The post Period poverty: How the intimate became political appeared first on The Third Eye.

Traditionally, the academic rulebook often advised to put work off until you secure your degree, with lecturers advocating that studies should be prioritised since the working realm awaits us for the decades to come. However, in today’s dynamic landscape, the shifting socio-economic factors are making it challenging to adopt this lifestyle. Why do students embrace this dual journey? Explore these reasons below!

Benefits of Working During Your Studies

This study dives into the benefits, as well as motivations behind this dual-life of studying and working simultaneously. I’ve taken the effort to select the most relevant ones and provided my thoughts on each factor.

• Monetary Autonomy. Despite not being burdened by tuition costs domestially, the allure of monetary autonomy still materialises. Propelling early adulthood, the need to become financially independent is set in motion. Income instills the power of relying less upon our parents and learn the pivotal skill of budgeting. As Malta still maintains a relatively high inflation rate and floats above the 2% desirable margin, higher costs of living propagate income as a necessity.
  
  
• Gaining Experience. Your part-time job isn’t just about the money, it involves unique experiences, bridging the gap between theory and practice. This is also a reciprocal relation as your work deepens the knowledge about your field. Plus, with the Eu facilitating labour mobility, industries are evolving into fierce competition. Thus, any valuable experience can be a game-changer, unlocking career opportunities and even lead to a full-time offer if your work is outstanding.
  
  
• Developing soft skills, while displaying hard work & determination. Mastering team cooperation, honing communication skills and becoming a decision-making expert. These are pertinent skills that recruiters are constantly riffling for when choosing talent. Getting a head-start can set you ahead of the curve, showcasing your determination.

Those are the usual points that center the stage, but there’s more! This LinkedIn post illuminates further benefits that are lesser-known but equally impactful.

• Learning Time Management. Crucially time management is a life-long skill, entitling you with the key to optimise your invaluable time. The art of prioritisation could be the make-or-break factor, particularly due our thrilling lives as students. Consult with your mentor or boss and work together to unlock the needed flexibility.

• Networking. Fostering connections with essential contacts can be paramount for your future career, hitting the nail on the head by providing advise and supporting your career goals.
  
  
• Increasing Your Marketability. This part-time isn’t just to get by, but hopefully a platform for you to shine. Displaying outstanding work is a stepping stone to a future recommendation, accentuating your values and experience.

The Lows of This Lifestyle

Transparency is important to reveal potential pitfalls for this journey. Sure, there are some obstacles, but it doesn’t mean there aren’t methods to conquer them. We’ve reached out to some students who’ve been navigated this path and drawn on advice of my personal favourite educational YouTuber, Jade Bowler. We’ve conjured a number of suggestions hopefully aiding you to entre your thrive era.

Bonus: Refer to our Mental Health Article for an insight on guidance concerning mental health and facilities that are specifically tailored for students like us.

Thanks for reading! Stay tuned for the upcoming chapters of Paving Way Through Academics to learn about other insightful recommendations and ways to optimise your academic career to get the full experience.

The post Paving Way Through Academics | Chapter 3 – Juggling Studies and Work appeared first on The Third Eye.

Some individuals were resentful of the fact that geopolitical events could have any bearing on the outcome of the song contest. However, it is rather naïve and unrealistic to assume that a massive competition in which nations are made to vote for one another can have no underlying political powerplay. While it is true that the contest’s non-political objective is one of its stated goals, this is far from the case in practice. The political nature of Eurovision has existed from its inception.

We have witnessed political messages being conveyed through the songs and performances every year on the Eurovision stage. West Germany’s contestant in the inaugural Eurovision, held in 1956, was a Jew. This was a clear indication from West Germany that it was moving away from its Nazi past. In 1993, Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Croatia made their debuts in the Eurovision Song Contest as independent nations, performing songs with war-related themes.

Armenia sent a song in 2015 that was originally called “Don’t Deny”, but was then renamed “Face the Shadow.” Despite not explicitly mentioning it, it was quite obviously about the 1915 Armenian Genocide.
“Mercy,” France’s submission for 2018, addressed the immigration situation. It told the story of a rescue ship transporting African refugees to safety in the Mediterranean, and a baby being delivered on the ship.

