Gotta have it, it's retail therapy

Absolutely anyone with an artistic pair of eyes can take good pictures these days.

We agreed on that last time. The 'auto' functions of the latest cameras and Adobe Photoshop go a long way in compensating for the lack of technical skills in photography.

I do not see many photographers making efforts to take good pictures, though. When tourists come to a scenic spot, they very often use it as a simple backdrop for hastily composed group pictures. How artistic can that be, and hence, interesting to others?

I thought your complaint was that there were too many of overly serious amateur photographers.

Yes, that is one of my complaints.

Another is that there are too many of bad photographers, is that it?

Comrade, you're beyond my wildest dreams... I have noticed that if it is a couple, the guy usually does the shooting and orders his spouse/lover/girlfriend to pose in front of a monument, etc. It's often a command. "You stand there," kind of a line, his model scurries to the spot indicated by his finger, she turns around to look at the camera, and immediately a click.

Now, are we talking about the artistic values of tourist photos, the manners of tourist-photographers, or relationship dynamics?

They are all related; if a person fails in one, s/he tends to also fail in the other two. How many times did I stand next to a guy to mumble to myself, "Oh no, you shouldn't do that. Her clothes/hair-do/posture does not make your disastrous angle any better."

Mon dieu ! Have you thought about the possibility of his thinking along the same line about you? "What's the use of taking a picture of a church, from behind a pillar? The poor soul must be nuts. The fact that I can't tell where this person originated confirms my suspicion," for example?

To me, ill-taken pictures of a tourist spot have no value other than for establishing an alibi.

That the photographer was there with her/his legitimate partner, whoever that is? You never know with digital trick these days...

... I know! The purpose of such pictures is to rub it in that they went to places where their friends and families have not been but would love to.

That may be true, because many say things such as, "You have been to Mars, haven't you? Oh, I had forgotten, but you are from Mars, aren't you? Then, you don't have to see these pictures of sexy rocks from that marvelous planet. But, John, I know you haven't been there, come see these photos. Aren't they gorgeous?"

For some reason, it is almost guaranteed that people who forcibly make you look at their photographs take horrible shots.

It makes sense, doesn't it? If the goal is simply to show off to others that you had the opportunity to go to a place where they have not been, or never would even if they wanted to, why care about artistry? Plus, being artistic does not mean anything to some people, you know.

There is something more fundamental to our urge to snap.

Which is...?

It can be traced to our desire to possess what we find beautiful.

Taking photographs is the second best after purchasing the pyramid, you mean?

If Napoleon Bonaparte's people had the technology to cart off the pyramid, they would have. Think about the fate of obelisks that presently sit far away from where they used to be---the one at the Spanish Steps in Rome, another at la Place de la Concorde in Paris, and so on.

Nowadays we create images of the object which become ours instantly.

Most of us have become civilized in that sense, because we simply take pictures of the object instead of stealing it, carving off a piece of it, or defacing it with graffiti.

The use of flashes when we are not supposed to is still destructive.

Vandalizing acts are based on our desire to demonstrate to the public our power over the fate of that object. If benign, the desire takes the form of owning the object in question. On the other hand, vandalism is self-defeating, since it makes the object less desirable.

We obviously wish to see objects that touch us, but our desire to claim power is even bigger...

Isn't it scary? The same pattern is seen in purchases of so-called souvenirs. When we are very much taken by the place we visit, we feel the urge to purchase something that is unique to that location.

It's a variation on the theme of owning what you like, I take it.

That's why some of us spend money on ridiculous, ugly, and/or useless items that we would never purchase had we found them at the grocery store that we visit weekly. We see similar phenomena in relationships. If you like someone, you want to be her/his best friend, or if the sexual orientation is right, her/his lover/spouse. You want that person to be yours.

True, we even acknowledge that desire by saying, "be mine," "tuyo/tuya para siempre," etc.

It doesn't even have to be romantic relationships. You have heard children arguing, "He's my papa," "No, he's my papa," although they are siblings. I remember wanting to be the only child holding hands with either my mother or father, but it was problematic because there were more than two children in the family and all of us wanted that exclusivity.

I have a feeling that there is more to our desire to possess what we like and admire.

I think it is the nature of being fond of something and what the disclosure of that information entails. Being in favor of something means we are inclined to make concessions for that object or person.

