Direct democracy to the rescue

Your ideal state of mind is an individualistic one, correct?

With willingness to compromise when necessary.

Can we say that it is often the crowd psychology that spoils well-intentioned social systems?

Take democracy. It drifts toward populism because of the if-you-say-so kind of laziness in us.

Sure, laziness is to blame for everything. By the way, when is the last time you cleaned up your place?

It's not only populism and fascism that the crowd psychology leads us to. Bank runs, too, are caused by it. Any kind of run is nasty, because it is the expectation of a big enough group that creates the real phenomenon.

Runs can be over sugar, rice, petro---anything people believe would be very scarce.

Crowds are responsible for fads which are all about following the so-called trend-setter without thinking much. It has also contributed to the making of winner-take-all societies. Think about the contracts that sports players, singers, kiss-and-tell authors sign. We value the very few as if there were an abyss between the top and the rest.

How can we avoid such undesirable consequences of our innate nature to follow the leader? In other words, is it possible to make even the most thinking-averse ones to think on their own?

I'm afraid some of us are die-hard followers, but I know a way to make the majority of us think more. It is direct democracy.

Like the one practiced in Switzerland? I suppose your line of thought is that we act only if the consequences are dire.

To some extent, yes. But unfortunately, if we think we have no power to influence the system or our daily lives, we turn apathetic and do not exercise our rights to participate in politics. That is, we may cease to act, even when our action can prevent dire consequences to fall upon us. Eventual depletion of petro may be one such instant.

Let me rephrase it then. We would act only if we know that our actions have real consequences on our everyday lives.

Yes, we are much more likely to take action, if not doing so would inconvenience us tomorrow. Our mental capacity is so limited that we need direct feedback to feel responsible for what we do. Consider hazardous waste, for example. As long as it is taken to a far away place, we do not think much about its treatment and effects on the environment.

Waste that is hard to treat is often shipped to developing countries, because they are in need of cash.

And only when the toxic material makes its way into the food system in the developed countries that people who generated it start worrying.

As long as you don't see, hear, or smell, anything goes.

Sadly enough, that is our natural behavior. It is one of the reasons why gated communities are not a good idea. They allow the rich to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, but it is the rich who have the power to make changes so that gated communities would not be necessary. Some are opposed against universal health care, because their family and friends do not need it.

If it is about people whom you could not relate to, you care much less.

The same with income redistribution. If you don't know anyone suffering from bad luck of having no father and an alcoholic mother, you think it unnecessary.

What about the case of parents dying in a car accident and no relatives with the financial means to take care of the children?

You know, a single, alcoholic mother was simply one of the myriad possible cases...

I know another one. Political refugees with no linguistic skills to survive in the host country. Or losing your limbs while working in a factory, or...

The first world is dependent on the low prices of primary resources and simple manufactured goods from the third world. Not all, perhaps, but the vast majority who are employed by such industries work in dismal environments for a pittance. And, that is a big contributing factor in the affluence in the first world. The consumers in the developed countries, however, do not see the abhorrent labor condition or the absence of proper waste treatment; it encourages them to be careless and wasteful about what they purchase.

Anything cheap is good, although they are made possible by underpaying for labor and material.

The important point is that all of us on the globe are connected and support each other in one way or another. You may not be interested in Amazon Rainforest, but we all benefit from its mere existence as natural wonder, not to mention its biodiversity and function as a carbon sink. We owe to the people of the Rainforest for the knowledge of plants and animals unique to the area.

I heard that many companies have turned to the forest as a hunting ground for new drugs.

We have called the enlargement of the definition of human beings as progress. We have managed to relate to more and more people, even if we do not share the same biological attributes---such as skin color and gender---or beliefs and life styles.

If you are incapable of sympathizing with types of people whom you have never met or come in contact with, such as starving babies in Darfur...

Or, if you cannot treat the person whom you despise with basic respect, you are going against what civilization should be. Given the latest gross wealth of the world, universal health care is possible and sufficiently progressive tax systems are musts.

After all, it's a piece of cake to be nice to people whom we know and like.

A socially formal system for supporting the disadvantaged allows us to be more business like, compared to reliance on informal support system, such as extended families.

A formal system is more convenient, though, because there would be cases in which we have to say 'no more support' due to abuse.

At the same time, it is inconvenient, because there would be occasions in which we would like to extend support, but bureaucracy does not permit it. Getting back to the issue of direct democracy, it will make us more aware that nobody but ourselves are responsible for government actions.

We often accuse governments of their abuse of power, including corruption.

In some countries, people with the most resources have decided unilaterally to govern others. In such cases, we cannot say that the masses are responsible for what the government does. But, if you claim that democracy is working well...

It's a generic 'you,' I hope!

Of course, ahem! If you think your country is governed by well-working democracy, you are responsible for the body that you happen to elect.

It's a generic 'you,' I hope!

I told you so! You are responsible for government actions, under either type of democracy, but I am sure that the point would be driven home better in the case of direct democracy.

Our government is not 'them,' but 'us,' so to speak.

Most of the time, people complain about certain government decisions but do not do anything to change the situation. If we were truly serious about it, we would take to the streets.

Ah, your revolutionary streak, again. But you know, we can't be out on the street everyday.

That is one of the reasons why student protests are powerful. They have the time to engage in protests and not much of a job to lose.

For people whose daily bread depends on how your boss views you...

Direct democracy to the rescue!

Handle with care: individualism

Individualism is not a step forward, but backward.

Really?

You implied so in our last meeting.

No, not really...

I also remember your saying earlier that self-help books are bad, because they have done the necessary contemplation on our behalf.

Zero thinking on our own is surely a gigantic step toward totalitarianism.

Why should you be negative about individualism, then? Isn't it about being individualistic in thinking?

Alas, individualism comes in many guises.

I see, you're taking a cheap escape route by claiming that several types of individualism exist.

Several versions exist for everything. Think about a national dish of any country, Nasi goreng in Indonesia, for example. We all know that no two persons make the same Nasi goreng.