Eurovision has served as a symbol for UK-EU relations throughout the years. The UK finished last in the song contest in 2019, the year that Brexit was officially finalised. One may argue that this was Europe’s way of showing discontent with the UK’s choice to leave.

Even the case of who is allowed to join the Eurovision, and who chooses not to do so, reveals geopolitical dynamics. Due to a Lebanese rule that forbade television stations from airing Israeli content, Lebanon withdrew from the competition in 2005. Georgia’s disco-funk entry “We Don’t Wanna Put In,” which was an obvious jab at President Putin, was rejected from the Moscow 2009 competition because the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) decided that the lyrics were too political. However, to Russia’s dismay, Ukraine won in 2016 with a song that made reference to Joseph Stalin’s deportation of Crimean Tatars in 1944. And of course, following their invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia was completely banned from participating. For a competition that professes to be apolitical, this was a very clear political message.

The winner is chosen by a combination of a panel of music industry professionals and viewer televoting. Each country can vote for other countries that they want to win, but they cannot vote for their own. Over here, geopolitics continues to have a big impact on the outcomes. For instance, Balkan or Scandinavian nations frequently vote for one another. From 1997 through 2014, whenever possible, Greece and Cyprus gave each other the maximum of 12 points. This begs the question of whether the competition is more about politics than it is about music.

The expert panel should, in principle, balance this out, and it appears that this does do so to some extent. The televoting mechanism, however, continues to play a significant role in selecting the winner each year. And as voting trends have shown year after year, countries enjoy voting for their neighbours and allies.

Despite its claim to be a non-political event, the Eurovision Song Contest has always had political overtones throughout its existence. The competition has served as a forum for nations to express political messages through their songs and performances, starting with West Germany’s decision to send a Jewish representative as a way to distance itself from its Nazi past, to more recent entries that address issues like war, immigration, and historical events. Additionally, voting trends and international alliances further emphasize how geopolitics affects the result. Since politics have always been woven into the fabric of the Eurovision Song Contest and continue to be a key component of its attraction as an event, it is unrealistic to demand their full separation.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post The Politics of Eurovision appeared first on The Third Eye.

Machinery/technology has improved tremendously over the past century. Firms have increasingly adopted physical capital, particularly in certain sectors which require mass production of homogenous or near-identical goods. From initial glance you would look at the efficacy of these capital as they can lower costs for firms, meaning more profits for them, and potentially more inexpensive commodities for us. But if you take a step backwards, this came at the expense of those workers who were performing repetitive tasks and became replaced with more efficient equipment. Most do not see this as an issue since such jobs were perceived to be of a low-skilled nature and mundane, so this barely flinched younger generations whose jobs are thought of to be of more skilled and/or secure.

As time progressed AI has gradually become commensurate with higher-skilled jobs as we move towards a more technologically-oriented society. Take into account, for instance, less ‘rigid’ jobs which entail a degree of creativity or freedom, such as artists and writers. There are an increasing number of programs, like the increasingly trending Chat-GPT, which can generate similar and good work, be it an intricate article or visually appealing artworks. Although this is a relatively new phenomenon, in the sense that this hasn’t been standardised in most businesses domestically, such jobs could be easily at risk in a few years’ time if entrepreneurs opt for such programs. The likelihood is that AI won’t regress i.e., it will only keep enhancing, with its quality and output following suit. The degree to which occupations become insecure depends evidently on the degree of technology advancement and how responsive firms would be in adopting such new changes, but given Malta’s lagging when it comes to technological dimensions and novel procedures, such consequences are likely to take longer in materialising.

On the flip side, AI can lead to job creation particularly since it’s a growing ‘sector’, which is a viable argument if it is capable of offsetting the occupations that are made redundant. For example, UOM which is one of the main hubs in Malta which focuses on R&D projects can introduce more AI-oriented jobs which students could have the opportunity to work in. That said, this upside is discarding certain elements. Firstly, there may be people who have insufficient skills/education level to adapt to these new jobs, or realistically are outright lazy and do not have the willingness to change. Secondly, even if individuals are able to match such requirements (converging towards a more knowledge-oriented economy in which jobs could heavily center around data analysis or similar tasks) and earn potentially higher wages, this might come at the expense of doing an extremely mundane or undesirable job from the individual’s perspective. So realistically has their wellbeing improved?

