There is a particular kind of silence that comes over you when you are standing in front of something so old it cannot be dated.

Not approximately. Not within a century. The placard read: 900 BCE. Then the next case: 3 BCE. Then the next: no estimation possible. I moved through the galleries of the National Museum of Asian Art with my jaw quietly open, traveling from case to case, trying to hold the numbers and finding that I could not. My human mind was not built for time at this scale. I kept arriving at the edge of comprehension and sliding back off.

These were not reproductions. These were the actual objects. Vessels, figures, fragments of lives fully lived by people who existed thousands of years before the country I live in was a thought. Artifacts from countries whose names I recognized from current headlines, which added its own layer of strange. Civilizations that rose and fell and were mourned and forgotten and are now behind glass in Washington D.C. on a Saturday evening.

I stood there thinking about how young we are. How very, very young.

And standing in front of those artifacts, traveling case to case through centuries that dwarfed everything I had ever been taught to think of as history, I returned to a conversation Rob and I had several weeks earlier. It had been sitting in me unresolved, the way certain ideas do when they are waiting for the right moment to fully arrive. Standing there, jaw open, watching civilization scroll backward into the undatable past, it all felt connected. Not cleanly. But undeniably.

A few weeks before the museum, Rob and I attended a Mass Explained event. A Catholic priest walked through the elements of the mass service and their origins. At dinner afterward, Rob made an observation that’s continued to resonate with me. He said that things which have stood the test of time carry an inherent wisdom in their endurance. He used the Catholic Church as the anchor: two thousand years of history, seasons of corruption and fracture and profound human failure within its walls, and still an unbroken thread that traces all the way back to Christ and Saint Peter. His point was not that the institution is perfect. His point was that something load-bearing has to exist in what survives that long.

Then he named the tension.

Over time, we reinterpret foundational things through the lenses of whoever is doing the interpreting at that moment. Shifting agendas, changing cultures, particular humans with particular interests. And that reinterpretation, however it is framed, can quietly erode what the original signal actually meant. Free speech. The Second Amendment. Scripture. The words stay. The meaning drifts.

I had filed that conversation away without quite knowing what to do with it. The museum handed me the frame.

Subscribe now

Because what those artifacts represented, the ones behind the glass, the ones that could not even be dated, was endurance at a scale that makes most human arguments feel very small. Those cultures were not preserved because they were perfect. They were preserved because something in them was worth keeping. Because people across generations made deliberate choices to carry certain things forward rather than let them dissolve into whatever was easier or more convenient in that particular moment.

That is not the same as refusing to change. Adaptation is how civilization moves. It is, in the most literal sense, what we are doing here.

A few weeks before the museum, we made a brief visit to the National Archives. The Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights. The Constitution. Documents that are, relative to what I had just seen behind that glass, extraordinarily young. Two hundred and fifty years. In the full timeline of human civilization, that is not a legacy. It is an opening paragraph.

We spent most of our time there talking with a volunteer who knew these documents the way some people know scripture. He mentioned something that stayed with me. Our founders drew heavily on philosophers and thinkers who came long before them. That the architecture of American democracy was not invented from nothing but adapted from a much longer conversation that humanity had been having with itself across centuries. He noted that much of their inspiration may have come from Anglican philosophers, which is not something you hear too often in the standard telling.

And the founders adapted their own work. The Constitution did not contain everything that needed to be said and they knew it. So they went back. They added the Bill of Rights. They revised in service of the original intention, which was to build something that could hold a free people across generations they could not predict. That is honest adaptation. It honors the root while acknowledging that the root alone was not enough.

America is celebrating 250 years this week. I want to hold that with genuine appreciation and genuine humility in equal measure. We are a young country that drew on ancient wisdom to build something new and left room for revision. That is its most underappreciated feature.

In NLP, we understand that every communication passes through filters. The person delivering a message has a map. The person receiving it has a different map. And the gap between those two maps is where meaning drifts, gets distorted, and gets generalized into something the original speaker may not recognize. This happens in conversation. It happens in institutions. It happens across centuries. The words stay. The map changes. And eventually the territory and the map no longer match.

The question worth sitting with, as we watch foundational texts and ancient traditions get reinterpreted through the filters of this particular cultural moment, is whether we are doing the honest kind of adaptation or the other kind. I think the difference lives in intention and in direction. Whether the people doing the interpreting are serving the original intention or their own agenda. Whether the change expands access to the original truth or narrows it toward the agenda of the few. Honest adaptation makes the root available to more people. Erosion makes it available to fewer, while insisting it has never been more free.

