+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy
History (Education)

The Swedish resistance to feeding guests may not actually be as rude as it seems

A viral post about Swedish households excluding guests from meals created a flurry of debate over cultural norms.

The Swedish resistance to feeding guests may not actually be as rude as it seems
Photo by Gabriella Clare Marino on Unsplash, @SamQari/Twitter

Sweden's cultural norm of not feeding unexpected guests resulted in a flurry of debate over hospitality.

Growing up, I was taught that it was rude to slurp food at the dinner table. In most American households, if you ate a bowl of soup and audibly slurped the noodles out of your bowl, people would assume you never learned proper table manners.

As an adult, though, I lived in Japan for a year, where it is not only acceptable to slurp your noodles loudly around others, but it's actually considered good manners. Noodle slurping is an integral part of Japanese food culture, a norm that feels strange or even wrong to people from most other cultures.

This difference was the first thing that came to mind when I saw a flurry of debate recently about a Swedish cultural food norm that some people find downright appalling.

It all started with a viral Reddit post asking about the weirdest thing people have had to do in someone's home due to their culture or religion. One responder described being made to wait in a Swedish friend's bedroom while the friend had dinner with their family.

"While we were playing in his room, his mom yelled that dinner was ready. And check this. He told me to WAIT in his room while they ate," the person wrote.

Another comment followed describing a similar instance: "I slept over at a friend's house. When we woke up, he said he's going downstairs for a few minutes. After about 15 minutes I go on the stairs to see wtf is happening and they're eating breakfast. They see me and tell me he's almost done and will be up there soon."

Fast and furious responses followed, screenshots of the posts went viral on various social media platforms and the entire nation of Sweden took a beating as people berated their rude habits and lack of basic hospitality. The hashtag #Swedengate trended on Twitter for days as people shared all manner of negative impressions of (and in some cases, direct experiences from) Swedish culture.

I'm not here to defend Sweden wholesale, as I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate criticisms, as there are for every culture. However, when it comes to something like not feeding guests in your own home, it seems likely that there's some kind of explanation beyond "these people are just rude." Much like noodle slurping in Japan, one culture's rude can be another culture's polite.

As it turns out, there are a few explanations for it.

Part of Sweden's food culture is a combo of its long winters and culture of independence.

Professor Hakan Jonsson, a food studies professor at Lund University in Sweden, told The New York Times that some of the resistance to feeding guests stems from the days when food harvests had to be stored for many months during the long Nordic winter. Spontaneous dinners were traditionally not part of the culture, as families had to carefully plan and ration their food stores.

Independence is also a strong cultural value in Sweden, and rather than seen as generosity, feeding another person's child could be seen as a criticism of that family's ability to provide for their children.

“There has been a very strong urge of independence, to not rely on others’ good will for having a good and independent life,” Professor Jonsson told The Times.

(Hmm, now the entire IKEA model makes sense. Careful precision in design, but then, "Here, you're on your own to actually build it. Good luck.")

Others have shared similar explanations, saying that feeding someone else's child is in some ways considered rude, either because it's viewed as a judgment on the parents' ability to feed their children or as interfering with a family's own dinner.

"Swedes cook for the people they expect (family). Precise portions. We don't mind guests, just tell us in advance and we'll add one more. And in Sweden, it's understood, you don't eat at a friend's house unannounced. No big deal here," wrote one Twitter user.

Those explanations didn't stop people from cultures that place a high value on hospitality from criticizing the practice, of course. Not feeding a guest in your home is the peak of rudeness in certain cultures, so how could this practice be seen as OK in any way?

Part of Sweden's not-feeding-guests culture may be rooted in a history of shame for 'owing' people.

Another explanation shared on Twitter from an "amateur historian and sociologist" provides more historical context for the practice. It's a bit lengthy, but the gist is that this not-feeding norm isn't unique to Sweden, but common to Norse cultures in general and even somewhat common in Norman England and France. According to this explanation, it has to do with the historical "honor/shame economy" of Viking culture being a source of violent conflict.

"In Norse culture, hospitality (providing food, drink, lodging) was a duty of higher status individuals towards people of lower status, but the act of receiving hospitality created an obligation or debt on the part of the recipient," @WallySierk wrote. "So, hospitality not only brought honor to the giver, it had the potential to bring shame to the recipient. Norse culture, and as it progressed through the Middle Ages, was incredibly personally violent. People fought duels, violently extracted debts and squeezed renters."