Alternatively, a common ground can be reached, like most instances, where employees are paired with AI programs. A professor unravels how AI would impact society on a larger scale. From an optimist’s perspective it will be utilised when making decisions, but from a more pessimistic viewpoint, AI machines see their knowledge/optimisation increased and make most, if not all, our decisions on our behalf. Realistically we can observe both sides happening at the moment. Students are now increasingly utilising AI programs in aiding them in their studies, be it for seemingly irrelevant small tasks or for huge sections of an assignment/project.

Some argue that softwares like Chat-GTP are not sufficiently robust enough to tackle certain projects, notably those requiring exigent analysis/thinking. Although that could be true, people need to bear in mind: (i) the number of students using the program and (ii) the extent to which they are using it and (iii) the dynamic aspect to it when it draws from people’s knowledge. As the frequency of people using it rises, affixed with more intense usage, it would likely result in enhancement from the knowledge it acquires, rendering it capable of tackling more difficult issues.

I can definitely understand the former point as such tools can help students clear away from tedious tasks, prioritise life and be more productive. However, abusing from such a system could likely abstain students from the critical thinking aspect that university is meant to supplement students with. So, although AI can have positive impacts for society potentially yielding larger welfare, one should also take a holistic approach to not exclude the ‘costs’ that can materialise from it. Would companies still employ individuals if their skills can be substituted through ultra-modern technology?

The post AI, Work and Jobs appeared first on The Third Eye.

The bill is being pushed by two main US Congress members. Republican Matt Gaetz and Democrat Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). Rather surprising considering the current political climate both globally and in the United States. However, seeing both aisles of the political spectrum actually find common ground and collaborating should, ideally, send a message to those who do not believe that strides forward can be achieved. Unfortunately, considering that Congress has to pass this bill, it is unlikely that it will pass and become law. Reason is quite simple, those who do practice insider trading would be imposing a restriction on themselves. But this should not take away the credit that both Gaetz and AOC deserve. The division that has been seen politically in the west as of the last 7 years or so is deeply troubling. And seeing collaboration between stalwarts of both parties is a good sign.

Gaetz has been quoted saying he would “work with anyone and everyone to ensure that Congress is not so compromised” in a discussion with Fox News. The bill is proof that he is staying true to his word. I believe that this bill is a great move forward as it lessens the ability of politicians to perform what is called insider trading. And not only that, but politicians are supposed to be public servants. Their job is to serve the public and not to enrich themselves doing so. They get paid plenty just for their position, they do not need to invest in the stock market, nor is it fair, since they cheat the system. It is corrupt, dishonest, and often untransparent. Although some would argue that in a free market economy, everyone should be allowed to trade, I believe politicians should be the only exception. There must be some measures put in place that restrict politicians as they already have too much power and privilege.

It can also lead to conflicts of interest that those politicians do not disclose. An example of this type of trading is veteran Democrat politician Lois Frankel’s activities in the market of late. In her case, she sold stock of the First Republic bank 4 days before it collapsed and bought JPMorgan Chase stocks which are currently in the process of buying up all of First Republic’s assets.

In other words, it is great to see collaboration on such a scale and on such a litigious issue. Insider trading has been talked about for years but never has there been a bill like this proposed to oppose it, much less a bipartisan bill. I hope this bill helps the public wake up to the abuse of the system the politicians practice, even if it does not pass.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post The right and the left collaborate for once: the stock trading bill appeared first on The Third Eye.

When I was younger, I often felt that something wasn’t quite right. I generally always had a group of friends and places to go, but always ended up leaving unsatisfied. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it back then. I genuinely believed that I had some innate defect and had to get used to this uncomfortable feeling (even with the people I’d consider myself to be “comfortable” with). I felt like a living paradox, I was never able to find a group that was me, and I’ve tried a bunch. Not to say that there were anything wrong with the people themselves but it was a far more personal issue. I never felt that I was enough of anything to be in one group. I never had a niche that made this decision easy. Until this very day,
I’m constantly changing my tastes, attitudes and beliefs. The only difference is that now I see this trait as a blessing in disguise.

