Ink to Blog

Avoiding journaling when it would help the most

2026-09-23T00:00:00Z

I would benefit the most from journaling when I have no desire to do it. When I am content with myself, I experience no resistance while writing down my thoughts. They can flow easily and there is nothing uncomfortable about it. The habit is easier to uphold, but less reflection is taking place. I don't have to reflect deeply about my circumstances when everything is going well.

When I am in a crisis, I have a harder time expressing myself on paper. Not that I can't write stuff down when my notebook is lying in front of me, but getting to that situation is just more taxing. I don't want to open the book. I avoid self-reflection and seek short-term pleasures to distract me. Pulling myself out of it takes effort, and we often avoid effort when there is a non-confrontational option available. I know that journaling doesn't have to be such a self-confronting thing (it can be whatever you want it to be), but for me, it often is. I have to reach a point where I really want to exit a slump to get serious about journaling again. Before that, I use it to vent and to sort my thoughts, but not to search for a solution. Venting is helpful too, but my misery will just go on forever and the patterns will repeat themselves, while nothing about my actual situation changes.

So in situations where I would probably benefit the most from journaling, I try to avoid it. And in situations where it is mostly just a healthy and positive habit, I have no issue writing every day. Sitting with yourself can feel like work if you want to gain insights about your life, or if you experience the need to change something. I don't want journaling to be something that has to yield results every time I do it, but I know that it can be especially helpful in circumstances where I have a harder time putting pen to paper.

Falling back in love with your interests

2026-09-15T00:00:00Z

We can extract much more enjoyment from our existing hobbies than we might think. Every time an activity gets stale or I yearn for new experiences, I first try to approach an existing hobby from a new angle.

We can inform ourselves about new trends regarding our interests. Maybe there exist new ways to enjoy them. We can watch other people talking about them or showing their process. Other people's excitement can be contagious and can give us new inspiration for a different approach. A lot of my hobbies have to do with technical stuff, so there often is an endless ocean of customization and personalization out there for me to explore. The change doesn't have to be huge, because we just want to introduce a bit of diversion from the standard procedure to bring back some freshness, so we can recapture a part of that initial passion.

Maybe this helps us identifying with the hobby again, which will in turn immerse us in the activity. We can now view it from another perspective and learn that there are many facets we probably still haven't considered. Some kind of novelty is key here so that it can feel like a fresh endeavor, even if only in parts.

I like the thought of diving deep into my interests. You can go wide and shallow or narrow and deep. Going deep has the advantage of at some point achieving mastery or a deeper flow state, which can be very rewarding. It's easier for me not to constantly switch contexts, and avoid having many other activities in the back of my mind fighting for my attention.

A tool worth optimizing

2026-09-10T00:00:00Z

My keyboard is the interface to the digital world, the gateway to so much stuff that I enjoy. It is there to impose my will on my computer, to write words and form thoughts, to play video games, which is a big hobby of mine, and to build stuff, which makes me feel creative. I use my keyboard daily, and, like most people, don't usually think about it too much.

But because it is my primary tool for using my computer, I want to master its usage. I have a split keyboard and use vim keybindings for almost everything. I take pleasure in using my tools to their full potential, understanding them, even if (or especially because) it is such an everyday item as a keyboard. I even soldered a split mechanical keyboard myself and flashed a self-written configuration on it with QMK. Not only can you master these devices, but you can also personalize them to exactly fit your preferences. That's what I love about open hardware and the open source community. The hardware belongs to you and is there to serve you.

Everything we use that much should at some point catch our attention. Maybe we can make our experience better with a little bit of research and effort. Hardware and software can often be bent to make the usage as frictionless as possible. I also don't feel bad about spending a bit more money on the things I use so frequently. I already know that I will use it a lot, so the investment will definitely be worth it.

