ethan

hi. welcome to my world.

the goal is intentionality. to figure out what it means to live a full, human life – not just a productive one – and to remember the texture of my years before they blur.

bain & company
03/2026 – present
associate consultant | nyc
passionate about delivering shareholder value
mastercard
08/2025 – 03/2026
associate product manager | nyc
questioned my existence every day
graduated from the university of minnesota in may of 2025. studied business and wrote a cool thesis sparked by my interest in fashion.
thrifter
07/2025 – 09/2025
product & growth | remote
stat-maxing
levelrie
06/2025 – 08/2025
associate consultant | chicago
rowdy startup experience
chromatic
02/2025 – 06/2025
product manager | tokyo
yolo moment
mastercard
06/2024 – 08/2024
associate product manager intern | nyc
bright-eyed perm summer
deloitte
06/2023 – 08/2023
analytics & technology intern | minneapolis
kool-aid wore off
ankaa project
01/2023 – 05/2023
product manager | athens
there is hope for humanity
deloitte
06/2022 – 08/2022
discovery ii intern | minneapolis
becoming a tax partner was in my sight

where

grew up in rochester, minnesota. the midwest still shows up in how i treat people. the city is teaching me everything else.

family

joseph and sunny – my parents. marcus, christine, and juliann – my three siblings. dad was born in singapore, mom in malaysia, both of chinese descent. i miss them. leaving home changes things.

pets

my cats, ban & ming, are teaching me how to love unconditionally. our family had a bird too (he flew away lol).

interests / hobbies

fashion

my favorite color is pink

fitness

lifting, pickleball, and bouldering at the moment

eating

literal human trash can

artisanal crafts

hands-on aesthetic typa guy

this section is locked.

the mushy stuff: tangled feelings and half-formed reflections

singapore + malaysia

6/21/2026

i spent the last two weeks in singapore and malaysia, mostly seeing family and eating more than i'd thought possible. kway teow soup, assam laksa, satay, roti prata, bak kut teh. meal after meal of food you can't get the real version of back home.

the strangest part was how slow everything felt. the days stretched out, and by the end it felt like i'd been gone far longer than two weeks, in the best possible way. away from work and routine, i could finally see how much of my life they usually fill: how much of my attention they quietly take, and how little is left when they're done. for two weeks there was nothing i had to be doing, and the time opened up. i had room to ground myself, to sit with things i don't normally get to.

i also came away with a wider sense of the world than i usually carry. the trip put me around lives that share almost nothing with mine: family who built theirs on the other side of the planet, strangers whose worlds barely touch my own. seeing them up close stretches what you let yourself believe a life can even be.

it was the people, though, more than anything. i saw extended family i hadn't seen in years. my grandma made 粽子 (sticky rice dumplings) and 萝卜糕 (radish cake) for me — homemade, neither of which i'd had since she moved away. she made them specially, because she knows how much i love them. there's a particular warmth in being fed by someone who's known you your whole life, and i'd forgotten how much i missed it.

the last couple of years have been rough on my mom's side of the family, and getting everyone in one room without friction wasn't a given. so it meant more than i expected to see them all gathered this time, actually getting along, the tension set down at least for a few days. being all together, for no reason beyond being together, was the best part of the whole trip.

a big thank you to the people who made those two weeks what they were. to my parents and my brother, who flew out from the states with me. to my uncle, who spent a week showing us his malaysia. to my grandma and my aunt. i don't get time like this with any of you often, and i felt that the whole way through.

what follows are a few of the things from those weeks i haven't been able to put down.

a "rich" life

i want to be rich.

not in the way you're supposed to wave it off — the quick laugh, the line about money and happiness. i mean it plainly. and i've stopped dressing it up as something noble: i used to keep my distance from people who chased this, certain i wanted something cleaner than they did, and i'm less certain now.

it isn't the objects. i can see why people want the watches and the bags with the right names on them, and i mostly don't. what i want is the part that doesn't photograph: the life it makes possible.

the dinners were with people my parents knew and i didn't — a man who'd been cfo of a chinese bank, a woman who'd sat in singapore's parliament, the chairman of one of the banks the country runs on. jobs like those are why their families live the way they do: the schooling, the travel, the quiet assumption that the world will say yes.

at one of them, a dinner at the cricket club, i spent most of the night talking to someone's eleven-year-old granddaughter. she told me about skiing in chamonix and the trip to vietnam she was taking next week with her best friend, and she said all of it the way i'd have told you about a sleepover — no sense that any of it was rare, because to her it wasn't. she was poised and curious, quicker than most adults i talk to. nothing in her was showing off. the world was simply open to her, and always had been; she didn't yet know it was a thing some people had and others didn't.

that's the thing i want. not the chamonix; the open world behind it — a childhood where curiosity is never foreclosed by what it costs. i want to be able to give that.

and not just to a kid i might have. i want to be able to give to the people already in my life: to pick up the check without the small math running underneath, to help someone who needs it without the help costing me anything i'd feel. and, someday, a wedding where i don't have to cut the list, where everyone i'd want there is there, and no one was left off over the price of a seat.

after you

manners were drilled into me before i understood what they were for. greet everyone when you walk in. let the elders sit first, eat first, speak first. don't take the last piece, don't take the biggest one. my parents ran it into me so constantly that it stopped being instruction and turned into reflex. i still feel a small wrongness if i reach for the food before the oldest person at the table has touched theirs.

for a long time i half-suspected the whole thing was theater. manners are easy to dismiss that way: a performance of being good, a set of moves you make so people approve of you, nothing underneath. fake, a little fussy, maybe even a class thing.

i don't think that anymore, and it's because i've watched what their absence looks like. this trip i've been around someone newer to the family, who wasn't raised the way i was. it shows in small ways, none of them dramatic. she starts eating before others have been served, takes from the middle of the table without checking there's enough to go around. back at the apartment, she's first into the shower while the rest of us wait. none of it is cruelty; i don't think she means anything by any of it. that's almost the point: the habit of catching yourself was simply never built in her.

and watching her, i finally got what the drilling had been for. manners aren't a performance of goodness. they're the trained habit of remembering that the other people in the room are as real as you are — as hungry, as tired, as eager to go first. taking the most food, grabbing the first shower: those aren't etiquette slips. they're small ways of moving through the world as if you're the only person actually in it.

after you. someone reaches the door first and holds it; someone gets to the table first and waits. it's two words and a half-second of going second, and that half-second is the whole of it — the small, constant proof that you know you're not the only one here. i was drilled in it until it ran on its own, and of everything i was handed that way, it's the one piece i'd never give back.

escapement

i spent an afternoon working through the luxury watch stores on orchard road, pretending to be someone who could buy something. i told each salesperson the same story, a cousin's wedding tomorrow and a watch i needed for it, and watched the warmth switch on: the trays coming out, the whole performance of service a store puts on for someone it thinks is about to spend. none of it was true. i had no intention of buying anything, and after a few hours i hadn't seen a single watch that moved me. they were beautiful and they were boring. luxury with nothing behind it.

then i walked into breguet.

four people stood at the back, bent over blown-up models of watch movements, tinkering with mechanisms the size of dinner plates. one of them, french and maybe fifty, came over almost at once, and instead of selling me anything he asked, with real urgency, whether i knew what an escapement was. i didn't. for the next half hour he showed me. the escapement, it turns out, is the part that releases the mainspring's energy in tiny measured beats — the thing that makes a watch tick instead of spending itself all at once. the heart of the whole machine. he walked me through how this one worked, a movement inside a 490,000-dollar watch, and most of it went straight over my head. i caught maybe a tenth of the words. but i caught all of him. the man was lit up. he talked about the watch, and the two centuries of it, the way people talk about the thing they'd do for free, and that came across the counter perfectly intact even as the mechanics dissolved on the way to me.

the watch talk turned into other talk. somewhere in it we'd moved to a cozy alcove off to the side, tucked away from the people drifting past, and sat there another half hour, on to nothing in particular — life in singapore, how he'd ended up here. it came out almost in passing that he runs breguet for all of southeast asia, that he'd built a whole life around this: married here, kids in school here, decades in the trade. i'd half-assumed passion like that was a young man's thing, the enthusiasm you have before the work grinds it out of you. but here was someone at the very top of it, who'd been doing this longer than i've been alive, still stopping a stranger in his shop to make sure he understood why an escapement matters.