In other words, when you announce that you admire something, you are also telling people that you would do more for preserving or obtaining it than for other things in the world.

You are showing your weakness, so to speak. In numerous languages, the expression, "to have a weakness for something," means "to be fond of it."

Whereas dislike and hatred are more linked to combativeness.

As you make your weakness public, you naturally seek compensation for that act.

Naturally?

Alas, that is our animal instinct, and the compensation is in the form of obtaining an exclusive relationship with that object or person.

Mutual submission?

Exactly.

But I don't mind at all telling people that I admire Itzhak Perlman's performance as well as Gil Shaham's.

Some people can hurt you by telling you how better other violinists are and that you understand nothing about classical music.

I am old enough not to be bothered by such childish behavior.

What if someone says s/he will give you a ticket to Perlman's concert that is impossible to obtain on your own, and in turn, you have to share with her/him what you'd rather keep as a secret? Your preferences can be used to manipulate you.

You make it sound as if we were so calculating.

But we are, at least unconsciously. As I have been emphasizing, the civilization consists in acknowledging the unsavory streaks and suppressing them. Talking about civilization, I have been appalled lately of blatant appeals to our base desires by the retail sector.

Is it more than telling you how good a certain product is?

I saw signs such as, "Gotta have it" and "Retail therapy."

Hmmm, pretty raw, I'd say.

I'm glad that you agree. The terrifying thing is that, although I was very much displeased and even shocked when I first read them, they became rather convincing after some time.

Gotta have it...? How do you know? Gotta have it? Really? Gotta have it? Perhaps. Gotta have it, maybe. Gotta have it. Gotta have it. Gotta have it! GOTTA HAVE IIIITTT!... Is this how it goes?

... Kind of...

Retail therapy? How shameful you talk about your profit making scheme as if you were helping us. Retail therapy may work for others, but not for me. Let's examine the first word, retail. Yes, I purchased something. Therapy? Well, the purchase has not exactly made me unhappy. Retail therapy. Perhaps. Retail therapy, maybe. Retail therapy. Retail therapy. Yes, retail therapy, because I'm happier after buying! ... This is how it works, right?

...

Comrade, I'm calling my marketing people right now. What do you say to holding a press conference about the triumph of le capitalisme anglo-saxon?

I'd rather have a discussion with a sociologist or a psychologist over the effects of words and the power of propaganda...

Are you sure? Think about it. There will be lights, cameras, microphones, and everyone will be focusing on you, baby... oops, comrade!

If I am not allowed to see a sociologist or a psychologist, can I have a session with a psychiatrist?

The Joy of snapping

Digitization may have had bad effects by making us more inclined to take pictures, but it is also helping us to be environmentally friendlier.

By not using film, we are doing away with hydroxylated benzene compounds, for example, employed in film developing---it this what you mean?

That's one. Think also about all the paper that we would have needed to print out the massive amount of shots that people take nowadays.

I see quite a few mediocre pictures taken by amateur photographers on the web for sale, followed by raving comments. It is all thanks to technological progress.

What's wrong with that? I thought you knew that we shouldn't expect to agree on matters of taste. You must be simply overwhelmed by the explosion of the number of photographic work that you are exposed to.

You're right. With digital cameras and the Internet, we have suddenly gained access to more shots. It is also true that I wouldn't be complaining if there were more of good ones compared to bad ones.

Last time you said that there are many more good amateur photographers than before, and that was not only the sheer number, but their proportion has increased.

When the numbers of both the good and the bad go up, we tend to focus on the increase of the bad. The same applies to anything from donation versus theft, safe versus reckless driving, etc., to cafés serving good coffee versus bad coffee.

If it is not the improvement in the average quality of amateur photography, what exactly is bothering you?

One is their eagerness to sell the work, rather than simply share. It is not that they turn to selling, because there is no other means to verify the quality of their efforts. Many of us think about putting it up for sale as soon as we create it.

Isn't that natural during this economically difficult time?

There has been a growing trend to commercialize whatever possible, and that is in terms longer than the usual ups and downs of business cycles. It doesn't give me good feelings.

Is it alienation à la Karl Marx?

Congratulations, my dear comrade, although I must say that it was rather elementary.

Now tell me, did you intend it to be a praise or an insult?

