What serial daters have got to to with globetrotters

I had been wondering why I remembered short, distinct periods of time much better than the longer ones.

You mean the intensity of your memory is negatively related to the length of time spent for a specific activity?

Yes, if the activity in question is quite different from what happened before or after.

Jumping rope every morning for a quarter of an hour does not qualify as something of short duration and special, I presume.

If we live in the Land of Marbles, and someone from the Land of Jumping Ropes comes over to perform for the first time in history, yes.

Come to think of it, we seem to remember short flings better than the long ones.

We tend to equate the density of our memory to the intensity of the affair, but that is not quite true. Simply owing to the fact that it did not last long, we tend to remember the smallest details, not necessarily because we were so much in love with the person.

That explains the claims of people who have had a succession of lovers.

They say that they were very much in love with every one of them, and I have come to understand that they are not exaggerating. The same applies to more generic interactions.

A talk about life with a person who happens to sit next to you at a bar, for example.

I am certain that what s/he said would have a bigger impact than the same said by some other person you have known for a long time and meet regularly. 

Suppose you are told that you are a coward. Wouldn't that have a bigger effect if it is from someone who knows you quite well? 

That's true... But only the first time around. 

Well, here is another piece of evidence against durability of long-term relationships.

I'm afraid you are right. Your spouse may say exactly what your short-fling lover says, but their potency to you is far from being the same.

So, you are now convinced that the reason why you remember two years here and three years there better than other longer periods is not because they were inherently special?

I have discovered that it is because they were quite different from the periods that sandwiched them. I still go back to my childhood years that I spent in the Land of Giants and Witches.

It must have been a scary place.

After we left that Land, my parents started telling me that I shouldn't laugh like a witch or a sorcerer. They never said anything to that effect when we lived in the Land of Giants and Witches.

Why do you think they changed their attitude?

I had picked up the way of laughing while in the Land of Giants and Witches, and I guess it appeared inevitable to my parents. Now that we were in the Land of Headless Phantoms, they realized that my laughs do not conform to the local culture which happened to be my parents'. Anyway, it had always puzzled me why I could recall so much about my stay in the Land of Giants and Witches as well as about the assimilation period in the Land of Headless Phantoms that followed.

That's because they were of short duration?

Not only that, but also because both were so different from the times that proceeded and followed each of them.

It looks like you now know how to answer when someone says, 'You're attributing that to your having lived in the Land of Giants and Witches? But that was only for two years.'

I always forget to tell them that my siblings and I lived without my parents and with a family of Giants and Witches for a while. It seemed like a year at that time, but it must have been 3 months or so... In any case, I should point out that it is because of the brevity that it has had lasting effects on me.

You were also at a tender age.

Right, neither twisted nor hardened yet. But I can say the same with other short segments, later in my life. I remember the 2-year periods better than the over-5-year ones, and I know that the shorter ones were no more eventful than the longer. Only in my memory, they turn out to be so.

Your 6-year stint in the Land of Mean Bean-Counters, for example, was riddled with hardships.

And yet, everything from that period has become so blurry in my mind.

What about the slightly longer sojourn in the Land of Evil Priests and Ethicists?

As much as I had been appalled by their double, triple, quadruple, quintuple, sextuple... 

Comrade, you have sufficiently demonstrated your vocabulary.

Although their multiple standards repelled me, I am certain that as time passes, I would not remember every instance of their flagrant breach of own ethics. Or how they imposed authority by intimidation, how they divided in order to conquer, how they forgot and recalled as they saw fit, how they lost and regained hearing faculty at the strangest moments, etc.

Perhaps you should take notes before it is too late.

Doing so would reinforce my anger.

All right, it's better not to waste any emotion because of them...

Besides the increased capability in storing information, going to a different Land turns mundane chores---such as doing laundry and taking public transportation---into something special, because we are not used to the local ways. Ordinary days become full of discoveries.

Of difficulties, too.

True, but we do get exposed to what we did not know before. That in itself is life enriching, unless it is something so traumatic that it could destroy you.

Can you say that traveling is one way of living more intensely?
 

I certainly think so, and that is one of the biggest reasons why it is so addictive. Some time ago, I asserted that travel enables us to forget reality for the time being. As far as I can tell, that poses no contradiction to the view that we live more intensely through traveling.
 

What about relocating?

Ditto. The two---travel and relocation---have different advantages, though. On one hand, lack of modern trappings may appear romantic to a short-term traveler and plain annoyance to long-term residents. On the other hand, if we want to get to know the local culture better, we have to stay longer.
 

Some extract the maximum from their lives, not by traveling or relocating, but by pursuing one short-term affair after another... 

Who can blame them if every relationship opens up a new world, as any good relationship would?

... Comrade, something tells me that you do not fully endorse your own assessment. You agree, though, that serial daters and globetrotters have something in common.

Sure, both try their best to stretch their life-time, or more precisely, their preception of time.

There is nothing wrong with it, right?

You must also know that people tend to be nicer at the beginning and at the end.

So, more beginnings and ends there are, the better?

Just don't believe what they say at welcoming and good-bye parties, or during the first few dates...

The Third person

Don't you think it's time to add a new member to our meetings? 