Suppose the society tries to identify the artist to whom a highly valued work could be attributed, and gives that artist elevated social status and/or financial rewards. You called it individualism last time. No doubt, it could lead to competition, but I don't see anything wrong with that. On the contrary, it motivates the artists to strive for better quality.

I wouldn't deny that. However, it could also lead to petty competitions, resulting in waste of energy for all involved.

Stealing and obstructing others' work?

Yes. Incentives always have the potential to be misused or abused. Suppose you reward a child for reading as much as s/he can, and you measure that amount by the number of pages read.

Naturally, s/he will go for books that are easier to read and with fewer pages per word. Was that your strategy when you were in elementary school?

Shhhhh! Individualism should not mean putting oneself above others at all times.

If everyone puts her/himself above others, we will have nothing but hell.

Individualism is not equivalent to isolationism, either.

Do you think it is possible for every one of us to think on our own? I thought you suggested that it would be difficult.

There will always be people who prefer to follow the most vocal and strong-sounding person.

We have herd instincts.

And we must resist them.

You said that we should overcome our me-me-me urge, and now you are saying we should not succumb to our if-you-say-so desire.

Again, the best lies in the middle. But that does not mean we are allowed to be egotistic some times and apathetic other times. By the way, the famous case of Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton shows that even brilliant minds can be alike.

They invented calculus separately, without collaboration... We belong to the same species and have access to similar sets of information. So it is natural that some of us come to think very similarly.

In my opinion, the best state of mind is an independent one which never fails to examine the problem itself carefully.

I take it that the ideal is not to let personal likes and dislikes interfere when forming our opinion.

All of us are under the great illusion that we are the very best human beings around, at least to our friends and family. So, I would be extra careful to voice an opinion that does not go down well with one of them.

Did anyone tell you that you drive people crazy? I'm getting totally confused.

Do you remember, Natsume Soseki, Blaise Pascal and all that? I know another line by Pascal, which serves us well here. Deux excès : exclure la raison, n'admettre que la raison.
Two excesses: to exclude reason and to allow only reason... You always find a way out of a tight corner!

I have a better way out.

Let's hear it.

You should form your opinion independent of who are for and against the issue, and also of how you feel about them as persons. Reason should prevail in this part. However, in making public the conclusion thus arrived, you should take personalities and personal histories into account. That may entail tweaking your conclusion a bit.

If there is a need to consolidate various opinions, as in the case of deciding what to do in order to prevent the city of Venice from going under water, we will be asked to compromise.

Certainly. It would not help to have everyone pushing her/his own idea. Note that this is the kind of instance where leaving the principal agent unnamed is a very wise plan.

All want to bask in the glory of being the one who rescued Venice, and clashes of such desires can well lead to adopting a plan that is not the most effective in terms of technology and finance.

As for the Golden Gate Bridge, Joseph Strauss managed to appear as the principal designer for seventy years after its construction, contrary to what actually took place.

Do you think it possible to suppress the me-me-me urge? I think it would be rather counterproductive.

I agree. We cannot totally eliminate such primary desires and they have to be taken care of one way or another.

Let me guess what you have in mind. It's an "Employee of the Month" scheme when there are exactly twelve workers...

Regress is in the signatures

Bon anniversaire, Claude !

Hé, Claude, we visited le musée du quai Branly last year. Tant pis, we didn't see you there.

We?

Let me think, perhaps you were with someone else, not me. But I know that it's nobody other than myself who told you that the museum was inspired by Claude Lévi-Strauss.

Lately, you have been making remarks as if you had been with me, but...

Minor details shall not get in our way, my dear comrade! I should have asked you earlier---how did you like the museum?

It was very nice.

And?

Very well done.

Anything else?

I just can't get too excited over an anthropological museum. The objects that they display were not made for that purpose, unlike Western paintings and sculptures.

That does not diminish their value.

Certainly not. However, they are in the wrong place, because they can be fully appreciated only in situ.

A set of bow and arrow shows its greatest functional beauty when used to hunt a deer, for example.

You got it. Buddha sculptures did not interest me much, until a few years ago when I saw one in the center of a very small temple. Before then, I saw them mainly in museums. It shone subtly in the darkness. It was sublime. That experience convinced me that the so-called anthropological objects removed from their original environments are akin to fish out of water.

The sculpture made sense to you in its natural habitat.

It came with its context, which I think is important. In contrast, paintings and sculptures in the West are produced under the assumption that they will find permanent homes in sitting rooms.

Wouldn't you say museums, instead of sitting rooms, in the case of Damien Hirst, Takashi Murakami and the like?

Or, the Nth spare room of obscenely rich collectors. None of their works is meant to be used in ceremonies or in everyday life, and that is what differentiates the art in the West from the traditional art in the rest of the world.

I have seen Chinese vases adorning rooms with no flower in them, though.

I would say their principal function is still to hold flowers.

What about Chinese scroll paintings?

Those function in the same way as Western paintings, I admit. Let me rephrase "the rest of the world" as "the part of the world in which houses were traditionally not decorated as in the West." Anyway, when Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse and others encountered the art from Africa, they were astonished.

By the abstract nature of it?

Yes, and also by the fact that no record existed as far as the names of artists and the dates of production were concerned.

Can we say that the emphasis is more on the utility of objects than who toiled to create them?

I think so. If a sculpture reveals extraordinary artistic value, the artists/artisans who were responsible would be appreciated by the community, but the object is seen more as something that the community as a whole produced and owns.

It must also mean that there would be support for the artisans during the production period.

I imagine that the community provides food and other necessities so that they can devote all their time to making objects.

There used to be a similar system in the West. Musicians and painters, even mathematicians, were employed by rich patrons.

Such arrangements are not quite the same, because the parties involved had some kind of a contract, an agreement between two individuals. And more often than not, we know who paid and who did what work in return.

In other words, the West came up with individualism the earliest and the trend is spreading around the world.

Individualism is irresistible, because it legitimizes the me-me-me desires in us.

If so, we are moving from systems which suppress such biological and primary urges to one that celebrates them.

It's a regress, don't you think?

Big, big leaf with tiny hair versus big leaf with tiny hair

Do you really think social conventions are arbitrary?

