When I was five, I needed someone to hold my hand as I entered school. When I was twelve, I needed someone to point to the entrance, but I could walk in alone. Now, at sixteen, I don’t need anyone — I’m a different person: independent and mature. Yet, I am treated as if I’m still a child.

After the horrific Florida shooting, students walked out of their classes in honor of the 17 lives lost. As noted in “How Young is Too Young for Protest? A National Gun Violence Protest Tests Schools,” even Utah’s Wood Cross Elementary School staged a protest in the school gym to allow the students to experience “a little civil disobedience.”

Like Wood Cross, the administration at my school staged our protest. The day before the walkout, a minute-by-minute schedule and list of guidelines — including the only two doors we could exit from — were uploaded onto Facebook. The next day, our obedient student body shuffled into the fenced area between our school buildings only to witness teachers’ comments about how “cute” we were and their apologies for being 60 seconds behind schedule. By 10:05, the end of the designated “shouting time,” my friends and I lowered our posters in defeat.

Although I am thankful that my school supports the walkout, nobody needed to be hand-held through this protest. Protesting is fighting and risking consequences, risking falling. Protesting is true civil disobedience. Yet Henry David Thoreau is rolling in his grave thinking about our “protest.” In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau does not “lend [himself] to the wrong which [he condemns].” Instead, he fights against it, because he has the right “to do at any time what [he thinks is] right.” We have the same right. Why prevent us from using it?

Maybe the elementary schoolers play along, but I cannot. We already have mock organizations: mock trial, model U.N., and now this walkout. The school coddles us. Highlighted in a New York Times article, the students who excelled after high school were the ones who fell and got up afterward. But if schools are going to cushion each one of our falls, how will we grow up?

I understand schools’ concern: safety first. Parents may be uncomfortable with their children protesting. But the goal of civil disobedience is to make others uncomfortable. Discomfort brings change. Change from our parents’ generation to ours.

We need adults to accept the discomfort of us taking the reins of the gun violence movement and us growing up. Otherwise, if fearful adults keep holding us back, how can we grow up to become fearless leaders?

Works Cited

Saul, Stephanie, and Anemona Hartocollis. “How Young Is Too Young for Protest? A National Gun-Violence Walkout Tests Schools.” The New York Times, 13 March 2018.

Thoreau, Henry David, 1817-1862. Civil Disobedience: Complete Texts With Introduction, Historical Contexts, Critical Essays. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. Print.

Tough, Paul. “What If the Secret to Success Is Failure?” The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2011.

In 2015, eleven teachers were convicted of racketeering and other crimes in the infamous Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal, in which “inordinate pressure” from top administrators to meet standardized test score targets or face severe consequences led the teachers to cheat on state standardized tests. Sadly, such cases of coordinated, large-scale cheating are surprisingly pervasive, underscoring the undue importance attached to standardized test results. These test results are used in an admirable effort at accountability, but the process of accountability via standardized testing is now deeply flawed. Testing has evolved into an industry, a game for test companies and policymakers; everyone benefits — except the students and educators, who are just cogs in the machine.

For instance, as part of the process, teachers are forced to spend more and more time “teaching to the test,” wasting valuable instruction time. This wouldn’t be such an issue if the tests are high-quality or instructive, but they aren’t, for a variety of reasons. First, they’re unfair. Research has shown that the tests nontrivially discriminate against different races and socioeconomic backgrounds. Consequently, since standardized tests compare schools and districts of all different backgrounds, affluent schools are rewarded and struggling schools are punished.

Second, they’re inaccurate. Standardized tests often involve multiple errors or ridiculous content; for instance, the test company Pearson has occasionally misprinted tests, misplaced or misgraded answer sheets, and faced major technical issues. In 2012, an absurd story involving an anthropomorphic pineapple in a contrived remake of “The Tortoise and the Hare” graced the desks of middle schoolers across several states, with senseless questions that stumped even teachers. Clearly, these tests are managed not by educational experts, but by profit-seeking companies.

But most importantly, they test for the wrong things. With their pervasive focus on multiple choice and shallow thinking, standardized tests ignore creativity, grit and depth of understanding, thus turning students into robots. The real world requires deep, innovative thinkers, but tests encourage students to automatize themselves.

Another oft-cited reason for testing is that their objective results allow instructors to better address their students’ needs. However, these teachers have been trained professionally, usually have known the students in a much more personal, holistic and genuine context for several months, and often don’t even get the results back before the end of the year, and so this argument doesn’t hold much water.