Does that mean I am not good enough in what I do here?

Comrade... None of us is free from the fate of being ourselves. 

If we can be anything or everything, that would be confusing and scary.

The sad thing is that we get bored even with the very best. It is boredom that we find at the root of so-called 'change of heart.' 

On one hand, we need stability and reliability. On the other hand, we want novelty and excitement.

We have concluded before that one way to attain both is to keep on growing as persons. 

The problem, then, is that the two may grow apart. 

That is not as bad as one stunting the development of the other. I have seen many couples becoming more like the other, but for some reason, often in undesirable ways. 

Don't you think that we are essentially 'bad,' and having a partner who is already 'bad' serves as an excuse to be so? In other words, the 'bad' trait that is manifested in our partner brings out the same 'bad' trait in us that had been dormant?

Tidy and well-organized versus messy and ill-organized. Reliable versus flaky. Sociable versus anti-sociable. Fashionable versus unfashionable. Considerate versus self-centered. ... Well, it is not always the bad overwhelming the good, but I do think we tend to slide toward the least energy requiring and that is often the 'bad' rather than the 'good.' 

We sometimes see one trying hard to change the other, such as asking her/him to put the cap back on the tube of toothpaste when done, taking her/him to a rockclimbing trip that s/he does not care for, etc.

Some seem to convert, but when they break up, we hear that the conversion had not been a genuine one. 

'I went along, because he insisted.' 'She was really adamant, so that's why I did it.'

Why is happiness so elusive? 

Well, you're the one who implied that I'm no longer fit for this role.

I did not suggest replacing you with someone, simply adding a new member. 

That's what all adulterers say. They claim that they have no intention to abandon their wife, husband or steady lover. They say that they love their spouses/lovers as much as they did before.

Calm down, comrade. First of all, our relationship is not of that kind. Second, I realized that having another person would bring out the elements of who we are that two of us have not been able to by ourselves. 

But it does not mean that the third person is going to sit with us at the table and do nothing.

You are right, s/he has to participate in our talk. 

I still don't understand your proposal. You have been of the opinion that we are capable of understanding each other best when tête à tête.

I have become less sanguine about it lately. The trigger event was the meeting with Rainbow Trout and Red Herring. 

Rainbow Trout and Red Herring...? You must then be a Polka-dot Blowfish.

Sorry to disappoint you, comrade, but I quite like the sobriquet that you are giving me. Gaudy and poisonous! Honestly, what more can I ask? 

You're trying to act tough...

It's true, you can call me Pol-Blo from now on. Anyway, Rainbow Trout asked me some time ago what I thought about the film, "Deep Sea Rendez-Vous." 

What kind of movie is it?

Don't think hard, because it's another random nickname. I told Trout that it was not bad, but not great either. A good entertainment perhaps, but I could think of better ones. Trout told me then that Herring liked it very much.

So far, so good.

A week later, the three meet. Trout has a long history with both Herring and Blowfish, but Herring and Blowfish know each other little, only through Trout. In the middle of the conversation, Trout asks us how we thought about "Deep..." Trout has not seen the movie. I was surprised, because Trout knows our opinions. Trout also knows that I know what Herring thinks. Plus, Trout knows that mine is negative and Herring's positive. What do you think this is all about? 

Was an angel flying around?

Absolutely not. There had been no moment of silence, thanks to Trout who likes to have the ball rolling. 

Could it be that Trout wanted you two to have a debate?

It's not something you can talk about at length, though. Trout seemed to have wholly believed my take on the movie when two of us talked, but Trout was uncertain what to think of it, facing Herring's enthusiastic endorsement once again.

Isn't it natural?

It is. The question is: why did Trout choose the topic, knowing that it would divide us? 

Perhaps Trout thought 'Nobody else is providing conversation fodder, I've got to do something before we come to an halt' and made a hasty decision, or it could be that Trout had realized that s/he shouldn't have agreed so much with you earlier and wanted to correct it.

In any case, I no longer know what Trout thinks. It does not only concern "Deep Sea...," but everything else. Trout and I have had an almost exclusive relationship and that may be why Trout had agreed to and appeared convinced of what I had said most of the time. 

And that is why you have lost faith in tête à tête?

I used to think that people show their true selves when they are alone with me, but... 

I'd say that's arrogance on your part. Did you think anybody would be so comfortable with you to show who they are?

I didn't exactly think so, but I have to admit that it comes down to that. What I believed was that I get to know someone better through one-on-one conversations. What I did not know was that the person would, consciously and unconsciously, adjust to who I am. That means, for better or worse, s/he becomes more suited to my framework, or turns her/himself into something that is easier to incorporate into my thought system.

Which gives you an illusion that you understand that person better than through other types of interactions, but that is not equivalent to knowing the 'true' nature of that person.

Bravo, bravo, bravo... 

You see, I'm worth keeping as your sole collaborator in this project.

Comrade, I told you that I am not questioning your adequacy in that capacity. 

Don't you think that some kind of politics would creep in when there are three of us?

Bravo, again. Even in this current setting, we cannot avoid politics. We sensor our talk depending on how we think we would be perceived by the other. I hate doing so, but I cannot escape it altogether. 

