Versión español

Lector: El siglo XXI levantó su telón presentando a la plétora de sociedades el concepto de globalización, lo cual permitió a cada individuo constituyente de esta conformar parte de una dinámica y constantemente ampliándose comunidad de aprendizaje. En medio de este espacio sin fronteras, es fácil sesgarse por todo aquello que se presenta. En la actualidad, es fácil acceder a la producción textual del autor A que ha causado inigualable sensación en el país W, es posible saber que la persona B, después de años de esfuerzo e investigación, ha logrado un inigualable descubrimiento científico sobre X, es sencillo presenciar cómo el deportista C, siendo aún tan joven, ha obtenido medalla de oro en la competencia internacional de Y, es impresionante notificarse de que el emprendedor D, director de la compañía multinacional Z, ha sido el quien estaba en la vanguardia en el mejoramiento de la economía de su país. Enfrente de estos hechos, uno se puede preguntar: ¿se podrá imitar la magnitud de tales logros cegadores?, ¿se podrá copiar sus sacrificios y alcanzar la misma cúspide que tocaron?… De aquello emerge un temor de no ser capaz de alcanzarlos, así como una decepción de lo normal que uno es, de lo cotidiano que es la vida en relación a los demás, de lo poco impactante lo que uno hace es.

Autor: Si el mundo fuese un escenario, entonces cualquiera puede ser temporalmente un actor dentro de ella. Bajo esta premisa, es en efecto que el acto de ciertas personas tienden a recibir más atención, por ende aprecio, que otros, mas sin embargo, realizar una comparación entre ellos no debería resultar en el menosprecio de uno mismo, no debería inducir un estado sentimental de detrimento. Esto puede ser debido a que comparar resulta ser un acto demasiado forzado. En efecto, es muy común presenciar que diferentes entes gustan de aglutinar a diversas personas, homogenizar sus talentos, contextos y personalidades bajo un mismo parámetro, para posteriormente distinguir a una de tal grupo, denominándola “el mejor de A/el mejor en hacer B/el mejor en tener C/entre otras”. Es relativamente arrogante declarar que persona A es mejor que B por la simple razón de que fundamentalmente son diferentes. Imaginaos los siguientes escenarios que pueden servir de ejemplo: se ha de organizar una competencia en producir el mejor cortometraje del género de terror en un colegio, y al final del concurso grupo B vence a grupo A. Son designados “Los Mejores Editores del Colegio”, y la justificación dada por los jueces es que basados en los cinco criterios (control de espacio y tiempo, creatividad, entretenimiento, complementariedad de efectos especiales e impacto en el espectador). De aquello brotan una vasta cantidad de ramificaciones problemáticas: ¿qué pasa si grupo B contó con mayor presupuesto y apoyo gracias a que el pariente de uno de los integrantes es director de películas?, ¿qué cambiaría si grupo A filmó el video conteniendo un mensaje muy profundo y significativo que durante el periodo de calificación no fue notado? Si Grupo A tuviese que ganar, ¿qué pasa si grupo B fue el que más tiempo y dedicación le puso al cortometraje, mientras que grupo A simplemente adaptó una escena de una película famosa del siglo pasado?, ¿qué pasa si los integrantes de grupo B realmente desean ser editores y actores en el futuro, mientras que grupo A lo realiza como un pasatiempo, o viceversa? Que tal si uno se vuelve arrogante y no se da cuenta que algunos participantes, con talentos ocultos, simplemente no participaron por la fatiga.

En otras palabras, lo importante es notar que cada grupo es único debido a que los factores detrás de cada uno son diferentes, por ende tratar de establecer el mejor entre los dos es polémico, pues equivaldría ignorar estas variables.

Si hubiese una encuesta nacional para identificar los mejores contribuidores al avance económico del país, habrá empresas que lideren tal lista, y los parámetros homogeneizadores podrían ser cantidad de trabajadores (igual a cantidad de familias sustentadas económicamente), salario promedio, cantidad de inversión en futuros proyectos, cantidad de compañías afiliadas, entre otros. Empero, la incertidumbre que surge de obviar variables relevantes de las diversas particulares empresas aparecen: ¿qué tal con el ritmo de crecimiento de las empresas, o sea, si la compañía que ocupa primero tardó 50 años de desarrollo para alcanzar el puesto, mientras que la que ocupa quinto resultó demorar solo 15 años?, ¿qué hay con empresas cuyos individuos priorizan el ahorro por encima del gasto, por ende no contribuyen con la movilidad económica?, ¿qué hay con organizaciones que influyen en la movilidad económica indirectamente, pues principalmente constituyen pilares que sostienen a la sociedad en el proceso de democratización de seguro social, o producción de investigaciones para el avance científico, o el masivo esparcimiento de educación gratuita que trabajan en base a donaciones, lo cual sería para un beneficio económico no contemporáneo, sino en el distante futuro del país?