i walked out thinking about the look on his face. caring about something so much you can't not talk about it, so much it survives the decades and follows you home — that's what i envy. not the watch, not the expertise, just having a thing that does that to you. i don't know what mine is yet. i have things i reach for, but nothing i'd stop a stranger in a store to explain. i want, more than almost anything, to find the thing i would.

my first wedding

my cousin got married, and it was the first wedding i'd ever been to. a traditional chinese one — the tea ceremony, the long banquet, the whole family there. and i mean the whole family: cousins and aunts and uncles we hadn't seen in years, all of us in one room again. there were happy tears all over the room, and so much smiling that my own face ached by the end of the night.

what stays with me isn't any single part of it. it's that the day was happy in an uncomplicated way i'm not used to. families mostly gather for the hard things; this was the rare time we were all together for something purely good. i went home a little stunned by how much it had moved me.

langkawi

langkawi was nothing like where we'd come from. corrugated metal roofs, rusted at the edges. paint gone from most of the buildings. everything sun-bleached and salt-worn, like the heat had been working on it for years and winning. the people moved through it the way you do when it's just your life — bare feet gone black from the ground, clothes worn thin, skin scorched dark by a sun that never lets up. mosquitoes everywhere, feasting, and mostly no one bothering to swat them.

we walked through a food market. a few fans turned overhead and did almost nothing; the flies they were meant to move just settled back onto the food, which sat out uncovered in the heat. dogs threaded between the stalls. a couple of monkeys watched from a roofline. cats slept in whatever shade they could find.

my first reaction wasn't a kind one. i recoiled before i'd thought anything at all.

but none of it is unusual. this is how a huge share of the world lives, on almost nothing by the standards i'd flown in with. people are born here, raise their kids here, grow old here, and i'd flinched within ten minutes of arriving. i left embarrassed by how narrow my sense of normal had been, and reminded how much of the world i never have to think about.

doing hard things

it was my first real hike. bukit mertajam, a forest park in malaysia, with my brother, my uncle, and my uncle's friend, all three far out of my league. my brother had just gotten back from a month-long trip: acatenango, machu picchu, patagonia. my uncle and his friend have stood at everest base camp. i'd never done any of it, and the whole way there i was quietly worried i'd be the one slowing everyone down.

we'd been up since six, and i was carrying about forty pounds of gear i wasn't used to carrying.

i should say i don't really like hiking. you walk for hours and the scenery barely changes — the same green wall of trees giving way to the same green wall of trees, mile after mile. people talk about hiking like it does something to them. it mostly just makes me tired.

and this one was rough. malaysian jungle: the trail rugged and root-knotted, the air thick enough to drink. mosquitoes the whole way. a centipede the length of my forearm that i'm still not over. monkeys somewhere overhead, and things in the brush i couldn't name and didn't want to meet.

then, for an hour, the sky opened and dumped rain on us, and we kept walking through it, soaked to the skin. my uncle and his friend are almost sixty; neither of them broke. the last stretch got genuinely hard, hard enough that we stopped talking and it became one foot, then the next. and i made it. i kept up.

none of this was a surprise to me. i knew going in exactly why i was there, because it's the same reason every time. i don't do it for the hike. i do it for the end of the hike — for the fact, afterward, that my body did something i wasn't sure it could. and under that, something simpler and truer about me: i like having hiked a lot more than i like hiking. i like the done thing, the box checked, the proof i moved forward. it's just how i'm built. i'll never love the trail, but i'll keep doing hard things, because i like who i am by the end of them.

blood sweat money

my uncle took us to his friend's durian farm. the road up was barely a road — steep and tight and switchbacking, room for one car and nothing coming the other way. i spent the climb quietly hoping the engine would hold.

at the top a man came out to meet us, tan from a life spent outside, two teeth left along the bottom and a smile that used both of them. he lives on the farm with his brother and his son. a few dogs announced us and then lost interest. he was gracious before we'd done anything to earn it, waving us toward the food like we were the reason he'd gotten up that morning.

and then we ate. durian, mostly, though the trees around us were heavy with rambutan, mangosteen and longan too. a single well off to the side did everything out there: drinking, washing hands, showers, laundry. he kept pressing more on us. "还要吗," he'd say, "do you still want more?" already reaching for the next one before we'd answered. we tried black thorn, red prawn, musang king (the expensive ones, i'm only now learning), and i ate until i was sure i'd burst.

after, he walked us through the farm. i'd never once thought about how a durian gets from the tree to my hands, and it turns out the answer is: hard. someone climbs these trees. someone strings nets beneath them so the fruit doesn't smash on the ground when it drops. someone does it in that heat, on that hill, every day of the season. there's a phrase in chinese, "血汗钱," for money earned the hardest way — it translates, literally, to "blood sweat money." standing in the middle of his farm, i understood it as something more than a figure of speech.

it changes what the food is worth to you, seeing where it comes from. i've spent my whole life buying the cheap version of everything; i think now i'll pay for the local one, the one with a person and a hill behind it. and what stays with me is that the hands doing all that climbing were the same ones refilling my plate. he handed us the most expensive thing his body makes, by the armful, and kept asking if we wanted more.

i don't know anyone who lives like this. everyone in my life works a job at a desk, mine included. i'm grateful to my uncle for the day — for knowing a man like that, and for driving me up that hill to be fed by him.

a chinese time in my life

two weeks of speaking nothing but chinese and mine came back to me. i could hear the difference by the end: words i'd lost surfacing again, sentences coming faster, my ear catching things it would have missed on the first day. it turns out the language is still in there. it just goes quiet when i don't live in it.

and i don't, most of the time. i live in english, eat what's easy, keep the traditions i can keep alone and let the rest thin out. the trip reminded me how much of myself is stored in a language and a culture i only visit now.

i think that's the real reason i'd want someone from the same background. not anything i'd defend in an argument — something plainer. a home where chinese gets spoken without it being an occasion, where the food i grew up on is just dinner, where the traditions don't have to be explained before they can be shared, because the other person grew up inside the same ones. none of it would be mine to keep alive alone, or to soften for company.

there's an understanding that's there before you've earned it — present in the first conversation, because you both started from the same place. i want to build a life on that head start: to keep being chinese, out loud, with someone who doesn't need it explained.

until five

6/2/2026

last night i lost track of the hours with someone i'd just met. clicking with someone like that, right away, feels good in a way i don't need to talk myself into. what gets me is how far it goes, how deep you can get with someone you barely know.

it shouldn't be possible. the people who've earned the long version of you — who know the history, who've been around for years — should be the ones you can say anything to. often they're the last. somehow a stranger gets the unguarded thing first, before they've earned a minute of it.

part of it is curiosity, the real kind. when you know nothing about someone, every question is live, asked to find out rather than to confirm. and part of it is the nerve to answer in kind, to be honest early, while you could still get away with less.

the rest of it is less flattering. a stranger holds no record of you. there's no version of you they're keeping, nothing to stay consistent with, no one you'll have to face later. you can be that open because the weight isn't there yet — because you might never see them again. the openness is paid for by the exit.

which means the leaving was never the threat. it was the condition. she flies home today, the math was always against us, and that distance is the whole reason the night went where it did. nothing to protect, so nothing held back.

we stayed up until five, and i went to work on two hours of sleep waiting for the crash. it never came. i've been running on that night all day, more awake than the sleep has any right to leave me.

hermitting

5/23/2026

last night started small and warm: four of us tucked into a cocktail bar, the dim and low-lit kind, all amber light and small tables and a hush you could actually talk across, the hour before a night has decided what it's going to become. i ordered something called "colorful and fruity," which it mostly wasn't: a sweet potato shochu over ice, smooth and a little sweet, the kind of drink that goes down so easy you've ordered a second before you meant to. i drank more than i'd have liked. i usually do.

then the tipsiness made its case for going out, and out meant the loud place. you know the kind. packed body to body, the air thick and warm and sweet with perfume and spilled liquor, light swinging red and blue across a hundred faces, a bass line so low you stop hearing it and start standing inside it. i watched the room give itself over: the drinking, the dancing, the men leaning in close with their practiced lines, the whole hungry churn of a saturday night in this city. and i didn't feel above any of it. i felt the pull of it. i understood it completely, because it really isn't complicated: every person in that room was just trying to get out of their own head for a few hours, and a place this loud is how you do it. i know that wish. i've given in to it before and i'll give in again.

it's only that it isn't my way out. hedonism and solitude are the same instinct facing opposite directions. both are escapes. theirs is loud and mine is quiet, and standing in the middle of all of it, i wanted the quiet so badly i could taste it.

then the walk home, just the two of us, the last of the club still fading out of my ears, the avenues wide and nearly empty, all that earlier energy drained out of them. somewhere along the way we'd gotten onto telling each other something we'd never told anyone. i've only hung out with her a few times, so i don't fully know what made me go where i went, but mine came out anyway: that i want to disappear for a while. a few months. no plans, no one. i'd never said it out loud to a single person before. and she said, like it was nothing, that she already does exactly that. months at a time. that she likes being alone so much she has to remind herself to put people back on the calendar.

i didn't believe her at first. i think i actually said no way out loud. she lives the thing i only ever get to sneak for a morning at a time, and she lives it on purpose.