How else can you explain the fact that opening a gift in front of the offerer is considered rude in one culture and not doing so is rude in another culture?

I think those two rules are based on different aspects of the same action. Since it is not nice to show disappointment, it is better to open the gift after the guest has left. This is the rationale for the first one.

As for the second case, promptly unwrapping the gift is supposed to be a sign that the receipt alone has already made you happy. It also allows showing appreciation in person, rather than in a thank-you note to be sent later. This approach requires that you be prepared to smile and look delighted, even when you are given the ugliest and the most useless object in the entire universe.

Your examples do not say customs and conventions are arbitrary. On the contrary, the common, ultimate goal is to convey appreciation for the act of giving itself, that is, regardless of what is given.

You are right. It is all about showing appreciation for one another. But if we agree that the two takes on gift giving make equal sense, the preference of one approach over the other is arbitrary.

You cannot open right then and there, and also later---you have to choose. Plus, if you are inconsistent in the timing of opening, people would start searching for meanings. Did s/he open it right away, because it was from Monsieur Untel and not from Madame Unetelle? Or, because it was bulky and wrapped with a colorful paper?

I have seen quite a bit of frustration among people who crossed the lines of these two types of culture.

Another well known source of friction is how lavish a spread you present when you invite people.

In many cultures, showing that you are stretching your means to entertain the guests is very important. That said, I feel really uncomfortable when a precious goat, sheep, pig, or chicken is slaughtered, just because I am from a far away place or faintly connected to a person who is mighty important to them.

They are eager to chop the heads off, even if you just met them an hour ago.

How am I going to tell them that I am a vegetarian?

The spread issue can go the other way around, too. If you are raised in a culture which says any guest is to be fed until s/he has to lie down for digestion enhancement, some other cultures come across as offensive.

True. One time, I brought a nice bouquet of flowers to a luncheon, only to find out that the hostess had decided to have a rather soggy and plastic-looking pizza delivered, instead of cooking herself.

I suppose she had a coupon?

I think that was the case, indeed. I was shocked, too, that I was the only one who presented something to the hostess.

And that the pizza was served from the box... Are you resentful, because you had gone a long way to compose a bouquet which looked classy, but not as inexpensive as it actually was?

... But I don't remember your coming to the florist or to the luncheon with me!

Isn't it the company and the content of conversation that matter?

In theory, yes. But, to this day, I feel I have to make more dishes than the guests can possibly consume and I consider a "little something" for the host/ess an absolute must.

I thought you were more open-minded.

It's similar to saying "good morning" to strangers on the street. It certainly does not make everyone on earth on good terms with each other, but it is a gesture that acknowledges your presence and existence. I am convinced that contentment in life is made of such seemingly trivial acts.

In short, although you admit that there are various possible ways to achieve the same goal, you are offended if people do not take the way that you prefer.

I would avoid saying offended, but I was disappointed in this particular example. You may think that I only approve of the manners that I am most accustomed to, but not so. After all, what do we have our thinking faculty for?

Conventions are conventions, because some thinking has been done for you beforehand.

If you cross cultural boundaries, you are most likely to encounter customs and conventions that tell you to do what you were told not to do in some other place.

Just as in the case of gift opening.

As a person with the experience of having lived and living in other cultural environments, you are given the opportunity to choose among multiple solutions to a problem. That is where thinking becomes required.

While you had accepted in toto the customs and conventions taught by your parents, you now reflect on them, compare them with the solutions that you yourself have discovered, and make a rational judgment as to which solution is best.

How successful that can be depends on how open-minded your environment is, and even if people around you are receptive to alien manners, it may take some time to be understood that your way is a viable alternative.

In other words, if people think you are strange, their closed-mindedness is to blame. How convenient!

I remember reading about an anthropologist who lived in a village in a foreign country for his case study. The very first task was to learn the local language. The village elders assembled for the occasion with a bunch of different leaves.

To teach him how to count?

I don't remember if it was the very first lesson, but anyway, he had to learn the name of each plant, looking at the leaves. For him, they were so much alike that he could not distinguish one from another. Of course, the villagers did not understand why a grown-up like him could not tell the big leaf with small veins and short hair from another big leaf with similarly small veins and short hair, but with different luster.

You mean his mental capacity was inferior to that of a five-year old, as far as the villagers were concerned?

Yes. It took some time for the anthropologist to understand that the ability to identify different leaves was very important in their daily lives, in terms of medicine, toxin and nutrition, and that was why the village elders insisted that he master the art. The villagers themselves could not articulate the purpose of the exercise explicitly, because they had not been exposed to other cultures; they had not consciously examined their ways of life in relation to others'.

Does it mean that the definition of full adulthood is culture dependent?

Consider the case of our anthropologist. He does not have the knowledge and the skills to function as the head of a household in the village. Even surviving on his own is probably impossible. Put differently, he may be an adult in his own country, but no doubt disqualified as such in this village. In many cultures, you become an adult only after you are married and have children. In some others, that is no longer part of proper adulthood.

We can say, then, that maturity is about how well you behave along the socially accepted norms. That further means you will have to adopt whatever the local culture says one should do.

It is impossible to abide by all culture codes that we come across.

Come to think of it, if social conventions are arbitrary and maturity is about following such conventions, being mature is arbitrary. We can't be serious about a standard that is arbitrary to start with and changes from place to place.

The most important component of maturity is about knowing when you are going to violate or have violated the codes, and how you make up for that. I believe how you amend is, in fact, more important than whether you commit a cultural transgression or not; however careful we may be, we all make faux pas.

I know about that one! So, what is your recommended strategy?

Be ready to admit your mistake or conscious violation, and be sincere about your past and future intentions that you did and will not act out of malice. Arrogance is always a bad idea, of course, but self-deprecation can also get absurd.

Should we be insincere if we wanted and want to be malicious?

...

Okay, skip that question. But, aren't we back to the same, fuzzy idea that everything should be in moderation?

Yes, and the world will never agree on what that moderation is.

Three cheers for your pessimism!

Oh no, I'm quite optimistic today. If you haven't noticed, that is a problem.

Blame others at a hint of criticism... So much for mature behavior, I'd say.