Aging body, minor symptoms

2026-08-26T00:00:00Z

As I get older, I have to recognize that some pains are inevitable. I worry a lot about my health and I get anxious about small symptoms. I know that I am kind of a hypochondriac. My pattern is as follows: I notice something that hurts or feels strange. I have an appointment with a doctor, they tell me it is not that bad, that the cause of my symptoms is trivial. I am relieved for a bit and jump to the next symptom soon after. What calms my mind is that until recently, all symptoms were explainable. The diagnosis alone is more important to me than the cure, especially because the diagnosis has never been life-limiting.

For the last two years I have noticed that some pains don't have a single, easy-to-identify cause. It just is a byproduct of getting older and the wear and tear of the body. Symptoms can be non-specific and may occur irregularly. Now, I am often not able to get to a clear diagnosis. And as long as the cause is a mystery, I feel restless and stressed out. I can hop from doctor to doctor and still come to no clear conclusion, because sometimes, there simply is none. I'm telling myself that every twinge must have a cause. Otherwise, there would be no twinge. Every sensation has a trigger, even if I am not able to perceive it.

But what can I actually do to deal with this stress? By hunting for a diagnosis, I have done everything that is in my power. If there is no clear cause, then I have no straightforward way to fix it. And I should not stress about things I can't control. The lack of a diagnosis from a specialist should be enough to calm myself down, given that the symptoms aren't extreme. There is no hidden illness waiting to be uncovered, regardless of what my head wants to tell me. Sadly, rational arguments only help to some extent, because the emotional reaction is almost automatic, as is typical of hypochondria.

Devices want to be used

2026-08-05T00:00:00Z

Buying new devices for a hobby or entertainment purposes is exciting. I enjoy researching, watching reviews, and digging into forums to determine if my purchase will be worth it. I imagine myself using my new toy. Often, this thought makes me happier than the actual experience of using it. In the past, I purchased musical instruments, consoles, handhelds, e-readers, and other electronic devices that way.

The excitement wears off, the new thing becomes the familiar thing and the days when the device collects dust in the corner grow more numerous. I feel bad for not using it, because I made myself a promise. The moment I bought it, I promised myself that I would be using it - not explicitly, but through the act of buying alone. If I use it and the thing can fulfill its purpose, I also fulfill that promise. Not using it means that I don't actually need it. I don't want to admit that, of course, because my money has already been spent. This creates emotional resistance to the idea of letting go, so it still allocates space at the back of my mind.

Every purchased device brings with it a form of liability. You should engage with it because it is simply there. It turns from something that should bring you joy to an object that demands an action from you. It broadens your pastime options, but now it's harder to choose, because more options are present, and every option we pick disregards the other ones. Our entertainment purchases should serve and not burden us. We should be careful about which devices we allow to demand our consideration. Every new toy binds our future attention to it, even if we are not using it.

Games are not taken seriously as an art form

2026-07-28T00:00:00Z

I remember when Hollow Knight: Silksong came out and people playing the game demanded an easier and less punishing experience. Soon articles came in questioning the decisions Team Cherry made while developing the game. Terms like "Artificial Difficulty" were thrown around, players venting online that the game was too hard, unfair and inaccessible.

Some parts of that discussion show me that games are still not taken too seriously as an art form. The defining property of a video game is interactivity. The player makes an input and the game will react. This is what video games are good at and what differentiates them from other forms of media. What people often forget is that interactivity can also be a distinct artistic medium in its own right. The interaction between player and game does not only deliver art on the screen and to the ears, it alone is a vehicle of artistic intent. It can make you feel many things only through input and its consequences; it can make you feel like you are in control, helpless, frustrated, triumphant or satisfied.

To summarize: games want to evoke an emotion inside of you. And the relationship between the input the player has to execute and the reaction the game has based on that input plays an important role in achieving this goal.

Difficulty options

Difficulty options are a great tool for tweaking this relationship. Every difficulty option can change the emotion that is evoked inside the player while playing. A developer can add 10 difficulty options and change that aspect to accommodate every player's preferences. Now it's up to the player to choose what experience they want to have. It's like releasing a movie where viewers can adjust different sliders at the start. Based on that, specific scenes will get cut out, added, or changed. But does the artistic intent of the creator get delivered through these options? If they wanted you to feel helpless because you play inside a harsh and unforgiving world, easier options would dampen this intended experience. If they wanted you to have a chill ride, harder options would stand in contrast to the lighthearted world they have designed.

