The only problem is the way people think

You may scratch your head, nod, or argue with your screen over this quote from my first book. Whew. Take a breath. That's quite a bold assertion, isn't it? It suggests that all the drama, all the misunderstandings, all the clashes we experience in life aren’t primarily about external events, or a lack of resources, or even just 'bad people.' Instead, it puts the spotlight squarely on our internal operating system—how our minds work, how we process information, how we form opinions, and ultimately, how we decide what's "right" or "wrong." If this quote is accurate, we should consider introspection before blaming others. When the quote says "thinking itself is a problem," it's not suggesting that intelligence is bad or that having thoughts is inherently flawed. This is far from the case. It shows our thinking's nature: our biases, the filters we use to see the world, our assumptions, and the subjective lens through which we each experience reality. We often see our thoughts as objective truth, as plain common sense. But what if that "common sense" is anything but common, completely unique to our own mental landscape? Think about it. We’re all walking around with our personal hard drives, loaded with different software, different operating systems, and vastly different data accumulated over a lifetime. Your brain isn't just about processing facts; it's about interpreting them, assigning meaning, filtering out certain details, and highlighting others, all based on a complex algorithm of past experiences, emotions, values, and beliefs. The "problem" emerges when these unique internal worlds clash.  Let’s start with an arena where differing thoughts are on full, often painful, display: the world of politics. Politicians come from a variety of backgrounds, correct? Take economic policy, for instance. One might genuinely believe that slashing taxes for corporations and the wealthy will stimulate the economy, leading to job creation and prosperity for all. They might have studies, historical precedents, and a whole philosophy built around this idea. Their thinking is rooted in a belief that incentives for the rich trickle down. Conversely, another politician may sincerely hold the belief that investing in social programs and public infrastructure and establishing a robust safety net for the less fortunate is the genuine route to achieving widespread prosperity. They might argue that putting money directly into the hands of the working class boosts demand and that a healthy, educated populace is the bedrock of a strong economy. Their perspective stems from the conviction that growth originates from the grassroots, not the top-down approach. Both arguably want a better country for their constituents. Both are probably intelligent, well-meaning individuals (at least, we hope!). What leads to the persistent gridlock, intense disagreements, and challenges in reaching common ground? It’s not necessarily that one is evil and the other good. This often occurs because their fundamental thinking, which includes core assumptions about human nature, economics, fairness, and the role of government, is diametrically opposed. They view the same societal problems from completely different perspectives, convinced that theirs is the only logical one. Their "thinking itself" becomes the problem, leading to an impasse where progress stalls. Now, let's apply the quote to our personal lives, where it truly resonates. Think about a disagreement you've had with a friend, someone you genuinely like and respect. It could be something as mundane as planning a vacation or as significant as a disagreement over a life choice. Imagine you're planning a weekend trip with a friend. You, in your infinite wisdom, believe the best way to travel is to book everything well in advance, have a detailed itinerary, and stick to it. You enjoy the security and predictability this brings. You think, "Why would anyone want to just wing it? It's a risky approach! Your friend, however, lives for spontaneity. Their ideal trip entails choosing a direction, exploring the journey, and making spontaneous decisions. They think, "Planning everything takes all the fun out of it! Where's the adventure?" Neither of you is wrong. Both ways of thinking about travel are perfectly valid. However, because your individual perspectives on what constitutes a good trip differ so greatly, you may become frustrated with each other and might even accuse one another of being "rigid" or "irresponsible." Your friend might feel constrained by your planning, while you might feel anxious about their lack of foresight. The external event (the trip) isn’t the problem; it’s the clash of your internal processing mechanisms—your unique "thought patterns"—that creates the tension.