• • •

i woke up hungover. the light through the blinds felt like an accusation, my pulse keeping slow time behind my eyes, and somehow that helped: it settled the day before i could argue with it. i wasn't going anywhere. a saturday in this city is one long advertisement for everything you aren't doing, and for once i couldn't hear it over my own headache.

so i stayed in. i made a real breakfast and ate it slowly. then i cleaned — and i mean really cleaned, head and shoulders pushed into the dark of the oven, the sponge working at baked-on years of somebody else's cooking — until i put my hand somewhere i shouldn't have and the thing bit me. a bright electric snap, straight up the arm. i came out fast, sat down hard on the kitchen floor, and laughed, more awake in that second than i'd been all morning. then the gym, where i worked until everything in me finally went still.

and the whole time, in the gaps, i kept drifting back to the walk home. to what she'd said, and to the question sitting underneath it that i'd never really asked myself straight: why do i like being alone this much? what is it actually doing for me?

here's what i landed on. i'm a judgmental person. i size people up fast, and i assume they're sizing me up the same way. it's on almost all the time, and i'm only half aware of it. being alone is the one place it shuts off. when no one's around, i don't have to judge anyone, and i don't have to brace for being judged. it's the closest thing i have to a safe space. that's the real reason the quiet feels like relief, and not just rest.

it's also where i think, where i can actually hear myself. and it's where i feel in control of my own life. alone, the day is mine to shape: what i do and when and with whom, or with no one at all. every hour belongs to me. i got better at wanting this after college, when the days became more mine and there was less pressure to always be somewhere, with someone. i've learned i can be on my own without being lonely, that the two were never the same thing, and that i understand what i want far more clearly when the only voice in the room is mine. it keeps me honest. it keeps me grounded.

i'm writing this from the window now. it's been raining since i woke up, steady and unhurried, beading on the glass and turning the street below into smears of brake-light and umbrella. there's classical music on, low, the strings moving through the room. the cats have gone heavy and boneless in my lap, purring from somewhere far down. the new apartment holds its quiet carefully, like it hasn't decided yet whether to trust me with it. and somewhere in the middle of all of it my whole body has come loose, the way it only does when there's nothing left to brace against. i don't want to be anywhere else. i can't remember the last time that was true.

the door upstairs

5/19/2026

my lease is up at the end of may, and our cats need somewhere to stay for six weeks. my new roommates are allergic; so are my old roommates'. a friend is willing to take them in mid-july, but not before. someone has to take the cats until then.

one of my roommates mentioned bruce. bruce lives in the apartment above ours, has three cats of his own, and apparently said once, in passing, that he'd happily watch ours anytime. i had never actually spoken to him. he had knocked on our door once, months ago, because we'd dumped cat litter straight into the building's communal trash bin and the smell had migrated, and he hadn't been polite about it. if anything, he had been mean, in the way that older men in old buildings can be when they've decided you're a tenant who hasn't learned how things are done.

i had also, on rare occasion passing by his door, started noticing it. it wasn't a uniform blue, more like a blue that had been painted and repainted and let to peel in some places, with patterns carved into the wood and small metal embellishments hammered in along the edges. it looked like a door someone had been working on for a long time.

last night i knocked, and he opened, and behind him was an apartment unlike anything i had walked into.

i am extremely tidy, and stingy enough that the tidiness is partly accidental — there isn't much to put away. our apartment has a small couch and a dinner table. nothing on the walls, no decor of any kind. i had thought of myself, in a quiet way, as having taste. minimalism was the floor; more elaborate things, i assumed, got built on top of it.

bruce's apartment was not built on top of it. bruce's apartment was a different building entirely.

the first thing i registered was that there was nowhere to look that wasn't doing something. wooden planks ran above my head like a small subway map, one rail leading into another, all of them sized for cats. the walls were a faded painted green that was peeling in places to reveal another color underneath, and another color under that. dressers had been fitted into wall cavities, or maybe the walls had been built around the dressers; it was hard to tell which had come first. pots hung from the ceiling on chains, some with plants, some with what looked like small bells. books lined every wall that wasn't already lined with something else. a paint set was laid out on a low table as if interrupted. a dusty old macintosh, the original kind, sat on a shelf next to a stack of records. cat toys were everywhere — not in a basket, not contained, just everywhere, like leaves on a forest floor. nothing was minimalist, nothing was put away, and somehow none of it looked like clutter. it looked, instead, like someone had been adding to this apartment for a very long time, and had never seen any reason to subtract.

three cats lived there. one was seventeen years old, a tiny thing with patchy fur and eyes that didn't focus on me when i crouched to greet her, and she made clear without moving that she did not want to be petted. the other two were a pair of orange brothers, peeking down from the highest platform of a many-tiered cat tree, who melted backwards into the wood like the dark was a place they could enter whenever i shifted my weight.

an older woman was sitting in a chair toward the back, half-hidden behind a hanging plant. bruce introduced her, though i didn't entirely catch what their relationship was. she had moved in forty-five years ago, he told me, the first tenant in the apartment; the place was rent-stabilized. "you can do whatever you want," bruce said, "if no one ever comes to check on you." she smiled at me politely and went back to whatever she was reading.

we talked, and i made the ask. bruce was kind about it but hedged — five cats, an older cat against kittens, brothers against brothers, none of which i had thought through before showing up at his door. he wasn't really mean, i could see now. just quirky in his mannerisms, particular in his word choice — someone who could come across hard in a hallway and softer once you were inside. he said they'd think about it, and i nodded and thanked him, and somewhere behind us a cat knocked something over and neither of them turned to look.

before i left he showed me the roof patio. a small door at the back of the apartment opened onto it, and there were plants in pots and pots and pots — some thriving, some skeletal, some being convalesced from one state into another. there was a skylight set into the floor that looked down into the apartment beneath, where, he mentioned, a young jewish family now lived but where, decades earlier, a sweatshop had operated. i looked through and could see a child's toy on a rug.

walking back up to our apartment i thought i would not be able to leave my cats there. i had liked the place, and i had not liked the place. there was a film of dust on most surfaces. i had counted, on the way in, three dead cockroaches on the staircase, and i thought of the cockroach remains my cats sometimes leave for me on our floor, small reminders that whatever i pretend about being clean, the building has its own ideas. ming is feisty, and ming would start something. and even if he didn't, i wasn't sure my kittens would come back out of those forty-five years of accumulated everything in the same condition they went in.

but the practical worry wasn't what stayed with me. what stayed with me was that on the same floor where i sleep, in a building i thought i understood the shape of, a man had built a small contained world out of planks and peeling paint and pots, and a woman had been quietly living in it for nearly half a century, and three cats were treating the whole thing like terrain. i had been living a few feet from all of this for months without thinking about it. i had assumed, without ever putting it to myself in words, that the other apartments in this building were variations on mine — slightly bigger, slightly smaller, slightly differently lit. they were not. one of them looked like an antique bookstore with three cats living inside it. the apartment beneath it had been a place where people sewed clothes for money before becoming a place where a family raised children. two floors up, a russian woman is doing god knows what — though we found out once, when she flooded her apartment and water came dripping through our ceiling.

there are paintings, the kind where someone has rendered a cross-section of an apartment building, and in every window something different is happening: someone is arguing, someone is dancing, someone is sleeping with their mouth open, someone is making a cake. as a kid i thought those paintings were a joke about how strange people are; i think now they're closer to documentary.

i went in to ask about cats and came out wanting to knock on more doors. the small space of my own apartment, scrubbed and bare and pleasing to me, is one window in a wall of windows, and whoever painted the building did not stop at mine.

quietude

5/11/2026

it's the highway at midnight, both of you in the car, no one reaching for the radio. the dashboard glows green. the road sound is a long held note. you pass a sign for a town neither of you has ever heard of and neither of you says anything about it. you look over once, see the side of their face lit blue by a passing truck, and look back. the quiet has weight. no one is looking for the next thing to say. no one has to. you arrive two hours later having said maybe thirty words between you, and you are not embarrassed about it.

or it's a saturday morning. you both got up earlier than you needed to. coffee is in two mugs. the radiator clicks. one of you is at the window, one of you on the couch, and good morning hasn't happened yet — not because it would be wrong, but because it isn't required. the light comes in slow and gray. a neighbor's dog barks once, far away. you stay like that until the coffee is cold.

or it's the walk home — after a funeral, a wedding, or an argument with someone else's family. two in the morning. the streets wet, your shoes loud. no one says "well, that was something." no one tries to talk it through. you walk. your friend lights a cigarette they shouldn't have. a cab passes with its light on and neither of you waves it down. you carry it together for forty blocks without either of you having to put it into words, and somewhere around block thirty it gets lighter.

