"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye"

Prompt 3: have you ever challenged a belief?

    “How great leaders inspire actions” by Simon Sinek has always been my favorite TED talk. Sinek introduces a brief theory of the golden circle, a process of making an action. Although a very simple theory, it directly pierces the point that we all neglected. According to Sinek, while most of our mental process goes from What to How to Why, the leaders make their action by going from Why to How to What, suggesting that the leaders identify necessities first, thinks of how to meet the necessities, and finally through which mechanism would they meet the necessities. 

    Derived from Sinek’s theory, “penetrating the essence” is what I kept in mind recently as my own principle. Although Sinek’s theory is very intriguing and compelling, it does not seem to fit into every occasion. I understand how Sinek meant to tell us how significant changes come from identifying whys, but I believe the description is wrong, as identifying whys, ironically, also starts with identifying “what” is the necessity. Thus, I decided to make my own Golden Circle that works in What -> Why -> How.

    In other words, unlike Sinek’s theory, which focuses on “why” of the process and the variation among people, my golden circle rather focuses more on “what” is the essence. Inevitably, “what” must precede “why,” as in order to identify “why,” you logically have to think of “what” is this “why” referring to. Even when making a literary analysis, you must first identify what is the purpose of the writing and then think of why is this the purpose through how it is described in the writing. Therefore, no matter where “why” is located, “what” must precede “why.”

    “How,” on the other hand, could be seen as neglected, as “what” is the most important in my circle and “why” is the most important in that of Sinek’s. Nonetheless, “how” still serves as a very important factor in the circle, but the practicing of “how” itself is what should be considered important. As the circle of “how” encompasses the circle of why and what in my golden circle, it must hold responsibility for solving the problems identified through the identification of “what” and “why”. As repertoires of “hows” could be listed even for a single problem, we should not focus much on the effectiveness of how but on whether it is done or not.

    No matter how hard the math problem is, no matter how difficult it is to understand somebody’s opinion, and no matter how complex your interpersonal relationship is, I decided to penetrate the point by using my own golden circle. Even though “why” could serve as a most important factor to look at whenever and whatever, we should never forget that “what” must precede “why” in order to solve the problem.