If the designers have a specific relationship between the game and the player in mind, why don't we let them design the game accordingly without demanding options to bend the difficulty to our liking? And yes, who says the intent of the designers does actually come through while playing the game? From my viewpoint, this question is not important, because we can not ever guarantee that, regardless of the art form. But it still plays a role in creating art that has soul.

Different skill levels

The problem with providing a hard game is that players have different skill levels. A very skilled player will not have the same experience as a less skilled player, because they won't struggle as much. He will still have to concentrate, but he will not fail as often. A less skilled player will not feel in control, because mechanically, he isn't.

But in both cases, players will still feel that the game is supposed to be hard, regardless of their skill level, and this will present the game world or setting in a specific way, which is in line with the intent of the designers.

Excluding players

Making a game too hard will exclude players. They will not be able to see the end of a game through their efforts. But is this really a bad thing? Every art form has specific requirements to enjoy it fully. Some people are not able to watch slasher movies. Some people find it very unpleasant to listen to specific music genres. There is also literature that is hard to read and understand. I can see the point that with these examples, people are still able to consume the art, even if they don't enjoy or get it. Games can present a hard line that some players are not able to cross, because from their view, skill is a prerequisite to see the "complete art piece".

But let's look at this from another angle. What if this unbreakable wall that some people can't tear down is what "not getting it" means in the context of video games? The same way you don't get a book because you lack training you also don't get the full game because you lack the skill or determination. We see a game as a complete art piece only when we have seen and experienced most of what it has to offer. The interactivity stands in the way of experiencing the "actual" art of the game. But it can be argued that not being able to finish a game is part of the experience and that it is a unique characteristic of consuming the art form of video games. I know for some, this may seem far-fetched, but it shows that we don't view the interactivity as an inseparable part of the game the same way we do for the graphics or the music. For many players, it is seen as a hurdle to experience the other parts.

Not the same weighting

My point is that many players don't consider interactivity equally important to the other elements of a video game when judging a game's artistic merit. We see it as something that should be variable and tuned to fit the player. This is in large part because we are used to tuning it, since game designers often present us with difficulty options. But should we have the right to demand adjustments to our preferences if we want to take games more seriously as a work of art? If we value full creative freedom for artists, should they still have to consider the wishes or tastes of the audience?

Punishing those who wrong me

2026-07-19T00:00:00Z

I tend to punish other people in a very specific way. If they do me wrong, I want to let them know. I want them to owe me one, even if it doesn't make the situation better. It is purely because it puts me in a position of power. Now they have to redeem themselves; they have to gain my favor again. And I can decide when the threshold has been reached and everything is good again. It can even happen that I want to make it more uncomfortable for them by just being silent or ambiguous about what exactly hurt me or what would have to be done to make things right.

This is not a good way of dealing with wrongdoings. Even if something really hurt me, it should be enough to just state it, and not try to increase the suffering of the other person. If they are a good person, they would want to learn from their mistakes without someone rubbing it in their face. If they aren't a good person, then I cannot expect redemption, or preferably, that they try to be better. But this is also where I am not sure, because when an individual fails to recognize their wrongdoing, it can help to show them how much their behavior hurt others. They have to feel pain themselves to have a motivation to change.

I am not being hurt often by my friends, because they are in fact good people, which makes it worse that I want to take advantage of the situation and see them in a vulnerable state. If they are in the wrong, they will come to that realization themselves, like they already did in the past. There is no reason to play the role of a victim.

Becoming a blueprint

2026-07-12T00:00:00Z

As a teenager, I searched for an identity and found it with music, inside gaming subcultures and the things I consumed. I could assign a role to myself and people would recognize me as someone from that group. It defined me through my clothing, the things I talked about and my social media presence. It was an easy way to find a place in the world at a time when my self-identity was not yet carved in stone, and still forming.