Che Guevara said, "Man really attains the state of complete humanity when he produces, without being forced by physical need to sell himself as a commodity." We can extrapolate that to "without being forced to sell what he produces as a commodity," and I am more than 100% certain that he would give me a ride on his motorcycle upon hearing this.

Most people are not forced to sell their pictures, but they want to.

How can you say that we are not the victims of le capitalisme anglo-saxon?

We can say so as much as we are of our own culture or society.

We are forced to think in a certain way and that unconsciously by the society we live in, and the economic system is one of the important facets of a society.

At the same time, we are the ones who are the parts of that whole. So, we ourselves are responsible for whatever happens in our society to some extent. As for me, I have never said anything like, "Making so little? Are you an id..."

But the responsibilities are far from equal. Think about Joseph Stalin. You would agree that he had done much more than the rest in the USSR to mold the Soviet culture and history.

Or Billy Graham... It all stems from the fact that many people are not independent thinkers, but followers, doesn't it?

To a degree, yes. As for the lure of money, it is so powerful that we do not need proselytizing. Money allows us to possess far beyond what we can produce ourselves. In other words, it appeals to our base desire, and there lies the strength of capitalism.

Why did we not see earlier the extent of commercialization that we have today?

First of all, technological progress has made many more products and services available. There are literally zillion more ways to spend money, which gives zillion more reasons to make more money. Secondly, with the arrival of modernism, almost all the social constraints on what we are allowed to own have disappeared. You don't have to read much in economic anthropology to be struck by how much social conventions used to dictate what we may own.

For example?

In many pre-industrialization societies, what kind of role you should play in the community is determined by your gender and age. That is translated into what kind of house and other household goods you must have in unambiguous terms. Moreover, they are provided by the community, because production of most things requires collaboration.

It is still true that I cannot manufacture a motorcycle on my own. I think even Che would agree that I have to purchase one.

That's where this elaborate exchange system that uses money as the medium comes into play. Under a barter system, you need to have exactly what the motorcycle manufacturer would like to get in exchange, but money has eliminated the need of coincidence of wants.

So modern capitalism liberates us!

It alienates us, too. The rise of post-modernism testifies that we were not completely satisfied with what the industrialization and the concomitant development of capitalism brought us.

Where does that alienation come from?

I think the root is in the change of our focus. In the case of photography, instead of aiming for something that is artistic or that is satisfactory to the photographer, the goal becomes getting a shot that would make someone take out her/his wallet from the pocket.

What others want to buy is not going to be very different from what you want to buy, and hence, from what you want to possess and further produce, doesn't it? If so, there is no change in focus as you claim.

You must have heard of artists' agony to create what they do believe in versus what would sell. It's an age-old problem.

My argument is logically impeccable, though.

Creative persons are so, precisely because they are different in taste from others. If s/he produces work that you can see anywhere, we wouldn't think that s/he is creative. Bigger profits are obtained by selling to more people. That means you would like to appeal to the most common denominator, and we know what that consists of.

To rake in the most profit is to be good at mediocrity?

I would say to aim at a tiny bit beyond so that the masses would appreciate the difference: not exactly mediocre that it appears banal to them, and not too off the main-stream that it becomes beyond their comprehension.

You are so disparaging at times, you know... Many say that they take pictures for fun. They claim that, if the pictures sell, they are all the happier, but they would remain happy even if nobody buys.

Once the price is posted, it will be difficult not to take the absence of a buyer negatively. Think about it, you are putting your work on offer, and if there are no takers...

That is another addictive aspect of capitalism. We are prone to take sale as something that endorses our very selves and non-sale as rejection of us as persons.

That is normal psychology when you offer something that you own, including yourself. The ultimate case is declaring romantic love for someone.

The feelings of triumph, pride, and joy, or those of defeat, self-loathing, and anger.

If you say you will do anything for the one that you love, that translates into pricing yourself zero or even negative... Getting back to how many more pictures people take these days, I think we are sacrificing quality at the expense of quantity.

That's the usual rule for quality and quantity.

I disapprove of the casualness.

Should we care if you approve of it or not?

...

Okay, let me ask why not?

It is usually quite distracting and inappropriate.

I understand the distracting part, but why inappropriate? If you see something beautiful, you would like to take a picture of it, too, wouldn't you?

I do not know any object that came into being exclusively for photo taking, excepting those made by photographers for photographic art or shows organized for shooting purposes. That means taking pictures is never of primary importance to the object or the scene that we try to capture with our camera.