I declared that maturity can well transcend cultural boundaries. How more optimistic can one get?

The joke is on me

We focused too much on what damage stereotypes can do last time.

Are you trying to tell me that they can do good?

I wouldn't go that far, but you know, they're kind of fun.

Fun!

Shhhh, you're getting loud, and that's one of the traits in people that you dislike most. Don't you think there is some truth in stereotypes, though?

We agreed that, just like class systems, they have a built-in mechanism to sustain itself.

That is true with respect to habits, attitudes and professions. But what about big nose, thick lips, and such?

You're terrible. You make fun of physical features that you think are common among a certain ethnic group, precisely because they are not considered comely. If they were, you wouldn't be joking about them. Besides, if you knew many members of that ethnic group which is not yours, you would hesitate making jokes.

Out of respect?

You wouldn't need respect for that. You know a number of individuals from the group intimately, and have seen many facial features within the group. It becomes just like your own ethnicity; we usually don't see stereotypical features in our own ethnic group.

Because we have seen and see so many of them, we know it is unjust to generalize. The common features also become one of the norms.

In other words, the mind set we have for our own ethnicity can be extended to other groups. I have to add, though, that there are people who deny what they see and go by what the conventional "wisdom" says. Stereotypes are part of that "wisdom."

So, if we think stereotypes about physical features are funny and make jokes about them, it is an indication that we do not know many people from that group.

You can be callous because they do not belong to your definition of human beings.

That's an exaggeration! I don't deny that some tribal people whose name I have never heard of are also human beings.

I wouldn't say that you are lying, but I am confident that you would not make fun of their faces and attires if your best friends are among them. Let's say you may, but in a special way. It is all a matter of how much trust there is. You see, I don't prescribe to the straitjacket version of political correctness. If I knew that you don't think every one of us grow nose hair...

I've never said that and, thank goodness, never seen your nasal hair!

It's an example. Suppose my tribe is known in the outside world for growing nose hair and it is true that some do. Suppose further that doing so has medical benefits in their living environment, but people are unaware of them and the custom is looked down on. If you knew all that and if I knew that you knew all that, I wouldn't mind your making a gentle joke about it.

Because there is trust between us, you mean?

Yes, you may still joke about it, but almost as if you were one of us.

There lies the difference...

Jokes on ethnicity and nationality have far reaching effects than we usually think. Even the person in front of you who is of that ethnicity and nationality do not have the trait that you joked about, s/he may be offended.

Because her/his friends and/or relatives fit the description?

I'm afraid it's biology again; we unconsciously feel the need to defend our group.

I think you are for orthodox political correctness, after all.

Think about the world in which we mingle with people based on their interests and personalities, and not on gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation or looks. I think we wouldn't mind light-hearted jokes about stereotypical features so much. In fact, I believe that we wouldn't even feel like making stereotype jokes in that kind of a world.

Most of us do not have the energy to go through the thickets of differences in customs, features, etc. But I wonder... Aren't you implying that in the ideal state of things we are all alike?

We should be able to preserve our differences and yet understand each other. A world without diversity would be awfully boring.

Nothing is and should be easy in the real world, I knew that...

Let me be me

Expectations about you can stifle who you really are.

Expectations held by yourself or by somebody else?

Do you remember talking about class systems?

They are social structures invented by people in power so that their privileges---both tangible and intangible---are secured for them and the ones whom they care most, namely their spouses and children.

They make you believe that it is as natural as the sun setting in the west that the upper class deserves comfort and respect.

Conversely, the lower class is made to believe that they do not deserve as much. It often extends to the types of occupation that you can engage in.

The jobs that the lower class is allowed to take up are those that the upper class finds undesirable. Menial jobs, physical jobs...

The powerful make the less powerful believe that they are physically and mentally inferior and only worthy of such work.

A class system has a built-in way of sustaining itself. That is, it denies the lower class the nutrition and the education that are necessary for physical and mental development and maintenance.

The powerful have been most of the time smart enough not to deprive the lower class too much.

Otherwise, they would have been extinct. The dead cannot clean your toilet or slaughter cattle for you.

The lower class had to be kept not only healthy, but also educated just enough so that they can be helpful to their masters.

Again, a moron cannot be too much of a help.

But they should not be equipped with too much of analytical skills to question the legitimacy of the system.

I think stereotypes based on gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, looks, etc. have the same effects as social classes.

Aren't they simply perceptions or widely agreed observations?

We are often told not to be bothered by what others think about us, but in fact, perceptions play an important role in what we can be.

I think you should be concerned if all others think you are an idiot.

The advice above does not distinguish the case between a true idiot and a genius misunderstood. But if everyone treats you like an idiot, what difference does it make whether you are a real idiot or an idiot in disguise?

In either case, you would most likely get very upset.

If we think about human dignity, the treatment is unjustified in both cases.

Extending the logic, we can say that there is a very low barrier against becoming a criminal when everyone thinks you are a criminal or a candidate for one.

Very much so. If more people of your gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation or looks happen to be in jail than other groups, it is very likely that you, just like the others in jail, have not had good education, do not have a job, or both. If people look at you as if you were a criminal, even as you walk down the street, you are more susceptible to become one, especially because the possibility of not having a decent job or never having one is also high.

Nothing is lost by acting as the others expect of you, whether the expectations are justified or not.

Your environment is shaped by what people around you think is going to and should happen. In other words, everything is set up so that it is best if you think and act according to their idea of who you are. You need extraordinary will power to fight against that.

That is why expectations tend to be self-fulfilling.

Gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and looks often determine the privileged/underprivileged line, when there is no official class system. It goes without saying that the underprivileged are associated with negative stereotypes.

Most of the time, they are ill prepared to avoid the social traps by the very fact that they are underprivileged and do not have enough resources at their disposal. The vicious circle defined by stereotypes perpetuates, just like the class system.

The formula also applies to social conventions, which are more or less arbitrary. The more privileged set the norm, and that, naturally to their advantage; they define their attributes and behavior as the most desirable. Their ways of speaking, clothing themselves, interacting with people, organizing communities. Their physical properties, too. The less powerful are penalized for being different.