Why We Don't See Eye-to-Eye

This incident brings us to a crucial point: "One sees through his own eyes and the others with their eyes." We often forget this simple truth. We perceive the world not as it is, but as we are. It's like everyone is wearing a different pair of bespoke sunglasses, each tinted with unique colors, filters, and prescriptions based on their life journey. Consider a simple event: two colleagues witness a heated exchange between their boss and another team member. Person A, who grew up in a strict household where any display of anger was considered unacceptable, might interpret the boss's tone as aggressive and unprofessional, concluding the boss is a bully. Person B, who grew up in a more boisterous environment where lively debates were common, might see the same exchange as merely passionate and direct, concluding the boss is just a strong leader who gets things done. The "event" is the same, but their internal interpretations, their "thinkings," lead to vastly different conclusions and feelings about the situation. This issue isn't about malicious intent; it's about the inherent subjectivity of human perception. We filter information through our existing beliefs, memories, emotions, and even our current mood. Our brains are constantly creating a coherent narrative, and sometimes, to maintain that coherence, they'll even bend reality a little to fit our preferred storyline. During this process, cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, which involves seeking out information that validates our pre-existing beliefs, become active, thereby reinforcing our own unique perspective and making it more challenging to perceive the world from another's perspective. So, if our thinking is the problem, where does this "thinking" come from? Are the reasons for these different views rooted solely in upbringing? Yes, that's a big part of it, but it's also more complicated than just your childhood. Upbringing: Your upbringing is foundational. The values instilled by your parents, the rules of your household, the way emotions were expressed (or suppressed), the type of education you received, and even the stories you were told—all of these shape your initial mental frameworks. If your upbringing taught you that asking for help is a sign of weakness, your thinking would likely lean toward self-reliance. Your perspective will put the welfare of the group first if you were taught that community support is essential. Culture and Society: Beyond your immediate family, the broader cultural context you grew up in profoundly influences your worldview. National identity, regional customs, religious beliefs, and societal norms around gender roles, success, and failure—these are deeply ingrained and shape how you interpret the world, often subconsciously. What's considered polite in one culture might be rude in another; what's considered an admirable trait here might be a flaw elsewhere. Personal Experiences: Life isn't just about what you're taught; it's about what you live through. Traumatic events, significant achievements, personal relationships (both good and bad), moments of profound insight, travel, and career paths—every single experience adds another layer to your internal operating system. Someone who experienced poverty might have a completely different perspective on money and social services than someone who has always been financially secure. Someone who was betrayed might be more guarded than someone who has always found people trustworthy. Information Diet: In the digital age, what we consume online and through media plays a massive role. The news sources we follow, the social media bubbles we inhabit, and the voices we choose to listen to—all of these feed our "thinking" and can reinforce existing biases, creating echo chambers that make it even harder to understand alternative viewpoints. Innate Temperament and Genetics: Even our basic temperament (e.g., introversion/extroversion, risk aversion, emotional sensitivity) might have a genetic component, influencing how we perceive and react to the world, further contributing to our unique "thinking." It's a complex fabric, intricately woven with numerous threads. Each element contributes to the unique way our brains build their models of reality, making it incredibly difficult to simply "agree to disagree" when our foundational thinking about a topic is so fundamentally divergent. While the quote, "The only problem is the way people think," is wonderfully provocative, it's worth noting that diverse thinking isn't only a problem. In fact, it's also the wellspring of innovation, creativity, and progress. Imagine a world where everyone thought exactly alike—it would be stagnant, boring, and utterly devoid of new ideas. The clash of different perspectives can spark breakthroughs, challenge stale assumptions, and lead to more robust solutions. The "problem," then, isn't the existence of different ways of thinking but rather our inability to navigate those differences constructively. It's when our unique thinking becomes rigid, when we refuse to acknowledge the validity of other perspectives, and when we cease to be curious about why someone thinks differently that "thinking itself" becomes a genuine roadblock to understanding and harmony. So, what’s the takeaway? If our thinking is indeed the root of many problems, the solution lies not in trying to make everyone think alike (an impossible and undesirable goal) but in cultivating qualities that allow us to bridge the gaps between our internal worlds: We must comprehend our own prejudices, presumptions, and emotional stimulants. We should actively strive to put ourselves in the shoes of others and perceive the world through their distinct perspective, even for a brief moment. Instead of immediately dismissing a differing view, ask, "Why do they think that way?" "What experiences led them to this conclusion?" It's important to acknowledge that our perception of reality is not always accurate. It's crucial to develop the ability to express our ideas clearly and, above all, to actively and candidly listen to others. The quote from “Manners in the Great Kingdom” challenges us to look beyond external circumstances and study the complex, often confusing, inner workings of our own and others’ minds. It suggests that if we want to build a more understanding and cooperative world, the journey begins not with fixing “them” or “him,” but with recognizing and navigating the fascinating, complex, and sometimes problematic landscape of “how we think.”

