t. Children recognised something in her that adults had forgotten or perhaps never really trusted in the first place.

    We often say we love children, but love without respect easily turns into control. We decide what they should feel, what they should learn, how they should behave, and we call it guidance, when in reality it often becomes management. Astrid believed something much simpler and much more radical: give children love, more love, and then some more love, and common sense will come by itself. It sounds soft, but it isn’t, because it requires trust, and trust is exactly where we struggle.

    We don’t trust children to know themselves. We don’t trust them to feel deeply. We don’t trust them to grow without being shaped into something acceptable. And it shows in how we speak to them, how quickly we correct them, and how little space we give them to be fully themselves.

    Astrid didn’t just write about children, she defended them. She influenced how people thought, and her work contributed to Sweden becoming the first country to ban corporal punishment. That didn’t happen by accident. It came from a very clear understanding that children are not something to control, they are people.

    And yet, even now, that idea still feels radical. We celebrate her stories, we turn them into films, we quote her, but we don’t always live by what she believed. Because if we did, we would have to change how we listen, how we respond, and how much control we think we are entitled to have.

    It’s easier to admire Astrid Lindgren than to take her seriously. But maybe that’s the point. We don’t just struggle to understand children. We struggle to respect them.

  • Education and the Fear of Thinking

    Education is often described as the foundation of a healthy society. Politicians praise it, parents worry about it, and schools are expected to shape the next generation into capable adults. Yet the question we rarely ask is a simple one:

    Does our education system actually encourage thinking?

    In many ways, modern schooling rewards the opposite.

    Education as a system of obedience

    In Ireland, the Leaving Certificate and the CAO system determine much of a student’s future. A single set of exams decides which university course a student can enter and often what career path becomes possible. The result is predictable: students learn how to play the exam game.

    Instead of exploring ideas, questioning assumptions, or making intellectual mistakes, students become experts at recognising patterns in past papers and reproducing expected answers. Success is measured not by curiosity or creativity, but by how well someone can memorise and perform under pressure.

    The system produces excellent test-takers. It does not necessarily produce independent thinkers.

    Other countries have taken a different approach. Finland, for example, emphasises creativity, collaboration, and flexible educational pathways. Students are encouraged to experiment, question, and even fail. In such systems, mistakes are treated as part of learning rather than evidence of failure.

    The contrast reveals something deeper than educational policy. It reveals different attitudes toward risk and authority.

    Fear as a motivational tool

    Schools often rely on fear to maintain discipline and motivate students. Children are told that if they do not work hard enough, they will fail in life. Sometimes the warnings are even more dramatic: that they will end up unemployed, addicted to drugs or living under a bridge.

    Many teachers believe they are motivating students. But fear is a dangerous tool. Some children respond with compliance, but others respond with anxiety, perfectionism or despair.

    A child who is constantly worried about failure does not learn freely. Instead, they learn to avoid mistakes at all costs.

    When fear becomes the underlying emotional atmosphere of education, curiosity slowly disappears.

    The forgotten students: those who feel deeply

    Schools are designed around averages. They assume that children learn in similar ways, at similar speeds, and respond to pressure in similar ways.

    But children are not a homogeneous group.

    Some children are particularly sensitive to their surroundings. They process information deeply, ask difficult questions, and respond strongly to injustice or hypocrisy. These children are often curious and imaginative, but they can also struggle in rigid environments where conformity is rewarded.

    In such systems, sensitivity is often treated as weakness. A child who feels deeply may be told not to be so emotional, not to overthink, not to ask too many questions.

    Over time, many of these children learn a painful lesson: school is a place where they do not fit.

    The myth of “teaching critical thinking”

    Educators frequently claim that schools teach students to think critically. Yet critical thinking cannot simply be taught as a technical skill.

    True criticism requires something deeper: a critical spirit. It requires teachers and students who are willing to question assumptions, debate ideas openly, and tolerate uncertainty.

    In many classrooms, however, students are encouraged to repeat approved perspectives rather than challenge them. Discussions that appear critical sometimes function more like intellectual exercises in conformity.

    When questioning becomes selective, education begins to resemble indoctrination rather than inquiry.

    Education and the courage to think

    A healthy education system should cultivate something far more valuable than exam scores: intellectual courage.

    Students should be encouraged to explore ideas, challenge authorities, and pursue their own interests. They should learn that knowledge is not a set of fixed answers but a continuous process of discovery.

    Most importantly, they should feel safe enough to think freely.

    Education should not train students to memorise the correct answers. It should prepare them to ask better questions.

    Because in a rapidly changing world, the ability to question, adapt, and think independently will always matter more than the ability to pass a test.

  • Choosing to Live for Yourself

    At some point in life, many people confront a difficult question: why am I living the life I’m living?

    For some, the answer is simple. For others, the answer is less clear. Life can become a series of expectations — from family, society, culture, or circumstance. We follow paths that others believe are right for us: school, career, marriage, stability. Often these paths work well. But sometimes they leave people feeling that their life no longer belongs to them.

