<div class="text-justify">

One of the things that resonated with me from the book *Atomic Habits,* was the idea of how each time we perform an action, it is a vote in favor of the our type of person. The more votes in favor, the more likely we will identify as *that type of person* as the evidence mounts up. As you probably realize, this works with both positive and negative actions. 

For instance, if I continually vote to go to the gym (actually go) then I am supporting the identity that I am the type of person who looks after about my health. But, if I am continually voting to not go, I am supporting the identity of someone who doesn't look after my health. And, what is important to acknowledge with this voting framework, is that it isn't about doing the "right thing" every time, it is about working out ways to do the right thing *the majority* of the time. If there are more positive points compared to negative points, the progress might be slow, but there will be progress. 


![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/2449sxZ4JfHwD39C3E3GMme2evWvJL26M7YwxTYP9d7LLhhMrjdRh2XJ3nmerQUP7N9Rk.png)


I was thinking about this in terms of my writing on Hive from a couple of perspectives and how I personally identify with them. 

- Frequency
- Quality

## Frequency.

While I still write every day, I am *far less* prolific than I was in the first couple years I started writing consistently. Back then, it was multiple articles a day and I was probably averaging somewhere between 3000 and 6000 words daily, on multiple topics. There are multiple reasons I don't write as frequently. 

For instance, as my earnings on an article increased, I reduced the number and lengthened the article. There is a cultural side to this also, where frequent posters were generally spammers looking to extract as much reward as possible - and it was seemingly incomprehensible that someone loved writing, and was able to produce multiple pieces of something that was considered quality. And then of course, my life situation has shifted over time and I had a stroke (transient ischemic attack), which has changed my availability, and the way I am able to process thoughts.

What is interesting though is, that I don't think I identify as a writer, even though I write daily. And this has me thinking about the "type of person who" statement. I think that in reflection, rather than being *the type of person who writes daily,* what I might be more inclined to identify with is *the type of person who shares thoughts daily.* Yes, the medium is written, but I think that I get enjoyment out of good conversations, and good conversations feed my thoughts, which then get shared to generate and enrich new conversations.

This then perhaps speaks to the next point. 

## Quality.

Sharing thoughts is not overly difficult, unless considering the value of those thoughts. Now, value is always subjective, which is also why what would be considered quality is subjective. For me though, the biggest value of my thoughts is that *they are my own.* Sure, there might be people have thought similar, or said similar in the past, but I don't spend a huge amount of time consuming other's thoughts in order to form my opinion about things, but rather, actively observe activity in its many forms, then spend time developing my world view through reflection and contemplation. 

> Part of which, I share daily.

The "quality" of my thought process isn't that my thoughts are of quality, but that because they are mine, because they are observed through my own experiences, developed through my own perspectives, and applied in my own environment, it means I have a high level of integrity in the process. What I mean by "integrity" is that what I think and do are generally pretty well aligned, and when they are not, I reflect on why and how, to see if I can align them more closely. 

This presents in my writing also, where how I write is aligned with how I think, even if I am writing from perspectives from which I don't believe. I can play devil's advocate, or feign ignorance at times, because it helps me position the conversation in a more *thoughtful* way. More thoughtful doesn't necessarily mean the thought I put into it, but also the thoughts that could be *inspired* from the conversation. 

## Thoughts, Words, Actions.

This is the base formula for intentional creativity. A thought comes to mind, that thought gets translated into words (internally or externally), those words inspire some kind of movement - Something is created. This basic approach to creation is something I think we should all consider, especially if we are looking to change something in our world. While there is always a lot of change going on, if we aren't thinking, discussing, and then acting with alignment, we aren't intentionally affecting our experience. We become victims of circumstance, with the influencing factors likely blind to us.

## Influencing the Majority.

*We can all improve.*

I can improve my thoughts and the way I express them, as well as the resulting actions that are born from them. However, improvement of the things I care about, rarely just "happen" by default. And, while there can be plenty of slipups along the way where my thoughts are not forthcoming or garbled, the words I use to express myself are not the best choice, or my actions are not in support of the type of person I aspire to be, the more "right" actions, the more practice and proof I get to inspire doing it again, or improving for next time further. The more proof, the more identification and that results in more repetition, and even more evidence mounting up.

When it comes to influencing habits, repetition is necessary to reinforce skills. However, when it comes to continuous improvement, changing the practice incrementally is also required. Applying this to the formula of creativity, to innovate better, thought needs to happen regularly, expression needs to improve and actions should align with the changing variables. I think this is where my writing has developed, where I have good and bad days, better and worse articles, but I am looking to have a *majority* of good days and better articles, and reduce the lows of the bad days and worse articles. 

And as I have written about before, one of the "benefits" of writing daily for so long, is that the habit doesn't depend on me *being in the mood* in order to write, because that is not what I identify with. I don't identify as the type of person who is a quality writer, or even as the type of person who writes daily. How I seem to identify is the kind of person who is looking to improve my actions, so that there is more good than bad. At times I fail and these give me more data points to improve for next time. And of course, as I write and share my thoughts, I hope that it inspires people to improve their processes too, and become creators also. 

There is no election, just possibility. And each day we are all casting many votes that indicate the type of person we are today, and who we could become tomorrow.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


</div>