The scary thing about the third person is that s/he is an observer when two of us are talking. We cannot but notice that s/he is watching and hearing us and forming a view of how we are. S/he also gives rise to the possibility of inconsistency in our behavior.

I may employ non-aggressive mode with you, but not with the third person who happens to be terribly manipulative. I would hate seeing myself acting so differently in a few seconds about the same subject, sitting in the same chair. It goes to show that it is never a good idea to say or do something that we would not, had someone of the opposite opinion been around. That way, we can maintain our integrity, but it comes at the price of being a bore. 

Think about the highs that we reach when all of us can bash something or someone to the hilt!

It is possible to do so with agreement that all involved are staging it, but then, we could be misunderstood by someone who is unaware of that unspoken condition. 

Some fish are slashing the photographs of Polka-dot Blowfish with their fins, tearing up some others and throwing the pieces into the fire.

Fish and fire...? Are they thinking of grilling themselves?

They are not terribly fond of Blowfish, but they don't hate so much as to annihilate it. They think they are having a bit of fun.

Red Herring passes by, sees the scene, and tells Rainbow Trout how much Polka-dot Blowfish is detested. 

Terrified, Rainbow Trout informs Polka-dot Blowfish, who, upon hearing the news, blows her/himself up from anger and trauma...

Think also about the change in pecking order. Trout may not mind being No. 2 with Blowfish, but wishes not to portray her/himself so to Herring. Herring, on the other hand, wants to be No. 1 most of the time. 

Consequently, Trout becomes aggressive, more so than Blowfish has known...

The biggest problem for me is: how do I know a person? I thought I would find out who s/he is by talking and listening to her/him with nobody else around, but I now understand that it is not so. When I dig through my memory, I realize that I have had such experiences earlier as well. The impression the person gives me can be quite different when I see her/him with another person.

Which is her/his true self?

Somewhere in between. I am very unhappy with this ambiguity. 

Just don't say you can't trust anyone, Pol-Blo...

Words can be mightier than actions

Words are absolutely necessary on some occasions.

I thought you were of the opinion that all is in the act! You have been telling us not to judge by words but by actions.
 
I do think that it is easy to say something, but much more difficult to follow it up with actions. People around the world agree; sayings and dictums to that effect abound.

We can relay emotions, instruct what to do, or even enforce rules with facial expressions, gestures and drawings. We also encounter situations in which words fail.

I completely agree with that also.

Why backpeddaling then?

Don't be so negative, comrade... It has come to my attention that there are cases where actions do not suffice and words become necessary.

For example?

Why do you think greeting cards are so prevalent?

I thought you would be the one who points out that it is an Occidental custom, spread by some corporations for their business purposes.

The cards that we see most often do fit your description. But we should not forget that some other cultures have had the tradition to give greeting cards or letters, albeit mostly on different occasions.

Isn't that a matter of whether a reliable postal system existed or not?

You are right---good postal service is indispensable for exchanging greeting cards in paper. It does not mean, however, that societies without courrier service were devoid of seasonal greetings.

How did they convey the greetings, then?

People visited each other for that purpose with gifts, or simply changed their everyday greetings in person for a seasonal one. The crucial factor here is that, in order to have our intention recognized, it becomes obligatory to employ one of the stock phrases for the occasion.

I can't simply knock on your door, hand out a present, and think that my purpose would be understood?

Haven't you been given something which made you scratch your head and mumble, 'But, but... why?'?

Most are from my admirers, I admit, but there are some that cannot be put in that category.

Actions need to be supplemented by words in such cases. Without them, the acts are useless.

You said that the words need to be the well-known ones. Why is that?

When actions are not sufficient to convey the purpose, you shouldn't be too innovative with your words. You say or write something so as to clarify the meaning of your gesture, because it alone happens to be hard to interpret.

Is that why we stick to 'Happy birthday,' 'Happy anniversary,' and so on?

Think about more difficult moments. When someone passes away, we want to say something to the survivors, but most of us become utterly lost.

And we turn on the computer and search for pre-made greetings?

I don't see anything wrong with that. We need to acknowledge the event in an accepted manner and that can be done by employing a stock phrase. We are free to add anything to them, of course.

Are we concerned mainly about milestones in life, here?

They are certainly the times when off-the-rack greetings are more important. Suppose we attend a wedding and never say 'Congratulations,' although we are very happy for the couple.

The newly-weds would wonder what we are thinking...

They would try to overcome the lack of that crucial word with what we have done for them, but still the frustration or the puzzlement would remain.

Not saying the required words may be all right for children, but...

In all societies, knowing the protocol is one of the prerequisites for adulthood. What is striking is that more traditional a society is, the more protocol it has. The problem with protocols is that we have to know exactly what they are; they cannot be deduced by logic or substituted with our creativity. If we are ignorant of them, we are given the labels, 'rude,' 'impolite,' 'badly raised,' 'weird,' 'no class,' etc.

Put differently, modernization has made becoming an adult easier?