One of the biggest advantages of being the odd one out is that it allows you to tap into your strengths and talents in a way that’s true to who you are. It takes a lot of courage and self-reflection to let yourself be free. For me it started with wearing what I felt good in, calling out people when they said something that didn’t align with my values instead of silently agreeing. A lot of the times, people will find this encouraging. Others will be more willing to be themselves if they’re able to see someone else doing it so fearlessly. When you’re not worried about fitting in, you’re free to explore your interests and passions
without fear of judgment. Instead of thinking about what other people like, stop for a second and question – what do you like? Imagine you were being interviewed, would you know how to answer certain questions about yourself? When I first looked into what my interests were, I was shocked to realise how long it took me to articulate each response. I think this is a big reason as to why so many people don’t know what to do with their lives. Sure, there are many who really are unsure but so many are just clouded by the judgment of what others would think if they dared to do what they really wished (including myself). But the fulfilment you feel once you get to that level is seriously unmatched and I dare you to try it.

Of course, being different can be a double-edged sword even if you’ve come to terms with it. There will be times when you feel isolated or uncomfortable in a given situation. But it’s important to remember that everyone feels this way at some point in their lives, even if they’re the most likeable person we know. We all have something that sets us apart from the crowd, and that’s a good thing.

This process takes time and it’s never a completed journey. I encourage you to challenge yourself and consciously do your best to avoid falling into the trap of normalcy. Embrace your quirks even if the people around you don’t seem to find them as interesting. Talk about your passions even if people try to dim your excitement. At some point, you’ll find your tribe, those individuals who get you without any explanation. Those who will listen to you without having to ask. This day might seem far away but with 8 billion people, you shouldn’t lose hope. In the meantime, try learn from the people around you and be open to new ideas. Challenge your own perspectives by comparing them to the masses. If you’re still able to argue for your own view, then you can be sure that it’s how you really feel. And when it all gets too much, know when to give yourself a pat on the back.

Everyone likes to feel seen and validated and those 2 things don’t come easy when being yourself. Check up with yourself and your comfort level, you don’t need to go all out everyday so let yourself take a step back if you feel the need to.

Being the odd one out can be a challenge, but as cliche as it sounds it will one day be your biggest asset. Tap into your strengths and have the courage to do what feels right for you. You might just be surprised at how much you have to offer.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post Being the odd one out appeared first on The Third Eye.

One of the most notable examples of modern strongman leaders is China’s Xi Jinping. The consolidation of Xi’s power could not have occurred without the support of other senior members of China’s ruling elite. China’s senior leaders supported a shift back to strongman leadership due to a shared sense that the party and the state were facing severe threats that could lead to collapse. The most serious challenges facing the Chinese regime included factionalism within the party, corruption, economic slowdown, environmental pollution, social unrest, ethnic unrest, pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, social inequality, an aging population, and the growing rivalry with the United States. The decline in the legitimacy of the party created a strong sense of anxiety among China’s ruling elite. Thus, the swift concentration of power in Xi’s hands was not solely the result of his individual will and actions, but also the result of the will and actions of other senior leaders. China’s leadership has felt insecure in recent years, and the revival of strongman politics in the Xi era was a response to this insecurity.

Strongman politics is not just confined to non-Western states.  Former U.S. President Donald Trump succeeded in installing a form of “personalist rule” in which loyalty to the head of state, rather than expertise, is the primary qualification for serving him. As we’ve already established, personalist governance concentrates power in one individual, whose own political and financial interests often prevail over national ones. Fear drives authoritarian rulers to pursue witch hunts and seek out other strongmen as partners. Trump erected walls to shield himself from unwelcome realities and surrounded himself with flatterers and family members who screen out criticism and unwanted input. It is for this reason that authoritarian leaders often experience decreasing popularity as a personal betrayal and blame their people for the messes they themselves have caused. And it is for this reason that Trump has refused to accept defeat by Biden, seemingly embracing the fiction that the election was stolen from him. Senior Republicans are increasingly willing to go along with the lie that the 2020 election was stolen, and state-level institutions are under threat from Trump loyalists.

