My daughter is nine, and every waking minute of her day is about friends. Who said what at recess. Who’s mad at who. Whether she should text Sophia or wait for Sophia to text her. The intricate politics of the lunch table. The devastating betrayal when someone played with someone else at indoor recess.

It feels alienating sometimes, if I’m honest. There are moments when I want to shake her and say: I’m right here. I’m your mother. Why does it matter so much what Elly thinks about your hair?

But then I remember: I was exactly the same way. At ten, at twelve, at fourteen - my friends were my entire universe. My mother was furniture. This is what kids do. It’s not personal; it’s developmental.

Still, this phase of her life has me thinking constantly about friendship. About what we teach kids - often without meaning to - about what friendship is supposed to be. About all those neat little packages of apparent wisdom that float around, repeated so often they start to sound like truth.

“A man is known by the company he keeps.”

“You are the average of your five closest friends.”

“Show me your friends and I’ll show you your future.”

These phrases get stripped of context and accepted as truisms. And I wonder: what is my daughter learning when she hears these things? What am I teaching her about friendship when I unconsciously nod along to this advice?

Because the more I think about it, the more these truisms feel like something else entirely. They feel some what insidious.

What “You Are the Average of Your 5 Friends” Actually Claims

Let’s start with what the phrase literally says: that your income, your habits, your attitudes, your worldview - even your life outcomes - will converge toward the mean of your closest associates.

It’s presented as quasi-mathematical. Average. Sum total. The language gives it a veneer of objective truth, like it’s a law of nature rather than a motivational speaker’s opinion.

The underlying assumption is that influence flows between people like osmosis. That you’ll inevitably drift toward whoever you spend time with, absorbing their ambitions, their constraints, their ways of seeing the world.

And look - there’s some truth here. Norms do spread through networks. If everyone around you thinks 100-hour workweek is normal, you’ll probably internalize that. If everyone around you thinks $50K is good money, your sense of what’s possible will calibrate accordingly.

But what this phrase does is it reduces this complex social reality into something mechanical and deterministic. It treats human relationships like a chemistry equation where you can predict the output based on the inputs. Mix yourself with five ambitious people, get ambition. Mix yourself with five “unmotivated” people, become unmotivated.

It’s reductive. And it’s also, I think, missing the entire point of what friendship actually is.

The Origin - From Observation to Prescription

The phrase is usually attributed to Jim Rohn, motivational speaker, 1980s business seminar circuit. Though honestly, the specific “five people” formulation seems to have emerged more broadly in self-help culture - nobody can quite pin down the exact source, which tells you something about how these things spread.

Rohn’s original context was likely observational: if you’re surrounded by people with limiting beliefs, you’ll internalize those limits. If you’re around people who think big, you’ll expand your sense of what’s possible.

Fair enough. That’s just describing how social environments work.

But there’s a crucial shift that happened - from “you will be influenced by those around you” (descriptive) to “therefore, choose better friends“ (prescriptive).

And if you look closely, this is a very dramatic shift.

The first statement is about recognizing environmental influence. The second is about individual responsibility. About treating friendship as a strategic decision in your personal growth plan.

Rohn was speaking to adults in a business success context - people actively trying to build wealth, grow companies, expand their influence. Fine, if that’s the audience!

But the phrase has metastasized far beyond that now. It’s parenting advice. It’s life coaching gospel. It’s LinkedIn wisdom posted by 23-year-olds who just read The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fck*. It’s become a truism about friendship itself, stripped of any specific context about business or wealth-building.

And when you strip it of context, it can dangerously become a moral framework for evaluating all human relationships.

What It Signifies Today - Friendship as Portfolio Management

Today, this phrase functions as permission (or even obligation) to treat friendship instrumentally.

It transforms relationships into assets to be audited. Are your friends “adding value”? Are they ambitious enough, successful enough, growth-oriented enough? Are they readers or scrollers? Gym people or couch people? Do they have a side hustle or just a job?

I see this especially clearly in tech circles. Senior executives who all vacation in Tahoe. Not because they independently discovered, through some pure aesthetic judgment, that Tahoe represents their ideal holiday. But because Tahoe signals the right thing - outdoorsy but refined, accessible but exclusive, the correct balance of family-friendly and aspirational.