Last week, we attended a talk by an author and journalist whose work sits squarely in the political arena, someone I knew nothing about going into the event. At the end of the Q&A, a gentleman asked about the state of the republic. Her answer is still sitting with me. She said the people have to care about the documents governing them. It is not good enough to leave it to anyone else. We have to care.

I sat with that on the way home.

Because here is my answer. I care. I genuinely care. But I could not tell you with confidence what those documents actually say. Not in the way that would allow me to recognize when the original intention is being honored and when it is being quietly replaced with something else. And I suspect I am not alone in that. I suspect that most of us care in principle and know very little in practice. And that gap, between caring and knowing, is exactly where reinterpretation that does not serve us finds its opening.

I married someone who does know. Who is actively in the work of helping others learn and care about these things. That may not be my exact purpose. But I am sitting with the question of whether I know enough to consciously contribute to the evolution of what was handed to us. I don’t think I do yet. And I am at peace with being a work in progress on this one, as long as the work is actually in progress.

The artifacts in that museum are behind glass because they survived. Because something in the cultures that made them understood that certain things carry more meaning than the moment they were created in and took care accordingly.

We are very new here. The things that have been here longest might have more to teach us than we are currently inclined to listen to. And the first step might simply be knowing what we were given well enough to protect it.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

A few weeks ago, we attended an event marking National Naloxone Awareness Day. It was hosted by a foundation whose mission is to educate and provide tools for parents and families to prevent substance use disorder and overdose deaths. We were there because of a personal connection. My husband’s youngest brother died by suicide with a heavy connection to drugs. His mother and stepfather started a nonprofit called Eric’s House to support families in grief from the sudden loss of a loved one to suicide and overdose. That experience and work led to this room.

I sat there with my hand on my belly, our baby safe inside, and I listened to a Senator, Sheriffs, and people who do this work every single day. I was nearly in tears more than once. The cause is not abstract to me. It never could be. I am a witness to what it cost this family, and I became part of this family knowing that cost. Because I am about to become a mother, the question of how we protect our children from this threat feels suddenly, completely real in a way it never quite did before.

And then, in the middle of being genuinely moved, a quieter thought arrived.

How many national days are there now?

I grew up in a time when a handful of causes really seemed to rally people. October meant breast cancer awareness and everyone knew it. The Livestrong bracelet was on every wrist for years. Those causes had weight because they had sustained attention. People stayed with them long enough for something to actually shift.

Now there is a day for everything. A week for everything. A month for everything. And I found myself sitting in that room, genuinely caring about the people in it, genuinely moved by what I was hearing, and also quietly wondering whether the culture of awareness we have built around causes like this one is actually serving them. Or whether we have so thoroughly fragmented our collective attention that nothing can hold it long enough to matter.

In NLP, we understand that the brain receives roughly twelve million bits of sensory information every second and consciously processes around one hundred and twenty six. The rest is filtered. Deleted, distorted, generalized. The nervous system is not designed to hold everything. It was never meant to. And when we flood it with an endless stream of causes, days, ribbons, hashtags, and months, we are not expanding its capacity to care. We are triggering its filtering function. We are guaranteeing that most of it gets deleted.

Which means the proliferation of awareness culture may not be expanding our compassion. It may be quietly exhausting it.

Subscribe now

I know this from the inside. I think about the years I was living with debilitating chronic migraine symptoms. I wanted to be a voice for people with invisible illnesses. I posted on Invisible Illness Awareness Day. I meant every word of it. And I also knew, even then, that the people who stopped to read it were mostly the people who already understood because they were living it too. The people who needed to be reached were not stopping. They were already onto the next thing. I was participating in awareness culture from inside a cause that mattered deeply to me, and I could feel it not working.

That is not a failure of individual caring. That is what happens when attention becomes the currency and everyone is spending it at once.

Here is the part that sits with me most uncomfortably. I don’t think this is entirely accidental.

When everything is a cause, nothing stays a cause long enough to create real systemic change. When caring is fragmented across hundreds of awareness days, the collective force that might otherwise demand accountability from the systems responsible for these problems gets scattered before it can gather. And scattered attention, it turns out, is very useful for the people who benefit from nothing changing. Look at what has not changed despite decades of awareness. Then ask who benefits from that.

There is also something worth naming about what awareness culture has become at the level of product. A ribbon. A hashtag. A limited edition packaging in the right color for the right month. The performance of caring has become so polished and so profitable that it can exist entirely independently of the actual work. You can buy the awareness without funding the solution. You can share the post without changing anything. You can mark the day and feel, briefly, like you did something. And then the next day arrives with its own cause and the cycle continues.