"One of the challenges of the Protestant church in Scandinavia post-30 years war was to create a culture that tamped down on personal violence and civic unrest," they continued. "Since the root of a lot of the interpersonal violence was competition for status and extraction of payment, the Church, with the framing of early Protestant Humanists, began to promote the ideal of the free member of society, owing no one and owed nothing. If the culture could get rid of the interactions that caused friction, people could live more peaceful lives."

The thread explains that inequality and industrialization in the 1700s and early 1800s pushed Scandinavians to emigrate to America and other colonies, leading some people in power to manipulate debts, which created a lot of pain.

"When people were able to escape debt, they felt a lot better. So, for the sake of egalitarianism and reduction of conflict, they created a society that minimized the creation of debt and obligation, and maximized the ability of the individual/family to be self-sufficient. This 'not feeding the neighbor kids' weirdness Is about maintaining peace in the community."

From reading replies from Swedes, it appears this practice is common, but not necessarily universal. It also appears to be primarily about guests who are not planned for in advance, not a blanket "we don't do hospitality" norm. Still, it is a stark contrast to cultures in which offering food to any guest in your home is simply par for the course. The idea that you would not only not offer, but actively not serve a guest food is a complete anathema in many countries and cultures around the world.

But when you dig into the roots of why those norms exist, it's not quite as blatantly rude as it seems. Cultural norms rooted in historical struggle take a long time to change, even when those struggles are no longer front and center.

All I'm saying is let's give the Swedes a teensy bit of grace on the food front. They may come across as stingy to many of us, but in the context of their own history, it makes some sense. Plus those IKEA Swedish meatballs are hard to beat.


This article originally appeared on 6.3.22

From Your Site Articles
Health

After learning I’m an empath, life makes so much more sense. Are you one, too?

There’s solid science behind the psychology.

via Pixabay

The many faces of an empath.

A few years ago I had an office job where I sat in a row of cubicles with about a dozen other people. One morning when a coworker walked into the office to start his day, a feeling of dread bubbled up from my subconscious. He was angry and I wasn’t going to be able to escape his feelings.

His desk was about 10 feet from mine and like waves, I could feel his emotions seeping into my body. He wasn’t bothering anyone and was always pleasant to me, but I knew he was angry about something deep down, and I could feel it.

As far as I knew, no one else in the office was having the same experience that I was. I was the only person who found it emotionally exhausting to be in the same room as this person.

I wasn’t sure what to make of this bizarre, unintentional attachment to the emotional states of others until I was listening to a podcast featuring Dr. Drew Pinksy where he mentioned that he was “an emotional sponge” who sucks up other people’s emotions and referred to it as being an “empath.”

That powerful revelation struck me in two ways. I realized that I was probably an empath as well and that I experience emotions differently than others. "One of the hardest things about being an empath is learning not everyone is,” Hannah Ewens at Vice wrote.

PsychAlive describes being an empath as exhausting at times, but not without its benefits.

“Empaths are highly sensitive individuals, who have a keen ability to sense what people around them are thinking and feeling. … often to the point of taking on the pain of others at their own expense,” PsychAlive says.

“On the bright side, empaths tend to be excellent friends,” PsychAlive continues. “They are superb listeners. They consistently show up for friends in times of need. They are big-hearted and generous. Empaths also tend to be highly intuitive and emotionally intelligent.”

via Pexels

As I started to look into the idea that I may be an empath, I began to consider the emotional sway my wife has over me. If she is stressed or tired, it makes me uncomfortable because I cannot escape her emotional state. It’s not that she’s overly emotional, but that I lack the force field that shields me from people’s emotional states, especially people close to me.

That’s why I get a huge feeling of relief when my wife transitions from being in a negative mood to a positive one. But, on the other hand, she doesn’t seem to be swayed one way or the other by my emotional state. It’s not that she’s callous, it’s just that she has a healthy emotional distance from me.

The problem is that it's nearly impossible to explain what this feels like to someone who isn’t an empath, and attempting to do so makes me seem a little unstable. So I keep these disturbances to myself, which probably isn’t healthy.

Caroline Van Kimmenade, who runs courses for empaths who want to understand their power, explained what it’s like to be an empath. "It's like a football match where everyone gets hyped up and starts waving and then the mob things start sweeping you up, and you barely know you're doing it," she explained.

"We can all experience that, but it doesn't mean you're an empath. But for an empath, it's that multiplied and applied to everything all of the time. Empaths are constantly in a giant football stadium where they're reacting to bigger things going on from all directions,” said Van Kimmenade.