Accountability-based testing can still be salvaged. Placing more control in the hands of educators would allow them to rework tests to be more pedagogically meaningful, and results should only be interpreted with the whole context in mind. Otherwise schools will just turn into factories for producing high test scores.

Works Cited

Chapman, Ben, and Rachel Monahan. “Talking Pineapple Question on State Exam Stumps ... Everyone!” New York Daily News, 20 April 2012.

“How Useful Are Standardized Tests?” The New York Times, 17 Feb. 2015.

“Racial Bias Built into Tests.” FairTest.

Strauss, Valerie. “How and Why Convicted Atlanta Teachers Cheated on Standardized Tests.” The Washington Post, 1 April 2015.

Strauss, Valerie. “Pearson’s History of Testing Problems - a List.” The Washington Post, 21 April 2016.

Adults seem to think the internet is nothing more than a breeding ground for unproductivity and detachment from the “real world,” that social media offers only a platform for cyberbullies and child predators. They mock us for our so-called “addiction,” calling us a self-involved, attention-starved generation. But if you ask any intelligent young person — two adjectives that are not mutually exclusive — they’ll tell you all about what the information superhighway really means to us.

Today’s youth have come of age in an atmosphere where encroaching problems of climate change, global terrorism, economic crises and mass shootings — to name a few — have opened our eyes to the reality we’re living in, the weight of fixing it all resting on our shoulders. But we’ve also grown up in a world where we can type into Google anything we want to learn more about; we can engage with millions of people from all walks of life, come to understand perspectives at every angle. Knowledge is powerful, and we have all that we could want available at our fingertips.

The reality is I follow news pages on my Instagram. I can’t go a day on Twitter without seeing profound statements concerning the political climate. I have discussions with people over gun control and women’s rights based on what I’ve posted on my Snapchat story. Like it or not, social media has given us a way not only to speak out, but to educate ourselves and expand our minds in a way that is unprecedented.

We’ve become the most tolerant and conscious generation to date, with 76 percent of Gen Zers concerned about humanity’s influence on the Earth and 60 percent hoping the job they choose impacts the world. Race, religion, sexuality, gender identity and anything differing from what has so long been deemed normal are all topics we don’t write off, with a revolutionary 37 percent and 21 percent not identifying as 100 percent straight or 100 percent one gender, respectively. We get to experience the world from everyone’s point of view; we’re not limited by the danger of the single story, aren’t held back by our own ignorance.

So, I urge adults to back off, to encourage young people to use the internet to their advantage. Because while it’s easy to understand the mental and emotional drawbacks that can be associated with the cyberworld, this connection to a diverse plethora of information has given us the opportunity to reach our own conclusions about the world, to make our beliefs known, to mobilize in efforts and take a stand — from protests and marches planned by students, to educating others on registering to vote — and it has created a socially and politically aware, opinionated and unafraid youth, who are wholly prepared to change the world.

Works Cited

Abramovich, Giselle. “15 Mind-Blowing Stats About Generation Z.” CMO.com by Adobe: Digital Marketing Insights, Expertise and Inspiration – for and by Marketing Leaders, 12 June 2015.

Barr, Caelainn. “Who Are Generation Z? The Latest Data on Today's Teens.” The Guardian, 10 Dec. 2016.

Kemper, Nychele. “The March For Our Lives Was Influenced by Literature and Social Media.” The Odyssey Online, 3 Apr. 2018.

Potarazu, Sreedhar. “Is Social Media Ruining Our Kids?” CNN, 22 Oct. 2015.

Williams, Alex. “Move Over, Millennials, Here Comes Generation Z.” The New York Times, 18 Sept. 2015.

总共有10，509篇论文，42名评委，五轮评审 - 总共讲述了大约4，700，000个学生写的单词。

这些是今年春天的比赛统计数据，自2014年开始以来，比赛每年都在增长。下面，我们将向 70 名青少年致敬——11 名获奖者、27 名亚军和 32 名荣誉奖——他们的文章一轮又一轮地闪耀着最耀眼的光芒。我们还喊出了另外50名几乎进入获胜者圈子的人，这在竞争如此激烈的比赛中可不是一件小事。您可以从 6 月 3 日开始在本专栏中阅读获奖者和亚军的作品，届时我们将在每个上学日发布三篇新作品。