• • •

people often think silence is the absence of something. it's the opposite. silence is what's left when nothing in you needs translating — when the other person already knows what you're carrying. most company is constant labor: the face to wear, the version of the day to share, the part of yourself you let into the room. with this person, all of it falls away. you are simply there. so are they. nothing else is required. when the moment ends, it lingers in you the way a dream does after waking — still there for a while, then quietly gone.

trauma builds character

5/7/2026

i say "trauma builds character" all the time. semi-ironically, mostly — at the gym after a hard set, when a friend is venting about something that went sideways at work, in my own head when i'm trying to convince myself that some inconvenience is going to mean something later. the phrase is a tic at this point. and like most tics, it's pointing at something i haven't fully looked at.

most of the things i call trauma aren't. the college decisions that didn't go my way. winding up in minnesota when i'd had bigger plans. a friend group whose ambitions felt smaller than mine — or that i'd convinced myself were smaller, which is its own kind of close-mindedness i wasn't ready to see at the time. these were disappointments. at 17 i called them trauma because at 17 every disappointment feels like the floor giving out, and i don't think i was wrong to feel that way. i was wrong about the size of it — about how much room a feeling is supposed to take up in a life.

one of them actually was. the second relationship was the real thing — the one that messed with me in ways i'm still picking apart, hiding in the same sentence as everything else.

and the part of me that built a life in response to all of it didn't bother distinguishing.

• • •

i played league of legends until four in the morning. swim practice was at 5:30. i skipped it more weeks than not. we had a saying among my friends: we could never end on a loss. so the next ranked game became three more games, then four, most of them lost because by 2am i was tilting and tired. some nights we were trapped, descending into madness, loss after loss after loss. homework slid off the desk. i'd start it at midnight and pretend that was a strategy. the fact that i was watching myself do this and couldn't stop felt, at the time, like the kind of suffering that meant something.

my first girlfriend, my second girlfriend — i don't remember the specifics of what i wanted from them so much as i remember the feeling of needing to text them. between classes, on the bus, while my mom was talking to me. needing to be hanging out, or to be planning the next time we'd be hanging out, or to be in their head. they were not the most extraordinary people i'd later meet. but at 16 and 17 they were the most-extraordinary-thing-in-front-of-me, which was enough.

i kept a journal for one year that grew past 400 pages. it stopped being a journal somewhere around page 150 and became a closed loop — me writing about thinking about feeling, each entry more granular and less honest than the one before. i had to force myself to stop. closing it felt like a small loss, even though closing it was the only sane thing i did that year. the death spiral was highkey depressing — that's a phrase i used at the time, in the journal, about the journal.

none of this was trauma. it was being 17. but at 17, the difference between "trauma" and "the most i've ever felt" wasn't available to me. those were the same word, said with the same weight.

• • •

freshman year of college, i was at the university of minnesota. i had not wanted to be at the university of minnesota. the schools i'd wanted didn't want me back, and so the next-best option became the option. the U was where i'd competed in high school — i'd swum at the jean k freeman aquatic center for years and never once imagined going to school there. when i became a student, i remember piecing the campus together for the first time, with those weekend-meet buildings becoming the route to my classes.

i'd visit friends at usc, at northeastern, and they were sitting at lunch with someone from italy, someone from san francisco, someone from dubai. i'd come back to my dorm and the people in it were nice. it's important to say they were nice. they were also from minnesota, and from the same neighborhoods in minnesota, going home to those neighborhoods on the weekends, content with that pattern in a way that felt, to me at the time, like a refusal to want more. my current roommate and i later coined a phrase for it: the minnesota mindset. midwest safe. it's not actually a fair phrase. the people we used it about were just choosing different things. but at 17 i was unwilling to grant that. i thought i could see something they couldn't.

i'd done well in school the way you're supposed to. 4.0 gpa. class rank three. 35 on the act. piano and violin since i was small enough to need a stool — the typical asian kid starter pack. extracurriculars listed two columns deep on the resume. i'd been good at the path because the path was the only thing i was given to be good at. and now the path had ended at a school i'd only ever known from the swim deck, and for the first time i had to ask why i'd been on it, and i didn't have an answer beyond because. my parents had wanted it. their parents had wanted it for them. i'd inherited the wanting without inheriting the reasons.

my second relationship was happening at me through all of this. it took things from me that i'm still finding again — capacity for trust, willingness to feel without flinching, ability to be in a room without scanning for threat. i'm not going to write the specifics. they belong somewhere else, or maybe nowhere. but the part that matters for this piece is that it was the only thing on the list that was the size of the word i was using.

the rest of it — minnesota, the campus, the path, the people i was unfair to — was disappointment. real, but the size of disappointment. except at 17 i couldn't tell. one of the things in my life genuinely was trauma, and so all of the things in my life felt like trauma by association. the air in the room had changed; i couldn't isolate what had changed it.

so i made a decision i had no business making: that i would, for the first time, focus on myself. on something. on anything. what something would mean i'd have to figure out by trying.

• • •

what i tried, first, was working out.

i picked it because it was the most legible thing on the list. mental health was hard to measure. friendships were hard to measure. being a person on purpose was hard to measure. but a barbell goes up by five pounds or it doesn't, and either way the data is honest with you.

i wrote a program. i had never written a program before. i put it in a google sheet with columns for movement, sets, reps, weight, RPE, total time, and entry fatigue rated 1-10. each lift had its own tab. each tab had a chart that updated as i logged. i programmed the exact movements i would do six days a week — push, pull, legs, push, pull, legs, rest — and the weights i'd hit on each. i hit them. when i missed them, i logged that too.

i started cooking. i'd never cooked before either. i went hard on the gym-bro template — ground beef, white rice, broccoli, tupperwared into seven containers on sundays. i'd tweak the macros each week. i'd weigh the rice raw. i kept this up for months and it worked. i put on muscle quickly. i'd been the skinny-abs guy my whole life. abs visible because nothing covered them, not because i'd earned them. now i was something else. i had energy at 6am that i'd never had at any time of any day.

i made my bed every morning. i set up google calendar. every meeting, every workout, every skincare routine, color-coded. i looked at it more than i looked at anything else, including my phone, including my own thoughts. i locked in for recruiting. i put together a spreadsheet of every firm, every contact, every deadline.

it worked. that's the part that has to be said first. i became the kind of person who could be relied on, including by myself. i was progressing — a word i'd never had reason to use about my own life before.

• • •

and then.

the same machinery that built the discipline started running on its own. i wasn't logging the lift to track the lift. i was logging the lift because i had to log the lift. the satisfaction had moved from the workout to the entry. if i forgot to log, i'd come back to the spreadsheet at 10pm with a low-grade panic, trying to remember what RPE i'd hit at 6am and writing it in anyway, even knowing i was just making it up.

a missed meal prep sunday felt enormous. a meeting that ran over and bumped my calendar felt enormous. an unmade bed felt enormous. these were not enormous. but the same temperament that had once kept me up until 4am playing league had found a new game, and the new game was discipline itself. the system had become the thing i was addicted to.

i didn't want to stop. what i'd built was real — it had given me a self i hadn't had before, and i could feel that self being real. but the structure i'd built was eating me. the thing keeping me alive was the thing exhausting me, and i didn't know how to keep one without the other.