My opinion on "The wolf changes its fur, but never its temper."

This proverb speaks to the basic idea of unchanging nature and is deeply rooted in Balkan culture, reflecting similar sentiments in many societies. It suggests that while appearances may change, adapt, or even deceive, the basic character of a person or thing remains stubbornly constant. Wolves, like many animals, adapt to their environment. Their fur changes with the seasons, providing camouflage and protection against the elements. This visible transformation is a natural, necessary part of survival. From a human perspective, this "changing of the coat" represents the superficial modifications we all undergo. We adapt to different social conditions, adopt new fashion trends, learn new skills, and even change our behavior to fit in or succeed. We may change our jobs, our hairstyles, our political affiliations, or our friend groups. These are all external manifestations of change, driven by circumstance, ambition, or simply the passage of time. We are constantly bombarded with messages encouraging self-improvement and personal growth. We are told to learn new skills, adapt to changing market demands, and reinvent ourselves to stay relevant. This constant emphasis on external change can sometimes obscure a deeper, more profound question:
Is it truly possible for us to alter our fundamental nature? A wolf, regardless of the color and thickness of its fur, is still a wolf, with its inherent instincts and behaviors. This notion of an unchangeable disposition speaks to the enduring power of personality traits, ingrained habits, and deeply held beliefs. It implies that we can change our behavior but not our core identity. An inherently dishonest person, for example, may be able to suppress his or her deceptive tendencies for a time, but the underlying tendency will always be there, waiting to resurface. The proverb resonates so strongly because it involves a long history of observation of animal and human behavior. Throughout history, people have noticed that certain traits seem to persist across generations and environments. The proverb also reflects a degree of fatalism, a belief that our destinies are predetermined and that we have limited control over our lives. This fatalistic perspective is common in many cultures, especially those that have experienced hardship and instability. The proverb offers a simple explanation for the persistence of undesirable behavior and the difficulty of achieving lasting social change. Modern psychology recognizes the complexity of human personality and the influence of both nature and nurture. While some personality traits are indeed inherited, our experiences, relationships, and choices also play an important role in shaping who we become. Therapy, education, and even profound life events can lead to real and lasting changes in our behavior and attitudes. Perhaps the proverb's true wisdom lies not in its literal interpretation but in its cautionary message. It reminds us that real change requires more than just superficial adjustments. It requires a deep and honest self-assessment, a willingness to confront our shortcomings, and a commitment to continuous personal growth. Rather than viewing the proverb as a statement of unchangeable fate, we can view it as a call to action. It challenges us to acknowledge our tendencies and to actively work to become the people we aspire to be. It reminds us that while we cannot completely escape our nature, we can certainly learn to master it, channel it, and ultimately transcend it.  

Personally, I think the only way out is education from childhood.

The Laws of Mother Nature

Pious people call the invisible force God. Scientists call this force energy. Ordinary people call it Mother Nature. To reap its benefits, we must maintain balance in everything this force offers. The term applies to both positive and negative aspects. Both joy and sadness are present in the world. There is both light and darkness in the world. Both birth and death exist in the world. Upon closer examination, we discover that everything possesses an opposite aspect. Digging a little deeper reveals a wealth of fascinating facts. For example, rivers do not drink their water, trees do not eat their fruits, and the sun does not shine on itself. Everything is created in such a way that life for others is a law of nature. For example, a doctor does not treat himself but treats other people, so he gives of himself to others. A shoemaker also makes shoes for others. A teacher teaches others. It is now a question of who gives how much of himself for others and with what intention. When we examine history, we find that famous individuals did not solely experience an ideal life. There have been good times and bad times. The more you laugh, the more you grieve. It turns out that we are all born to help each other. The extent to which we assist each other varies.  Nature shows us that giving and sharing are natural and necessary for the maintenance of life. Life for others is a fundamental principle of nature. Serving others is not just a moral choice, but it is a fundamental principle of existence. This principle reminds us that we are part of a larger system and that our actions have an impact on others. Selflessness and serving others are basic principles of life. Making others content is the source of true happiness. It doesn't matter how challenging it may be. Life is beautiful when you are contented. However, how will we know if we are truly happy? Most likely, we will discover true happiness when our actions bring joy to others. We perceive the impact of our actions through the words we read or hear. We see the effect of our actions. For example, you helped someone who was in need at that moment. Even if you inspire someone who has despaired by showing them the right path, you have given them hope. There are laws that we cannot change. The ball, thrown at the wall, returns with the same force. The same force measures our successes. If you have developed a product that a large number of people use, then your success rewards you. I will never forget my grandfather's words. Whoever does whatever he does always thinks that he is doing the best for himself but does not realize that his actions and words may harm others, and that will come back to him someday. However, our loved ones always play a role in our success. Your successes, for better or worse, always go with the people around you.