When I realized I was an empath it helped me make sense of a part of myself that always felt contradictory. I am a person who has no problem being alone for long periods of time, but I’m also totally comfortable in social situations.

Tod Perry's solitary workspace.

via Upworthy

I work for Upworthy as a writer and the host of its podcast, “Upworthy Weekly,” and do it all from home. Honestly, I love being alone all day because I have a lot more power over my own emotional state than when I'm in an office getting bombarded by other people’s “stuff.”

I also enjoy going to movies, concerts and bars alone, too.

On the other hand, I am an extrovert who’s very comfortable in social situations. Empaths can be very social people because they have the superpower of being attuned to others' emotions and they have a great intuition for other people. We are experts at reading the room and are great at relating to all sorts of people.

Dr. Judith Orloff, the author of “The Empath’s Survival Guide: Life Strategies for Sensitive People,” says that extroverted empaths “crave the dopamine rush from lively events. In fact, they can’t get enough of it.”

One of the strangest things about being an empath is having a heightened sense of smell. My sense of smell is so keen that I can’t wear cologne because I never go nose blind to the scent and it’ll bother me the whole night. The same goes for scented lotions. The interesting thing is that this isn’t just in my head; researchers have found that the part of the brain that recognizes emotions overlaps with the brain areas associated with smell.

So what causes someone to be an empath?

“It can be both nature and nurture. Some empaths are born empaths the minute they come out of the womb they are these sensitive creatures feeling the world with the palm of their hands,” Dr. Orloff told Upworthy.

Dr. Orloff says that research shows empaths have different brain chemistry.

“Research is suggesting that the mirror neuron system in the brain is on overdrive with empaths—meaning their compassion is hyperactive versus narcissists who have hypo-active mirror neurons and empathy deficient disorder,” Orloff said.

Orloff adds that even though men and women are both empaths, it can be harder for men to come to terms with their sensitivity. She runs an empath support community where men are much more reluctant to share.

“When the men do share, they express the shame about being sensitive, how it isn't masculine and how they were bullied as children and made to feel ashamed to be crybabies rather than beautiful sensitive beings,” Orloff told Upworthy.

I had never heard of the term empath until about five years ago, but after coming to the realization that I probably am one and learning about the positive and negative aspects of this psychological trait, I feel that I’ve become better at navigating my emotional life. I'm getting better at seeing the difference between my emotions and those of others and making sense of the difference.

On the positive side, I’ve developed greater trust in my own intuition knowing that, as an empath, when I get a sense about someone, I should go with it because there’s a good chance I’m right. I’ve also learned to be less judgmental of those around me who I think aren’t as sensitive as they should be. They’re just not experiencing life the same way.


This article originally appeared 2 years ago.

From Your Site Articles
psychology
Education

Why didn't people smile in old photographs? It wasn't just about the long exposure times.

People blame these serious expressions on how long they had to sit for a photo, but that's not the whole picture.

Public domain images

Photos from the 1800s were so serious.

If you've ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you've likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there's a hint of a smile at all, it's oh-so-slight, but more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn't people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?

Most often, people's serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that's true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.

Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It's surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as "smiley" aren't toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.

But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn't smile in early photographs.

1800s photographsWhy so serious? Public domain

The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits

The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn't smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn't how it was done.

A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.

"Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, painted in 1503Public domain

Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard

Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:

"Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette."

"Malle Babbe" by Frans Hals, sometime between 1640 and 1646Public domain

In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.

Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn't lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn't work well in portraits of old.

As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn't have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.

wedding party photoEven wedding party photos didn't appear to be joyful occasions.Wikimedia Commons

Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture

So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.

Photos could have captured people's natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn't widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kind of emotions on people's faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person's face.

Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.

From Your Site Articles
history
Music

5-year-old Italian piano prodigy rocks Mozart at international competition and holy cow

Alberto has already won multiple international competitions.

Pianoforte/Facebook

Alberto Cartuccia Cingolani wows audiences with his amazing musical talents.

Mozart was known for his musical talent at a young age, playing the harpsichord at age 4 and writing original compositions at age 5. So perhaps it's fitting that a video of 5-year-old piano prodigy Alberto Cartuccia Cingolani playing Mozart has gone viral as people marvel at his musical abilities.

Alberto's legs couldn't even reach the pedals, but that didn't stop his little hands from flying expertly over the keys as incredible music pours out of the piano at the 10th International Musical Competition "Città di Penne" in Italy in 2022. Even if you've seen young musicians play impressively, it's hard not to have your jaw drop at this one. Sometimes a kid comes along who just clearly has a gift.