这项挑战最好的一点是，它突出了青少年对影响他们生活的最现实问题的看法，从大学招生丑闻到气候变化，从社交媒体到性教育，从枪支到平均绩点，从投票到电子烟。

但我们也喜欢它向我们介绍新鲜想法的方式，包括今年需要吃更多的虫子，结束游戏中的有毒垃圾谈话，警惕“自我保健”趋势，并给予菠萝披萨至少一个学生认为应得的尊重。

在他们出版时，我们希望像我们一样，你会发现这些作品能吸引你的注意力，并坚持到最后。我们希望您会欣赏他们如何在短短 450 字内提出坚实而令人信服的论点，并且不是作为利弊的枯燥总结，而是用真实的声音。但大多数情况下，我们希望像我们每年所做的那样，你会学到新的东西。

无论您是学生、老师、家长还是仅仅是读者，请通过写信给我们 LNFeedback@nytimes.com 告诉我们您的想法。再次感谢你们的参与，使这次比赛年复一年地取得成功。

学生社论比赛获奖者

按作者姓氏的字母顺序排列。

Confronting Toxicity in Gaming: Going Beyond “Mute”

The recent spate of white nationalist violence has raised concerns about the role online platforms play in the radicalization of attackers. Analysts have noted the disturbing tendency of YouTube algorithms to lead users to extreme content. Others have bemoaned social media’s role in the viral propagation of racially charged fake news. While internet companies are finally starting to respond (Facebook recently announced a ban on white nationalist content), there remains one lesser-mentioned vehicle for racial desensitization: online gaming.

I don’t mean the violent content of online games. Violent content is a boogeyman over-hyped by pundits. I’m referring to the racist, anti-Semitic way gamers are indoctrinated to speak to each other in the depersonalized realm of online competition. The ritual, similar to fraternity hazing, happens something like this:

A new gamer, let’s call him “Joe,” joins a game of Minecraft, a pixelated world-building game with 100 million active players. Joe tells his teammates he’s new to the game. When he drags his team down, his teammates begin to trash-talk him, firing racist, sexist and homophobic insults his way. After this bout of shaming, Joe builds his skill level. Months later, Joe queues up for a game, and sees a novice assigned to his team. After finally losing because of his teammate’s poor skills, he insults the player using the same script he had been abused by months earlier. Joe is now a part of the toxic cycle.

Prominent gaming companies like Blizzard and Riot have started creating systems to combat the hate speech rampant in gaming communities. Certain platforms temporarily mute players after instances of racist profanity. But in most cases, these measures are perfunctory, amounting to a slap on the wrist. Players evade censors easily by omitting letters or adding numerals to ethnic slurs written in game chats.

Gaming companies need to step up their efforts by punishing abusive players with meaningful competitive penalties. E-sports can look to an obvious model: real-world sports. Violence on the hockey rink takes a player off the ice for critical game time. Tennis players can be docked points, games or even matches for verbal abuse. In the world of e-sports, a similar dynamic might include lower maximum health, longer skill cool-down periods, or other handicaps. Unless penalties come down in a manner meaningful to players, hate speech will continue to flourish.

Players should self-monitor and realize that the racially-charged insults they hurl have real-world consequences. But, knowing the culture as it exists now, perhaps that ship has sailed. Such a deeply rooted problem calls for an strong, top-down approach. It’s time the gaming industry understood that it has a responsibility to stem the spread of hate on its platforms.

Works Cited

Moore, Bo. “Major Game Companies Are Teaming Up to Combat Toxicity in Gaming.” PC Gamer, 22 March 2018.

Schiesel, Seth. “The Real Problem With Video Games.” The New York Times, 13 March 2018.

Weill, Kelly. “How YouTube Built a Radicalization Machine for the Far-Right.” The Daily Beast, 17 Dec. 2018.

“Cultural Appropriation” Is Critical to Human Progress

A skirt on Zara. A Dior campaign. Keziah Daum’s prom dress. What do all of these things have in common? They are the latest victims of America’s politically correct crusaders.

In today’s “cancel” culture, people are quick to attack others for behaving in a way they deem socially unacceptable. Central to many of these accusations is the idea of cultural appropriation: the adoption of the customs, practices, or ideas of one society by a member of another.

The fashion industry in particular has come under severe scrutiny in the past year for “stealing” traditions. As Vanessa Friedman writes in “Fashion’s Year in Cultural Don’ts”, the aforementioned skirt was too similar to an Indian lungi, the Dior campaign drew too much inspiration from the Mexican escaramuzas, and Keziah Daum’s qipao was too Asian for her.