    When people feel powerless or trapped in roles that do not reflect who they are, despair can follow. Sociologists have long argued that weak social ties, isolation, and lack of belonging can deepen this sense of disconnection. When a person feels they have no control over their life, they may begin to question its meaning.

    Yet this crisis can also become a turning point.

    Confronting the limits of one’s life can force a deeper question: What do I actually want? The moment someone realises that they have the right to live differently can be the first step toward reclaiming their life.

    Living authentically does not mean rejecting others or abandoning responsibility. It means recognising that a meaningful life cannot be built entirely on the expectations of others. At some point, people must decide that their life is their own.

    Not everyone will follow the same path. Parenting is not for everyone. University is not for everyone. A traditional career is not for everyone. Some people find meaning through relationships and family; others find it through creativity, independence, or solitude.

    What matters is not the specific path but the freedom to choose it.

    Learning to listen to oneself,  to understand one’s own values, limits, and desires, is an important step toward living authentically. When people begin to see themselves as worthy of care and respect, they may find new reasons to live differently and more fully.

    Life does not always unfold according to the scripts society provides. But that does not make it meaningless. Sometimes meaning appears only when we take responsibility for our own lives and begin to shape them consciously.

    Choosing to live for yourself is not selfish.

    It is the beginning of an authentic life.

  • What Was the Renaissance?

    The Renaissance was not a place. Although it began in Italy, it was primarily a change in mindset.

    After centuries of war, plague, and rigid religious authority, Europeans began to rediscover ancient Greek and Roman ideas about knowledge, human potential, and critical thinking. Scholars fleeing the Byzantine Empire brought classical manuscripts to Italy, where they were studied and copied.

    But the true engine of the Renaissance was not only the rediscovery of ancient texts. It was the printing press.

    Printing allowed knowledge to spread rapidly. Books that had once taken months or years to copy by hand could now be reproduced quickly and in large numbers. For the first time, ideas could circulate widely, allowing people to compare arguments, question authority, and think independently.

    The printing press created an information revolution.

    This shift transformed education, religion, science, and politics. It encouraged doubt, debate, and the belief that individuals could discover truth through reason rather than simply accepting inherited authority.

    In many ways, the Renaissance marked the beginning of the modern world.

    Today we may be living through something similar.

    Just as printing once transformed Europe, the internet is transforming the world. Knowledge is no longer controlled by scribes, priests, or universities. Anyone with access to the internet can publish ideas, share information, and participate in global conversations.

    In the Renaissance, humanists and scholars were the main producers of books. Today, anyone with a keyboard can become a writer.

    Both periods share a common feature: the rapid spread of knowledge.

    Yet the lesson of the Renaissance may also be a warning. The printing press spread both truth and error. New ideas flourished, but so did misinformation and ideological conflict.

    The same is true today.

    Just as Renaissance thinkers learned to question authority and evaluate sources critically, we must apply the same habits of logic, doubt, and reason in the digital age.

    The Renaissance was not only a rebirth of ancient learning. It was an awakening of human curiosity and critical thought.

    Perhaps our own time is experiencing a similar awakening.

  • Literature and Journalism: Where Do They Meet?

    What is the difference between literature and journalism? Are they two completely separate forms of writing, or are they simply different ways of telling the truth?

    Literature refers to written works, especially books and other printed texts. It can include fiction and non-fiction, prose and poetry, and many different forms such as novels, short stories, and drama. Literature uses language to create worlds, characters, and situations that may be fictional but still reflect real human experience.

    Storytelling is ancient. Long before printing presses and newspapers existed, people told stories orally. When writing systems developed in places like Mesopotamia and later in the Americas, stories began to be recorded. The invention of alphabets in the Middle East and Greece, papermaking in China, and later printing technologies transformed how stories were preserved and shared.

    Literature shaped human understanding of the world for thousands of years. Our sense of history, culture, and identity would be unimaginable without it.

    Journalism developed much later but shares some of the same roots. Journalism focuses on gathering, assessing, and presenting information about real events. The earliest journalistic records can be traced back to ancient Rome, where daily news was carved on stone and displayed in public places. In China, government bulletins also recorded events to keep officials informed.

    Modern newspapers began to appear in Europe in the early seventeenth century. The first regular German newspaper appeared in 1609, and English-language newspapers followed soon after. Over time, journalism became an organised profession with its own standards and practices.

    While literature explores truth through imagination, journalism aims to report facts about current events. Journalists traditionally focus on answering five key questions: who, what, where, when, and why. Their work is expected to be informative, accurate, and accessible to a broad audience.

    Today the internet has transformed both literature and journalism. Blogs, social media, and online publications have changed how stories are written, distributed, and consumed. At the same time, the boundary between professional journalism and citizen reporting has become less clear.

    The relationship between literature and journalism is often summarised in a famous phrase: journalism is literature in a hurry. Journalists must publish quickly, while writers of literature may spend years refining a single work.

    Yet both forms of writing attempt to capture truth. Literature turns truth into art and allows readers to imagine other perspectives. Journalism attempts to reveal what is happening in the world right now.

    Perhaps they are not opposites after all, but two different ways of helping us understand reality.