A temple or a church is a place of worship, but as tourists, we take pictures instead of meditating or praying---that kind of a thing?

Precisely. Instead of consoling the survivors, we photograph the exotic costumes and the ornaments of a funeral. Instead of purchasing a strangely shaped fruit from a street vendor, we take a picture of it, and so on.

And when there are too many serious photographers around, it's a chaos.

Just as there are basic manners that tourists should observe as intruders to the everyday life of the places we visit, there are also manners for tourist-photographers.

Such as not standing in front of another person with a scary face and a camera in his hand, right?

You got it all wrong...

It's a joke... By the way, how much are you asking for your pictures? ... It's a joke. Trust me!

All right, how much are you offering?

... Comrade, I am truly scandalized!

It's a joke, trust me...

The Photographer in all of us

I see that you've got suntan. Were you outdoors in the past weeks?

I was on the road. I tell you, it was pretty wild at times.

Were you in the wilderness somewhere?

Not quite, but I was often surrounded by beasts.

Hmmm... I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I sense that you were not in the pristine woods, on an unspoiled savanna, or anything of that sort.

The beasts all had cameras in their hands.

Are you talking about tourists?

Locals usually don't go around taking photographs, you know.

What's so beastly about tourists' picture taking? That's a natural part of sightseeing. Besides, you were one of them, weren't you?

Gone are the days when we had to take into account how many shots could be taken with the roll of film in the camera, and be careful about each shot. With the advent of digital cameras at affordable prices for the masses, people have been transformed into self-professed photographers. Mobile phones with camera function has made the situation even worse.

We should welcome such developments. It's democratization of photography.

I was in a town known for beautiful architecture. It was packed with tourists, and if I took a shot, it would be just an image of the crowd. Then, I noticed one guy walking through the crowd, turning his head to the right, raising his hand up with the camera, taking a few steps forward, turning his head and raised hand to the left, and repeating the whole process.

You mean, turn right, click, march forward, turn left, click, march forward?

He didn't even stop for each shot. He simply kept on walking. It looked particularly bad, because with digital cameras, we do not put our faces close to the viewfinder. That gives an impression that you are not serious about the shot.

I knew that you had some prehistoric opinions...

Later, I was in another even more crowded place, where tourists were taking turns to see the interior of an historical building through glass panels of a door.

How large was the door?

It was a regular sized one, about 80 centimeters wide and 2 meters high. I waited for some time, being jostled this way and that. Finally, my turn came and I took a peek. Immediately, someone tapped on my forearm. When I turned around, it was an old lady looking very frustrated. She said, "I'm trying to take a picture," as if I had been intentionally obstructing her doing so for hours.

What did you do?

I stepped aside by shoving myself into the crowd. She took a picture, and left without thanking me! That was the first time in my life when someone told me to get out of her way so that she can shoot.

You were annoyed because you take pride in being circumspect. Correct?

In another popular spot for tourists in another town, a group was occupying a small room with a guide. They were there for a long time. When the guide led the herd out of the room, three people lingered on to take pictures. I waited for a while, but stepped into the room before they evacuated because it was taking too long.

Did you get yelled at?

I didn't, but again, I was tapped on my forearm. When I turned around, a guy indicated by way of swinging his chin to the side that I should get lost.

Was it that bad?

He looked awfully frustrated and angry.

You may have become too self-absorbed to take notice of people around you. Have you thought about that?

I tried to make sure that I did not interfere with their obsessive photo taking, but clearly, I failed. What can you do when you are admiring something and someone arrives afterward to take a photo from behind you?

Are you sure that is what happened?

I swear... What I don't understand most is the zeal with which people go about photographing literally everything.

Do they take pictures of rubbish bins, though?

Don't you agree that most of them are probably not professional photographers?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they do not have the right to take photos.

But what do you think they are going to do with all the pictures?

Show them to friends and family.

I dread seeing vacation pictures. It is purely out of courtesy that I say 'yes' when my parents ask me if I want to see their photos.

Not everybody's vacation pictures are boring or bad, mind you.

You think so? I can enjoy them more if the vacationers are there to comment on them. They serve as visual cues for curious or funny things that happened, but could not be captured as an image.

Sure, comments like, "You know, when I was trying to take this picture, there was a tourist who stood right in front of me and wouldn't budge. Absolutely oblivious. Talking about manners..."