These fashion statements were clearly not designed to offend or degrade the cultures that influenced them. However, that is not to say that everyone who draws inspiration from different cultures is doing it with the right intentions. Issues arise when imitation is based on a shallow and offensive stereotype, which is just blatant racism.

Cultural appropriation is not a modern concept; it has existed as long as culture itself. From a historical perspective, the term that is typically used to describe the adoption of certain practices from one culture to the next is syncretism. Without syncretism, human progress would be next to impossible.

Often referred to throughout history as a “melting pot,” America is a perfect example of the importance of syncretism. Immigrants from diverse backgrounds can all come together under a common American nationality. Pizza, hot dogs, and soft drinks are often considered characteristically American, but they were originally Italian, German, and Swedish, respectively. Is this cultural appropriation? Even Democracy, the very basis of American society, was first seen in ancient Greece. Is it time to “cancel” America?

Obviously not. But what makes drinking a carbonated beverage so different from wearing a Chinese-inspired prom dress? Cultural appropriation is just the modern term for a concept that has aided in the development of human society for centuries. Those who perpetuate “cancel” culture ignore this. And that has dangerous implications for the future.

Limiting oneself to dressing and acting as one’s heritage determines is dangerously close to a “separate but equal” mentality. As George Chesterton writes for GQ, “If we can only exist in and guard the cultures we emerged from, from those we resemble, we will shrink into the superficiality of newly contrived tribes.” Without embracing and building upon the ideas of other cultures, humanity remains static. History has proven that “cultural appropriation” is critical for human progress, and without it the future is bleak.

Works Cited

Chesterton, George. “Cultural Appropriation: Everything Is Culture and It’s All Appropriated.” GQ, 15 Jan. 2019.

Friedman, Vanessa. “Fashion’s Year in Cultural Don’ts.” The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2018.

A Change in the Menu

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, an estimated two billion people eat bugs as part of their standard diet. That’s nearly a quarter of the global population, and yet most countries in Europe and North America, despite the nutritional and environmental benefits, are fiercely reluctant to the idea of consuming bugs. So why should Westernized countries subscribe to the inclusion of bugs in their daily diet?

Eating bugs as a substitute for larger livestock could contribute substantially to a more sustainable world. Bugs have an efficient feed-to-product ratio and consume much less than traditional livestock per pound. To farm bugs, forests do not need to be cleared, fields do not need to be irrigated, and crops need not be sprayed with toxins and pesticides. According to an article written by the former manager of the Toronto Food Policy Council, Wayne Roberts, “Edible insects don’t appear on any endangered species lists, and their sustainable use could help conserve other wildlife since the tactic may contribute to habitat protection.”

The nutritional benefits of eating bugs are serviceable and can be instrumental in combating childhood mortality, and malnutrition rates. Monica Aiyeko of the Food and Agriculture department at Bondo University College has studied and published the effects of integrating native crickets into school meal programs in Kenya. Her studies have found that roughly 30% of Kenyan households are food insecure, leading to massive malnutrition amongst children, particularly under the age of 5. This is due to a lack of both macronutrients and micronutrients, including protein and zinc. Incorporating bugs into school feeding programs could provide children with the necessary nutrients to prevent stunting. Overall, bugs and insects are incredibly nutritionally beneficial. The New York Times states that “Some 2,100 insect species worldwide have been identified as edible...Their nutritional benefits, while varied across species, are substantial: high in energy yield, rich in essential amino acids and comparable and sometimes superior, per ounce, to beef, chicken, and pork in amounts of protein, omega-3 fats, iron, magnesium, calcium, and zinc.”

The Western consensus is best stated by New York Times writer Ligaya Mishan: “Europeans, and by extension European settlers in North America, never had a bug-eating tradition. Indeed, we largely consider insects dirty and drawn to decay, signifiers and carriers of disease; we call them pests, a word whose Latin root means plague.” This is a ridiculous stigma that we need to shake. The adoption of bugs into a normal diet would not be unlike the transition from raw fish being largely unaccepted in America, to sushi becoming a normal meal option.

All I want is a culinary cultural revolution, is that so much to ask?

Works Cited

Ilyashov, Alexandra. “How (and Why) to Cook With Bugs, According to Three Chefs.” The New York Times, 10 Sept. 2018.

Mishan, Ligaya. “Why Aren’t We Eating More Insects?” The New York Times. 7 Sept., 2018.