• • •

the turn took longer than i'd like to admit. it wasn't a single moment. it was a slow re-asking of the question i'd never asked before about anything: why am i doing this? not in the existential sense; i'd done plenty of that. in the practical sense, the boring sense. why am i logging this entry? to track progress, or to feel like i tracked it? if i didn't log it, would the lift have happened? would the day have happened?

i still keep most of the habits. i still meal prep — same meal since last august, baked chicken, rice or quinoa, frozen vegetables. simpler than the gym-bro template, chosen for the version i could cook without thinking rather than the one that maxed macros. i still use google calendar. i still lift on a program. but the spreadsheet is less detailed than it used to be. some weeks i skip meal prep because i let myself live: plans to eat out, time to see my friends. the systems are still there; they just don't run me anymore.

some of this was probably just my brain getting older. less teenage angst. less raw need to log my own existence to confirm it. it's a humbling thing, to be 22 and realize that some of what you'd taken for hard-won self-knowledge was actually just being out of high school.

which brings me back to the phrase. trauma builds character. most of what i called trauma wasn't — i'd been over-feeling the size of disappointments, calling everything by its biggest available name. but one of the things in my life had actually been trauma. and the response i built to it didn't know the difference. the same machinery worked indiscriminately on the real wound and the inflated ones, and what it built was, unmistakably, character.

why i started this blog

5/2/2026

i braced for a year that would swallow me whole. i had signed up for the kind of job that takes your evenings as quiet collateral, and i made peace with the trade before it even started. so when march tipped into april, then april into may, i didn't know what to do with the surplus. the work stayed manageable. the weekends stayed mine. the nights kept opening up. you can prepare for a thing being hard. you can't quite prepare for it being easier than you expected.

i thought i'd care more about the job, too. i'm fine at it. i like the people (enough). but it doesn't pull at the part of me that used to want it most. that part is awake now, looking around for somewhere else to go.

a few weeks ago i was at lincoln center, alone, after what consulting calls a beach day — a day with no work to do. there's a small grass terrace on the roof of a nearby restaurant and i found myself sitting on it with my legs stretched out, watching the plaza below soften into its slower self. people met friends and tilted their faces toward each other. someone laughed too loud at something a date said. the fountain caught the last of the light and held it there, glittering, for longer than seemed fair.

what i kept noticing, sitting up there, was how easy it would be to miss all of this.

i sat up there thinking how good it would be, eventually, to write something here. to put words down somewhere quiet while the city kept moving without me. the last time i'd written anything for the pure fun of it was sixth grade, a fantasy story about a life inside minecraft, written with my friends, taken very seriously by all of us. somewhere between then and now i had stopped reaching for words to make sense of my own life and started using them only to perform a job. that was the first time this, whatever this is, felt like a real idea instead of a passing one.

nyc was supposed to solve the social part. people warned me it wouldn't and i didn't believe them. but you really can be in the densest place in the country and still spend most evenings alone with your own head. that isn't a complaint exactly. it's just the weather i've been writing from.

i've been more reflective than usual lately. some of it is the unexpected time. some of it is a girl i met recently — limerence, as a friend put it: the involuntary state of being mentally fixated on someone, turning the volume up on every other thought you were already having. either way, the noise in my head got loud enough that it needed somewhere to land.

i watch college friends disappear into investment banking, into routines that sometimes ask a hundred hours a week of them, and i don't think they're wrong. they've made trades i can see the logic in but can't make myself want. i pity the version of myself that would look up at thirty, blink, and find that he had paid for the last decade in installments he barely noticed making — a quiet life of weekends he doesn't remember, friendships he let thin, a body that started to ache in places he hadn't earned yet.

i've always been growth-oriented, which is a slightly embarrassing way to put it. i have a tattoo of a flower for it, which is a more embarrassing way still. but the truth underneath the embarrassment is that i want to be a more thoughtful person at thirty than i am at twenty-two, and i don't think that happens by accident. it happens by paying attention. and writing, for me, is one of the few reliable ways to make myself pay attention.

so. this. a place to notice things. somewhere to put the noise.

looking back, deliberately

what i've been thinking about around me

up close

5/26/2026

there's a walk my friend and i have done a dozen times — same loop, same turns, the kind of route your feet handle while your mouths do the rest. somewhere in the middle of the last one, she caught her reflection in a shop window for the third time and asked, again, whether i thought the guy from last weekend was actually into her. and i felt something i didn't like. it wasn't aimed at the question. it was aimed at her. a small, ungenerous flicker: again?

i've known her for years. i like her. that's the part that bothers me.

there's a specific kind of friend this happens with. not the people you can't stand on sight — those are easy, you just keep your distance. it's the ones you chose. the ones you got close to on purpose, whose company you went looking for, and who then, past a certain nearness, start to grate. usually it's people whose values or way of living don't line up with yours. the closer you get, the louder the mismatch gets, until the affection and the irritation show up in the same breath.

closeness breeds contempt. the old line is true. it's just true for a different reason than people think.

the cheap kind and the expensive kind

most of the contempt i've carried has cost me nothing. freshman year of college i decided that people who slept around were sick, a little twisted, beneath me. i had a whole theory. i was going to find the right person early and marry her, and the people moving from stranger to stranger were, i figured, missing something i had. it was easy to believe, because not one of them was someone i loved. they were a type, and you can hold a type in contempt forever without ever feeling the weight of it. there's no one in the room when you do.

that's the cheap kind. it's abstract, it's free, and mostly it's a way of telling yourself what you are by naming what you're not.

closeness is what makes the same judgment expensive. a type you can write off and walk away from. a friend you can't. she isn't "people who need validation." she's the one who stayed up the whole night i was coming apart over a girl, who calls to check in when she's back home, who's always making the plans and pulling me into things i'd never have gone to alone, and who also can't pass a window without checking she's still worth looking at. the contempt doesn't get to stay abstract. it has to land on someone real, someone i actually love, and that's where it costs something — partly because it's uglier up close, partly because there's no distance left to spend it from.

so the proverb has the symptom right and the cause backwards. it isn't that knowing someone finally exposes how unlikeable they were the whole time. it's that closeness takes a judgment you'd been holding for free and hands you the bill.

when the contempt is telling the truth

i want to be fair to the contempt, because sometimes it's correct.

distance flatters people. a friend you see twice a year gets to be a highlight reel: the charm, the good stories, the easy version of themselves. spend real time with them and you find out whether there's anything under it, and sometimes there isn't. sometimes what closeness turns up is genuine — a meanness toward waiters, a casual dishonesty, a way of treating people you simply couldn't see from across a room. there, the dislike isn't a distortion. it's information you finally had the range to receive. and the distance you're mourning was a mercy you didn't know you were being given.

some friendships should end, and proximity is what tells you. i don't want to pretend otherwise. a version where it's always secretly me would be just as rigged as one where it's always them — self-blame flatters you too, it just does it more quietly. sometimes the person up close really is worse than the person across the room, and the right thing to do is step back.

but that's one version of what's happening, and you don't get to assume it's the version you're in. so maybe the honest move isn't to settle, once and for all, whether the problem is them or me. it's to treat each friendship as its own question — and to sit longest with the answer i'd least like to find, which is that this time, it's me.

what the contempt knows about you

here's the part i'd rather not write.

i judge people who chase validation. the ones who fish for it, who can't get through an hour without checking how they're landing, who need the room to keep telling them they're wanted. i find it a little pathetic. and for a long time i treated that as discernment.

then i looked at who was doing the judging. i've wanted that reassurance as badly as anyone. there were years i needed it and hated that i needed it, and a good part of growing up, for me, was learning to stop letting it show. so when i watch someone need it out loud, the contempt isn't coming from above them. it's coming from recognition. they're doing in the open the thing i taught myself to do in private, and the sight of it presses on the distance i've built between who i am now and who i used to be. the contempt isn't a verdict on them. it's me guarding that distance.

that's the quieter version. the cruder one is older, and i've watched it run its whole course. the contempt i had for those freshman-year strangers didn't dissolve because they changed. it dissolved because i did. i had a few relationships, and they ended, and the clean early life i'd been measuring everyone against never showed up. i fell off the pedestal i'd been sneering from, and the sneer came down with me. i didn't reason my way into compassion. i got humbled into it.