How many times do you look at your own pictures?

Not so often.

I bet after a good round of showing, you never go back to them.

True... But some of us enjoy seeing other people's vacation shots.

It is beyond my comprehension that some ask for mine.

It certainly is! But there's nothing wrong with that. They are being polite with you. Plus, some people are genuinely interested in seeing images from faraway places, even if they were taken by you.

That may be so, but that poses a problem as well.

I knew it... Everything is a problem with you.

When I show my pictures on request, people get tired pretty quickly.

Well, that speaks volumes about the quality of your photos, doesn't it?

Not entirely. They are expecting an interesting story woven together by the images. That means I have to select a good sequence to entertain the viewers.

I see, you are complaining about the work that their request entails.

I am also asked to do some explaining about my black and white photographs.

Why black and white when color is possible, that one?

I often hear dissenting noises.

Through their noses?

Because I am weary of explaining that bit, I started taking pictures in color, too.

Just for people who want to see pictures in color?

When I think a certain angle may have popular appeal, yes. Other times I think colors are important in a certain scheme, and switch to color.

You know that you couldn't have done it, if it were not for a digital camera.

There is no denying that we owe enormously to digitization, and hence, to Nicola Tesla. But the zealousness for pictures at tourist spots, it's almost frightening, and that's all because of the enhanced accessibility of photo taking. What's the point of tourists' using a flash when it is forbidden so as not to damage the art work?

That would apply to animals in captivity and on exhibit, too.

It's not that they admire the art or the animal first, and then, decide to record it. They start taking pictures as soon as they see the object, take pictures, and leave.

Well, let's hear how different you are from them...

I have also noticed that increasingly more amateur photographers are ready to wait for a good shot, although it used to happen only, I think, among the professionals. If there is just one hovering around nervously near an ornate gate, that's perhaps tolerable. But what if there are several of them, all wishing that other tourists-turned-photographers would leave and getting more irritated by each second?

May I ask how you know that people in fact wait, ahem?

Going back to the quality of laymen photography, in the past, there were a handful of very good amateur photographers and most of us took bad photos. Now there are many more good amateur photographers, because if you find a good composition, the 'auto' function of the camera would do the rest for you. If not, you can twinkle quite a bit with Photoshop.

You are contradicting yourself, have you noticed? You implied earlier that vacation pictures are bad and boring, but now you are saying that many pictures by amateur photographers are of good quality.

I think vacation images are not interesting to others as much as they are to the vacationers themselves, unless they are taken with artistic consideration. While there are a lot of mediocre photographs on the Internet, I am often surprised how many of them are good.

What sets the pros apart from the rest of us, then?

In the old times, they were the ones who carried cameras everywhere. But nowadays, many more non-professionals do so. Opportunities to show work to the public were available mostly to pros. Digital technology and the Internet have changed all that.

Doesn't that mean that there are numerous wanna-be-professionals? And if many of their pictures are good, doesn't it further mean that it is reasonable for them to harbor such aspirations?

It is. But then, I am certain that most wanna-be's will never be paid for their work, because too many of them are around.

We need a baker for every neighborhood, though.

How many people can bake good croissants at home, compared to the number of people who can take nice shots of Taj Mahal? If amateurs are capable of taking near professional quality photographs, photographer as a profession is almost dead.

Now think hard, comrade, because if we leave it at that, we will get not-so-pleasant letters from the professional photographers' associations, even with your 'near' and 'almost.' You are saying that the art of photography is much more banal than that of bakery.

I thought we were talking about how absurd vacation photo taking has become, weren't we?

Let me ask you once again. What are the skills that professional photographers possess, but are hard to come by among amateurs?

Perhaps it is the skills required in shooting animate objects, things that sense and react to the fact that you are focusing on them. Taking a good photograph of the Eiffel Tower, for example, is not that demanding. Plus, any good angle of immovable objects has been already photographed. I would find a particularly good composition only to discover later that the postcards or travel-guide photographers thought the same. I had that experience several times during the past trip.

What about moving, inanimate objects?

For that, we have consecutive-shooting function on selected cameras. As a child, I thought those were available exclusively to professional journalists, but now it is just another feature on the cameras for the masses.

I'd think taking photos with limited light also requires skills.

I agree. With auto-flash function, we often get terrible results, but simply turning off the flash doesn't help either.