https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/author/sezgin-ismailov/

The true strength of society becomes apparent only when women are allowed to freely express themselves

Aspasia, a member of the ancient world's silent intellect, imparted timeless wisdom through her words.  Born in Miletus, she resonated with the intellectual world of Athens with her wisdom and intelligence.  This extraordinary woman of ancient times shed light on the dark social fabric of the period, emphasizing that females should be able to make their voices heard.  Challenging tradition, Aspasia argued that women's education was not only a right but also an indispensable necessity for the progress of society.  To her, knowledge was a light that enlightened people; this light was a right for women as well as men.  According to her, a woman who does not have a formal education is naive about her capabilities and the world at large.  The search for wisdom from women was an integral part of society's struggle for enlightenment.  In Athens, Aspasia was more than simply a friend or wife; she was a mentor and an inspiration to a statesman like Pericles.  Her wisdom, oratory, and worldview left their mark on Pericles' speeches and the political atmosphere of Athens. She lived to show that women could be active thinkers and doers, not just figures.  Aspasia's life, thoughts, and wise words reflect the natural philosophy of the Milesian philosopher Thales.  In her perspective on human relationships, Aspasia embodies Thales's notion that all things are interdependent parts of a larger whole.  According to him, society can only be complete with the equal contribution of men and women. This woman, who mixed love, wisdom, and the deep connections of the universe, made the idea of ​​the "unity of love and intelligence" the basis of her life.  Aspasia's voice resonates today, transcending her time.  What he said about freedom, education, and the role of women in social life is an inspiring mirror even today.  His enlightened stance demonstrates that love and reason are not mutually exclusive but rather work hand in hand.  As we honor Aspasia's memory, her words resonate deeply not only for women but also for humanity: "Wisdom shines with love in the depths of the soul; only the free mind can find it."  Those who seek knowledge of the universe can look to Aspasia's legacy for direction.  Her voice transcends time, emphasizing that women's struggle for equality and freedom is a crucial step on the path to wisdom.  And this step opens the way to the true enlightenment of societies.  To Aspasia and all women who embody her essence, 

Putin praises Bitcoin

I believe that Putin wants to use this uncontrolled money as quickly as possible, provided it becomes international currency. He knows that its use will be the beginning of the downfall of America. After all, their strength is in the dollar. But basically, every empire collapsed with help from within. There is one unknown answer for all. The Russians believe the CIA developed the technique. Americans believe the Japanese secret services invented it. The Japanese think it is a development of the Chinese. Politicians believe there is a conspiracy against democracy, arguing that if they do not control the distribution of the budget, it will lead to anarchy. Businesses prefer this approach because it allows them to retain their funds domestically and avoid seeking offshore companies. Optimists perceive immediate profits, while pessimists believe that the game will eventually end and that this is the largest pyramid scheme of the century. The CEO of Facebook secretly rejoices that his Libra coin, once legalized, will surpass all others in strength. I think the CEOs of McDonald's, Walmart, Amazon, and other big companies are secretly hoping to make money this way. All banks are terrified that they may become obsolete. Those who are aware of the technology see competition from Western Union and the like. Darkside hackers understand the timing of their most significant attacks. I can write many more examples. Everyone sees things from their perspective. But when we look at fantasy movies, the characters still believe in money derived from precious rare raw materials. Time will determine who is correct and who is incorrect.