that's the pattern i don't love. a lot of my contempt, followed back far enough, stops being about the person i aimed it at. it's a need i'm ashamed of, or a height i never earned, or some small thing i'm protecting in myself. not all of it — some i've reasoned my way to, grown into, and that kind has held up. but enough of it falls apart under questioning that i've stopped taking the witness at its word.

i'd like to say i catch this every time now. i don't. there are people i've quietly cut loose this past year and told myself it was good judgment, and i can't honestly swear it was. that's the trouble. discernment and cowardice read exactly the same from the inside.

what the flicker is for

so what do you do with a friend whose difference grinds on you up close?

the obvious move is to manage the distance: see her less, keep her at the range where you still like her. it works. it's also a quiet little surrender, because what it protects is the version of the friendship that never asks anything of you.

here's what i think is truer, and it took me a while to get to. the contempt is a terrible witness about her and a reliable one about me. it can't tell me what she's worth. but it can tell me, almost every time, where i'm standing: what i'm insecure about, what i'm ashamed of having wanted, what i think i've climbed past and haven't. the flicker on the walk wasn't a fact about her wanting to be wanted. it was a fact about how badly i've wanted the same thing, and how much it costs me to keep that from showing.

so the friend who grates isn't a problem to manage down to an easy distance. she's a mirror — not of herself, of me. she's close enough, and dear enough, that being around her keeps catching me in the act of being who i actually am instead of who i'd describe myself as. the contempt is the catch. it's the second the flattering self-portrait slips and the real reaction shows through. she shows me the parts i'd never choose to photograph.

i don't think the answer is to trust the contempt, and i don't think it's to swallow it. it's to read it. when the flicker comes — at dinner, on the walk, mid-sentence — to take it as a message addressed to me, and open it. i haven't gotten good at this. it's less a skill than a suspicion i try to keep aimed the right way: back at myself, where the contempt, for once, turns out to be telling the truth.

feeling feely feelings

5/12/2026

i'd been seeing this girl for a few weeks — evenings at her apartment, the back-and-forth of getting to know someone. i'd ask the kind of questions you ask in that stretch. "what are your red flags?" "how would you describe yourself?" "how do you feel about us?" she'd say "i don't know" and get shy.

one afternoon in a park, we spent an hour talking about where things were going. she went quiet, said almost nothing. we kept texting for the next two weeks — surface things, never that conversation. when we saw each other again, she came back to it. "oh, i didn't actually register anything until three days later."

her answers were always days behind. i was getting to know her in real time. she was getting to know herself on tape.

suppression isn't the only failure

the girl in the park wasn't unusual. people are bad at feelings in lots of ways, and the most-talked-about way is suppression. the script from therapy-speak and instagram caption philosophy says you push feelings down, you don't honor them, you've been taught not to cry. feel your feelings, the line goes. feel them all.

suppression is real. it's just not the only failure mode, and the two we talk about less are real too. one is illiteracy: the feelings are present, but the vocabulary isn't. that's what she was doing. the other is wallowing: the feelings are present, and you mistake sitting in them for processing. you sit with them, rearrange them, call it work. you're not getting anywhere — you're just keeping the feeling warm.

there's a third case worth naming, because it's structurally different and i'll come back to it: some people have been trained out of the apparatus altogether. the feelings don't get made.

none of these are fixed by feeling more. the skill is two things — naming what you feel, and not letting it drive what you do.

the inability to articulate

this isn't a dating problem. illiteracy shows up in friendships, in families, at dinner with people who've known you for years. someone hurts you and you can't say why. someone disappoints you and you can't tell them what you needed. someone asks a real question and you say "i don't know," and you mean it. the feeling is still on its way.

the cost shows up later. weeks later, like at the park. or it doesn't show up at all.

one of my best friends since elementary school ghosted me senior year of college. over ten years, then no answer. no fight, no last conversation, no email. i had my faults — i'll never know which ones. the reason was somewhere in him. the way to say it wasn't.

wallowing feels like processing

i can describe illiteracy because i've watched it. wallowing i can describe because i've done it.

post-college i wanted friends. what i did about it was spend evenings in my room thinking about it. how to make plans. how good my life would be if i did the things people do to meet people. mostly, feeling sorry for myself. i did not go outside.

what i was doing felt like processing. turning the loneliness over, looking at it from different angles, picturing the version of my life where i'd fixed it. at the end of an evening i'd be in the same place i started. except more tired. i mistook the time spent for time progressed.

what eventually got me out was a friend who put it cleanly: when you talk about things, when you vent and rant, it feels productive — but nothing's actually changing. the line landed because it named the trick. wallowing borrows the vocabulary of working through. "i need to sit with this." "i'm processing." "i just want to understand what i'm feeling." these are real things sometimes. they're also what wallowing tells you when you ask it what it's doing.

the antidote is movement. not big — sometimes any movement at all. go outside. text a friend. show up to an event. wrong movement is still better than no movement, because no movement is what you were already doing.

trained out of feeling

the third case is my dad.

he's a chinese immigrant. he does not feel. or he does, and what he feels gets routed through a different system entirely. my mom will be mad about something and he'll be laughing, because to him the disagreement looks silly. it isn't that he's mocking her. it's that whatever weight her anger has in the room, he isn't registering.

he lives in "should" and "shouldn't." when emotional conversation goes on too long in our house, he says "不要一直扯, 去做事情" (bù yào yī zhí chě, qù zuò shì qíng), which translates to "don't drag on, go do things." 扯 here means chattering, dragging-on. emotional conversation is 扯. real life is 事情 — the doing of things. emotions get filed under irrational, which is a category in his head close to "wrong." when something is wrong, you fix it. you don't have it.

i love him. i also can't reach him on certain things, because the thing in him that would receive the reaching isn't there. or it's there, just routed away.

this is the third failure mode, and the most important one to name because it points at something the first two don't: the apparatus is built. it isn't a personality trait. somewhere in his life — a culture, a father, a country, a survival posture — he learned to route around feeling. the cost is real. so is the implication: if it can be trained out, it can be trained back in.

what doing it well looks like

so what does this look like working? not perfectly. just better than the other three options.

there's a girl i met recently through friends. i don't know her well. a few hangouts so far. but i was attracted right away, in the way that doesn't really make sense yet. it's rare for me to feel pulled toward someone like that, and when i do, i fall hard.

what i've been doing is naming what's actually happening. i'm not in love with her. i don't know her enough to be. what i have is curiosity, and the idea of her, and the part of being attracted that has nothing to do with the actual person yet. that's infatuation, and naming it as infatuation doesn't make it stop. it just keeps me from confusing it with something it isn't.

two days ago i found out she's seeing someone else. the natural reaction is sad, angry, whatever you want to call it. i'm not going to push that down. i'm also not going to text her something performative or vent at a friend for two hours about how unfair it is. the feeling is real, and the way i act on it is mine.

i'm still sad. that doesn't mean i'm doing it wrong.

the actual skill

the question isn't "do you feel enough." it's something more like: can you name what you're feeling, in time for it to matter? when the feeling arrives, who decides what you do — you or it?

these questions assume the feelings show up. if they don't, the work is different — slower, structural, about rebuilding what was trained away. but if they do:

the skill is small and unsexy. it isn't relief. it isn't healing. it's the difference between being moved by a feeling and being driven by one. you don't pick the feeling. you pick what you do with it.

what you didn't choose

5/6/2026

it's a thursday night at a bouldering gym on the lower east side and a girl falls wrong. i don't see the fall itself — i hear it. there's a sound a body makes hitting a mat from height that isn't like any other sound, a flat heavy thud with no give in it, and the room goes quiet for a half-second before it goes loud. when i turn around she's on the ground and not moving the way a person who's about to get up moves. there are maybe eight people standing in a loose ring around her. nobody is doing anything.

i push through them. i'm not proud of pushing — it's not heroic, it's just the only way to get to her. i ask if she can move, if she's okay. she whimpers i don't know, eyes wet, and you can see in her face that she isn't. the people around us can see it too. nobody moves. i go to the front desk myself and get staff, and within a minute there are two employees and a first aid kit and the situation has someone in charge of it who isn't me. i step back. she's going to be okay. i go back to my problem on the wall and my hands are shaking a little and i can't tell if it's adrenaline or something else.

here's the thing i keep coming back to. the eight people standing around her weren't bad people. i know this because i've been one of them. i've been the person in the loose ring, the one whose brain went someone else will handle it before the thought even finished forming. on a different night, in a different room, that was me. it wasn't that those eight people lacked some quality of goodness that i happened to have. something else was going on.