Otra vez, lo que hay que extrapolar de las situaciones es una idea de que cada entidad tiene sus particulares cualidades que dificultan el proceso de compararlos y a partir de aquello designar al denominado “mejor de todos”. Los ejemplos anteriores simplemente prestando lo que uno observa diariamente cuando es expuesto a la tempestad de información en la actualidad, caracterizada por olas de estudios comparativos, clasificaciones jerárquicas que conjuntamente buscan categorizar en vez de criticar constructivamente, o demás grupo de datos.

Si se delimita el enfoque desde organizaciones a individuos, la situación no cambia: cada persona tiene su propio conjunto de circunstancias que ya lo diferencia de cualquier otro, y si se obliga realizar una comparación, entonces habrá que sacrificar talvez cualidades esenciales que caracterizan a los integrantes de tal clasificación, de ignorar de que detrás de cada individuo existe un pergamino difícil de descifrar a fondo.

El ejemplo hipotético que ayuda a ilustrarlo involucra visualizar una selva en donde distintas especies están reunidas: el mamífero un mono, un pez, una ave, el reptil la culebra y el anfibio la rana. Realizar una competencia de velocidad unificada, en forma de una carrera en terreno, para determinar al “mejor” del grupo, equivale a ignorar las capacidades naturales de cada uno, y crearía malentendidos a aquellos que no pueden avanzar sin patas, generando en el momento un sentimiento de auto-decepción. El pez no puede correr, pero sabe nadar; el ave tampoco, pero puede volar; la culebra solo puede deslizar y la rana, saltar. En estos casos, comparar a individuos fundamentalmente diferentes resulta ser solo con propósitos de entretenimiento y distracción.

Si se extrapola esta situación a la vida real, se procede a obtener un mensaje muy sencillo: en una carrera para la persecución de un sueño o ideal, uno nunca alcanzará a aquel rival que lo supera, por la sencilla razón de que ambos no corren la misma carrera. Lector: Si entre ente y ente, individuo entre individuo, son fundamentalmente diferentes, ya que cada uno carga consigo un amalgama de variables diversos de la cual es difícil comprender completamente, por ende es hasta cierto punto irrespetuoso obviar parte de aquello para compararlos entre sí, entonces, ¿dónde queda la legitimidad de un sistema de clasificación?, ¿cuál es su utilidad?

Autor: Como pronunciado con anterioridad, comparar tiende a ser mal interpretada cuando el individuo supone de que este conlleva al menosprecio de uno mismo frente a alguien exitoso. En ese sentido, uno no debería dejarse traumar, o sufrir, por ser sujeto de comparación, no obstante, tampoco significa que hay que asumir un estado de exceso alivio debido a que estos sistemas de clasificación que aparecen en diversos ámbitos también tienen sus respectivos motivos muy valiosos de existencia que requieren al individuo aprovechar. En los escenarios donde aparecen jerarquías es fácil olvidar que el realce en alto a ciertas personas más que los demás busca comunicar una particular idea: distinción tiene la intención de inspirar progreso. Los logros, así como el incomprensible esfuerzo adjunto, de una persona pueden ser brillantes, y la luz emanada supone ser guiadora, no segadora en estas jerarquías. En efecto, un individuo puede contemplar el brillo de aquellos exitosos, pero esto a base de no olvidar quién uno es. Tomar a personajes respetables es para que sean referentes de las cuales inspirarse de logros inolvidables y asimilar (entender) sus sacrificios, para últimamente adaptarlos en base a las exigencias de uno mismo, no copiarlos en la vida del individuo. Uno mismo puede entrar a un sistema de clasificación y no quedarse en el punto de llegada de admirar a los integrantes de este, de aquel científico A quien inventó curas para enfermedades X que ha salvado incontable habitantes, gobernante del país B quien ha aliviado el problema Y, o artista C, autor de la producción Z que causado purga emocional vasto, sino intentar de entenderlos y ser inspirado, y no para que la magnitud de sus logros sean replicados.