Münke-Svendsen, Christopher and Kipkoech Carolyne, John Kinyuru, Monica Ayieko, Anja Homan and Nanna Roos. “Technical Brief #5: Nutritional Properties of Insects for Food in Kenya.” University of Copenhagen, 2017.

Roberts, Wayne. “Eating Insects: Waiter, There’s No Fly in My Soup.” Alternatives Journal, vol. 34, no. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2008, p. 8+. Academic OneFile, Accessed 6 Mar. 2019.

Sheraton, Mimi. “Eating Raw Fish: The Dangers.” The New York Times, 30 Sept. 1981.

I’m a Disabled Teenager, and Social Media Is My Lifeline

I’m keenly attuned to the unwritten rules of social interaction. I can identify the subtle variations in people’s facial expressions, and I’m quick to read between the lines. And my discernment is not just on an intellectual level, but also at an intuitive level: I’m intimately familiar with the dance of social interaction.

The information that I just provided sounds like a mundanity, until I tell you I was diagnosed with autism. I defy the stereotypes of someone who can’t possibly “get it” socially.

No one knows that I can. I can “get it.”

Of course, people don’t see that. I struggle with impulsivity. My physical clumsiness makes it hard for me to maintain appropriate facial expressions and tone of voice. While I easily grasp abstract concepts, I often can’t convert them into tangible, step-by-step actions, making it difficult to communicate gracefully. Even the untrained eye notice these challenges, and they confound my social faux pas as a failure to understand or share other people’s expectations.

I’m depleted. Every day at school, I isolate myself from most of my peers: it’s a matter of time before they make these assumptions, before they postulate how my brain works. On social media, though, I’m a completely different person. I’m dynamic. I’m assertive. I’m people-oriented.

Many claim that social media distracts teens from meaningful, genuine interactions. My experiences, however, are the total opposite of that. Cultivating my own space on the Internet helped me thrive outside the pigeonhole. Namely, I use my blog to explain the real reason why I act the way I do. Even though not everyone will understand, I know some people will, and it gives me tremendous hope.

I know I’m not the only one. For many disabled people, social media gives them access to a social life and community involvement in an otherwise inaccessible world¹. Not only does social media give me the platform to correct assumptions, people don’t assume things about me in the first place, because it’s a level playing field. For example, when I Tweet, my addled movements are replaced by various emojis and reaction GIFs, which gives me a vaster palette to express myself.

Furthermore, I’ve learned to extend the conversation on disability from my own personal circumstances to the broader issue of ableism. Don Tapscott, a media consultant, remarked, “[Teens] didn’t grow up being the passive recipients of somebody else’s broadcast.”² This definitely resonated with me. I used to feel alone, not seeing girls like me on the magazine covers, but not anymore. In a click, I can create my own media where people with disabilities are seen and heard, rather than pliantly consuming the media that routinely devalue people with disabilities.

Works Cited

Ryan, Frances. “The Missing Link: Why Disabled People Can’t Afford to #DeleteFacebook.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 4 April 2018.

Parker-Pope, Tara. “Are Today’s Teenagers Smarter and Better Than We Think?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 March 2018.

Nothing Gets Between Me and My Sushi… Except Plastic, Maybe

As an Asian-American self-proclaimed millennial foodie, imagine the shock I experienced when I discovered a horrifying truth—plastic cuisine. Ubiquitous plastic extends beyond our surroundings—and invades our guts—through what we eat and drink. I first learned that sushi is chock-full of microplastics. There’s so much plastic in the water, churned down to the size of rice grains or smaller, and fish gobble it up. When the fish end up on our dinner plates, guess what? Our bellies receive an unsettling supplement that wasn’t on the menu.

In fact, a National Geographic study found microplastics in 114 marine species—with over half of them regulars in restaurants—meaning that my tummy acquires some uninvited non-digestible additives.

Even water isn’t safe! My parents often tell me to drink more water to wash down my food—but did they know that I was ingesting plastic too? A 2017 study by Orb Media found microplastic contamination in 83 percent of global tap water—with the highest amount, 94 percent, found in the United States!

You may wonder: So what? Has there been a study that proves housing microplastics inside of your body is harmful? Not yet, but still. Firstly—it’s gross! I’m eating a material that’s meant to last beyond a thousand years, and will probably accompany my skeleton long after I putrefy in my grave.