We could certainly say so, and that to mixed results. Protocols demand time and effort to learn them, but once mastered, they enable us to run various relationships smoothly. We don't have to be happy about others' birthdays, but saying 'Happy birthday' demonstrates that you know the possible importance of the occasion to the person in question and that you care enough about the relationship to acknowledge it.

Why mixed results? Aren't we capable of making up with actions or lines of our choice, if protocols no longer exist?

That is the ideal, comrade. But haven't you encountered situations in which you strongly wished to hear the hackneyed sentences?

Such as, 'I'm sorry'?

We can do all sorts of things that point to our state of being sorry, but sometimes, they have to be topped with our saying 'I'm sorry.' Otherwise, the party that we are concerned with would think that we are beating around the bush. If it had been made into a protocol, it is more likely that the problem would not arise.

But haven't you argued that actions are more powerful than words and that it is so easy to be cocky with what we say?

Definitely, but it is also dangerous to think that stock phrases are useless.

I know what you are thinking about... Legal conflicts, right?

That is one of the reasons why I am against litigation culture. What was said commands undue importance, unless actions are obviously to the contrary---just as it is easier to ticket a driver who is going a tiny bit over the speed limit than one who is changing lanes for no good reason and posing danger to other drivers on the road.

There is a speedometer which clearly shows the number, while it is difficult to prove how dangerous certain zigzagging is.

Protocols also keep our behavior in line by serving as guidelines. I would like to think that people could better use their energy to come up with personal lines than learning the ones that are widely accepted and perhaps too well known, but that has not been what resulted from modernization as we see now.

We as individuals are limited compared to the wisdom of hundreds of generations. 

Each individual by her/himself is also limited in terms of awareness of situations which require words. It would be better, in my opinion, if all cultures had pre-made sentences in some of the situations that are often neglected.

Even if the person does not mean it?

Even so. In fact, a stock phrase is a very convenient compromise for both parties; it is the minimum acceptable for the grieving and the maximum permissible for the offending.

Wouldn't it be stifling to live in a society with countless societal rules, though?

Think about how chaotic the world has become with fewer and fewer protocols. In a protocol regulated society, we know exactly what is happening. If we say the minimum required, we care little but do not wish to go as far as to be impolite. If we do something or say in addition, it is understood that we are personally concerned.

When only a handful of rules exist and we are free to express our feelings in our own way, what happens is...

We tend to turn a blind eye to many circumstances where words---or actions for that matter---would do great good. Plus, we often cannot deduce the thoughts of the other party from their behavior, because there is no protocol which serves as the norm.

It's a... it's a... mess!

The Art of mingling and flirting

I am always amazed that some cultures are very good at mingling and flirting whereas some others are very bad at them. 

Ah... your opening statement is rather vacuous, comrade. Some are good at certain things and others not. You are simply saying that we are not uniform.

Doesn't it surprise you, though---what some people can do effortlessly is impossible for others, and that division is drawn not by variation in personal competence but culture?
 

It is remarkable that all we need is to grow up in a particular way---is this what you mean?

Yes. What is very natural to one group is awfully unnatural to another. If you are born into the Flirty Ethnic, but kidnapped by the Shy Ethnic the day after your birth, you would definitely become a Shy.
 

Are you trying to come up with an excuse for your behavior? If so, it may be best to make a straight confession that you are from Mars, abducted by Plutonians.

What do you think when a person from the Flirty Ethnic meets someone from the Shy Ethnic? 

The Flirty tries to flirt with the Shy while the latter attempts to flee from the scene. Both have little idea what the others' behavior means and why their respective strategies are not working... Absolutely hilarious!

It is sitcom material for the third party, but not for those involved. The big question is what to do so that both could get out of the awkward situation.
 

I can imagine the worst case scenario. The Flirty does not understand that her/his flirting is not appreciated by the Shy and flirts more passionately, making the Shy feel more uncomfortable or even threatened.

Well done, comrade! In this case, the Flirty has the power to resolve the 'conflict' by withdrawing.
 

But that results in the Flirty's frustration. Isn't it unfair that the Shy is spared of taking action on her/his part and the ending suits her/his inclination, not the Flirty's?

I agree with you, save fairness. The best solution is to interact less, and it so happens that it matches with what the Shy desires.
 

If refraining from flirting is as natural to the Shy as flirting is to the Flirty, can't the Shy flirt a bit so that the middle ground is reached?

I don't think such 'middle ground' is practical or possible. It would be much easier for the Flirty to give up than for the Shy to go along with the Flirty. The problem for the Flirty in this kind of situation is that s/he may not notice the Shy's signal at an appropriate moment and may end up going too far. 

The Shy may well think that s/he is being harassed.

I do not think that the Shy should be blamed for that. No doubt it requires much more effort when we encounter people who behave according to cultural codes that we are less familiar with, but we should have the generic capability to assess the degree of comfort of the person that we are dealing with. 

What if the Culture Flirty measures the comfort level of a person by how much laughter there is? The harder the Flirty flirts to make the Shy laugh, the tenser the Shy becomes.
 

We can say that the problem of the Flirty versus the Shy is nothing but the differences in how feelings are expressed and the difficulty of seeing beneath the surface. But the Flirty can deduce from the observation---her/his flirting is not having the intended effects on the Shy---that the Shy's behavior should be interpreted differently from what the Flirty is used to.
 