Dusk, dawn, as well as under rain, fog, hail, snow... What about certain texture or shine, for instance, chiffon and silver? I think we are saved from angry protests!

The professionals will become more specialized in terms of objects than they used to be. Doesn't it say that, too?

Would you be late, if it were Barack or Hugo?

... You're late.

Sorry, I wasn't quite prepared for another meeting in less than two weeks. I know that we used to meet weekly, but it has been every other week for over half a year now.

Would you be making the same excuse if the appointment were not with me, but with Barack?

Are you saying that I should have been here an hour before our agreed meeting time?

My question is: why are you casual about being late to see me, but probably would not be so if it were Barack?

Well, he has other important engagements and I don't know if I would be able to have a meeting with him again very soon.

I, too, have other activities that are mighty important.

I didn't know that you were going to attend the meeting with senior advisers at the White House.

How do you know that my activities are less important? Plus, this may be the last time that we meet.

You didn't tell me that we were going to terminate our project without reaching our goal!

I asked you to come over today, because the café will be closed for a month or so for miscellaneous repair works. The owner informed me a couple of days ago.

I take it that you do not wish to carry on at other venues in the meantime.

Where else can you find mandazi, halva, cendol, and hot chocolate made from chocolate and not cocoa powder, all on the same menu?

I tried hard to be on time today, though.

I think you would have tried harder if it were Hugo.

All right, I admit that it depends on the temper and the character of the person whom I am to see. I know that you wouldn't start accusing me of bourgeois habits and so on.

You are another victim of the intimidation-and-fear equation.

It's natural! Wouldn't you take more precautions if Sonja, Graça, or Angela were waiting instead of me?

No, I will make sure to be on time whether it is Lula or you.

Why wouldn't you be more careful with them?

We are all human beings---nothing more, nothing less. That fact alone says we should be on time.

Regardless of the official title, political and financial power, you mean.

Of course. If any of them makes difference in observing punctuality, you are classifying human beings into several categories and that based on how much damage they can do to you. As I pointed out, it's intimidation and fear.

Just as you wouldn't pat Al on his shoulder for a good job, you wouldn't be a nano second late to our meeting. Is this it? I suspect you are one of those who would ensure not to wear kid-gloves when dealing with people in power. You wish not to be affected by any privilege that you happen to lack.

Bravo, comrade! You have a pretty good grip of my thoughts.

But suppose Sonja is your sister. You wouldn't mind being a bit late, would you?

I would. We should not abuse a relationship, just because it is one that we are obliged to keep: in this case, siblings.

True, we tend to be more careful with friends than with family members.

That is exactly what I call abuse of relationships.

We are more careful with lovers, but less so, once they become spouses.

It happens because the relationship is transformed from one that can be easily terminated to another that cannot.

Isn't there a honeymoon period for any relationship, though? When you are in the process of getting to know each other, you tend to be more considerate.

When we face someone whom we favorably view, but whose details are unknown to us, we exercise caution with the hope to establish a good relationship with that person. It can happen with something not so organic, such as a new city that we move into or a new position that we take on.

Lack of familiarity also means that we do not know the unpleasant aspects.

That is why a honeymoon period is possible with anything that we deal with; something new and different can bring us excitement, and some of the pitfalls are not evident at first sight.

Sadly enough, enthusiasm almost invariably wanes over time, even if we do not find anything grossly wrong with it.

That is indeed a sad fact of life.

I have heard of couples who met when they were 18 or so, immediately fell in love, and carried on with the same intensity for the rest of their lives.

Such anomalies aside, we tend to lose respect and care that we had at the initial stages of getting to know someone or something.

Some people cast all respect aside once they find out that I am not going to, or cannot, do any harm to them.

If you do not make them fear you, they would make you fear them. "I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

Thomas Hobbes!

People whom I trust without reservation are those who pay sufficient respect to all others in a constant and steady manner. The other side of the coin is that I do not trust people who are unnaturally nice to me at the beginning of relationships. Life would not be so bad, if it were easy to come across trustworthy people.

Is the temporary closing of this café also meant to be a sort of time-out for me?

Why do you think so?

I remember your telling me about the cough-cough, wink-wink, nudge-nudge strategy. Since then, you have been going back to it quite often. It has made me paranoid, even terrified. I think your favorite tactic belongs to what you have been condemning, namely, intimidation and fear. And my feeling is that Thomas would agree with me...