Regarding cryptocurrencies, they are gold or casinos

In recent times, there has been a tremendous deal of discussion around cryptocurrencies. I have already written an article about them, so I cannot change my opinion. It is possible that I will overlook any significant aspects or advantages they might offer. To look and read, I have logged into a significant number of forums. In each and every venue, Mr. Buffett is praised for his excellence as an investor. The same people, however, also rave about Bitcoin. There are, without a doubt, individuals who openly express their opposition to these cryptocurrencies. I wanted to know where Mr. Buffett invested and what he thought. He believes they have no useful action coefficient, so he hasn't invested. My viewpoint is exactly the same. Online forums often compare bitcoin to gold. No words come to mind. Gold, in addition to being a raw resource that is utilized in a wide variety of applications, ranging from manufactured goods to ornaments, may also be traded for anything. One way to think about Bitcoin is as a form of cryptographic lottery. The only way for others to profit is if more money comes in, allowing them to lie and predict when bitcoin's price will rise. Alternatively, the price could decline and the market could experience sufficient volatility to facilitate sales. This idea is only going to excite folks who are looking to become wealthy in a short amount of time. Although it is possible that this could be advantageous for certain people as a lottery and calculation, I do not believe that there is a way out of making a real investment in a business or creating surplus value through the use of cryptocurrencies. How many people would be content with such a salary? Additionally, there is uncertainty. Government-created money offers an escape route. due to the fact that they might be regulated and, in some way, not have a lot of volatility. Just for a moment, let us say you receive a wage, but the next month, you are uncertain about your level of life. Consequently, I am unsure if it is a Ponzi scheme or simply a situation in which a large number of individuals potentially lose a lot of money that they have worked very hard to obtain. When we talk about a casino, we are referring to a place where you have to place many bets, and the danger is not that you have invested in the company; rather, the risk relies on luck. It is one thing to put money into a company, but it is an entirely different thing to wager on a card, a chip, or a brand-new game. If you know when people buy or sell, your odds of winning here are better than winning the lottery. This, however, is not an investment; rather, it is a casino. This is not a personal attack; I am simply expressing my opinion. 

Author Sezgin Ismailov

The effects of war on people have been researched

So, who exactly is to blame? Put your hand up and think about it.  Will there be a detrimental impact on humanity as a whole at the end times? When the time comes, I suppose. The reasoning that led to the rise of dictatorship in some countries was brought about by particular individuals. To be famous, they will do anything to make humans miserable. They look for methods to bring evil into the world rather than concentrating on the positive aspects of the situation. They have faith that it will propel them to the status of superstars. To put it another way, all they want to do is begin fighting. As a direct consequence of this, war breaks out among nations. Furthermore, this is a concern shared by all other nations. Other great leaders want to feel safe for the same reason the rest of us do. To better support military operations, the funding has been increased. Because of this, other programs, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, will either need to reduce their budgets or increase the salaries of public personnel. The military-industrial complex is detrimental to all aspects of society and the environment. Those in power understand the importance of wealth, which everyone has. For all living creatures, death is an unavoidable circumstance. There are certain individuals who, for whatever reason, will do whatever is in their power to shorten the lives of others. I do not resonate with this idea. If we are discussing a person's upbringing, what purpose do global organizations serve? They only pay their employees a salary and do not provide them with the opportunity to fulfill their contractual obligations. Initially, I had a negative attitude about globalism. On the other hand, I have come to realize that it is possible for the typical individual to find a solution to their difficulty. There would be no conflict in a perfect society because there would be a single, globally recognized authority. Such an arrangement will, in the majority of instances, result in less paperwork. In the event that the general populace becomes dissatisfied, the numerous international leaders are among the few individuals who are capable of being ousted from power in a short amount of time. Having a control group is essential to the operation of any organization. This necessity arises because we are going to revert to our Wild West roots. As far as I am aware, although people have claimed to have made progress over the course of thousands of years, very little has changed. I am currently working on my fifth book, which is a biography of a real-life historical character. Their names, like a stamp on an envelope, compelled me to gather information about these deserving individuals. My comprehension level was so limited while I was collecting the data. There has been no change at all. Recent years have seen the development of entirely new tools for the workplace. This restriction does not apply to historical information. I met an old man in 1990. Today, I am still able to hear him. Sezgin, people have been getting better for a long time, but not as much as they should have. Put together a strategy to guarantee that you are healthy. As a matter of fact, I concur with him. Ultimately, we are all responsible for the choices made with our tax  and the politicians we elect.