Si se extrapola esta situación a la vida real, se procede a obtener un mensaje muy sencillo: en una carrera para la persecución de un sueño o ideal, uno nunca alcanzará a aquel rival que lo supera, por la sencilla razón de que ambos no corren la misma carrera.

English version

Walking down the paved road, on a rainy day, the individual gazes upon the plethora of infrastructure and humans giving off the scent of the modern era. An infinite amount of data is displayed on that high scraper, on the posters pasted on the translucent glass of that grocery shop shout out inspirational slogans from unknown people; on the walls, full of persuading words, of an enormous bus that invites the individual to travel with it, all of this while another infinite amount of data replace the aforementioned. This sea of information barges into the mind of the individual, and amidst this tempest, can the person still retain what is innate to them, or replace everything with anything being presented? The individual keeps walking straight, looking for an answer, until arriving inside that destined chamber. The atmosphere is denser, perhaps due to the raindrops encircling this room…it seems the windows are not translucent due to water being condensed, not allowing the individual to look clearly who is sitting beside that window…

Reader: The 21st century lifted its curtains presenting to the plethora of societies the concept of globalization, which allowed each individual constituent of it to be connected to a dynamic and constantly growing learning community. Amidst this space that knows no frontiers, it’s easy to be overawed by everything that’s being presented. Nowadays, it’s not difficult to know about the current trending phenomenon like “planking” and how it’s followed by prestigious group, called “the Cool Kids”; about how certain author Shirley’s literary work has caused unprecedented sensation in country Atlantis; it’s possible to know that scientist Octopie, after years of effort and research, has achieved an unparalleled scientific discovery about cells or computers, it’s simple to witness how that young athlete, despite just a teenager, has obtained gold medal in the Most Important International Competition of Importance; it’s a source of jealousy the kind of life led by certain flashy celebrity; it’s impressing to be notified that some entrepreneur, CEO of the multinational company of cells and cellphones, was the one in the vanguard for the economic prosperity of Atlantis. Before the individual realized, these achievements were nearer than they thought.
In front of all these showy and blinding facts, one can be induced to ask: is it possible to imitate such dazzling achievements? Is it possible to copy all their sacrifices and reach the same glorious cusp they reached? Is it possible to merge into this reputable social sphere? From it, the fear of being unable to catch up to them emerges, as well as disappointment of how average one is, of how normal is one’s life in comparison to others, of how little impact one can cause, stems.

Author: if the world was a stage for a never-ending drama, then each one has the opportunity to be a leading actor on it. From this premise, indeed, the performance of certain people tends to receive more attention, hence appreciation, than others, nonetheless, establishing a comparison between different actors shouldn’t lead to the undermining of one’s own act, it shouldn’t induce a detrimental sentiment of losing to others, losing to oneself and losing oneself. The previous effect might be the result of the inherent defects of designing a flawed system of comparison and still dishonestly present it to the individual without acknowledging its problems. Indeed, it’s very common to witness how different entities like to agglutinate diverse people, homogenize their talents, contexts, experiences, nature and personalities under the same parameter in order to distinguish one from such group, dominating it as “the best of A”, “the best at doing B”, “the best in having C”, among others (please fill in the variables with whatever you like). It’s relatively arrogant to declare individual A is better than B at something, simply because both are fundamentally different; something about life will be very twisted if individuals (everything that represents one person) can be easily sorted out and categorized.