Their friendships aren’t chosen from infinite possibility. They’re curated from a very specific milieu that’s already been sorted by class, geography, education, industry. The “choice” has already been made by structural forces way before anyone thinks they’re “choosing their five.”

But here’s what the advice pretends: that we’re all sovereign individuals selecting from a friendship marketplace. That anyone can befriend anyone. That it’s just a matter of being intentional.

This erases the reality of how friendships actually form:

• Geographic proximity - Your neighborhood, your kid’s school catchment area, where you can afford to live

• Economic constraints - Who can afford to socialize where you socialize, who has time for the activities you have time for

• Cultural background - Shared language, shared religion, shared immigration patterns, shared references

• Institutional sorting - What school you could access, what jobs were available, what networks you inherited or didn’t

Most people’s friend groups emerge from these structural realities, not from strategic curation.

But by framing it as “choice,” the advice individualizes what’s structurally determined. It converts collective conditions into personal responsibility.

If you’re not thriving, it’s not because opportunity was constrained. It’s because you chose your friends poorly.

The Unconscious Perception - The Moral Hierarchy of Friends

People internalize this phrase as a moral hierarchy: some friends are “good for you” and some are “bad for you.”

Not “good” or “bad” in terms of how they treat you. Not whether they’re kind, loyal, trustworthy, fun. But “good” or “bad” in terms of what they’re achieving.

If you introspect a little, you’ll find you do this too, albeit subsconsciously. I know I do.

In kids’ lives:

The friends who play piano, who get good grades, who have their college plans figured out at fifteen - these are the Good Friends. The ones you subtly encourage your kid to spend more time with. The ones whose parents you want to befriend because clearly they’re doing something right.

The ones who are struggling in school, who don’t seem to do much, who are loud and maybe a little too much - these become the Bad Ones. The ones you hope your kid will naturally drift away from. The ones who might “drag her down” or “hold her back” or teach her that mediocrity is acceptable.

We don’t say this out loud, of course. We’d never tell our kids “don’t be friends with Emma because she’s not ambitious enough.” We just...approve of some friendships more than others. We’re more enthusiastic when certain names come up. We’re more willing to drive across town for a playdate with the piano player than with the loud girl who barely passes math.

In adult lives:

The friends who got promoted to director, who bought a house in the right neighborhood, who have their retirement accounts optimized - these are the Good Friends. The ones whose dinner invitations you accept. The ones you make time for. The ones you mention casually at work because the association elevates you.

The ones who got laid off and haven’t found anything yet, who are still renting at forty, who seem perpetually stuck in the same job, the same city, the same complaints - these become the Bad Ones. The ones whose calls you don’t return as quickly. The ones you see out of obligation rather than desire. The ones you worry might make you complicit in their stagnation.

We don’t say this out loud either. We’d never admit “I’m distancing myself from Sarah because she’s not successful enough.” We just... get busy. We’re enthusiastic about drinks with the VP but somehow never have time for coffee with the friend who’s been unemployed for six months.

But believe it or not, our kids can feel it. They know and learn what we value. They learn who counts as a good investment of their social energy.

And we feel it too, when we’re the ones being evaluated.

This creates a subtle cruelty in how people manage friendships: dropping friends who “aren’t going anywhere.” Feeling guilty about enjoying people who aren’t “pushing you to grow.” Constantly measuring relationships against some metric of mutual advancement. Treating friendship like networking with affection.

And if you’re on the other side - if you are the friend who’s struggling - you internalize a different shame.

You got laid off. You’re depressed. Your marriage failed. Your startup folded. You’re stuck in a job you hate but can’t seem to leave.

Suddenly you feel like you’re contaminating your friends’ averages. You become the friend people should drop for their own good. You start preemptively pulling back because you don’t want to be anyone’s “bad influence.”

I have a friend - brilliant, funny, deeply thoughtful - who went through a brutal divorce and a career setback at the same time. She told me she stopped reaching out to certain friends because she felt like she was “bringing the vibe down.” She’d become, in her own mind, the kind of friend you’re supposed to edit out when you’re being strategic about your five.

The fact that she thought this breaks my heart.

But it’s a rational response to a culture that treats friendship as optimization.

The Consequences - What Gets Lost

So what happens when this becomes the dominant framework for thinking about friendship?

1. Friendship becomes transactional

The equation shifts. We go from “do I enjoy the company of this person?” to “what am I gaining from this person?”

