Regrettably, I know that my writings mostly end up being “music to the bull’s ears.” Writing in English adds another layer of reader-proof armor – a self-imposed barrier to keep things nice and keep me safe. (See my Chinese website)

Sometimes, even if you feel my points make sense, there’s still this nagging doubt, like something doesn’t quite sit right. But why?

It boils down to different fundamental beliefs – worldview, life perspective, and value system. It’s about how you believe the world works, the ideal way to live, whether it’s a life of quiet simplicity or grand wealth.

Differing views are like explaining ice to a summer insect. Two people sitting down to have a logical debate must have a shared foundation.

For instance, two Cantonese chefs from Hong Kong discussing might agree on the basics of broth intensity and cooking technique, leaving the nuances to individual flair and secret ingredients. But throw in a British chef, and common ground dwindles. The British chef might find broth too rich, while the Cantonese chef thinks British staples are, well…dark and dreary. Now what left are basics like plating and aesthetics. But if you pair a chef with a musician, the shared foundation narrows further – maybe they agree on pleasing the audience. And if you seat a chef next to a Somali pirate, even that’s out the window, leaving only the common pursuit of a “better life.”

Take it one step further, and imagine locking a person and a cow in the same room. Communication? Out the window. Purely a case of “music to the bull’s ears.”

If we’re going to discuss anything meaningful, we have to start with the very basics. Our absolute, foundational consensus is…a shared worldview.

You might follow Christianity, believing in creation and resurrection. You might be a Buddhist, seeing the world as a cycle of reincarnation. Or a Muslim, proclaiming “Allahu Akbar.”

As for me? I’m faith-free.

So our sense of reality differs, our worldviews diverge.

But let’s say, hypothetically, we do align. Now our common ground might be survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest becomes the base level of every discussion we’d have. The ultimate motive is basic survival – simply staying alive.

Of course, you could counter that philosophically. Why should survival be good? What if there’s some “better place” beyond? What if everything is just brain-in-a-vat stuff, like in The Matrix? Is all of this just an illusion?

But back to our point: survival of the fittest is the foundation, with survival itself as the primary level, and everything else following from there.

People who nitpick for the sake of nitpicking often lack a clear worldview, have an unfocused life perspective, and bring brainwashed values to the discussion.

Talking with someone like that? It’s like an atheist like me arguing with a devout Christian:

“Repent, Ariel Wang! Disrespecting the Almighty will bring you judgment in the afterlife. Hurry up and donate all your wealth to the church. Otherwise, you’ll end up in Hell!”

I’d respond, “I’m not really looking for heavenly rewards; earthly riches suit me just fine. Or, how about we make a trade? You give me two houses here in Shanghai, and I’ll send you blessings for a high seat in heaven.”

Can you imagine the reaction? A flat-out “No way! Go and fuck yourself!” – because faith doesn’t quite trump reality.

But if you understand the concept of survival of the fittest as a basis for discussion, we’re ready for a rational, shared dialogue.

It all stacks up gradually, each layer resting on the foundation beneath it – first layer, then the second, then the third – until we eventually part ways.

So here’s my invitation to all rational thinkers out there: follow, subscribe, share – I’ll open your eyes to a whole new worldview.

Best.