Praise unmasked

You said last time that dignity may not necessarily be the most important element in people's lives. If not, tell me what could be.

Have you brought a powder keg with you today? You strongly reek of it.

You may be thinking that I am belligerent, but you sound even more so! This is a great start for a conversation about dignity.

I was just teasing, trying to make things a bit lighter.

How can you make things light when you order tiramisù, mille feuille, appelgebak, Sachertorte, and Linzertorte, all at the same time?

In honor of the European Union...

But you have skipped many countries, and Austria is represented twice.

If we think about the House of Hapsburg, what we consider Austrian pastry covers quite a bit of ground.

You are trampling on political, historical and cultural sensibilities!

I was just kidding, you know that.

I can never be sure about you.

You don't trust me?

I was teasing. But, it's true that joking and teasing need trust in order to function as such. We talked about this in connection with stereotypes.

I believe that it is possible to say a friendly joke to a total stranger, though.

The trick is how to build that instant rapport. That does not imply that a short introductory exchange is a sine qua non. It is a matter of how you say it and which facial expression you adopt.

Circumstances, wording, voice, sharpness of the eyes, shrug or lack thereof, smile or lack thereof, laugh or lack thereof...

The good news is that it comes with so many conditional clauses that no self-help book can teach you what is right on all occasions.

Is that good? My suspicion is that some cultures are quite adept at it, while others aren't. I also suspect that what is taken as amicable in one culture is not so in others.

I used to be of that opinion, but lately, I have been thinking that if your intention is good, that shows in spite of cultural differences.

That's quite sweeping and optimistic, especially coming from you.

Do you remember my claim that maturity transcends cultural boundaries?

Hardly. ... Yes, yes, I do! I was just kidding.

That claim implies that teasing can be done artfully with anyone, even across cultures.

I recall that, because faux pas cannot be avoided, maturity is about how to make amends for it. Does that mean we should tell another joke when the first one turns out to be a dud?

In case of jokes that are perceived as offensive and/or tasteless, it is best to offer a sincere apology, I think. My point this time is that your intention gets conveyed most of the time.

I don't understand. You are now saying that teasing and jokes are almost failure proof.

No, my dear comrade, on the contrary. Many of them fail, because the little bits of nastiness almost always manage to manifest themselves.

Perhaps that is the purpose, to dress up a nasty remark and present it as a joke.

If so, you should be prepared for defense. In many problem cases that I witness, the words 'teasing' and 'joke' are used as shields when the nasty core is exposed.

"What are you getting all upset about, it's only a joke." "You have no sense of humor." ... Such lines would not count as proper defense.

If you are going to make someone uncomfortable with a joke, I presume that you are doing so with good reason. You'd better be prepared with another good biting joke to fend off the counterattack. This is another variant of my stance that the proof of maturity is in making amends.

I don't think the last example is exactly making amends, but yes, I understand your point. We have to take responsibility for what we say and that graciously, whenever possible. Getting back to nastiness shining through, do you mean to say that if there is none of it behind, people would sense so across cultural and social fences?

Yes.

In other words, if your intention is filled with affection and nothing else, the teased would understand as such?

It sounds rather simplistic and sugary, but yes, that is what I mean.

I know that you like everything complicated and rugged, so I stated your point on your behalf. And, this is what I get in return...

My tone should have made it clear that I agreed that it was the most efficient way of expressing the idea.

What can I say, I missed that.

It happened because you do not trust me as much as I thought you did. Good intentions have the power to come through, but not all the time. The same happens to bad intentions. That is why manipulation succeeds.

Aren't there variations in sensitivity among us in that sense?

I happen to be particularly fine-scaled in that regard.

Avoiding the expression, 'chips on one's shoulder,' eh?

I was avoiding the word, 'sensitive.' Once in a while, I react negatively to a remark for seemingly no good reason.

Your evil streak comes out.

That used to be my interpretation. But now I think it is because I sense lack of respect, behind the ordinary, or even sweet, words. Sometimes it is plain malice, more than lack of respect.

If it is not dignity, it's respect...

They are related, of course. To honor dignity is to show respect.

Hurray, we are back to dignity!

Some people shower me with praises, but...

Really? Can I meet them? Are they homo sapiens?

If they do not quite mean it, it shows. Some pose as sincere, but in fact, they are condescending.