knowing the right thing to do isn't the same as doing it

i thought about it for days afterward. not the fall — she was fine, i found out later, just bruised badly and shaken — but the eight people. and the thing that bothered me most, when i actually sat with it, was that they knew. of course they knew. anyone in that room could see what i could see. nobody needed to be taught that you help a stranger who's hurt. they just didn't move.

that's what wouldn't let me go. not that they were ignorant. not that they were callous. they weren't. they were ordinary people who knew the right thing to do and didn't do it, and that gap — between knowing and doing — felt larger and more important the longer i looked at it.

the easy story to tell myself was the flattering one: i'm a more conscientious person, they were having an off night, the world is roughly sorted into the people who help and the people who watch. i tried that story on and it didn't fit. i've watched, plenty. not in cases that severe — i've never walked past someone visibly hurt the way she was. but in college i walked past more than one person slumped on a sidewalk or throwing up against a wall after too much to drink, and didn't stop. probably they were fine. probably they got home. but i wasn't checking. i was just walking — tired, late, focused on getting back. and the thing is, i wasn't deciding not to stop. i wasn't deciding anything. i knew what i should have done. i didn't do it.

so the flattering story was wrong. those eight people weren't a different kind of person than me. they knew, and i knew, and we all failed in the same direction at different volumes. and the question that started bothering me was whether being a good person — the thing this is supposed to be about — has very much to do with knowing what's right at all. almost everyone knows. don't lie. don't steal. help when you can. mind your business. respect your elders. you absorbed those rules before you could question them, and so did i, and so did the eight people at the gym. if knowing the rules is what makes a person good, the world should be full of good people. it isn't. so something about the picture has to be wrong.

maybe being a good person isn't about which rules you have. maybe it's about which rules you've actually thought about, which ones you act on when the situation calls for it, and what you do when no rule fits the situation in front of you.

rules can fail in the other direction too: kant at the door

in my honors seminar on the ethics of lying, we spent a class on a thought experiment immanuel kant published in 1797.1 suppose a friend runs into your house, terrified, and tells you a man is trying to kill him. he hides in your back room. a moment later the would-be murderer arrives at your door and asks where your friend went. kant's answer, which he defended in print and which is the position the essay actually argues for, is that you must not lie. lying is wrong, full stop. if telling the truth gets your friend killed, that's a moral tragedy, but it isn't on you — you weren't the one who decided to murder him. what's on you is the lie.

the seminar didn't agree with kant. nobody in any seminar agrees with kant on this. the case is so famous in part because it's the moment a serious moral system breaks against an obvious answer — of course you lie to the murderer. of course you do.

"he's fucking stupid," someone in the room said. it got a laugh. and it's not exactly wrong — kant's answer here is monstrous — but what i took away from that class wasn't that kant was stupid. he obviously wasn't. what i took away was that the most disciplined rule-follower in the history of moral philosophy could end up defending something monstrous because he refused to stop and ask whether his rule was the right tool for what was in front of him. if that could happen to kant, it can happen to anyone. it probably happens to all of us, in smaller ways, all the time.

this is the deeper version of what happened at the gym. at the gym, eight people had the right rule (help) and didn't apply it. at kant's door, one person has the right rule (don't lie) and applies it where it shouldn't be applied. the failures look opposite — under-application versus over-application — but they have the same shape underneath. in both cases, the person isn't actually thinking about what's in front of them. at the gym, no thinking happened at all. at kant's door, the thinking stopped at what does the rule say, when it should have continued to is this the kind of situation the rule was for, and what does the situation actually require.

rules can't do that second kind of thinking for you. rules are summaries — useful, hard-won summaries of what tends to be true — but they aren't the underlying truth. don't lie is a summary of the fact that lying usually corrodes trust, hurts people, and makes the world worse. it's a good summary. it works almost all of the time. but the summary isn't the reason — the reason is what lying does, and when lying would do the opposite (would protect someone, would prevent a murder), the summary fails and the underlying thing — what does this action actually do to the people involved — is what you have to reach for. the rule doesn't reach for it. you have to.

most of the time we don't have to. most of the time the rule and the underlying truth point in the same direction and you can follow the rule and be fine. that's why we have rules. but the question of whether someone is a good person isn't really decided in those moments. it's decided in the moments where the rule and the underlying truth come apart, and you have to notice they've come apart, and you have to choose what to do.

but some things really are wrong

i want to be careful here, because this is the move where everything could come apart. the obvious next thought, after kant and the gym and the rest of it, is that morality is just relative. you have your truth, i have mine, the seminar had its, kant had his. i don't believe that. i hope you don't either.

some things are really wrong. raping someone is wrong. beating someone for fun is wrong. seeing a person bleeding on the sidewalk and stepping around them is wrong. these aren't wrong because a rule says so — there is no rule we could write that would make them wrong if they weren't already. they're wrong because of what they do to the person on the receiving end. the wrongness is in the harm itself, in what was done to a real person who could suffer and did.

the test is simple. imagine someone defending one of those acts on the grounds that their culture, their upbringing, or their personal moral framework permits it. you wouldn't, if you were honest, accept the defense. you'd say no — what you did to that person was wrong, and it was wrong even if every person you grew up with told you it was fine. the moral fact is in the act and the person it was done to, not in the framework that approved it. that's the part of morality that doesn't bend.

what bends is almost everything else. most of the rules we live by — don't lie, don't steal, respect your elders — are summaries that hold most of the time and break sometimes, and figuring out when they break is the work of being a person. but underneath the rules that bend, there's a small floor of acts that are wrong because of what they are. noticing that floor exists is the difference between contextual moral thinking and just throwing your hands up.

most of what we believe was given to us, not chosen

i grew up in a house where you didn't talk back to your parents. it wasn't a stated rule — nobody sat me down and said do not disagree with us — but it was in the air of the house the way a temperature is in the air of a house, and i absorbed it before i was old enough to know i was absorbing anything. for most of my childhood, if my parents said something, that was the truth. arguments with them weren't really arguments. they were corrections.

that started to break down in late high school, then more in college, and the place it broke down hardest was a debate that's still unresolved: whether i should have kids. my parents are clear about it. they want grandchildren. the framing they reach for, when pushed, is something like it's your duty as a human to reproduce — which i recognize now as a phrase doing a lot of work for filial piety and chinese family structure without naming either of those things. when i was younger, i mostly disagreed because parts of my own childhood had been hard, and i didn't want to put a kid through what i'd been put through. lately i'm less sure that reaction was clean. some of what was hard wasn't intrinsic to childhood. it was the kind of openness and emotional support that immigrant households often don't have a lot of room for, and a kid raised differently might not feel any of it. so my reason for not wanting kids was partly inherited too — a reaction to the texture of my own upbringing, formed before i'd examined what i was reacting to.

i'm still not sure what i think about kids. but i know this: my parents' position is inherited, and so is the first version of mine, and probably the second version too. pretending any of us arrived at our views from clean reasoning would be flattering and false. the position i hold now has been built out of pieces of my upbringing, my reactions to my upbringing, the years i've spent around people whose families looked nothing like mine, and a small amount of actual examination. the actual-examination part is the smallest piece. that's true for them too. it's true for almost everyone i've met.

a clearer version of the same thing happens in my apartment now. i live with two roommates who are orthodox christian ethiopian american and one who is muslim sudanese american. i'm chinese american and atheist. one of the things we disagree on is whether men and women can be close friends. they don't think so — not in a hostile way, but as a settled fact, downstream of religious teaching and the patterns they've watched among people who tried to make those friendships work. i think the opposite, just as settled, downstream of growing up secular and having close women friends my whole life. when this comes up, all four of us have reasons. i can list mine; they can list theirs. that's not the part that's interesting. the interesting part is what happens when one of them, more than once, has told me that my view comes from "disney channel." they mean i absorbed it from mainstream secular american media, which constructed for me a picture of friendship between men and women that i then went out and confirmed in the world by surrounding myself with the kind of people who would confirm it. and the thing is — they're not wrong. something gave me the view i hold. it wasn't pure reason. it was "disney channel" and the rest of secular american culture and a thousand other inputs i can't account for, and only a small slice of actual examination at the end.

i'm not saying we're all equally right. that's the soft-subjectivism move, and it doesn't survive contact with the cases where real harm is at stake. i'm saying something narrower. on this question, in that apartment, four people are holding four versions of an inherited position. each of us can produce reasons. but the reasons are mostly downstream of what shaped us, not of careful examination of the shaping itself. examining would be different, and harder, and almost none of us has done it.