Imagine the surplus of chemicals needed to make these durable particles. National Geographic highlighted a few chemicals contained in plastic with the potential to become poisons in certain doses: “endocrine disruptors—chemicals that interfere with normal hormone function, even contribute to weight gain. Flame retardants may interfere with brain development in fetuses and children; other compounds that cling to plastics can cause cancer or birth defects.”

By informing you of this ongoing crisis, am I telling you to give up seafood? Never!

Personally, and I think I can speak for many fellow foodies, nothing gets in between me and my sushi. Instead, let’s stop dismissing the old-school motto: reuse, reduce, and recycle. Seriously—no more Acme bags that drift yonder with the wind, and take a hint from good ol’ Trader Joes for the more environmentally friendly alternatives. Sure, paper bags may be more fragile, and fabric ones are often more expensive, but that’s a small price to pay for potentially saving a sea creature that would have been strangled or starved otherwise.

Let’s cut down on the plastic, and the next time you’re tempted to innocuously trash some plastic straws, just remember that same “harmless” plastic is somewhere puncturing a turtle’s brain through its nostril and killing a fish through literally explosive bowels… and its next stop?

Your stomach.

Works Cited

Kosuth, Mary, et al. “Synthetic Polymer Contamination In Global Drinking Water.” Orb Media, 16 May 2017.

Quenqua, Douglas. “Microplastics Find Their Way Into Your Gut, a Pilot Study Finds.” The New York Times, 22 Oct. 2018.

Royte, Elizabeth. “We Know Plastic Is Harming Marine Life. What About Us?” National Geographic, June 2018.

Wassener, Bettina. “Fish Ingesting Plastic Waste, Study Finds.” The New York Times, 8 July 2011.

The Life-Changing Magic of Being Messy

You might have a “messy” friend or family member. You can’t help but sigh at the chaos of their room — clean and dirty laundry mixed together. Odds are it’ll be difficult to walk two feet without encountering an empty chip bag. Gross? Yes. Bad? Not necessarily.

As a stereotypically “messy” person myself, I’ve received my own share of scorn. Living in a boarding school, I’m obligated to keep my room nice and tidy, ready for visitors and as a model to underclassmen. Monday room inspections are the norm, and faculty members have sometimes passively, sometimes aggressively, urged my roommate and me to clean up. For these purposes, I used to harbor a 24 x 24 x 24 cardboard box in which I’d stuff everything on Monday mornings and empty it out later that evening. Now, I just throw everything downstairs into the communal storage. Out of sight, out of mind.

As much judgment as we get for our clutter, research has shown that messiness can be a sign of creativity and openness. In the NYT article “It’s Not ‘Mess.’ It’s Creativity,” Kathleen D. Vohs’ study of messiness serves as a rare champion for us less-than-neat people. In her study, she gathered a group of subjects in a tidy room and another in a messy room. When each subject had to choose between a “classic” or “new” smoothie on a fake menu, the subjects in the tidy room chose “classic” while subjects in the messy room chose the “new” smoothies. This shows that “people greatly preferred convention in the tidy room and novelty in the messy room.” In addition, Vohs revealed that messy people were more creative. So, what does this mean?

Messy people are willing to challenge the conventional norm. They aren’t confined to the status quo. In a growing age where minimalism seems to be taking on the world by storm, we must remember that there is beauty in chaos. Although a University of Michigan study warns that some people might take one look at your messy desk and view you as “lazy” or “neurotic,” we must remember the people who challenge the old ways of being are some of our greatest innovators. After all, Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg famously harbored hideously disorganized workplaces.

So, when you see a scatter of papers, laundry, and old food containers, don’t rush out to buy your child, friend, or roommate “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up.” Instead, appreciate that your acquaintance might be “sparking joy” by channeling their creativity differently.

Works Cited

Eichenstein, Izzy. “Albert Einstein, Mark Twain & Steve Jobs: The Messy Desk Link.” The LAX Morning Minute, Word Press, 19 Oct. 2013.

Vohs, Kathleen. “Tidy Desk or Messy Desk? Each Has Its Benefits.” Association for Psychological Science, 6 Aug. 2013.

Vohs, Kathleen D. “It’s Not ‘Mess.’ It’s Creativity.” The New York Times, 13 Sept. 2013.

Wadley, Jared. “Is Your Office Messy? If So, You May Be Seen as Uncaring, Neurotic.” Michigan News, The University of Michigan, 27 Nov. 2018.

Weinswig, Deborah. “Millennials Go Minimal: The Decluttering Lifestyle Trend That Is Taking Over.” Forbes, 7 Sept. 2016.