If they did otherwise, they would not have retained power for a long time.

Think about the world in which the current status of the privileged and the underprivileged is reversed.

I wouldn't be surprised if the currently-less-privileged complain that the currently-more-privileged lack social skills and that is why they cannot be promoted to managerial positions.

And for lack of sense of humor. Acceptable social conventions are arbitrary; table manners are a good example.

If it is considered polite to expel all sorts of gas at the end of the meal as a sign of appreciation...

Intestinal gas may be physiologically challenging, though, because it requires more digestion time than the gas from the stomach.

Shall I try it next time?

I saw "Africa Paradis" by Sylvestre Amoussou, a film about Africa that is more prosperous than Europe. The year is 2033 and Europeans are desperate to immigrate to Africa to seek better opportunities and life. The sad thing is that it was very effective in seeing how little compassion the First World has for the Third World today. As I saw the white servants scurrying around the black masters, I couldn't do away with the feeling that something was odd---it shocked me when I realized that the feeling persisted.

It is entrenched in your mind that the other way around is normal.

Let me add that I was also shocked when I saw a clip from a documentary film on apartheid in South Africa.

It is all a matter of whether you are used to it or not, which means again that any social arrangement can last long.

Psychological effects can be insidious, as we noted in the case of being looked upon as a criminal. There are less overt ones, but nonetheless damaging.

For example, you can be only good at sports and music, or you cannot be good at physics, etc., because of your ethnicity.

You may be good at math as an elementary school student, but what if your teacher does not see it because you belong to the "wrong" gender or ethnicity? What if you are told that it was a fluke that you did good in the exam, or even worse, that you must have cheated?

Tell me, what exactly happened?

I made a remark that fluid dynamics and aerodynamics are essentially the same. In fact, aerodynamics is a subfield of fluid dynamics.

How so?

Fluid dynamics studies the motion of fluid which can be liquid or gas. It is just that liquid is more viscous than gas, but they share the principles. But the person whom I was talking to said that he wanted to talk to someone who really knew the subject and asked me to introduce him to that person.

And?

I said that I was the most knowledgeable person that he could find within the circle of 10 kilometer radius. But he insisted.

I presume that your looks got in the way.

He didn't even investigate further how much I knew! A little later, I found him conversing with a Woody Allen look alike. I know him---he talks a lot, but is really scattered. They looked happy together.

How the world sees you has real effects...

"We are nothing but what we are in the eyes of others, and their views are the first step in coming to terms with ourselves as ourselves."

Nous ne sommes nous qu'aux yeux des autres et c'est à partir du regards des autres que nous nous assumons comme nous. Jean-Paul again!

The situation becomes more complicated when the underprivileged do not make enough efforts to get themselves out of that wretched scheme.

It is true that they need help, but without efforts on their part, the whole rescue plan would not work. A doctor cannot save a patient who has given up the will to live.

I see insufficient trust and good will on both sides.

A stronger sense of responsibility for our past and future would help, too.

At the end of the day, we all need and deserve dignity and respect from others.

I would hate it if I were good at math and have to fight against the idea that limitations are imposed on by my genetic makeup or the environment in which I was brought up. I would also have to fight against the lingering feeling that what my rational self thinks is nonsensical prejudice may be truth instead.

What if you happen to belong to the less preferred group and someone from the most preferred says to you, "You're not typical"?

And the remark is meant to be a compliment...

All I want is to be simply myself, unencumbered by any prejudice or preconceived notion.

Let me assure you that you are the only one who wants to be you.

The price of raising hope

You're late! I've been waiting for you.

I'm behind by mere three minutes and seven seconds, but I do apologize. Champagne glasses?

It's on me.

Hey, people over there are looking at us with empty champagne glasses in their hands.

I told you, I've been waiting.

You have invited those people, too? Now, how many bottles did you order?

Well, let's start with one.

I should have known! Anyway, I didn't think it would make you so euphoric.

I didn't either. It makes a difference whether you say a Democrat candidate won, or a person with an African father and a non-Anglo name was elected. Think about it. You hear someone say, "And, here is the President of the United States," and the next thing you see is an African-American. What's more, if the First Lady happens to be there, you see that she's African-American, too.

I thought you cared more about what each candidate promised to do. Just as you warned against electing the President based on her/his biological attributes, you shouldn't be happy because of the skin color and the name of the President elect.

I didn't know if the American people were ready to choose someone with colored skin and Hussein as the middle name. It does show that many Americans did not want to have a white President over a black one at all cost. It gives me tremendous hope.

Indeed, the election results were on the front page all over the world, and many have used the word, "historic," to describe the event.

See how people around the world are happy. I cannot remember when all of us were so hopeful, or at least, relieved. Muammar al-Gaddafi had endorsed him as a Muslim African brother before the election, so he, too, must be celebrating.

That could be a liability... We shouldn't forget that Barack is for civic unions for gay couples, but against gay marriages.

That is a great disappointment, indeed. But he does oppose "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the US military.

Let me remind you that we all love baklava, but the Muslims are still discriminated against. I haven't heard anyone declare their dislike of baklava because of its affinity with the Middle East and Central Asia.

Not all have dismissed Jewish conspiracies as nonsense, after the "discovery" of bagels by New Yorkers and people elsewhere.

This is not the end of racial inequalities or the war in Iraq. In fact, Barack is half Caucasian and half African, but very few have said anything about his presentation of himself as an African-American.

True, I haven't heard any Caucasian saying, "But you are, in a way, one of us," or any African saying "But you are only partially one of us."

Isn't that a problem?

He does seem to understand both sides, however. So, you are saying that it's not the end of all armed conflicts, economic turmoil, income inequalities, gender biases, American cultural and political hegemony, human trafficking, narcotics trade, developed countries' paying to dump hazardous wastes in developing countries, climate change, deforestation, cruelty to animals, discrimination against the disabled, golden parachutes, obesity, hatred, greed and...

No to all of the above, unfortunately. Let's hope the future events would be such that our hopes are justified.

The bigger the hope has been, the deeper the disappointment could be.