As adults, we still carry such labels with us. It is cognitively easier to assign someone a role with all the attributes that come with it according to our definition of that role. We have an easier time making sense of a person when they fit into a well-defined category, even if in reality they do not possess many of these attributes.

Merging with a role

I want to live up to a certain role. But only if I think that the role carries positive or neutral annotations with it. It is still something that shapes my identity, but unlike when I was younger, I am not able to shift in and out of roles that easily. There is less experimentation to determine which role is fitting or what role I want to be in. And once someone has assigned such a role to me, it is much harder to convince the person otherwise.

To not shatter the conception of a role the other person has in their mind, we tend to merge into that role to do it justice. Challenging that role means introducing friction in a social setting. Because it is part of our identity, we want the other person to see us as a part of that group. We confirm the label again and again, and because we want to be a good representative of the group, we also attain traits that we normally wouldn't. The danger lies in becoming more of a blueprint of a member of a group, rather than an individual.

"A person from that group would do X. So I should do X."

We can only break out of this pattern if we don't shape our identity around being part of a group, and instead try to stand on our own. Even if we strip all our hobbies and group memberships away, there should still be a person who is sure of who they are.

Why we trade time instead of outcomes

2026-06-30T00:00:00Z

In my employment contract there is no mention of productivity or an expected outcome. The one thing that is stated: I give time, I receive money, which means I trade time for money. Wouldn't it make more sense to demand something that is more valuable to my company than time? Time alone does not help them in any way. They want results, not time. I could spend all the time in the world sitting at my desk and would not produce anything useful for them. Time is valuable to me, but that does not make the time I devote to my job valuable to my company. If they want outcomes, why don't they call for them?

The answer is easy. Time is the easiest thing to measure. Productivity is hard to measure, because to measure it accurately, you need well-defined goals. And expected outcomes (goals) can change from week to week in many workplaces. Expected outcomes can be defined at the beginning with the information present at that time, but they won't stay relevant for long. They have to be reevaluated constantly, on top of being harder to pin down. Anything that changes is hard to put into a contract, because my contract has to be a static document that both sides can rely on.

Time is equal for everyone. Forty hours are forty hours. This time is the same for me as it is for my boss. It doesn't have to be reevaluated; automatic systems can track it. Even if I am jealous because my coworker does not have the same workload that I have (if I even notice it), he still has to sit here for the same duration as I do. Time can be compared so easily, which makes it great for reducing envy at the workplace, because on the surface everyone has to bring the same to the table.

Time can be spent regardless of my current motivation or productivity level, which can be a blessing and a curse. If I work harder than usual and try to get things done, time does not magically advance faster. So there is no incentive to push yourself. But if expected outcomes were the measurement, it would have the potential to introduce more stress if I can't realistically reach a goal. It could lead to a situation where I would constantly doubt myself if the work I have done is enough to satisfy the goals for this week. Time can shield me from this stress, as I know exactly when I reach my required hours.

The gifter's reward

2026-06-27T00:00:00Z

Gifting can be fulfilling. The gifting person almost always gains something as much as the receiver of our present. Many of our actions are driven by motivation. Gifting is also one of them. Seeing the other person happy or showing them how much we care rewards us enough to put effort into the gift. If we remove ourselves from the equation, the gift loses its purpose. We want the receiver to know that we made the effort to show our appreciation.

Anonymous gifts don't hold the same weight. We want to see the reaction or witness the effects the present had on our relationship. When choosing or creating the gift, we already think about how the person will like it or react to it, not merely how useful it is. The gift holds a permanent reference to the gifter and it can alter the relationship for the better.

There are people who get a lot out of the process of coming up with a gift, more than others. They will research and be creative. They want to make sure that the receiver knows how much effort it took. From the outside, it looks as if the process were more like a hobby, because they really enjoy it.

This only applies to personal gifts, where we put effort into choosing something for the other person. It has to come from our own motivation and not from obligation, for example when the other person has already decided what they want.