this is what most of moral life looks like. most of us aren't doing moral examination. we're carrying the rules we were given and treating the carrying as if it were thought.

the two easiest responses are both ways of not thinking

once you notice that most of your moral life is inherited rather than examined, two responses immediately suggest themselves, and both of them are wrong.

the first response is to double down. if rules and traditions are the source of moral life, then the answer is to pick the right rules, the right tradition, and follow them harder. find the framework — religious, philosophical, political — that you trust most, and apply it consistently. this is the response of the person who hears that rules can fail and concludes that the failure was insufficient discipline. the answer is more discipline, more orthodoxy, more rigor. the rule says don't lie, so you don't lie, even if a murderer is at the door. this is just kant. it's the failure mode the essay has already named, dressed up as a virtue.

the second response is the opposite move. if everyone's moral life is inherited and contextual, then who is anyone to judge anyone else? everyone has their own framework, their own upbringing, their own truth. the right thing to do is be tolerant — refuse to impose your views on others, refuse to take strong stances on contested questions, accept that different people will live differently and that's how it should be. this sounds humble, even generous. it isn't. it's the same dodge in the other direction. instead of outsourcing your judgment to a tradition, you outsource it to politeness. you stop having to decide what you think because deciding is now itself the impolite move.

both responses share something the essay has been arguing against. neither is examination. the first refuses to examine because the tradition has done the examining for you. the second refuses to examine because examining would require taking stances, which would require the discomfort of disagreeing with people whose positions are also inherited. both are forms of comfort. neither is the work.

take a contested question. should two men be allowed to marry? a person making the first dodge will pull out a rule from the tradition they inherited — a religious teaching, usually, sometimes a vaguer appeal to nature or tradition — and apply it without examination. the rule says no. a person making the second dodge will refuse to take a position. who am i to say. everyone has their own values. it's not for me to judge. one looks like conviction, the other looks like humility. both are escape hatches from the actual question, which is: what does this practice — two adults committing to each other — actually do, to them, to the people around them, to the world they live in? does it harm anyone? does it require anything from me i'm not willing to give? that's the examination. that's the work. neither dodge does it.

people who actually examine a hard question won't all reach the same conclusion. examination doesn't guarantee consensus and it doesn't have to. what it does is ensure that whatever position you arrive at is yours — that you've held it up to the light, tested it against the cases that complicate it, and decided you can defend it. a position you've actually examined and a position you've inherited can look identical from outside. they aren't identical. one of them is yours.

the trouble with both dodges is that they let you walk around feeling like a moral person without ever actually being one. the rule-follower gets to feel righteous; the tolerator gets to feel kind. and most of the time they're both basically functional — most of moral life doesn't test you, and most of the time the rule-follower follows decent rules and the tolerator tolerates decent things. but when something hard happens, neither of them is ready, because neither has been doing the underlying work. the rule-follower applies the rule even when it shouldn't be applied. the tolerator stays quiet even when staying quiet is complicity. and the rest of us, holding our partly-inherited and partly-examined positions, are sometimes the ones who have to act.

what the work actually looks like, if you're going to do it

so what does it look like to actually do moral examination, if you aren't a philosopher and the rest of your life isn't on hold for it?

it doesn't look impressive. that's the first thing to know. it isn't a pose. it doesn't involve any vocabulary you don't already have. it mostly happens in moments that are easy to miss and quiet enough to ignore — moments where a rule you've been holding without thinking starts to feel like it doesn't fit the situation, or where someone whose framework is different from yours says something that lands harder than you expected, or where you catch yourself defending a position and realize you don't actually know why you hold it. most of the work is just noticing those moments instead of letting them pass. the second-most of the work is staying with them long enough to find out what's underneath, instead of changing the subject in your own head.

i was a bad kid growing up — broke a few windows, got sent to the principal's office a lot, snuck out, the whole thing. i wasn't doing it on principle. i was just stupid, in the way kids are stupid — impulse-driven, short-horizon, not really thinking. that's the version of rule-breaking that isn't doing any work. a kid who breaks rules without examining them isn't doing moral judgment, and an adult who follows rules without examining them isn't either. they're the same shape underneath. neither is looking.

i should be honest. i haven't figured this out. i've spent more time on this than most people i know — i've put a lot of my views through some version of this examination, and a few of them have changed because of it. but plenty of others i haven't tested. some i can feel when they come up. some i probably can't. examination isn't a finished state. the position i hold confidently at twenty-two is one i might revise at thirty, and the position i revise at thirty is one i might revise again at fifty. there's no point at which you arrive. the practice is the point.

what helps, if i had to name what helps: hard cases, slowly. take a small one i've actually sat with. i grew up in a social world where the reflex view about people who go work in finance or consulting at big firms was that they were doing slightly less good in the world than people who didn't — that they were trading something morally for money or status, and that the trade should be visible to everyone. i absorbed that reflex easily. but when i actually examined it — when i thought about the specific people i knew doing that work, the reasons they'd given me, what their actual lives looked like, what i was assuming about good in the world and whether i'd applied that standard consistently to other professions — the view didn't hold. some of the people i'd been quietly judging were doing more for the people in their lives than i was for the people in mine. the rule don't trade ethics for money was real, but applied this broadly it was doing more dismissing than examining.

i can appreciate the work now, and the people doing it, while also being honest that it isn't a place i see myself long term — which is its own thing, separate from the moral question. that's the kind of moment the work happens in. it doesn't feel like ethics. it feels like spending an hour, on and off across weeks, deciding you held a view less honestly than you thought.

when one of those moments arrives, the temptation is to resolve it fast — to pick the rule that's louder in your head, or to retreat into one of the dodges from the last section. slowly is the practice. sit with the contradiction. don't pick. notice what each rule is for, where it falls short, what the moment actually needs. some of the time, after sitting, you'll have moved an inch on something you'd held for years. that's about the rate.

it also helps to be around people whose inheritances are different from yours. living with my roommates, even when we don't agree, has done more for my actual moral examination than anything i ever read. the disagreements force me to articulate things i'd been holding without articulation, and articulation is most of the way to examination. if everyone you know holds your views, you'll never test them, because they'll never come up as something to test. you'll just keep carrying.

and the last thing that helps is being willing to act on what you've examined, when the situation calls for it, even when nobody around you is acting. that's what the gym was. it wasn't heroic. it was a small case. but the eight people in the loose ring weren't worse than me; they were people whose examined positions hadn't yet caught up to the moments that would test them. their rule was there, intact. it just hadn't been built into something they could move on. and the work of being a good person, as best i can tell, is the slow work of building examined positions into something that can move you, when nobody else is moving, in situations that don't have rules written for them.

try it once: find a rule, examine it, see what gives

so. here is what i'm asking.

find a rule you hold. not a small one. a real one — something you'd defend if pressed, something that organizes how you think about a category of people or a kind of behavior or a corner of your own life. parents should X. people who do Y are Z. the right way to handle this kind of situation is A. whatever yours are, you have them. everyone does.

ask yourself, honestly, where the rule came from. did you reason your way to it, or did you absorb it from somewhere — your family, your school, your church, your social world, the things you watched and read when you were young? if it's the second one, that doesn't mean the rule is wrong. it means you don't yet know whether it's right.

then find a real situation where the rule has to do work. not a hypothetical. something drawn from the people and situations actually in your life. hold the rule up against what's actually happening and see what gives. sometimes the rule will hold and you'll come away holding it more deliberately than before. sometimes it will bend in ways you didn't expect, and you'll have to figure out what's underneath it that you actually believe. either of those outcomes is the point. the goal isn't to discard your inheritance. the goal is to know what of it you actually mean.

do this once. that's all i'm asking. one rule, one honest examination, one position that becomes yours instead of the one you happened to be given. once you've done it once, you'll know the shape of the work. whether you keep doing it after that is up to you.

1 immanuel kant, on a supposed right to lie from philanthropic concerns (1797). the case has been argued about ever since; the cleanest contemporary discussion is in sissela bok, lying: moral choice in public and private life (1978).

this section is locked.

nothing here yet.

may
a few fleeting moments of freedom before bain prison. trying to make the most of life.
april
limerence, actually celebrating my bday, and too much good food. somehow more unemployed after starting at bain.