For simplicity, imagine the following scenarios in which instead of individuals, groups of prople are being studied in order to convey the problems with systems of classification (indeed, large, voluptuous entities are easier to analyze than single individuals, analogous to how biologists find easier to study the behavior of biofilms than individual bacteria)¹. Imagine that there is a national survey to identify the most important contributors to the economic prosperity of a country; enterprises will head that list and the homogenizer parameters might be the quantity of workers (which in turn represents the quantity of families economically sustained), average salary, amount of budget for future investments, amount of affiliated companies, among others. Nonetheless, the uncertainty emerges by obviating relevant variables about the companies being hierarchized: what if rate of growth was an important factor for judging an enterprise, which means, while the company in first place required fifty years of development to reach that position, the one in fifth place just used fifteen years? What about enterprises which majority of workers just coincidentally prioritize savings over spending, hence do not contribute to economic flux? What about organizations that influence economic prosperity indirectly? (They constitute the main pillars sustaining a society by engaging in the process of the democratization of healthcare, in the yielding of scientific journals that push forward innovation and scientific progress, or in the massive spreading of high-quality education, thus not providing a direct economic benefit, but certainly building the future of a country). What is to extrapolate in this situation is that each entity has its own defining features which make the process of comparing them difficult and meaningless. The following is another scenario: an educational entity decides that a competition ought to be organized to produce the best short-film in the genre of horror, and in the end group B defeats group A. They are decorated with the title of “The Best Editors of the University”, and the judges’ justification is that based on the five criterions (space and time management, creativity, entertainment, complementarity of special effects and impact on the spectator). From that premise, a vast amount of problematic ramifications stems: what if group B had a larger budget and support given that one of its member’s relative just happens to be a film director?, what would have changed if group A filmed the video conveying a profound & meaningful life message that wasn’t noticed by the judges during the preliminary assessment? But, of course, if group A won in turn, what if group B was the one who dedicated the most time towards the crafting of the short-film, while group A just simply adapted a scene from a movie from last century?, what if all the members of group B truly desired to become film directors or actors in their respective futures, while group A participated simply to skip lectures and treats filming as a hobby, or vice versa? What if the organizer of the competition becomes arrogant and neglected the possibility of students with hidden talents who simply didn’t participate because fatigue kicked in? In other words, it’s worth noting that each group has unique circumstances because each member has their distinct backgrounds and experiences’, hence trying to determine the “best out of these two” is controversial, since it’d be equivalent to ignoring these fundamental variables.

The above are simply examples of what one can observe day by day in the hurricane of information that thrashes itself in front of the individual without one knowing about it, characterized by waves of comparative studies and hierarchical classifications that discriminate differences among those analyzed.

If the attention is focused on the individual, the situation doesn’t change: each person has his or her own circumstances that distinguish that person from any other, and if a comparison is naively made, then essential qualities that make up the members of that system of classification will be ignored … each individual is a sutra difficult to decipher thoroughly.

The hypothetical example (because it’s easier to appeal to fictitious situations where humans aren’t part of it given that it shouldn’t be easy to construct a person with a distinctive behavior, personality and actions in an example) which helps illustrates the aforementioned involves visualizing a jungle in which distinct species are gathered together: monkey the mammal, a fish, a bird, a snake the reptile, and a frog the amphibious. A competition to establish the “best” of the group will be decided through a unified race that’ll be run on top of a terrain (from this many distinctive characteristics of the animals are being ignored). Certainly, confronted by such an arbitrarily set competition, those who can’t set foot on the soil might indeed feel disappointed by its own incapability and fall in a detrimental abyss. The fish can’t run, but it can swim; the bird neither, but it can fly; the snake knows how to slide, the frog, jump and the monkey, swing… Would it be feasible for all of them to temporarily forget their own capabilities and attempt to run the race? They can, indeed, and a winner will emerge (say, the bird) and subsequently be extolled as the “best” in the jungle. Though, of course, in these cases, comparing individuals who are fundamentally different might just be solely with purposes of entertainment and distractions. If this situation is adapted to real life, a message can be extrapolated: one will never reach that rival who surpasses one, for the simple reason that both just don’t run the same kind of race.

Reader: if between entity and entity, individual and individual, there exists such fundamental contrasting experiences and capabilities given that each carries with it an amalgam of diverse variables difficult to sort out or even comprehend thoroughly, to the point that it’d disrespectful to ignore them and compare these entities, then, from where do systems of classification derive their legitimacy? What is its utility? Why do humans position themselves next to others?

Author: as pronounced before, comparing perhaps is not bad, despite carrying fundamental flaws, but it’s severely misinterpreted by the individual when one assumes that it ultimately leads to the undermining of oneself in front of someone “better”. In that regard, one shouldn’t be traumatized, or suffer, by being subject of comparison.

These systems of classification do share their very valuable reasons to exist, hence requires the individual to take advantage of. In other words, although figuring out the inherent issues with system of classification, there is no need to change them fundamentally, only the way to view them.