Antoine de Saint Exupéry had his fox say in "Le Petit Prince," "Tu deviens responsable pour toujours de ce que tu as apprivoisé."

"You become responsible forever for what you have tamed." ... We should enjoy while the hope lasts. Can't we at least toast for the end of Dubya regime?

Wrinkles, falling hair, and the list

What are you doing? Some kind of calculation, I see. But it doesn't look like a simple addition, so you are not trying to figure out how much you spent on groceries last week.

First, I started thinking about how many days I have lived so far. Then, I wanted to know how many hours, and then minutes.

How many digit group separator did you have to use?

I was just wondering if I should adopt the SI English style or the SI French style.

I wouldn't recommend the Indian version. It requires more separators.

Anyway, the number is staggering. I'm going to throw away this paper, right at this moment.

That doesn't change the fact that you have wasted so many minutes of your life already.

Why do you think I have wasted my time?

It's just my guess. If you are totally satisfied with the way you have spent your time, you wouldn't be tossing the paper over your shoulder like you just did.

Okay, I am going to pick it up and... eat it, perhaps.

Some people turn to all sorts of diet to fix life's problems, but I would stay away from eating it. You just have to accept that you have come so far in life.

I learned Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken," when I was in primary school. I liked the image of paths in the forest, because I had just left a country with relatively well preserved nature to settle in another with little nature conservation. I thought I would never have the chance to go back to that country where I found true nature.

You could understand a bit about making choices in life.

Around that time, I also became aware how much our choices are influenced by the societies we live in.

I didn't know that you were rather precocious.

Of course, I did not think in those terms, but I noticed that what people consider universal truths are not so. I came to that conclusion from observing daily activities, such as eating, dressing, and greeting. As far as I know, what licorice is in Sweden is what chocolate is in UK. Ice cream is a favorite all over the world, but its ranking differs. It is pretty normal to have chocolate sprinkles on your bread for breakfast if you happen to be a Dutch child, but your British mother may not allow you to have "chocolate for breakfast."

Just because that's "not what we do."

Most of the time, people make choices unconsciously or think that they do not have any other option. But that is often because they are bound by social conventions. We think that we rationally form our opinion, but are deeply affected by personal experiences.

If you had never learned, at age seven, that the baby-faced, bachelor clerk at the post office eloped with the wife of the postmaster and she left three kids behind, you would have different thoughts about life. That kind of a thing?

Or, your classmate stops coming to school one day, because she is kidnapped and you never see her again. It could even be fleeing from the secret police knocking on the door of your house.

What about falling flat on your face near L'Arc de Triomphe in Paris?

Let's ignore that one... Going back to the issue of how much time is already gone, I am now keenly aware that if I do B now, I will not have the time to do C in my life. I have lived long enough to know that project B will take as long as project A did, leaving no time for project C. I also know how much effort and attention project A required, and wonder if I am ready to go through the same for B or C. I have never thought about my activities in this way, and it's plain awful.

You used to take up whatever you wanted to without thinking much about its consequences.

And with gusto!

Many paths are closed permanently for you anyway, simply because it is too late in your life to start training, for example, to become a gymnast even if you had the talent to become one.

In that sense, the choices have greatly diminished at around age five and again around age ten, but that is not how we see our lives when we are so young. There must have been the last day when you used a diaper, but you don't think at that very instance, "Gee, I'm getting so old that I don't need a diaper any longer. I'm a step closer to the end."

One minute today is still of the same length as a minute was five years ago, but it starts to feel as if time were accelerating.

The sign of old age is not wrinkles, baldness, or the internal clock gone amok, but the realization that you will be leaving this world with a list of things that you would love to do, but have no time for.

Or, talent for that matter. Don't worry, you made the right decision by not trying to go to the Olympics as a gymnast. Why not look at the list of your accomplishments, by the way?

I put it in the recycling bin.

I meant figuratively!

I am beginning to understand what an older friend of mine said some time ago. To end your life graciously is a major undertaking.

Without regret, but also without too much of self-justification.

Ideally, you should be fully functional and willing to live until the day before your death and perfectly happy to leave the next day.

Self-immolation, duel, and suicide-bombing may fit your criteria...

It's a lopsided world

Happiness and unhappiness are usually presented as a pair, something that neatly divides the world into two halves.

And we struggle everyday to eliminate the unhappy half.

We say to ourselves that there are happy moments and unhappy moments, good times as well as bad times. Do you really think this world is symmetric in that sense?

Isn't it like a stock market? We never have bull market all the time, but not always bear market, either. It's even a proverb in many languages: every cloud has a silver lining; après la pluie, le beau temps; después de la tormenta, llega la calma...

But they don't refer to the ratio of the two. If we are prone to be happy as much as unhappy, why aren't there as many positive comments on the Internet as negative ones?

I see a lot of rave reviews for what I think is not so great.

Well, I do, too. But there is always one, sometimes more, hate comment, and that tends to spoil the entire experience.

If we have built-in inclination to hate, as we discussed a bit last time, and if our happiness is as fragile as you purport it to be, what kind of world do we live in?

I guess we are coming to agreement. Think about it, when you come back home from work or school, do you report good news more often than bad ones?

You shouldn't think everybody is like you. I talk about the beautiful flowers I saw on the way back, a nice display window that I found, an announcement for a concert that would be interesting to attend...

What about people? Suppose someone you don't know on the street gives you a condescending look for a reason unknown to you. Wouldn't that ruin your evening?

It could, but I know that it's a bad idea to focus on a trivial event like that. Besides, how can I be sure that it was condescension and that it was directed at me?

But you have to force yourself not to think about it.

True, but training yourself not to be disturbed by such things is easy.

It requires conscious effort, though. In contrast, talking about it comes more easily.

Is that what you have been referring to as asymmetry? If so, it is the same with good things that happen to us. It is easier to talk about them than not to.

I'd still say that the degree of "passion" tends to be higher for unpleasant events. Plus, they make better conversation fodder than pleasant ones.

Let me try here... "I saw an unusually lush bush of bougainvillea, today. It was very beautiful." "Oh, that's nice. Where did you see it?"