This is not cynicism about the people doing the real work. The people in that room were not performing anything. They were there because someone they loved did not survive. There is no ribbon for what they are doing. It is a life reorganized around loss, redirected toward something that might prevent the same thing from happening to someone else.

That distinction, between the performance of awareness and the actual cost of caring, is what I keep coming back to.

I don’t think we have lost the capacity to care. I think we have been handed so many objects to care about, so rapidly, so relentlessly, that we have learned to care about the ones that touch us personally and quietly let the rest filter through. We are not selfish for letting most of it filter through. We are human. The nervous system was never designed to hold everything, and something had to give.

The question I am sitting with is not how to care about more. It is how to care about something fully. How to stay with a cause long enough for the caring to become action and the action to become change.

Because in that room a few weeks ago, surrounded by people who have paid the real price, I understood something clearly. The causes that actually change things are not always the ones with the best awareness campaigns. They are the ones with people who refused to let their attention be redirected. Who stayed. Who showed up the following year and the year after that. Who turned grief into infrastructure.

That is a different kind of awareness. And it is the only kind that has ever actually worked.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

Imagine you are driving your usual route to work. You have a little extra time so you stop for coffee. You get back on the road and hit unexpected construction. Your phone does not tell you today’s destination is cancelled. It says rerouting.

The first thing people say when someone they love announces a big change is congratulations. The second thing, more quietly, is don’t change.

I understand the instinct. When someone you love steps into a new city, a new career, a new version of their life, there is something in us that wants them to remain recognizable. To survive the new rooms they’ll be walking into still holding the person we know. And there is something worth honoring in that. Staying anchored to your values through significant change is not nothing.

But underneath the warning is an assumption worth examining. That the person who emerges from a significant experience still holding every belief they arrived with is more trustworthy than the person who was genuinely moved by what they encountered. That consistency of position is the same thing as integrity. That a map that never gets updated is a sign of strong character rather than a sign that somewhere along the way, the map became more important than the territory.

We came to Washington, D.C. to change. That was the point.

I have a family member who, over the years, has said to me, “You’ve changed.” Always with a particular tone. Not observation. Verdict. And I spent a long time trying to figure out what to do with that. Because they were right.

I had changed. Some of it, I’ll be honest, was not in the right direction, and it took me real time to recognize that and reroute. But most of it was just growth. Most of it was me moving through the world and letting the world actually move me back. And the moments they delivered that line with that specific tone, I eventually understood what it actually meant. It meant I was doing things differently from what they wanted. Change, in that framing, was not a neutral observation. It was a request to stop.

I’m not interested in stopping.

Subscribe now

In NLP, one of the foundational principles is that the map is not the territory. Your perception of reality is not reality itself. It is an interpretation, filtered through every experience, belief, and story you have accumulated up until this moment. The map is useful. It helps you navigate. But the map is not the road. And a map that never gets updated stops being useful. It starts being dangerous.

Last week we went to an event at a place called Pubkey. A congressional candidate named Philip Harding was speaking, running for a district in Virginia. What struck me about him was his story. Academia to entrepreneurship, each transition a leap of faith. A successful international business. Then the moment he said he hit the dreaded C word and I sat there briefly running through possibilities before he said it.

Comfortable.

Rather than stay there, he got quiet, got prayerful, and started asking what he was actually called to do next. That process led him, through a series of events he could not have planned, to a run for Congress. Sitting in that corner of the bar listening to him, what I kept thinking was that his willingness to be moved was the whole credential. Not despite the changes. Because of them.

And yet in broader culture, the opposite tends to be true. Individuals are penalized for updating their positions. We call it flip-flopping. People who shift perspectives publicly get labeled inconsistent. Institutions resist revision and frame the resistance as integrity. We have built an entire vocabulary of suspicion around the act of changing your mind, as though the person who was never moved by anything is the one we should trust most.

I want to ask why.

If you zoom out far enough, past the politics and the cultural moment and the noise, what you find is something much simpler.

Growth is not a personality type. It is not a preference or a lifestyle or something the brave choose and the stable avoid.

It is what living things do. A tree does not decide whether to grow. It grows or it dies. We are nature. And nature does not hold still.

Which means the resistance to change is not stability. It is a living thing working against its own nature.

I know this in my bones now in a way I did not three years ago. In the spring of 2023, I was being recruited back to the roofing industry, managing chronic migraine symptoms, working on building a coaching business online, and had quietly decided that dating and partnership weren’t working out for me, so I was going to focus entirely on building my life alone.