Former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson portrayed striking similarities to the former U.S. President. In fact, Donald Trump himself labelled Boris Johnson as “Britain Trump”. Some in Britain resist the comparison due to Johnson’s ability to laugh at himself, his education, and his fluency in writing. However, Johnson’s actions to cling to power have led to more comparisons to Trump, including claims of acting as if rules don’t apply to him and engaging in alternative facts. The political styles of strongman leaders such as Johnson, Trump, and Xi are similar, with claims of being indispensable and nostalgic nationalists. Strongman leaders create a basis for undermining independent institutions that might stand in the way of their restoration of national greatness, including courts, media, and constitutions. Strongman leaders have emerged in both authoritarian and democratic systems, but they are easier to stop in democracies, as independent institutions play a critical role in keeping them in check.

Strongman leadership is a political phenomenon that concentrates power in the hands of an individual at the expense of democratic institutions and processes. These leaders often rely on personal charisma, force, and repression to maintain their control, and may use tactics such as censorship, propaganda, and the suppression of dissent to maintain their power. While this style of leadership is often associated with non-Western states, recent examples such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson demonstrate that it can also be found in democratic systems. However, the existence of independent institutions in democracies serves as a check on strongman leaders, making them easier to stop than in authoritarian regimes. The rise of strongman leadership often reflects a sense of anxiety and insecurity among the ruling elite, as they face challenges that threaten the legitimacy of their rule.

The concentration of power in the hands of an individual poses a threat to democracy and the rule of law, and should be resisted through the strengthening of independent institutions and democratic processes.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post Has the rise of the strongman leader become a central feature of global politics? appeared first on The Third Eye.

Before delving into the feasibility of a solution, it is important to first comprehend the actions taken by the EU and their corresponding language. In other words, gaining an understanding of the EU’s rhetoric and the measures they have implemented in response to the IRA law is crucial.

IRA: A Plan to Stabilise Prices and Boost the Economy

EC President Ursula von der Leyen had proposed the European Sovereignty Fund (ESF) as a response to the controversial American IRA. The ESF would be integrated into the EU’s long-term budget and support the transition to renewable energy, along with relaxed state aid rules for member states to subsidize companies. However, some experts had expressed concerns that this may lead to a subsidy race between the EU and the US, which could prove to be costly for European taxpayers. While some European leaders have called for a “Buy European” policy, others resist further subsidies.

Meanwhile, the American IRA is a substantial climate bill that aims to lower energy costs, increase cleaner production, and reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2030. It also includes provisions to make corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share and lower healthcare costs for Americans. Despite this, France and Germany have voiced concerns over provisions that may benefit US producers over foreign ones and are pushing for a robust European response in the form of greener subsidies and a “Buy European” policy.

Overall, these bills highlight the importance of striking a balance between environmental sustainability, economic growth, and worker welfare.

IRA: Is it Delivering on its Promise to Tackle Rising Prices?

European clean tech companies are considering the US as a more favourable location for their operations due to the generous tax benefits offered by the US IRA, passed last year. The act offers $375 billion in benefits for renewable industries, and Norwegian start-up Freyr is among the companies building a factory for electric car batteries in Georgia, citing the new law as a “massive, massive incentive.” Similarly, companies across Europe making green energy products like EV batteries and solar panels are also considering the US, as the EU response has been described as “underwhelming” and bureaucratic, causing fears that Europe may fall behind in the green energy transition. The EU has responded with plans to ensure at least 40% of clean tech is produced in Europe by 2030, while also limiting the amount of strategic raw materials from any single third country, such as China. However, the simplicity of the US program is proving attractive to many businesses. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised over the increased costs of local production and whether consumers will be willing to pay more if global supply chains disappear.

Why does it matter?

The recent development of US clean energy policies and the resulting influx of European clean tech companies into the US is an important topic for EU citizens and in particular EU students to be aware of due to its potential impact on the European economy, job market, and essentially global competition in the green energy sector.