"Near the little grocer's at the corner." "Talking about that store, it's annoying that they don't carry any more the kind of olives that I really like." "I've also noticed that they charge much more than they should for organic produce."

You've managed to turn my happy conversation to an exchange of complaints! Perhaps you haven't, but I have experienced many passionate conversations on things that I like: food, places to visit, music, art, literature, and much more.

My take is that people have more things to complain about than to praise. We also tend to get more worked up when complaining. We hear more about people who complain too much than about those who are happy all the time.

That's precisely because we are all complainers; we complain about others' complaints. Is this what you mean?

That's not all. When you see positive sides of things most of the time, people think you are naive at best, and dishonest or conceited at worst. It's jealousy that comes into play, because you manage to be happy.

You may get along well with Catholic theologists. They believe in original sin, you know.

I don't agree with the details of that idea, but I do think they have a point. Without efforts to be otherwise, we remain beastly beings. But rejoice, my dear comrade, we are endowed with this wonderful faculty called consciousness and that allows us to make efforts.

Doesn't it also make you reflect on things in life that you'd rather not think about?

What can I say except that everything is a double-edged sword. If you take more medicine than is prescribed, it doesn't cure you faster, but most likely make you ill in another way and may even kill you. Many people think meditation necessarily brings peace of mind, but you can also deepen your hatred by thinking alone in a dark room.

Or, fear for that matter. What about tools for torture and killing, such as iron maiden and guns? Is there anything good about them?

I was trying to be positive.

You're covering up your sloppiness with your fake optimism!

You are right, optimism requires taking certain facts lightly. But it is not the same as ignoring them. We have invented oblique ways of reference, such as jokes and cynicism, and I am all for optimism generously laced with biting jokes and cynical remarks.

You are aware that people are going to disagree with your definition of "biting jokes"?

Yes, some may say "nasty," but life goes on anyway...

Despite our nastiness and unhappiness.

Behind our masks

I didn't know about the situation in South Korea when I said blood would flow if we knew what we thought about each other.

And kill each other? As far as I know, there are still little under 50 million people in the country. In other words, they haven't annihilated themselves.

It concerns the Internet where you can say anonymously whatever you wish. It gives you a wide range of possible targets, too. Billions of postings are out there.

Anonymity plus the volume of postings guarantee that there will be no percussion... Tell me, what's happening in the Republic of Korea?

The latest is the death of an actress, Choi Jin Sil, very well known in her country. Apparently, online slanders became so bad that she was driven to suicide. I heard that a few other Korean celebrities have suffered the same fate, namely, accusations on the Internet, depression and suicide.

I also have received hate mail from people who could be identified only by their rather cryptic e-mail addresses. It was very disturbing, to say the least, but I never imagined that it could be that bad.

Whenever I read comments posted on the Internet, the depth of ill feelings surprises me, as well as the number of hate postings. I don't understand how someone can get so agitated by an opinion of a person with whom they have never had interaction before.

It is easier to understand if you get upset by statements from someone whom you know and you happen to have grudge against.

In addition, you do not have to say anything controversial to be picked as a target. Read some of the book reviews by people who purchase books online. The rawness of some of them gives me goose bumps.

Quite a bit of frustration must have been accumulated, and that negative emotion about something else is being unleashed at the same time, I imagine.

I read more American websites than others, and I used to think that it was an American phenomenon. Now that I have read Japanese ones and learned that the Internet is the primary cause of suicide among celebrities in Korea, I am convinced that it is a worldwide malady.

A small sample for such a sweeping conclusion, I'd say.

True, I have read some French commentaries and they were not that bad. But I guess that is because I have not visited Francophone sites extensively.

Isn't it surprising that so many people get angry so easily to the extent that they have to lash out?

Definitely. As you implied, it cannot be one posting that turns a calm and happy person into a malicious and evil one. That means, numerous people on this planet are suffering from lack of warm and caring human networks.

What is the connection between anger and human networks?

Suppose you enjoy good relationships with your family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. And perhaps with people you see on the street, too. Will you be inclined to attack someone at the slightest opportunity?

I thought you were of the opinion that we all have at least one hate project.

That's true, but at most a handful and for things like, cats because of your allergic reaction to them, your parents for lack of understanding, McDonald's for the same reason as José Bové is against it, etc.

We are often surprised when people talk about their hate projects.

Yes, I can sympathize with them, but still cannot help wondering if they have to get upset so much. To others, the degree of hatred is rather excessive.

So, what are your hate projects?

Shhhhh! The enemy is around!

Okay, I will spare you, if you spare me.

I have adopted a policy some time ago, with respect to making my own evaluation public. I would only say things that I dare to say directly to the person concerned.

You're mindful of leaks and rumors.

I would like to retain control over what I say, and considering human nature, I should be prepared that whatever I say about a person would eventually reach her/him, possibly with embellishments. As we have seen in Choi Jin Sil's case, rumors can become very damaging.

No gossiping, then. Doesn't it make you a bore?

I'm afraid it does. Worse, I have a feeling that many people think I'm stuck-up, but I would feel very uncomfortable acting otherwise.

You are not against my spreading around whatever you tell me about anyone.

In principle, no. I am ready to face people about whatever I say about them. But don't you agree that there can be much more to talking than saying 'you know, Monsieur Untel said such and such about Madame Unetelle'?

Gossiping seems to be as natural as hating...

I think our "innate" tendency to hate explains why there are bloody conflicts around the world.

And why we may not see an end to all that. It seems that we continue to come up with more innovative ways to harm others, as is the case with Internet triggered suicides.

"Men, in the course of civilizing themselves, have only complicated their barbarity and refined their misery."

Paul Bourget. Right?

Is God your best friend?

Do you know what friends are for?

I don't like the way you look at me.

In general terms, of course, not about any specific case that we know.

To have the kind of fun that is not possible by yourself.

It is easy to say who are your friends as long as you are having fun together---share information on common interests, participate in an event together, exchange jokes that are appreciated by the other, etc.

It's no fun to be with people who are gloomy, angry, bitter, or...

What if a friend of yours makes a comparison between you and her/him aloud and concludes that s/he is better?

