THAT'S WHY - THE FLAW IN FORCED COMPARISON

We live in a world of specialization, yet I have seen people make comparisons so illogical they are difficult to even address:

The Writer vs. The Talk Show Host: A host is paid specifically for their verbal delivery and public persona. A writer’s skill lies in the depth of their thought and the precision of their prose. Comparing their speaking skills is a fundamental misunderstanding of their respective crafts.

The Engineer vs. The Surgeon: No one asks an engineer to perform a heart transplant, nor a doctor to design a bridge. Their expertise is non-transferable, yet in my experience, people treat different professional skills as if they are interchangeable.

The Private Citizen vs. The Politician: I have been compared to high-ranking politicians who hold public office. They have the backing of millions of voters and massive financial resources; expecting the same level of public accountability or representation from an independent writer is a complete distortion of reality.

This surreal judgment has even bled into my personal life. During real estate transactions, I have been compared to the agents or lawyers I am paying. There is an expectation that I should perform their specialized tasks—closing deals or filing legal forms—simply to prove my skills are as good as theirs.

It is a strange paradox: people claim their skills are superior to a writer's, yet they expect the writer to do their work for them.

Every position comes with a specific set of expectations and a corresponding salary. It is unreasonable to use a 'you are me' excuse to delegate their core responsibilities to anyone or a writer while keeping the rewards for themselves. This dynamic is not only illogical, but it’s also an unprofessional approach to accountability.

I often end my articles with a suggestion for change or a question for the public to ponder. Shockingly, the response is often a demand that I should be the one to solve the issue or provide the institutional answer.

They treat a writer's inquiry as an admission of responsibility, rather than a prompt for those in power—the ones paid millions to lead—to do their jobs. It is as if the public would rather test the writer than hold the actual authorities accountable.