When hierarchies and comparison are made, whether as a result of a mental imprint stemmed from worries or jealousy, or shown to one by a foreign agent, it’s easy to forget that the highlighting of certain people has the purpose of inspiring. Indeed, distinction should be one driving motor for progress in others. The achievements, as well as the incomprehensible effort attached, of an individual might be dazzling, and the light emanated is supposed to be guiding, not blinding in these hierarchies. Indeed, an individual might contemplate the brightness of those achievements, but this should be on the basis of one not forgetting who one is, what is his story, his ideals, personality, experience and realize that these variables dictate the inability to run the same race as the one he contemplates, let alone acquire his prize. Honorable individuals should be referents whose unforgettable achievements inspire the person, whose sacrifices are understood so to grasp how success is built, so that ultimately one adapts them based on what one aspires to become². If there is any meaning behind the jungle’s race, then it’s worth asking what can the monkey learn from the movements of the frog, the altitude of the bird’s flying so to know about winds’ currents, the fish’s swimming and its adaptability to the environment, and the snake sliding, so that it can enhance furthermore its ability to swing between trees. Indeed, if the monkey doesn’t compare, from where can it base its actions on? Without having something to base its actions from, how can it better itself? Hierarchies, in that regard, were meant to be climbed (through one’s own capabilities) instead of being an archetypical map where every member of it should accept and extoll. When one tries to mold one’s future and acts on behalf of it, competing with others might to some extent allow the individual to know oneself better (flaws, strengths, likes, dislikes), so that ultimately one can enhance one’s own performance, own way of acting in that stage. A hierarchy should be built on the basis of respect through acknowledging the fundamental differences between human beings. From that premise, hierarchies, neither, were static structures where individuals are added and each one can only accept the position assigned, but rather a dynamic mosaic model in which everyone climbs through achievements, falls through failures and climbs up again as the result of not wanting to give up what has been achieved before, and falls again… There exists not the best, then, but only better. For that matter, when being exposed to the infinite amount of data displayed around one’s community, one must discern a very ugly, yet beautifully crafted lie, which is that there doesn’t exist the “best” product (where is the room for innovation, then?), “best” trademark (where is the room for competence?), “best” institution (can a numerical position represent its history, reputation, extent to which individuals contributed society, performance of future members?), “best” book (where is the respect for knowledge being borderless and diverse?), but instead acknowledge that comparisons should be made dynamic, whilst keeping in mind that differences among individuals shouldn’t be ignored, but rather honestly acknowledged and taken into account when analyzing them. Perfection, if allowed to be redefined, then, is not seeking the illusion of completeness, but rather a measure of the extent to which one humbly aspires to become better. Pausing at one train station, and being dishonest by declaring that one can’t get further, is therefore misleading. The rain stopped a while ago, and though the windows are still condensed, when the individual actually focuses on looking, a clearer view is being projected of who is sitting beside it, in front of that desk with the settler of that chamber. Reader: no matter what the monkey learns from its brethren, it will never be able to fly. Swing as high as it can, or low as it desires, can it touch the sky like the bird, or dive deep into the ocean as the fish? For that matter, what if the other animals of the jungle just generally admire the clear, blue sky more than the plain, flat terrain, hence attribute more value to the actions of that bird, who can explore myriads of kilometers away, and return whenever it desires, who has a wider space to express itself? If we return to what was said in the beginning, the world is indeed a stage, acts being always changed, and therefore the themes of those acts changes. What if the audience show bias towards certain themes, wouldn’t that undermine one’s act? Comparing is indeed flawed, and indeed the system should be dynamic as everyone has room to grow, everyone fails and can climb up back again. But the room for growth is different, isn’t it, can the room of growth for the monkey exceed that of the bird? Author: indeed, when addressing the human world, the current century has placed particular emphasis towards the natural and exact sciences³. This in turn begets the question, what about the other fields? How can one shine as the bird when the context (something not within one’s control) favors the bird? Historically, we humans behaved like this, as there were times when the primary focuses were philosophy, religion, anthropology, as each of them were the guiding fields of study that allowed us to seek what is reality, what constitutes as being, what is beyond our eyes, all in order to satiate curiosity, a driving force for life. When times changed, the center of attention switched to the arts, architecture, politics, as when humans became more systematically organized, the need to communicate feelings and ideas to one another, to build infrastructure so to be easily interconnected, to manage relations and dictate laws for a peaceful and efficient organization. The ruthless clock continued to tick, and the focus has been placed upon the sciences, as it drives innovation and further simplification for the world’s way of living. Of course, no era “abandoned” previous fields of study.
As such, cards and cards has been changed throughout history and the individual, perhaps regretting being born in the “wrong” era with a different focus, can indeed question, can the room of growth for the monkey exceed that of the bird, when the jungle’s preference for terrestrial animals have expired long since trees have grown so tall that they overshadow the floor? Nonetheless, there is a fundamental flaw when asking this kind of self-undermining questions.