I had outsourced my content to a social media manager because I didn’t have the capacity to make it myself, which I eventually understood was the whole problem. I was forcing things. I was working hard and spreading thin and pushing in directions that were not opening, the way you push a door that is clearly meant to pull, and calling the resistance a sign that I needed to push harder.

The ground had already started shifting. Then one afternoon I stopped.

I spent that afternoon watching YouTube videos about feminine energy. I don’t remember exactly what I watched. I remember what shifted. The idea that as a woman I had inherent value just from my being. That I didn’t have to earn it. That the armor I had built, the working hard, the making it happen, that I can achieve anything if I just apply enough force, had been protecting something that didn’t need protection as much as it needed room.

I had been living in my masculine energy for most of my life. It had served me. It had gotten me places. And it had also been survival. And those are not always the same thing.

I chose the word Simplify for 2024. I stopped forcing the coaching business. I had a hard conversation with my social media manager, ended the contract, and felt relief on both sides of the call. I left the roofing industry. I started doing less things better instead of more things simultaneously.

I chose Trust for 2025, which turned out to mean surrender, receiving, and cracking a door I had kept mostly closed. And then by a series of events I could not have engineered, my map turned completely upside down in the best possible way.

I’m living a life now that the version of myself three years ago could not have imagined. Because I finally stopped forcing and let the rerouting happen.

That is the whole point.

The question worth sitting with is not whether you have changed. You have. The question is whether the changes were chosen consciously or just happened to you. Whether the map is getting wider because you are moving through real territory, or whether it is sitting in a drawer somewhere waiting.

Changing is not a liability. It is the assignment.

And just like that phone on your dashboard, the one that never tells you the destination is cancelled, only that the route has changed, you were always designed for this. You follow the new route.

The destination does not change. You do.

And somewhere in the rerouting, if you stay open long enough, you stop feeling lost and start feeling like you are finally going somewhere you recognize.

That was always the plan.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

There is a philosopher who has been dead for over two thousand years, and he described your newsfeed.

He called it a cave.

In Plato’s allegory, prisoners are chained inside a cave from birth, facing a wall. Behind them, a fire burns. Between the fire and the prisoners, objects pass, casting shadows on the wall. The prisoners have never seen the objects themselves. They have only ever seen the shadows. And so, naturally, they do not call them shadows. They call them reality.

I have been thinking about this a lot since moving to Washington, D.C.

This city is extraordinary and disorienting in equal measure. We arrived in March, five months pregnant, newly married, carrying my NLP frameworks like a field guide. And what I noticed almost immediately, in passing conversations, in coffee shops, overhearing phone calls on evening walks, was the density of certainty here. Everyone knows exactly what is true. Everyone has a map. And almost no one seems aware that what they are holding is a map.

One evening, Rob and I were walking the dog after dinner and a woman passed us on the phone. The fragment I caught was: “linear thinking is such a heteronormative perspective.” I didn’t say anything. I just thought, maybe that’s not such a bad thing. A few nights later at dinner, a woman at the next table was telling a story about a male colleague who had recently gotten engaged. His fiancée, apparently, was happy to be a “trad wife.” The woman telling the story said it the way you say something that explains itself. Like the punchline was obvious. I sat there thinking about how far the pendulum has swung, and what we might have left behind in the swinging.

When people ask what my husband does for work, I say he makes content or has a YouTube show. I don’t mention that he speaks from a conservative lens. Not because I’m ashamed. Because I’ve learned, in this city, that the answer to that question is not really a question. It’s a sorting mechanism. And I’m not interested in being sorted. With time, we landed on an answer that feels right. He does “legal and political commentary.”

In NLP, one of the foundational principles is this: the map is not the territory. What you perceive is not reality itself. The words we use are never the thing itself. It is your nervous system’s best interpretation of reality, filtered through every experience you have ever had, every belief you formed before you were old enough to choose your beliefs, every story you absorbed about how the world works and what kind of person you are in it. You are not seeing the world. You are seeing your version of it. We all are. Always.

This is not a flaw. It is how human cognition works. The brain receives roughly twelve million bits of sensory information per second. It consciously processes around one hundred and twenty-six. The rest is filtered: deleted, distorted, generalized. What makes it to your awareness is not a neutral feed. It is a curated one, shaped by your internal filters long before any algorithm gets involved.

Which brings me back to the cave.