Of course, that gift has been helped along by two professional musician parents. But no amount of teaching can create an ability like this.

Alberto first started playing in 2020 in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Italy was one of the first countries to experience a serious lockdown, and Alberto's mother used the opportunity to start teaching her son to play piano. Alessia Cingolani and her husband Simone Cartuccia are both music conservatory graduates, and mom Alessia told Italian entertainment website Contrataque that she and her husband recognized Alberto's talent immediately.

She said that although Alberto spends a lot of time at the piano, he also has plenty of time for school and play and television, like a normal kid.

There's genuinely nothing "normal" about this kid's piano playing, though. Watch:

Wow, right? There are countless adults who took years of piano lessons and never got to that level of playing. It's like he's channeling Amadeus himself.

According to Corriere Adriatico, by the time he was 4 1/2 years old, Alberto had participated in seven national and international online competitions and won first place in all of them. His mother told the outlet that he started out practicing for about 10 minutes a day and gradually increased to three hours.

"He has a remarkable flair for the piano," she said. Um, yeah. Clearly.

Some commenters expressed some concern for the boy based on his seriousness and what looks like dark circles under his eyes in the video, but if you check out other videos of Alberto playing at home, he is more relaxed. Most of his playing and competition entries have been done online, so performing for a crowd is probably new for him. And in interviews, his mother has made it clear that they prioritize normal childhood activities.

Some children are just genuine prodigies, and Alberto certainly seems to fit that bill. Can't wait to see what kind of musical future awaits this kid.


This article originally appeared on 5.4.22

From Your Site Articles
Pop Culture

Jelly Roll invites inmates to perform with him on stage and brings people to tears

Jelly Roll knows firsthand what this kind of representation can do.

By Unknown author - C-SPAN, Public Domain/Photo credit: Canva

Jelly Roll has inmates perform at his concert, moving people to tears.

Jelly Roll is an American rapper and singer that has shot to the top of the charts in recent years with his hit songs "Save Me" and "Need A Favor." He's been vocal about his rough start in life that involved drugs and multiple trips to jail before he eventually earned his GED while incarcerated and dedicated himself to finding a different way to live life.

The singer uses his experiences to not only reach audiences through his music but through the stories he tells. Jelly Roll never shies away from all the things he's been through in life, so it shouldn't be surprising that he looks for ways to give back to people who have found themselves in similar situations, often visiting correctional facilities in tour cities.

Recently his tour took him to Chesterfield, Virginia, where he of course stopped by the county jail to speak to the inmates. But this time, instead of performing for them, some of the inmates performed for him. Jelly Roll was blown away by their talent and before his scheduled performance decided to take a chance by asking the sheriff if the inmates could join him on stage. It's probably safe to assume this isn't a regular request for the sheriff, but he decided to oblige the singer.

The inmates got to show up in street clothes, joining the singer on stage to sing his single, "Unpretty," which is a song one of the prisoner's sang for Jelly Roll earlier in the day. The artist uploaded a highlight reel to his Instagram page with the caption:

"One of the most special moments of my career happened last night. Before the show, I had the honor of stopping by a jail in Chesterfield, Virginia where they have a program called Helping Addicts Recover Progressively (HARP). I’ve had the pleasure of getting to visit and talk to the folks in this program before, but this time something surreal took place. Sheriff Leonard allowed 4 members of the program to not only come to the show, but come on stage and perform the music with me.

I don’t know what it was about me, but I only ever believed things could happen whenever I got close enough to see them happening in front of me. My hope with bringing these men out on stage with me is that they can see a larger picture of what life can become. The place they’re in now is not the end, and the future can be so much more than their wildest dreams. I can never thank and praise the HARP program enough for making this happen, the work they’re doing is truly invaluable."

Jelly Roll testifying before the U.S. Congresscommons.wikimedia.org

In another video posted to Jelly Roll's Instagram page, you can see the inmates perform from the audience viewpoint and you can tell the men are taking full advantage of the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. If they were nervous, there was no indication of it because the four men sang, rapped and played the guitar. There was true talent in that group, and they got to showcase it to hundreds of screaming fans.

Under the highlight reel, a fan speaks highly of the program that allowed the inmates to experience a Jelly Roll concert from the stage, writing, "I been in that program. You leave with a different mindset. The sheriff is a good man, and really trying to make a difference. We appreciate you jelly for all you do."