  • Where Do Fact and Fiction Begin and End?

    Is there really a clear line between fact and fiction?

    When we think about fantasy, it is easy to assume it is entirely invented. Yet imaginative writing often requires deep research. In some ways, fiction can be a way of searching for truth.

    Does it matter whether something really happened? Are works of non-fiction always completely truthful? And would non-fiction even be as interesting without a flicker of imagination?

    Sometimes fiction can contain more truth than factual writing. Non-fiction may also include narrative shaping, interpretation, or omissions. This is especially true in journalism, where reporters must interpret events based on incomplete information and sources that may disagree.

    Historians face the same challenge. History is not simply a collection of facts; it is an interpretation of events layered with perspective. Even if we had witnessed an event ourselves, we would never see all its layers. A historical novel therefore becomes a mixture of fact and fiction by necessity.

    Perhaps the most useful approach is to keep an open mind. When we read fiction, we can assume there may be truth hidden inside it. When we read non-fiction, we can assume that interpretation and bias may also be present.

    After all, stories marketed as “based on a true story” often attract us more strongly. They seem to carry greater value, even if the boundary between truth and invention is unclear.

    Today it may not be literature that shapes our sense of reality, but the stories we share online. Viral stories often gain trust simply because they are popular.

    So, do we prefer fiction, or at least a mixture of fact and fiction? And is that why people are often more interested in the stories behind the news than the news itself?

    Perhaps fiction is not the opposite of truth, but simply another way of approaching it.

  • Don’t take a photo if you want to remember

    Presence is the memory

    I’ve had a smartphone for years. I do take photos. Just not of everything — and I don’t share them with everyone.

    The problem isn’t photography. It’s what happens when documenting replaces paying attention. The moment a camera comes out, something shifts. We start framing instead of feeling, managing instead of being present. The camera doesn’t just record the moment; it changes it.

    Some experiences imprint themselves precisely because they are fully lived. When we rely on photos to remember, we often remember less. Attention gets outsourced. Memory weakens. If the phone is doing the remembering for us, we don’t have to.

    When my son and I talk about Paris, we don’t scroll through images. We describe it to each other. What we noticed. How it felt. What stayed. The memory lives in language, not pixels. It remains active, shared, alive.

    What unsettles me isn’t the photo itself, but the need to show everything. Why does every moment require an audience? Why do we feel compelled to prove that we were somewhere, that something mattered? And why does the approval — the likes, the hearts — feel so good?

    That rush is not harmless. It trains us to measure experience by reaction rather than meaning. Moments become performances. Memory becomes external, dependent on validation.

    I take photos when something calls for it. I keep many of them private. Some I never looked at again. They exist as quiet markers, not content. And many moments are left unrecorded entirely — because they deserve full attention.

    Not everything needs to be captured.
    Not everything needs to be shared.
    Some things are meant to be remembered by being lived.

  • We’re All Part of the Broken Family

    I read your words, and I felt something shift—not in the way I imagine you intended. You said what you needed to say, and I suppose this is me doing the same. Skriva av mig.

    You write with the tone of someone who’s already moved on, who’s emotionally detached and looking back at the wreckage from a safe, elevated distance. But I didn’t feel wisdom in your letter. I didn’t feel love. I felt something performative. Something self-satisfied. You used to be someone I admired for your depth—for your ability to hold contradictions, for your courage to look at the mess and not turn away. This felt like the opposite. This felt like someone writing to win a crowd, not seek the truth.

    You compared America to a mentally ill family member. That’s not philosophy, that’s pathologizing a people. That’s taking the worst of one nation and building a metaphor that makes everyone else the sane, stable, rational grownups. Europe becomes the wise wife. Canada, the pretty girl next door. Russia, the neighbourhood monster. And you? You’re the knowing observer, shaking your head in sorrow from your morally secure porch.

    You’ve written off an entire nation as if it’s a single consciousness—chaotic, erratic, no longer trustworthy. That’s not just lazy, it’s dangerous. It flattens the millions of people in that country who are fighting the good fight. Who are pushing back. Who are trying to hold something together while the ground shifts beneath them. You saw the storm, and instead of offering a rope, you stepped back to watch.

    And meanwhile, Europe—your golden child in this metaphor—gets a free pass. No mention of its own ongoing nationalism. No mention of how it’s leaned on the US for security, convenience, and political cover for decades. No mention of its own violent history or its complicity in the very global order you now denounce. It’s easier, I guess, to pretend Europe is rising like a phoenix while America flails.

    But this isn’t healing. This isn’t insight. It’s resignation dressed up as moral clarity.

    You say you haven’t given up on America, that your door is open. But everything in your letter says otherwise. You’ve already packed the bags, changed the locks, and started dating someone new. What remains is the guilt talking, not the love.

    I don’t say this as a flag-waver or an apologist. I see the mess. I feel the grief. But I also see the reductionism, the projection, the convenient forgetting. And that—coming from someone who claims to be a philosopher—is what stings the most.

    If you want to walk away, fine. But don’t pretend it’s out of compassion. And don’t pretend you’re not part of the same broken family.

    We all are.