Love, loyalty, history, humor - these matter less than optimization. You start doing unconscious cost-benefit analyses. Is this friendship making me better? Am I growing from this? What’s my ROI?

And once you’re thinking that way, you’ve already lost something essential.

2. Vulnerability becomes risky

If friends are meant to elevate you, then how can you show weakness. Weakness lowers their average.

So you curate what you share. You text about the promotion, not the panic attack that came after. You post the vacation photos, not the fight you had in the hotel room. You celebrate the wins, not the 3am fear that you’re a fraud who has no idea what they’re doing.

And here’s the insidiousness behind this: you actually start to believe that this is friendship. That being a good friend means showing up polished. You forget that friendship used to be the one place where you didn’t have to be impressive at all.

It becomes another arena for performance.

And when everyone’s doing this - when everyone’s only showing their best selves - nobody actually knows each other anymore.

You’re all just curating your averages for each other, hoping nobody notices you’re tired, or lost, or hanging on by a thread.

The place where you used to be able to stop performing becomes the place where you perform the hardest.

3. Homogeneity masquerading as excellence

When you curate friends for “growth,” you often just curate for similarity - same industry, same visible class markers, same narrow definition of success.

You call it “surrounding yourself with excellence.” But it’s actually just insularity.

You end up in an echo chamber of people who all believe the same things about what matters, what success looks like, how life should be lived.

You lose the friction of difference. The expansion that comes from being close to someone who sees the world completely differently than you do.

Your friend group becomes an algorithm that only shows you more of what you already believe. More of who you already are.

You think you’re expanding but the truth is, you’re actually just narrowing - into a more and more refined version of the same thing, surrounded by people who reflect you back to yourself in slightly different configurations.

The algorithm makes you feel seen. Your curated friendships make you feel validated. But neither is actually showing you anything new.

4. The disappearance of friendship as sanctuary

Real friendship used to be the relationship where you could stop being strategic.

It was where you could be petty, unambitious, lazy, confused, contradictory - all the things you can’t be in professional contexts. It was the relationship that didn’t require you to be your best self.

But if friendship is a tool for self-improvement, there’s no escape from the optimization imperative. There’s no relationship left where you can just... be.

5. Kids absorb this framework

The thing that worries me most is that my daughter is watching. She’s listening.

When she hears these phrases - and she will - what does she learn?

That friends are investments? That she should drop people who aren’t “good for her” in some utilitarian sense? That love and loyalty are less important than advancement?

That the girl who’s struggling with anxiety or ADHD isn’t a friend who needs support - she’s a liability who might bring down your average?

I don’t want her to learn that. But I also don’t know how to protect her from a culture that treats this advice as obvious wisdom.

I watch my daughter with her friends and I see something the truisms completely miss.

She’s not thinking about the average of her five friends. She’s not optimizing.

She’s just... in it.

The total immersion. The way friends become everything - the full surrender.

And maybe that’s what real friendship actually requires: not the calculated assembly of an optimal peer group, but the willingness to be shaped by people you didn’t choose for strategic reasons. To let them see you when you’re not adding value to anyone’s life, including your own.

The truism gets it backwards.

You’re not the sum total of your five friends because you should choose better friends. You’re the sum total of your five friends because that’s what love does - it changes you. For better and worse. In ways you can’t control or predict or optimize.

I’m thinking about my daughter’s friendship with a girl I’ll call Reya. Reya is messy. Her feet smell, her backpack is a disaster, her grades are below average. She often forgets important school events.

By any optimization metric, this is not a high-value friendship.

But Reya makes my daughter laugh. Reya makes weird little drawings for her during class. Reya’s house is loud and messy and full of people and my daughter comes home from there glowing.

Is my daughter the average of Reya? I hope so. I hope she absorbs some of that unself-conscious joy. That ability to be fully present without worrying about whether she’s being her best self.

The truism would tell me to worry. To guide my daughter toward more “ambitious” friends; friends who are “going somewhere.”

But I think the truism has it completely wrong.

The best thing I can teach my daughter about friendship isn’t how to choose wisely. It’s how to love completely.