With the US set to outpace the EU in the global push to reduce carbon emissions, leaving EU countries at risk of losing billions of investments and jobs.

Furthermore, the EU’s response to this development has been underwhelming to say the least, with complaints that its plan is confusing and bureaucratic (nothing new unfortunately), putting Europe at risk of falling behind in the green energy transition.  

Lastly, the impact of the US incentives concerns the global (and European) supply chains and manufacturing models.

In conclusion, the current state of affairs in Europe is cause for concern, with the ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe (Russia-Ukraine War) and China’s growing influence (in Europe through its companies, and Taiwan), now compounded by the recent bill that challenges the very foundation of the EU economy. These developments signal a turbulent future for Europe, making it imperative for the public, especially students, to engage in open discussions to understand the predicament we find ourselves in. It is crucial that we recognise the gravity of the situation and take proactive measures to address the challenges facing Europe.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post The Green Revolution: Europe’s Race to Catch up? appeared first on The Third Eye.

Most of the greatest strides forward made in the 20th century in terms of human rights were made with the goal of achieving Equality of Opportunity. Equal rights, giving the people an equal shot at doing what they wish in life. In the western world, these movements largely succeeded in achieving such equality before the law. In fact, in the west there are no rights that are exclusive to a particular group and exempt from another. (And I am not talking about abortion in this case). However, this is the crux of the
argument. Giving everyone equal rights does not mean that life is suddenly fair to everyone.

Proponents of Equality of Outcome are correct in pointing out that at any level of hierarchical structures there are inequalities and unfairness. For example, a rich person will obviously have more opportunities than a homeless person does even if they have the same rights. However, this is exactly what holds this philosophy back. By definition, equality of outcome looks at the equality of different groups at the outcome. So for example, how many men and women are working a particular profession. If it is not an even 50/50 split, there is no equality of outcome. This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, there is an infinite number of demographics that one can split people in to. Therefore, instantly rendering equality of outcome impossible to achieve. Secondly, to even try and achieve that one must eliminate the most fundamental variable. Choice.

Equality of opportunity implies that two people, no matter what demographic they are a part of, have the ability to choose what profession they go into. But it does not eliminate the reality which is that some people would have it more or less difficult than others to go into whatever domain they wish to. Essentially everyone has a chance, but the chance can either be minimal or significant.

Trying to push Equality of outcome often fails as to achieve it you have to allow a government or company to impose very controlling nay tyrannical restrictions. The easiest professions to look at are
nursing or construction. Nursing is overwhelmingly female while construction is overwhelmingly male. Both males and female have the ability to go into both professions, but given their choice (equality of
opportunity) it does not produce equality of outcome (a 50/50 split).

In other words, to achieve either, you would need to eliminate the other. Therefore, one must ask which is better? Well to me it is rather simple. Give everyone a chance to make something of themselves or force everyone to stay within their boundaries to force equality of outcome. I would much rather stick with the former.

There is a deeply rooted philosophical aspect to this conversation as well. It’s the same old argument of group identity vs individual identity. To view group identity as more important is to reduce the individual to being a part of a demographic that is either in the majority or the minority. This is extremely problematic. That observation implies that if there is an inequality in outcome, there must be injustice between those groups, whatever they may be. So, morally one must eliminate that inequality so to be fair to the groups, NOT the individuals. Equality of outcome does not exist if one does not observe hierarchies as the difference between groups rather than individuals. It is the literal opposite of what a meritocratic nation should aim to achieve.

The appalling US doctrine of Affirmative Action is a manifestation of everything that can go wrong with the philosophy of groupthink and therefore equality of outcome policies. Affirmative Action is a policy
in the US that basically sets lower/higher criteria to be able to enrol in colleges based on RACE. For example, an Asian-American has a lower chance of getting into a college than an African-American has even if they have the same SAT scores. This discriminates heavily in two ways. It assumes that African-Americans need more help to enrol than Asian-Americans do. And that Asian-Americans have some
advantage based on their race. Privilege is the word used to describe this advantage. The basis is Race. Not the scores or the performances of those individuals. But the perceived unfairness that those groups
suffer. In essence it is a racist doctrine. It is the antithesis of judging people by the content of their character.