Isn't that a bit much to ask?
 

It is not easy because we are ingrained in our own ways, but it is a goal that we should strive for. I know quite a few incidents in which the harassing party claimed that s/he was simply trying to be friendly. One strange case that happened to me went as follows. I was complaining about a group of people in my usual vague manner. Then, one among those whom I was talking to started defending himself that the reason why he blabbered was that he wanted to be friendly toward me.
 

Were you complaining about him?

Of course, not. But for some reason, he volunteered to provide an excuse for his behavior. It was funny because I knew then that he had noticed that I had been annoyed with his bla-bla-bla. It was all the more interesting that he nonetheless had continued to be that bla-bla-bla person with me.
 

Isn't that because he cannot change himself?

That may be so, but what intrigued me most was: he did what he wanted to do at my expense, he was aware of that, and yet told me that his aim was to be friendly with me, namely he did it for my sake. To me, this is one of the lesser known manifestations of selfishness.
 

It sounds like life is easier for the non-Flirty, because s/he would not have to go against her/his natural behavior.

Have you ever observed the Shy in action of flirting?
 

Wait... Does the Shy flirt, too?

All of us have the biological urge to befriend and mate, and even the Shy knows by instinct that flirting is a necessary preamble.
 

Why can't the Shy flirt with the Flirty, then? It solves the problem that we have been talking about.

Alas, the Shy's flirting is so modest---or underhanded, we could say---that it goes unnoticed by the Flirty. So, in addition to the worst case that you described, it could be that the Shy understands the Flirty's flirting gesture, appreciates it, attempts to reciprocate, but the Shy's gesture is not understood by the Flirty.
 

The Flirty leaves the scene frustrated or disheartened... I like this scenario better.

Anyway, if culture discourages flirting to the extent of suppressing it, that is not healthy for the people. If you forbid something that human beings have innate affinity for, it will only go underground and can be associated with all sorts of crimes.
 

Drugs and prostitution come to mind.

It is not only ironic but also hypocritical that suppression of mingling among different sexes results in more prostitutes.
 

The biological desire cannot be eliminated and it finds the means to satisfy itself.

It sounds as if they wanted to protect women, but that by creating a separate class of women who can be used as tools to release men's biological desire.
 

And, the differentiation of women into those two groups originates almost exclusively from economic status.

I'd say people become more preoccupied with the other sex when you discourage interaction with them.
 

That's natural. I heard that simply seeing an object that is for exclusive use by the other gender can arouse strong emotions and shoot up the hormone level if intersexual mingling is stricitly curtailed.

The phenomenon is not restricted to specific regions or religious affliations; it was observed not so long ago also in countries which pride themselves in gender equality today. 

Equality on paper, at least...

If we are not well trained in mingling, it can become absurd when we want to show interest in others. Our attempts are usually too timid or overly explicit, and the clumsiness is not confined to romantic associations. 

In other words, we cannot 'pick up' with style.

Plus, almost all actions and attributes of a person of the opposite sex gets attributed to being of that sex.

'Oh, she does that because she's a woman.' 'He says so because he's a guy.' These shortcut conclusions are quite tiresome.

You bet. We become unable to evaluate and appreciate a person as an  individual.
 

What do you think is important in connecting gracefully with others?

We should not change our behavior dramatically between people of special interest and others. At the initial stage of relationship, it is all the more important because we need an escape route ready.
 

How do we know that we are in a relationship that is more than casual?

As you know, I do not believe in saying 'you are special,' etc.
 

Oh, I remember, you are special in that sense...

How much you cherish the relationship can be expressed by how much you are capable of thinking about being in the other's shoes.  

Aren't there cultures which are much better than others at training people in that regard?

Definitely.
 

Doesn't it mean that people from those cultures are misunderstood by others---when the former is doing something they would do to anybody, the latter thinks that they are getting exceptional attention?

... Comrade, think about a world without misunderstandings. It would be awfully boring, wouldn't it?

We want you to be one of us

You were adamant last time that we do not, or cannot, change our views of the world unless we experience something ourselves that makes us re-examine our views.

I still am. But now I realize that there are exceptions to that. 

Did you know that you sound just like señor Hipocresía?

Ahhhh, never, ever compare me to him!

How can I not? You laid out the principle rather categorically, and used it to validate your argument. After doing so, you are conceding the existence of instances that do not follow the rule.

Tell me, is there any rule that does not come with exceptions?

Another demonstration that you are like señor Hipocresía.

Honestly, I would not trust a rule that does not have any exception.
 

What about the law of conservation of linear momentum?

All right... it's a physical law, though. Even some physical laws have exceptions. Think about the law of conservation of mass.
 

True, it holds under the condition that speeds are non-relativistic and that no nuclear reactions take place.

Personally, as much as I abhor señor Hipocresía, I hate exceptions.
 

You mean, you are ready to strangle exceptions?

Comrade, I wouldn't. Strangling can get messy, and I don't want to clean up the floor. Anyway, the very existence of an exception invalidates the notion of a rule, particularly because there is no limit to the amount of exceptions that rules may have.
 