I have a 9-year-old, and there are three questions she returns to every few weeks like clockwork:

1. When can I have a dog?

2. When can I have a sleepover? OMG! This happens everrrryyy single weekend.

3. When can I have a phone?

For the first two, I can at least pretend I’m competent. I can draw up a tidy list of pros and cons on my neon post-its and talk about responsibility and logistics. There are guardrails. And if all that fails, I have precedent—I have a partner who’s already prevented our home from becoming a full-time laundry dump and who can, with enough persistence on my part, be convinced to handle the dog or supervise a sleepover.

The third question, however, is where my brain goes full Matrix—red pill, blue pill, both feel wrong

I’ve tried to reason it out. I’ve sketched mind maps, decision trees, “if–then” scenarios. Every path eventually spirals into a negative loop.

Part of the problem is that I work in tech. I spend an absurd amount of my time in front of screens—laptop, phone, TV, all blurred into one continuous feed. Screens are how I work, how I learn, how I stay informed (or misinformed), how I connect. I understand the draw. I don’t believe in waxing poetic about the evils of technology or pretending we can opt out entirely.

I also don’t want to be the parent living under a proverbial rock.

So I did what many of us do: I asked other parents. And, you know how that goes! The answers were all over the place.

“At 10, when middle school starts” (gateway drug equivalent?)
“Not until they’re earning their own money” (assuming it covers the data plan)
“They can have a phone when they want; we’ll just monitor it” (hmmmmm?)
“Only for school and emergencies”(when do you know an emergency will strike?)

None of that got me closer to an answer.

What changed things for me, however, was a lived moment.

I run an Instagram account where I frequently post videos of my daughter singing or playing the piano. And I’m not exaggerating when I say it stopped me dead in my tracks to see DMs such as “you’re so cute” and “where do you live” from people that have flowers and gods as their profile pictures.

That’s when shit got real.

If you’re like me—someone who opens their phone to doomscroll at 10PM, engages only with kunefeh and croissants type content, and stays largely within their own algorithmic bubble—you’re probably fine. You may not have seen the real risk, not even a glimmer. I hadn’t. Until I did.

And, in a spectacular lapse in judgment, I watched the TV show Adolescence that same week. I’m telling you—my mom brain died on me that day!

Over the past year, there have been real cases where adults reached out to kids on regular social media apps by pretending to be teenagers themselves. In one widely reported case, an adult contacted dozens of minors across different platforms, starting with harmless, friendly messages. There’s also been reporting showing that some platforms had internal warnings about how certain features were affecting teens’ mental health well before stronger safety tools were rolled out.

None of this is fringe or dark-web stuff. It’s happening on the very same apps many of us use every day.

For me, this is when actual decision-making kicked in.

I realized there is no universally right or wrong age to hand a child a phone. And I just can’t hide behind “it depends.”

From a developmental psychology perspective, tweens and early adolescents are still building the systems that support judgment, impulse control, and risk assessment. Sensitivity to reward and social approval develops much earlier than their ability to regulate those forces.

From a cognitive psychology lens, phones remove all context. In real life, when a child is confused or uncomfortable, there are cues everywhere—tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, another adult stepping in to clarify what’s going on. Online, all of that is missing. A message can look friendly even when the intention behind it isn’t.

So kids are left trying to figure things out on their own:
Is this person joking? Or are they being kind?

That’s a lot to ask of a developing brain.

In other words, it’s about decision-making under uncertainty at an age when those skills are still under construction. Which is why the question “What age should a child get a phone?” keeps failing us.

What I found more useful was a different way of thinking about readiness:

• Can my child tell the difference between attention and validation?
  If praise or reactions quickly determine their mood or self-worth, external validation is still doing a bulk of the work.

• Can they recognize when something feels off and say it out loud?
  Children who can name discomfort early (“this feels weird”) are more protected than those who go quiet.

• Do they still think safety means simply complying with what others are saying?
  If “being good” means not questioning adults or peers, they’re more vulnerable in spaces where pressure is subtle and social.

• Can they tolerate uncertainty?
  Phones reward instant gratification; can they wait to ask a parent or a trusted adult, or will they outsource their judgment to AI.

• Do they understand that not all friendly people are harmless?
  This isn’t about fear—it’s about grasping that not all intentions are the same.

Phones don’t just connect children to technology.
They connect them to unfiltered human behaviour.

Before I say anything more, I’d love to know if you share some of my fears:

I don’t have a final answer. I’m still thinking this through in real time.