Aloud?

How else would I know the comparison and its conclusion?

But what for?

That's precisely my question.

Do you usually come out inferior in that comparison?

Not usually, but always. They must be suffering from some sort of insecurity, I understand that much. What I don't understand is why I am chosen to be the comparison material, and why do they need to let the compared know about the negative outcome.

You must have done something to provoke them.

I swear I have not! You know that I am not into bragging, flaunting and such.

Perhaps your so-called subtle way of showing-off gets on their nerves.

The problem is not much about why it happens, but more about what should I do with them.

I recommend not to slap them in the face.

Don't they cease to be friends the moment they make a comparison such as, "You may have majored in math, but I'm much better at abstract thinking" in front of me?

Had you been talking about intelligence?

No. That line came out of the blue.

Weird... I smell some pent up frustration. Be aware, people have different definitions of friendship.

What about friends who approve of everything you do?

I knew you were one of those skeptical types.

If you like someone, you tend to approve of things that s/he does. It also happens that even when you do not approve of it, you don't say so, because you would not want to upset her/him.

You care about the relationship.

I'm not sure if that is the case, because if you really care about your friend, you must be telling her/him that it is not good.

It depends on what it concerns, though.

True, like the case of a toxic lover turned fiancé/e. Never meddle in others' love affairs.

Suppose you are a professional football player and a son of your very good friend aspires to be one. When you watch him play, you see immediately that he does not have the talent to make it. What do you do?

It may be cruel to encourage him.

On the other hand, you know that you are not God, and...

I am not?

You are not, and you cannot say with absolute certainty that he would fail as a professional player.

These days, I am no longer certain who is telling the truth about me. When they are positive, I don't know whether that is because they are biased as friends, their priority is not to upset me, or something else. When they are negative, I don't know whether they are dumping their frustration about themselves onto me, or being extra nice to tell me the brutal truth.

Ah, your paranoia, again.

The funny thing is that my instincts tell me one way or another.

What's the problem, then?

Instincts are simply instincts, and the rationalist side of me is against putting too much weight on them. Plus, according to my instincts, there are too many people who are insecure and whom I should stay away from.

Do you think you are good as a friend? We should always examine ourselves before turning to others, ahem.

I'm not sure about that one, either. There is always a fine balance between how much to give and to take. It is not exclusively about tangible items, but also about time, effort, thinking capacity, and so on.

According to some, a tutor and a student can be friends, although the the flow of information is one-way. I suppose the tutor gets great satisfaction out of sharing information.

We shouldn't be keeping tallies, but all involved should have a feeling of mutual benefit.

The fact that you think about it suggests that you've got a problem!

What if you ask your friend to do something for you and s/he declines?

I know that some have declined to pose as your lovers for the purpose of discouraging people whom you call totally unsavory admirers.

What if it concerns something on which your happiness depends?

You should never let your well-being be dependent on the state of the world.

But it shows that this friend in question does not understand me, doesn't it?

Perhaps s/he doesn't understand you and/or care about you.

Is s/he a friend then?

As I said, we have different definitions for friends. It may be that s/he wanted to tell you something implicitly, as a friend. Besides, you can't have all of your "friends" think and act as if you were the most important person and event in their lives. That happens only between lovers, and even then, almost exclusively during the honeymoon period.

What about these claims---God loves everyone; he always has you in mind?

God should be nice toward pagans and infidels, too, but...

In her/his own very idiosyncratic way.

Business is not always business-like

I am again in a trouble because of misunderstanding.

It's time that you give up trying to be polite. People can tell that you are in fact angry or upset, even without a word to that effect. It's written all over your face! Why not talk to the party concerned about the misunderstanding?

There are certain things you should never be explicit about.

For example?

A good friend of yours is dating someone whose characters you do not approve of. Not only that, but you also think your friend is being taken advantage of.

What are you going to say to your friend when you learn that they are engaged---that kind of a thing?

Support as much as possible for your friend's sake, and never, ever tell her/him that you thought their relationship would not last or it is good that they are no longer together when they do break up.

In other words, you advocate dishonesty.

I am not saying that we should lie. We only have to keep some thoughts buried. The most important one among them is about people whom we know. I have seen enough evaluation of sorts to conclude that no collection of evaluation given without the presence of the subject would satisfy her/him. The comments and the ranting we see on the Internet are great pieces of evidence.

Even our thoughts about friends and family members?

Definitely. It is astonishing how highly we think of ourselves and how strictly we judge others.

But again, that's part of the wiring for survival, isn't it?

It is. I did a little experiment by telling people that blood would flow and none of us would be alive, if all of us knew what we thought about each other.

My goodness...

I think my audience was not sophisticated enough. They were shocked and gave a nervous laugh. I got a feeling that they genuinely hated me for the next few minutes.

Aren't you the one who lack sophistication to say such a thing? Plus, you blame the victims for your wrongdoing. You're lucky if you got it off like that.

What if they often bad-mouth other people behind their back? And what if I happen to hear from both of the two factions?

Attention! Here's a spy!

Why not a double agent? Anyway, they never articulate their frustrations to the other side, and when they are together they banter as if they were friends. When I think about the venom that they spit in the others' absence, I would never be able to trust either side.

You are surprised that they were shocked by your statement.

Our nature makes us grossly overestimate ourselves, and it prevents us from imagining that the "others" may also be unhappy about their "others," including us.

The great misunderstanding of yours has something to do with evaluation of others, I take it.

In a way, yes. I believe in being business-like about... business! When I do my work thoroughly, some people benefit more from it than others, and that makes them think that I like the former more as persons than the latter. It's crazy.

It must mean that if you want your colleagues to do something that is related to your task, you have to be chummy with them.

Yes, and that makes the whole operation unreliable, because personal preferences are never static.

You want stability.

The primary purpose of going to our workplace is to contribute in the best way we can to the organization. We should strive to make decisions that are independent of likes and dislikes about people. I cannot get over it that not many people seem to agree with this principle.

What about personal satisfaction from engaging in that business? That could be the primary reason for going to work.

Few of us are lucky enough to do for a living what we like and enjoy...