We have always been in the cave. Echo chambers are not a product of social media. They are a feature of human perception. The platforms did not create the tendency to seek confirmation of what we already believe. They just made the walls more comfortable and the shadows more vivid. What’s different now is that many of us can see it happening. We can watch the algorithm shape our feed in real time. We can feel the pull toward outrage, toward confirmation, toward the comfortable shadow that matches the map we already carry. The cave is visible now in a way it never quite was before.

More shadows are not the same as more light.

Subscribe now

In my earliest years, our household was based on Christian principles. It formed my initial map with a clear framework for how the world worked. Then my parents got divorced, I moved, fell in and out of love, had new experiences, faced my internal condemnation, and along the way, some of my perspectives shifted. The roots stayed. But the map got wider. Then I met a man, and a few weeks later, sat on his porch and poured out everything I wanted: a business, a life abroad, a husband who was a healthy provider, a feminine life I actually wanted to live. And he said something I wasn’t expecting. He asked whether everything I’d been sold on dreaming about was actually meant to serve my highest needs and happiest life. I didn’t get defensive. I let it crack me open. I married him two years later.

I’ve lived inside my own filters long enough to watch them shift. And I’m still open to having my map turned upside down or inside out when it’s time for the next perspective that will show me a different view of the cave, or the light outside it.

Here is the uncomfortable part. The part I’m going to say out loud.

Years ago, I watched a YouTube video that poked holes in the original 9/11 narrative. I can’t remember which one. But I remember how it made me feel. Like everything we are sold as truth might not be the whole picture. Like the shadow on the wall might be a very deliberate shadow.

The term “conspiracy theorist” was originally coined to discredit and shut down people asking inconvenient questions. To return people to their seats in the cave. Was the philosopher who came back from the light a conspiracy theorist? By that definition, yes. Am I one? Probably. Not because I’m running down every rabbit hole. But because I’m willing to follow someone into the sunlight and ask them to show me what they see. Because I’m willing to sit with a perspective that runs against the grain and ask whether it has merit before I dismiss it.

That is not the same as believing everything. It is the opposite of believing everything. It is refusing to outsource your perception entirely to any single source, any single algorithm, any single map of the world handed to you before you were old enough to choose it.

What has changed in this moment is that the cave is visible. The question is not how to escape it. You cannot fully escape the filtering function of the human nervous system. The question is what you do once you can see it.

For me, the practice of watching my own filters has rarely shown up as a political charge. It shows up closer to home than that.

Before Rob and I were married, we were hosting another couple for the weekend at our place in Prescott. I was preparing to facilitate a breakthrough session for the wife in the relationship, and in the middle of planning the week, Rob suggested I make the family meatball recipe I had just learned. My programming fired instantly. My filter said: he is asking more of me. I felt it as hurt, as exasperation, as the very specific sting of feeling like too much was being asked. I stepped away. I got quiet. And when I looked at what had actually happened, which was that a man who loves me suggested a meal he knew I was excited about, I realized the charge had nothing to do with him. It was a very old program running on top of a very ordinary moment. I made the meatballs. It was one of the best weekends in 2025.

The filter does not always announce itself as ideology. Sometimes it announces itself as hurt feelings in a kitchen in Arizona.

But I’ve been thinking about it on a larger scale too. We are on vacation this week with Rob’s family, and last night my mother-in-law said she didn’t want to watch a documentary we’d mentioned because she didn’t want to spend the evening getting angry about the information. I understood exactly what she meant. There is wisdom in protecting your nervous system from content designed to provoke it. And I also felt something slightly different in myself, a belief that the activation is not always the enemy. That feeling something about the cave might be part of how you find the door.

And then there is the layer that is harder to say out loud. I recently read a book that made the point that since women won the right to vote, political strategists have aggressively learned that the most reliable path to winning is through women’s emotions. That if you can make a woman feel something about a cause, you can move her without her needing to examine the logic underneath it. I sat with that for a long time. Because if it’s true, it means the echo chamber was never gender neutral. The shadows on the wall were designed with us specifically in mind.

Which makes the practice of watching your own filters not just personal. It becomes an act of reclamation.

Living in D.C. and staying observant is not the same as being uninformed. It is not disengagement. It is the practice of holding the map loosely enough to keep learning, which is the only way the map ever gets more accurate, and the territory gets bigger.

Writing this way is uncomfortable. Sharing thoughts I have held internally for years feels like extreme personal exposure. But this corner of the internet exists because I believe we are supposed to think for ourselves, outside the groupthink, outside the echo chamber. I am pushing myself to expand by writing it. I hope something in you expands by reading it.

Plato thought the philosopher’s job was to go back into the cave. Not to stay out in the light alone, but to return and offer a different way of seeing to anyone willing to look.

That feels like something.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share