If this resonates—especially if you find yourself stuck between fear and dismissal—I’m happy to talk about this more: how judgment actually develops, what research tends to miss, and how families can think about readiness without turning it into a checklist or a moral panic.

I’d genuinely like to know: does this worry you too?

Subscribe now

Most parents don’t wake up intending to pressure their children. The pressure creeps up on them.

We live in a world that is fed a steady diet of comparison, with a side of panic. You open Instagram or YouTube and see a six-year-old playing the piano like their fingers are on fire. Another child is modelling for Yves Saint Laurent. A young gymnast or soccer player already has more medals than teeth. Each clip is tightly edited and completely stripped of context. You don’t see the years of sweat, the interests that were tried and abandoned, the time and money that did not lead anywhere in particular, or the degree to which chance influenced the outcome. What you see instead is a 30-second video, wrapped in a vivid warm filter with text that says “determination be like…” in a dusky-rose palette, presented in a way that makes it look both natural and urgent.

And bam! A thought forms—sometimes as hope, sometimes as comparison: my child could do that too (I wish).

Before going any further, it’s important to say this clearly: there is nothing wrong with that thought.

It does not mean you are competitive, insecure, or failing to appreciate your child as they are. It means you are a parent. When you are responsible for a child in a world that feels increasingly uncertain, your attention naturally moves toward anything that signals safety.

Wanting your child to do well is not a flaw in your parenting; it is a predictable response to responsibility.

But what is easy to miss is how quickly this instinct begins to organize everyday choices. Not through a single, deliberate decision, but through a series of small, reactive moves. You sign them up for skating lessons because it feels productive. You find yourself late at night Googling—or asking ChatGPT—for the best piano teachers in your area. You grow irritated with your partner for not “taking this seriously enough.”

At other moments, the fear flips the other way. You’re awake at 2 a.m., staring at the ceiling, wondering whether your child has any particular talent at all. Suddenly, an idea pops into your brain. You’re right—math and science. It’s always math and science. They just have a knack for rearing their ugly heads at 2 a.m.

You think if they can do math, things will be fine—even Sundar Pichai–level fine. You do two things—first, you blame yourself for not spending enough time with your child. Then, you convince yourself you are Batman; that you can heroically extract another hour from your already crowded day to push math down your child’s throat, who probably just wants to play Roblox. It just feels like the responsible thing to do. Remember, at 2 a.m., this is deadly reasonable.

Why does this happen? It happens because familiar ideas of success are so readily available. They begin to guide your action not because you intentionally choose them, but because they’re so damn visible; they’re everywhere—on your phone, your TV, on the sides of escalators, on your cereal box, behind bathroom doors, on pigeon-shit-covered park benches. None of this would have happened if you had had the time or space to ask what is actually needed, or for whom.

This is often when parents start to feel as though they are perpetually behind—it feels a lot like running on a treadmill. You keep running, but you aren’t really getting anywhere.

When you are under pressures like these, you think you are supporting your child’s development, but what you’re actually doing is just managing your own anxiety. We frantically create reward charts and pin activity calendars on our refrigerators, adding to schedules that are already bursting at the seams. We start to crave and provide structure, not because children are asking for it, but because it offers us—the adults—a sense of control over uncertainty that has nowhere else to go.

What is happening here is not a lack of love or commitment. It is what might be called displaced survival anxiety. Surviving in today’s economic and political climate is hard. Talk to anyone and you’ll hear the same things: jobs no longer offer any real security; their company just had another round of layoffs. You can’t fully trust public schools to adequately educate your child; you almost have to supplement them with tuition or extracurriculars and bleed yourself dry in the process. And everything is so darn expensive. It’s no longer a choice between a holiday in Bali or a holiday in Hawaii. It’s the choice between math lessons for your children or a 2-hour birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese for them.

Instead of acknowledging these realities (some of you do—but since you can’t do much about them), we redirect that unease toward our children’s trajectories. Achievement starts to feel like the only insurance for the future.

This response makes psychological sense. But it also has consequences.

Children register this urgency long before they have language for it. They begin to associate effort with visible outcomes, and when they can’t see results quickly, the work itself starts to feel pointless. Parents, meanwhile, carry a background tension all along; the kind that does not come with a turn-off switch. Nothing is obviously wrong, yet the emotional climate of the household shifts.