Author  Sezgin Ismailov

The 30/30/3 rule should, in my opinion, be adhered to at all times when purchasing real estate

My recommendation is, if you really have the opportunity, you should do it.

But I recommend you really read a bit more before you put your money in. There are countries where property yields are higher. This phenomenon extends beyond individual states and encompasses entire regions. The determining factor is close jobs and excellent communication. Purchasing property is an option, but if it doesn't generate income, it may not be the best use of your funds. I have bitter experience with such properties. The low price lures you in. Yes, but you also freeze that money. Always follow the 30/30/3 rule for buying property as a minimum. This advice applies to both personal and investment purchases. For me, this is the rule for a successful purchase, but I never use credit. The best thing is that if you don't have money for your own property investment, you can invest in property management funds.

You have the opportunity to invest a small amount each month. REITs are the best because they are legally required to pay out up to 90 percent of their profits. The little money you have can bring you income. Rather than accumulating it in the bank and letting inflation erode it, you can use it to generate income.

 Author Sezgin Ismailov

An Ordinary Person's Opinion About Cryptocurrencies

To be honest, my knowledge of cryptocurrencies is limited. I've perused some online articles and listened to the buzz, but I'm primarily observing from a distance. I comprehend some of the purported advantages—the application of blockchain technology and its potential to transform other aspects of the internet. It’s innovative; I’ll give it that. However, the fact that we still don't know who created Bitcoin, the original cryptocurrency, is a significant concern. In this age of massive data collection and widespread surveillance, how can someone remain completely anonymous? It just seems a little…suspect. Validators will control transactions. I don't really understand the technicalities, but from what I understand, it's not really decentralized. It's more like a parliamentary system. But a decentralized parliamentary system has its drawbacks, and it makes me wonder how those drawbacks will play out in the future. Who is ultimately responsible if it all collapses? Who bears the ultimate responsibility? One of the biggest drawbacks, in my opinion, is the lack of a central authority. Every country has its own official currency, issued and regulated by a central bank. But with crypto, anyone with the right computer skills can create their own digital currency. Last I heard, there were already over 5,000 different cryptocurrencies! I wouldn’t be surprised if the number eventually climbs into the hundreds of thousands. Is it reasonable to anticipate that these new, random cryptocurrencies will maintain their value? It appears that this situation could lead to chaos. I observe individuals rushing into cryptocurrency investing with the expectation of achieving rapid wealth. They read a few articles and suddenly believe they are financial experts, but do they truly understand what they are investing in? Are they familiar with the technology behind it? Probably not. But the question is inevitable: will governments and big banks allow it? Will they let people do whatever they want with their money? I find it highly unlikely. It seems likely that big banks, with their established customer bases, will eventually create their own cryptocurrency and start charging transaction fees. It seems logical. Another big concern I have is security—specifically remembering and managing passwords. If you forget your password, what happens to your cryptocurrency? Could it potentially vanish into the digital ether? That’s a huge problem that doesn’t exist with traditional banks. And what happens when someone who owns a significant amount of cryptocurrency dies? In a normal bank, you have access to your heirs. How does this transfer of wealth work in the world of cryptocurrency? I have no idea. Of course, I understand the appeal of using cryptocurrency for illegal activities or for avoiding taxes. But if no one pays taxes, who will fund public services like infrastructure and law enforcement? You can’t have a functioning society if everyone is dodging taxes through cryptocurrency. Imagine a future where major companies create their own cryptocurrencies. Amazon only accepts AmazonCoin, Walmart only accepts WalmartBucks, and McDonald's only accepts McCoins. How would an average person manage in such a situation? You'd need a smartphone loaded with different cryptocurrency wallets, and you have to remember a dozen different passwords just to buy groceries. Honestly, I think the potential downsides of cryptocurrencies outweigh the advantages. Perhaps a more regulated approach would be better. Perhaps if each continent (Latin America, North America, Europe, and Asia) had its own digital currency, plus a global currency as a base, things would be more stable. Perhaps if each government controlled a single digital currency, that would prevent the market from becoming completely saturated with worthless coins. If cryptocurrency could be anchored in a secure, stable foundation and protected from those who would seek to exploit it for malicious purposes, perhaps it would have a more secure future. But right now, it seems like we’re living in a fantasy. A third of the world’s population still struggles to access basic necessities like clean water. Embracing this speculative madness when so many people are grappling with basic needs feels somewhat absurd. That said, I do believe that the volatile fluctuations we're seeing now will eventually lead to the emergence of more legitimate and stable digital currencies. I wouldn't venture to predict exactly how it will unfold, but my guess is that the large, financially stable, and technologically advanced countries will be the ones to shape the future of digital currency. Finally, I can't ignore the environmental cost of cryptocurrency mining. The amount of energy consumed by the process is staggering. We need to prioritize environmental protection, and that includes finding more sustainable ways to power the digital world. If I live to see a time when digital currencies are absolutely necessary, then I will need to buy a smartphone. So what, I have to keep all my wealth in my pocket. I can't imagine how people can become targets. We are fighting for a better world. But it will become more dangerous. Currently, it is evident that countries and their systems are not functioning optimally. Could we consider moving beyond divisions based on race and religion? When will we start calling ourselves earthlings? When will everything become unipolar?