What happens with señor Hipocresía and friends is that whenever they do not want to go by the rule, they make the case in question an exception.

That certainly works in this world, where no two cases are truly identical. We can list all the attributes of our case of interest so that no other case would match with it. That way, we can guarantee the singularity of that case.
 

By emphasizing its factors that we did not list in our rule, we can safely claim that it is an exception and that the rule does not apply.

Hmmm... señor Hipocresía may be much cleverer than I thought, because he is practicing all this unconsciously.
 

Let's get back to your exception, bearing in mind that even in physics, there are exact laws and approximate laws. So, what is your exception?

We are more prone to change our minds when we are at an impressionable young age, and for that we do not have to experience what would support our world view.
 

Isn't that because when we are young our minds are empty and ready to be filled with something?

Bravo, comrade! That is why the first experiences, especially when we are children and adolescents, are very important in our lives. It is also quite scary, because we can believe in anything we are told.
 

We lack the experience to judge the value of what we are taught. And that is precisely why we can learn effortlessly the ideas that may appear dramatically alien to the grown-ups.

Another great exception is that we regain that malleability when we encounter someone whom we think we can trust completely as an adult. The curious factor here is that this type of trust seems to come about only through romantic associations.
 

History is replete with wives and mistresses who influenced their husbands and masters...

Robert's current wife, Grace, is reported to be quite different in nature from his first wife, Sally. It has been pointed out that the turning point in Robert's policies came around when Sally passed away. Siti Hartinah, the wife of Suharto, was called Ibu Tien, but apparently 'tien' also stood for 'ten' in Dutch. Ten percent of any foreign aid to Indonesia was rumored to have gone to her.
 

Ferdinand and Imelda are in the similar league, I guess.

It is said that Habib promoted education and female emancipation in order to win Western support during the Cold War, but I have also heard that it was his first wife, Moufida who had great influence in that regard.
 

Going back in time, we would find Madame de Pompadour, etc.

What is funny to me is that they needed romantic attraction in order to establish very strong trust that allows influence at an advanced age, but once it was in place, the power couples became more like business partners.
 

After all, all of the guys that we mentioned here either remarried, had mistresses, or both.

If we move into the realm of philosophy, there is Harriet's influence on John Stuart Mill about women's rights.
 

Honoré de Balzac could write precociously about marriage while he was a bachelor, thanks to his liaison with Ewelina who was married. 

Two treatises on the subject to boot! Anyway, those were my exceptions to the rule. The second one goes to show that you'd better choose well whom you go out with.
 

But if romance is involved, we don't have much control over it, do we?

That is the very illusion that we get from romantic feelings. We feel we cannot do anything about it, but that lasts only as long as we are in love. Many people cannot understand how they could have been in love with a certain person when the affair is over.
 

We also hear about love from years ago that people cannot forget.

I'd come to believe that those are even bigger illusions.
 

You're jaded, comrade...

How we transmit ideas, behavior and attitude is strange, to say the least. We know that child abusers are very often those who were abused as children.
 

We may naively deduce that they would become crusaders against child abuse, but not so. In fact, some brothels are maintained by former-prostitute mothers and prostitute daughters.

The same with in-laws. In many societies where big families are still common, abuse of brides is fairly common. It is almost a tradition. Apparently, people do not think what was so unfair, unjust and cruel should not be repeated. They want to replicate the actions onto others when they are given the opportunity, namely, when they become in-laws themselves.
 

It is a way of seeking revenge, but since the targets are not the same as the perpetuators, we are effectively passing on hatred from generation to generation.

I was horrified when I read a folklore about a clever bride circumventing sexual advances from her father-in-law. 

It means that such abuse by fathers-in-law is, or was, widespread.

It is more hideous because she will never become a father-in-law herself.
 

I thought we were against passing on pernicious practices.

The above cases are easy to observe, as we first become the receiving end. Another case that I come to notice lately is that we expect others to treat us as we treat them.
 

That's also obvious, isn't it?

If we alternate being the receiving end among those concerned, yes. The latest one that I encountered is that bootlickers want their subordinates to act as bootlickers toward them.

They would go along with anything their superiors say, and expect their own subordinates to do the same for them?  

It beats me why we are so good at corrupting others...
 

Do I smell señor Hipocresía here, too?

Let's say it was a general observation about humanity.

The Not-so-secret mechanism of revenge

Comrade... May I ask what you are doing there under the table?

I'm checking whether there is a bomb planted. I've been hearing tick, tock, tick, tock, and I thought I'd better find out where that is coming from.

I think it's your watch. It's rather loud, you know.

Let me see... so it is! I was thinking that a bomb may be following me, possibly with a suicide bomber.

I would not be surprised if the flower pot over there blows itself up together with us. Doesn't it look rather suspicious?
 
I don't know about that particular orchid pot by the window, but I am certain that we do not live in a safer world just because Osama bin Laden is dead. It was a very bad idea to kill him, no doubt about it.

Many are under the impression that it is better that he is dead than alive. Do you remember the crowd outside the White House when the news was released?

I was surprised that it was big. It scared me, too. I did not see a great difference between them and the football hoolig... oops, fans. They were hilarious and aggressively so. Just like in a game of sports, they only saw their side, the other side, and nothing else.