Pause here for a moment and think back to your own childhood. Most of us can remember activities we were enrolled in with good intentions. Sure, some of them shaped us in lasting ways. But several others faded without any real consequence. That doesn’t make those experiences pointless, but it does suggest that development is rarely as linear as we are often led to believe. Skills deepen over time in ways that are difficult to predict, and interest tends to emerge unevenly rather than on schedule.

Children learn persistence less from what they are instructed to do than from what they observe. They notice how adults respond when things don’t resolve quickly. Do you become agitated or snappy? Do you feel compelled to manage the situation immediately, or are you able to sit with uncertainty without letting it eat you up? That modelling matters more than any plan.

This is not an argument for doing less, nor is it a call to abandon structure or aspiration. It is an argument for thoughtfulness. For noticing when anxiety has taken over decision-making and for asking whether speed is serving understanding or simply offering temporary relief from fear.

Often, the most meaningful shift is not in what you sign your child up for next. It lies in whether you pause long enough to examine what is driving your decision, and whether your child has space to be part of that conversation. That pause, small as it may seem, alters the tone of everything that follows.

Children do not need to become answers to our fear about the future. They need adults who can live with uncertainty without immediately feeling the need to respond. That capacity—to slow down internally before acting—is one of the most powerful things we can model.

Being thoughtful is not the same as being passive, and being intentional does not require perfection. It begins with recognizing our own humanity, and resisting the urge to pass anxiety down disguised as ambition.

I didn’t set out to write about parenting.

Six months ago, I started an Instagram account for my daughter almost on a whim. She’s a natural entertainer, loves to sing, and is learning to play an instrument. I thought it would be a fun creative outlet, something we could enjoy together.

What I didn’t expect was how quickly it grew. Within a few months, the account reached tens of thousands of followers. Along with that came a steady stream of messages in my DMs.

Most of them asked some version of the same question:

How do you raise a confident child like her?

At first blush, it’s a reasonable question. Who doesn’t want a confident child?

But the more I read those messages, the more I realized they weren’t really about my daughter at all. They were about discomfort—about how parents felt about their own children in that moment or about themselves as parents.

Wanting a “confident child” is often less about aspiration and more about anxiety. About the fear that something is missing.

And I don’t have a playbook I can hand you in response.

Even if I did, it wouldn’t help.

What has worked for my daughter may not work for yours. Temperament matters. Context matters. Culture matters (can’t emphasize this enough). Timing matters. Pretending otherwise only adds pressure—to both parents and children.

That’s why I started this space.

Parenting today is hard in ways we don’t talk about honestly enough.

Many of the parents who reached out to me grew up, like I did, in environments shaped by patriarchal norms, often fear-based. I grew up in India, where rules about how girls dressed, sat, spoke, and behaved were enforced without question. I know what it’s like to be taught—implicitly and explicitly—how much space you’re allowed to take up in the world.

Now, many parents are raising children in entirely different contexts. They’re navigating things they were never given language for—neurodiversity, gender identity, sexuality, emotional expression, difference itself.

There is no manual for this shift.

And that absence creates panic.

So parents look for certainty. For formulas. For book recommendations. For techniques. For reassurance that if they do the right things, confidence will follow.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth I’ve come to believe: Confidence is not something you teach directly. It’s a by-product.

What matters far more is whether a child is given space to think. Can they question without feeling threatened? Can they disagree or articulate their feelings without being slapped on the wrist?

What matters is whether they are raised to exercise judgment—not to perform confidence.

When we rush to “build confidence,” we often end up teaching children how to perform competence or be likeable rather than how to develop trust in their own thinking.

That distinction matters.

I’m currently studying counselling psychology, but this writing isn’t about advice or diagnosis. It’s about thinking carefully—drawing from psychology, philosophy, feminist writing, and lived experience—to understand how minds are formed over time.

The name The Forming Mind is intentional. The prefrontal cortex—the seat of judgment, regulation, and reasoning—is still developing well into adolescence. This isn’t a metaphorical window; it’s a biological one.

Parents don’t shape outcomes. They shape environments.

And environments shape minds.

This space is for parents who don’t want poster-child confidence. Who don’t want children trained to perform or comply. Who want to raise empathetic, humane individuals—capable of thinking for themselves and engaging with difference without fear.

I don’t promise certainty here. I won’t offer blueprints.

What I can offer is company in the thinking.

And sometimes, that’s what helps the most.