Up until now, the discussion about hierarchies have been built upon externally, and it’s structured with diverse people in it. However, it’s worth mentioning that a very, if not the most, important hierarchy has been ignored, which is the one that’s built within oneself. This internal hierarchy can be used to ask a rhetorical question in response to the previous interrogative: if the monkey knows it was born to swing among trees, and by watching the bird it learnt to swing higher than before, why would it desire to fly, an action that just doesn’t belong to being a monkey? Why, though the sky can be extolled, is the earth not admired by the one who naturally inhabits it? For a person like Shirley, who was born with certain talent, say doing math-inspired art, then an external hierarchy is built so that Shirley can polish the skills granted at birth in doing art and be inspired to become better and different from others. The internal hierarchy is meant for Shirley to ask who she is: what are Shirley’s ambitions, desires, circumstances, context? What can Shirley do so to reach a maximum potential out of? But this internal hierarchy’s questions should be asked without unnecessary distractors such as those that can be extrapolated from external hierarchies: the sense of success, admiration to the victorious, recognition or acknowledgement, or even more material parameters such as those of fame, and/or monetary compensation, given that these can do more harm if they are not addressed properly by the individual. As said, in such a globalized world, with such a high degree of influx of information, one tends to ask who do I aspire to be or how can I acquire the skills of those I don’t know, but usually forgets to reflect on who am I, or what constitutes that one person. In that regard, understanding the nature of this internal hierarchy is more fruitful and meaningful when thought about, as it allows tracing the individual’s growth and honing the skills the individual was born with. Once again, it’s also a dynamic model in which the individual can ask, instead of how can I become like that, how can I become more like myself? How have I grown into being myself compared to before? … Amidst this tempest of data revolving around the individual, if one doesn’t inquire who one is (one’s own unique circumstances, desires, capabilities), hence doesn’t cultivate them to their maximum potential, proudly acknowledges them or expresses/articulates them sporadically, then what’s feared is that they might become lost within oneself, forgotten and replaced by the foreign inputs of society… To not fall into this bottomless abyss, one should climb one’s respective external and internal hierarchies, and even if it results in being average, one shouldn’t averagely give up when falls, shouldn’t averagely feel victorious when succeeds… Conversely, of course, the individual can lie to the self and indeed follow the footsteps of those the individual admires, in the process casting away that debris lost within oneself. Perhaps on that path, the person can forget what once defined that individual, despite being bathed by the ecstasy of success or fame. It would only seem that nothing truly belonged to that person: the individual, because of hedonistic lies after lies, never had own dreams (as they were borrowed), own struggles (as they were others’), own victories (as they were copied). In that wild jungle, the monkey superficially cultivates its skills of swinging by watching the bird, learning from the fish, observing the snake, following the frog, but beyond that (or complementary to that) what else can the monkey do to showcase it’s a unique monkey, special to others, special to oneself? For that matter, one is more than one thinks of oneself (as there is a plethora of questions to ask the self for the duration of one’s life on how to fulfill the requirements of being oneself, and infinite struggles and victories to follow), just less than one exaggerates, as being a node of an interconnected world, the individual is not the only one asking and bettering oneself, but can rather take the opportunity to learn from one another, in the process realizing the fundamental differences that separates each one, extrapolating meaning in seeking to understand them.

In the end, cultivate your own seeds, grow your own crops; borrow your neighbor’s knowledge and experience, but together model your own gardens.

The youngster moves its arm, reaches the window blurred by the rain’s condensation, and attempts to clean and return its original translucency. Upon it, the youngster is able to see a figure once again, and a series of questions directed to oneself emerged, despite the noisy outside environment…

Any thoughts or experience you want to share, or feedback to help us improve? Please comment below.