The Chesterfield Virginia account also show their appreciation, "Thank you so much for coming to our jail and loving on our inmates! It meant the world."


Celebrities, congresspeople and fans can't seem to get enough of Jelly Roll's action of reaching back to show people headed down the wrong path a new direction.

Tulsi Gabbard says, "Tears streaming down my face. Thank you @jellyroll615 for your heart, and the love you have shown to these men. I felt God’s presence and love on that stage and in our hearts."

Lenny Kravitz writes, "Yes! Let Love Rule brother!"

One person shares, "THIS is what using your platform is meant to achieve! This was life changing and powerful and inspiring and motivational. It’s this type of energy & work that social media is at its best. This is reconciliation work! You are helping us to grow closer and closer to what true reconciliation can be. I think of what it truly means to have an entire audience cheering you on when you are in a position, as these men are, at this time of their lives. THANK YOU!"

Someone else chimes in, "I just got goosebumps. Wow the end singer. They are never going to forget the opportunity both you and the sheriff gave them."

This truly is something these men will never forget, but the audience will also never forget it. Jelly Roll loudly and boldly proclaimed that prisoners are worth the effort to redeem by taking a chance and putting them on stage. This moment will be forever imprinted in the minds of the inmates and others, encouraging growth and life changes.

From Your Site Articles
jelly roll inmates concert
Science

Steve Jobs swore by this easy trick to boost his creativity and solve just about any problem

It's backed by science.

via Matthew Yohe/Wikimedia Commons

Steve Jobs in 2010

Do you ever get stuck on a problem while sitting at your desk and can’t find a solution? You wrack your brain, but you only seem to get more frustrated instead of closer to solving the issue. Steve Jobs had a way of finding inspiration when he felt his thoughts were stuck in the mud. He got up and took a walk.

Jobs was the visionary co-founder of Apple whose creativity, innovation and passion changed how people live and connect.

How did Steve Jobs solve problems?

According to Inc., Jobs' biographer Walter Isaacson said, “Taking a long walk was his preferred way to have a serious conversation.” “So much of our time together was spent quietly walking,” recalled legendary designer Jony Ives. Jobs did a lot of his creative thinking while walking. He often strolled around Apple’s Cupertino, California neighborhood, often holding meetings with people as they walked.

You don’t have to go this far, but Jobs often liked taking these walks barefoot.


Why is talking a walk good for creativity?

Science supports the idea that walking can boost one's problem-solving abilities. A report from Stanford found that walking can raise one's creative output by as much as 60%. “Many people anecdotally claim they do their best thinking when walking. We finally may be taking a step, or two, toward discovering why,” Oppezzo and Schwartz wrote in the study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition.

The researchers gave 3 reasons why they think walking is so great for creativity:

1. Mindfulness: Walking in a natural setting can reduce mental clutter and enhance focus, allowing one to see the problem with fewer mental distractions.

2. Associative thinking: The rhythmic movement of walking could stimulate the brain’s associative networks, making connecting ideas easier.

3. Freedom and exploration: Getting up and moving about may inspire a greater sense of freedom and exploration, opening you up to fresh ideas.

Another reason taking a walk is helpful to come up with fresh ideas is that breakthrough ideas often happen when the brain switches from the executive network to its default network. The executive part of the brain is goal-focused and task-oriented, but the default network is where we brainstorm. According to “In The Net and the Butterfly: The Art and Practice of Breakthrough Thinking,” authors Olivia Fox Cabana and Judah Pollack believe that when you’re on a walk, you have the best chance of both modes cooperating. "If we had to choose one single mindless activity for you to do, it would be walking," Cabana and Pollack conclude.

How do you get creative on a walk?

Writing tutor Sarah Salway says that if you want to walk to solve a problem, it’s best to have a clear idea of what you’re trying to solve.

“You might want to formulate a question before you start walking. As you walk with your question in mind, where your attention falls may guide you to an answer. It can be a good exercise to do with a friend. When I’ve done this, it’s astonishing how we notice completely different things and how each of us answers our own questions,” Salway writes in Psychology Today.

Next time you get stuck on something, staring at your computer screen or a blank paper sheet won’t do you much good. Get out and take a walk, preferably with a friend or colleague, to bounce ideas off of. And, if you want to walk in Jobs’ shoes, take off yours and feel the ground beneath your feet as your mind reaches for the sky.

From Your Site Articles
creativity
Trending Stories