You are one of those people who oppose to cheering one team or one person in any game.

If we are true sports fans, we should appreciate and applaud good play by any performer, not anything by what we arbitrary chose as 'our favorite player/team.'

Most of us are attached to teams and players with whom we share geographical origins. It amazes me how universal that formula is.

What is disturbing is that we allow it even at the international level. Think about the Olympic Games which are considered by many the most significant sports events. It's always a big deal which country wins more medals.

We seldom hear about the marvelous butterfly strokes by a certain swimmer or...

It doesn't mean much if they do not lead to a medal, preferably the gold. And, think about the restrictions imposed on us by the people around us whom to cheer.

If you happen to admire a Russian skater whom a Georgian has lost against...

You will be unconscious the next second if you have been watching television in a café in Tbilisi. That brings us back to our earlier topic of killing whom you consider your enemy.

Your concern was that the crowd in front of the White House was jubilant as if their favorite team had won a sports match.

It is bad enough to be happy because the team from your town, county, region, or country has won. In this case, it is not only bad, but wrong and ultimately self-destructive.

How so?

Capital punishment is illegal in many parts of the world, and if you are against it, you must apply the principle to all persons.

What if the US government had exclusively chosen personnel from Texas for the raid?

I heard that bin Laden was not armed, so you can't justify the action as self-defense.

Can't we say that it's self-defense in the long term?

That is precisely what is not right about this operation. The long-term solution is in eliminating their motivation, namely, the hatred that they have toward the Occident. If bin Laden had been alone in wanting to destroy the West, he would not have succeeded. He could implement his ideas because there were so many people who agreed with him.

Weren't they bought off by the promise that thousands of virgins would be waiting for them in heaven?

If you strongly disagreed with his view of the West as the evil that needed to be eliminated from earth by violent means, you would not take up his call to sacrifice your life even if there were ten-thousand virgins waiting for you.

Perhaps I would ask for their up-to-date photographs before I commit myself, but it will take some time before I go through all profiles if there were ten thousands of them.

Comrade, seriously, it is counterproductive to kill a person who is revered by many, even if that person may cause us harm. Human beings have the natural urge to revenge someone who has inflicted damage on something important to us.

In other words, terrorism could exacerbate rather than attenuate because of the operation.

As I have been emphasizing, our thoughts and motivations are largely shaped by our experiences. What we experience has such power because it evokes emotions in us, and emotions are stronger than rationalizations. It is much easier to motivate a person by emotions than by rational arguments.

It has now become much more difficult to convince them---if it had been possible at all---that blowing up people, planes, trains and so on is not wise; they are more emotionally charged than before.

Not only that, but because the West has killed someone who is important to them, the West cannot tell them not to kill any of its own people. It no longer makes sense.

A friend of mine pointed out that putting bin Laden on a trial would have exposed his fallibility, and thus, much better.
 
Indeed, when we think back to various dictators and the like who had been captured in the past and tried, they looked pretty bad in courtrooms.

I noticed that maintaining a good haircut and wearing clean, well-tailored clothes can make a huge difference... Nobody looks good in a prison outfit and with disheveled hair.

There are many reasons as to why ethnic hatred does not die, but one of them is that the victims happen to be those who are important to the survivors. If someone kills your mother on the simple grounds that she is from Mars, you will want to get back to the killer. It is only a step away in extrapolation what the death of the head of Al-Qaeda means to its members and sympathizers. Plus, we are quite capable of transmitting hatred from generation to generation, and we do so rather willingly.

We couldn't get the guy who killed your mother, so son, you carry on with the obligation. That kind of a thing? 

Right. It was Dubya who said, "He tried to kill my daddy!" and then invaded Iraq, remember?

Why was it called a 'good day for America,' then?

In order to use the event to win political approval of people who think like football hoolig... oops, fans. Every politician wants to manipulate her/his people so that her/his vision is realized. To that end, they want to keep the population like a herd of sheep.

Is that why some countries are reluctant to educate their people?

I strongly suspect that, and it is an extremely costly mistake. Ill-educated people would very often demand short-sighted and symbolic actions.

Like the killing of the head of a world-famous organization, you mean...

Such actions lead to worsening of situations more than eventual resolution, especially when they evoke anger and grief in the other party. I sometimes think that the politicians are worried that there may be no serious problems left to be solved in the world and that is what motivates them.

They want to keep their jobs... They have to be elected, as well as need a cause that gives them an excuse to be a rabble-rouser.

Disgusting as it may be, it would be detrimental to us ordinary citizens if we turn away from politics.

The politicians will run in whatever direction they like, more so than now.

By the way, have you ever thought it unfair that a vote of a farmer in Idaho has more power to influence the world events than that of a nomad in Mongolia?

How we change our minds (or not)

Why do we have different opinions?

Well, you have been arguing that so much of our thoughts are affected by personal experiences. That means differences in experiences lead to those in opinions.

Why do we react differently to the same event? Namely, why do we differ in its interpretation?
 

... Comrade, these are the same as the first question.

Just checking! What about our personalities? Don't they matter in how we view the world?