Author Sezgin Ismailov

My opinion on the book Rich Dad Poor Dad

Many people have read "Rich Dad Poor Dad," but how many learned something from it, and how did they use it? I will share my discoveries with you. Two things stood out to me as significant. The first instance occurred when Rich Dad challenged them to find or invent a job that was superior to the one he had assigned them. To a certain extent, one is never content with what they receive. It does not matter how much money they pay us; we will never be content with our work. The second part discusses both assets and liabilities. There is nothing novel about it. We use the term "assets" to describe what is appropriate for us or what we are seeking to improve our wealth. This is the most fundamental explanation. By exercising a little bit of patience and removing some of the "PASSIVES" that are not necessary, we can avoid being tempted to make unnecessary purchases. Yes, we can afford them, but wealthy people keep their money in the vault instead of spending it. They give it to existing enterprises to help them expand. Investing in a company is a highly beneficial action. You can both increase your wealth and create jobs. I find that I need to reread a book whenever I find that I am unable to comprehend it, but there are certain novels that should be read on an annual basis. It is effortless for people to forget. On the other hand, individuals exchange inspirational sayings and statements on social media, but they do not spend more than a few minutes assimilating them and putting them into practice in their lives. Hearing or reading about it is one thing. Understanding and applying the idea is another matter.

Author: Sezgin Ismailov

A person's best friend and most reliable source of assistance is probably the book.

The book is likely to be a person's closest companion and the most dependable source of support it can provide.  The foundation of knowledge is the act of reading books.  You are able to read anytime you want, wherever you are, and even if you only have a few sources available to you, since reading gives you the ability to read. Reading has many advantages, and gaining knowledge is only one of them. Books can be read for social and personal reasons, which are affected by your surroundings, whether indoors or outdoors. To lessen the amount of information we need to read, we should try to answer this question: With regard to yourself, what do you discover? A person's information is an investment; the act of reading itself is an investment. It is imperative that you consider the information you read. You may overlook errors that others have already made. It would be irresponsible of us to ignore the reality that books are a repository of information about the world. In a more expeditious manner, we will be able to move closer to achieving our goals and dreams together. To succeed, first invest in knowledge relevant to your goals. From my perspective, this approach is not the only available option. A significant number of individuals have proved, over the course of a considerable amount of time, that this type of strategy is the correct course of action for mankind to adopt to make progress. When a person's level of knowledge improves, they experience a decline in their desire for material prosperity. This is because knowledge is a form of knowledge. If you have information, you can handle any situation at any time. This attribute makes the book potentially your greatest companion and the most valuable individual you will encounter in your life.

Author Sezgin Ismailov