Conclusively, it is evident that one of these doctrines is more moral. Unfortunately, it is impossible to have fairness all around. One must accept that life is not fair. That is precisely what gives people who are
successful despite bad odds merit. This is what a meritocracy is supposed to promote. The ability to move up social hierarchies based on individual strides forward and not restrictions on others. And more
importantly, restrictions based on race.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Outcome, which is more desirable? appeared first on The Third Eye.

Perfectionism is often viewed as a desirable trait. People who exhibit it are often praised for their attention to detail, their dedication to excellence, and their high standards. However, perfectionism can have negative consequences, especially when it is taken to the extreme. When individuals are unable to achieve the level of perfection they desire, they can become chronically anxious, stressed, and disappointed.

One of the most significant consequences of perfectionism is the fear of failure. This is one of the most common fears that individuals experience, regardless of age or background. Perfectionists often believe that anything less than perfection is a failure, and they will go to great lengths to avoid it. This fear of failure can cause them to become static, unable to take risks, and unwilling to try new things. This can limit their ability to grow and develop as individuals, both personally and professionally. As a result, the
amount of missed opportunities that occur because of this fear is tantalising. While it is natural to feel apprehensive about failure, it is important to understand the causes of this fear and ways to overcome it.

The fear of failure can manifest in many different ways. For example, someone who is afraid of failing may avoid taking on new challenges, procrastinate, or sabotage their own efforts. They may also be excessively self-critical and judge themselves harshly for even minor mistakes. This can lead to a lack of confidence and a negative self-image. Leading many of them to over-compensate in other ways.

One of the primary reasons why people fear failure is due to the negative associations that have been formed around it. Failure is often viewed as a sign of weakness, incompetence, or lack of ability, which can lead to feelings of shame, disappointment, and frustration. This perception of failure can be especially prevalent in highly competitive environments, where success is valued above all else.

Another factor that contributes to the fear of failure is the uncertainty that comes with taking risks. It is impossible to predict the outcome of any given situation, and this can create anxiety and apprehension. The fear of the unknown can be paralyzing, and many individuals may choose to avoid taking risks altogether in order to avoid the possibility of failure.

Perfectionists often believe that their self-worth is tied to their ability to achieve perfection. They may believe that they are only as good as their last success, and any failure is a reflection of their personal worth. This can lead to a vicious cycle of self-doubt and anxiety, where the fear of failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Perfectionism and the fear of failure can be particularly challenging in today’s society. The pressure to succeed, especially in highly competitive fields, can be overwhelming. Social media, with its curated images of perfection and success, can exacerbate these feelings of inadequacy and anxiety. Additionally, the pandemic has added another layer of stress and uncertainty, making it even harder for individuals to cope with the pressure to be perfect.

It is essential to recognize that perfectionism and the fear of failure are not healthy or desirable traits. While setting high standards for oneself can be motivating, the pursuit of perfection can be a never-ending cycle that ultimately leads to disappointment and frustration. Accepting that failure is a part of life and an opportunity for growth and learning can be a powerful tool for overcoming the fear of failure and perfectionism.

While the fear of failure is a common experience, it is important to acknowledge that it can be overcome. One of the most effective ways to combat this fear is through reframing one’s mindset. Instead of viewing failure as a negative outcome, it can be helpful to view it as a learning opportunity. Every failure provides valuable feedback that can be used to make improvements and progress towards one’s goals. By embracing failure as a necessary part of the learning process, individuals can reduce the anxiety and stress associated with it.

Another way to overcome the fear of failure is to focus on the process rather than the outcome. When individuals place too much emphasis on achieving a specific outcome, they may become overwhelmed and discouraged if they do not succeed. By shifting the focus to the process and the steps necessary to achieve the goal, individuals can break down the task into smaller, more manageable pieces. This can help to reduce anxiety and build confidence, as each small success builds upon the previous one.

This blog in particular wasn’t just written to publish. It also acts as a declaration to keep myself accountable. It’s definitely not close to perfect but it doesn’t have to be.

For now, this is enough.

This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.

The post Why are we afraid to fail? appeared first on The Third Eye.