Haven't we talked about this, too? Already as babies, we differ in how we behave. That is by nature. But who we are at any point in life is an intricate product of nature and nurture.

It seems to me that when we are young nurture have greater influence on who we are or to become. Curiously, we shed some of the aspects that we cultivate through nurture, as we age.

Didn't we talk about this?

In a slightly different context. Come to think of it, when I say aging, I should differentiate biological aging from social aging, or change in social standing that is associated with age.

Which one have you been referring to?

I guess both, but mostly the latter. For example, we abandon much of the virtuous attitude that the grown-ups attempt to inculcate us with, because when we become grown-up ourselves, there is nobody to punish us. It results from the changes in our social ranking.

After we leave our parents' house, there are no more rules imposed on us except for the law...

It is no coincidence that the time we reach our physical peak is when we become a full-fledged member of the society. In many countries, that is when we are allowed to participate in formal politics, plus all other things that are prohibited as minor persons.

As a way of taming them? 'Don't wreck havoc, because you are now part of the establishment'?

Exactly.

Why doesn't it happen a bit earlier? It may not be a bad idea to contain the youth in advance.

Before that period, the adults can outsmart them; their gaining physical strength does not yet pose a threat. University students are often admired and hated for good reasons. That is when our mental capability becomes developed enough to say something relevant to the real world. Add to that the capacity to beat up the old folks...

Because of their paucity of experience, they are idealistic. 

It irritates the older people who have been benefiting from having adapted themselves to the system. First, because they may lose their privilege, and second, because they know that the students have legitimate reasons to question how the society is run. None of us enjoy it when our disciples, so to speak, turn around and use what we taught them as a weapon against us. 

Traitors...! But then, why do we pass on idealistic ideas to younger generations? 

Some of us have strong enough beliefs of how societies should be, even after the co-opting phase, and are motivated to transmit those thoughts so that the future society will be closer to their ideal.

Aren't they the ones who are not getting as much out from the society as they wished? Isn't it a way for them to get back to the powerful?

I agree that some certainly fit that description. It would be hard to pin down why they turned out to be not so powerful: because they never abandoned their ideals, or something else prevented them from becoming one of the powerful and that is why they hang on to the ideals.

They have much less to lose by espousing the same ideals as when they were eighteen. Plus, they can draw comfort from the power-money-dirt equation.

Anyway, observing the big social changes that have happened in the past few months around the world, you must have noticed that it is mainly the people in their twenties who have been leading the movements.

The countries in question have a pyramid-shaped demography, too.

As a society gets better off in terms of material, its birth rate usually goes down and the average age becomes higher. That in turn slows down the social transformation process.

Because there are fewer and fewer of the young who are willing to challenge the status quo.

At the same time, the society becomes more and more burdened with retirees who require financial support by the rest of the population and with infirm folks who require nursing and medication.

Such activities are akin to engaging in safe disposal of hazardous waste...

Irreverence aside, I have to agree with you.

I said it for you, and no word of appreciation, eh?

If civilizations are not destroyed by wars, plagues, or environmental degradation, it would be the aging process that puts them into slow, but steady, decline... Getting back to my very first question of differences in our thoughts, do you think we ever change our opinions?

Sure, isn't that why we engage in debates?

Most of the time, we do not manage to convince the other.

Wait a second, didn't we talk about that?

What we can do is to overwhelm the other party with our emotions.

That's called passion, comrade. How can we buy into something that the advocate is not sure about her/himself? 

The problem is that objectivity discourages us to be narrowly focused. The more objective the advocate is, the less forceful s/he would be.

In other words, the most reasonable tends to be the weakest.

In the short-term, or on surface, at least.
 

If someone is foaming through the corner of her/his mouth, we have all the incentive to say, "Sure, sure, sure." We don't want to get sprayed with saliva.

You seem to know whom I am thinking about... It doesn't have to be a lunatic, though. We usually don't come to change our opinions through a debate. At best, we end debates by a very reluctant admission that the other party may be right in certain things that we touched upon.

As a courtesy, you mean.

Remember, our convictions and beliefs are founded in our personal experiences, so unless we go through events that convince us otherwise, we would most likely not change them. Needless to say, debates do not qualify as such.

Doesn't this point to the utility of fiction work? The mock experience given by reading novels can augment the real-world ones.

I think you are right about that, but we should never overestimate art. As many artists have said already, art cannot change the world.

Perhaps not directly... 

I remember reading about a lecture on racism that Tahar Ben Jellon gave to highschool students. At the end of the talk, a student asked if he had been successful in making a racist change his ideas about race.

The answer was 'no'?

You got it. By the way, I know more than a few who have been transformed from a fundamentalist in one religion to that in another. 

How is that possible, such a big swing!

One would think so at first, but it is rather natural. What such people need is a thought, belief, ethic system that they can follow by the letter. They are the opposite of anti-authority people.

After all, all religions are alike, so it may not be that dramatic.

In my opinion, labeling means a lot to them, too. They want a word that neatly explains who they are.

They love to be pigeonholed, or have a strong urge to belong to a certain group.

What is certain is that a mind well made is better than one well stuffed...