Why does everything become so twisted when you are involved?

We are under this great misunderstanding that any praise would make anyone happy.

Not to worry. We know that you are an exception.

Many of us have not thought carefully about the premises of praising.

As you may have noticed already, not all of us list thinking hard as a favorite pastime.

Think about it...

I told you, many of us don't. ... Okay, I will keep quiet for a while.

To praise someone assumes that we have the capability to evaluate that person. In addition, by allowing our evaluation be known to its subject, who has not asked for any evaluation by us, we unilaterally declare authority over the evaluated. You wouldn't go up to Albert and say, "Hey, Al, good job, that theory of yours, the general theory of relativity. I thought that was quite nifty. Keep it up."

I can't. He's dead.

...

My knowledge is too limited to fully appreciate its contribution to modern physics, and further to natural science in general, not to speak of the underlying mathematics and its beauty. Hence, I wouldn't.

You see? You would think, "Who am I to tell Al that I think highly of him as if that would make a difference?"

The flip side of that is: if you commend a person, you are assuming that you are someone vis-à-vis her/him.

What if a person who does not have the capability to properly evaluate you gives you praise?

Are you again thinking of unwanted suitors?

I am thinking of a wider group of people, including them.

Most of us are not equipped with adequate knowledge to evaluate a case like yours, unless s/he has dabbled in clinical psychology or psychiatry. Plus, according to what you said earlier, if we have good intentions, shouldn't it come through?

Bravo, my dear comrade! Yes, it does. And, I can tell you that, in too many cases, I see patronizing or self-serving motives.

How does a self-serving motive work?

"I want to make this person feel good so that s/he would think that I am a very nice person." In some cases, it is meant to make up for a gaffe committed earlier. Curiously, the gaffe and the praise usually concern different areas. In yet other cases, it goes further: "If s/he thinks that I am so nice, s/he would fall in love with me."

According to your guiding principle of, "Deep down, we are constrained by our biological impulses," we cannot be any other way. We praise others, only because we ourselves want to feel better.

I agree. But as you may recall, civilization lies in how we control those impulses to fit our goals which may go counter to them. As for praises, we should make clear that our evaluation is based on our limited capability, that it concerns solely the object of evaluation, and that we are disclosing the evaluation without solicitation or permission.

If I say that much as a prelude to a praise, it would be awfully contrived, wouldn't it? Plus, there is nothing immoral about using praises to advance our own agenda.

Whether we have an agenda behind a praise or not, we want to be effective. That means, we want to sound genuine.

There is little use praising someone, if s/he sees your attitude of: "I am fully aware that you may find out that I don't believe in it, but I am saying it anyway..."

The art of praising is in how to convey the content of the 'prelude' with our choice of words, tone, gesture, timing, etc. If we are not careful, we would be effectively saying, "Our opinion of you is so valuable and important that it has the power to make you happy or unhappy." Put differently, we need to suppress our primal urge so as to transform the act into a selfless one and make it appear so.

What about distrustful people? You know that there are around, ahem.

The above approach should enable us to overcome distrust to a great extent. Mind you, they may not appreciate the words of praise on the spot, but I am confident that they will become aware of the good intentions over time.

I'm glad that it's awfully complicated and almost impossible after all.

Not so, comrade. Even with a blunder or two in the factors that I listed above, if we are selfless, I believe that it comes across as such. I would not say that the success rate would be 100%, but that is the case with anything in our world.

Three cheers for the simplicity that is so in a complicated way! Tell me, are there people who manage to utter a phrase of praise in the manner that you recommended?

If not, I would have said that all praises are phony.

Not counting yours, I mean.

...

Just kidding! A joke, une blague, una broma, een grapje...

"A joke is a very serious thing."

All right, Sir Winston to the rescue.

Dignity, and nothing else

Do you remember talking about relationships based on intimidation and fear?

I do. Your assessment was that some people are so used to the mode that they do not see it as anything bad.

It is convenient for many---which is rather scary, in my opinion---because it spares people from making judgments on their own. Some others have done the thinking for them, and they are willing to follow suit without careful consideration.

I'm afraid such people will always be with us. It does not necessarily have to be intimidation and fear; it could be crowd psychology which has its uses. Without it, we may never reach some kind of consensus.

I beg to differ. Every one of us can think independently, and still reach agreement through compromises. That is what democracy is all about. If we do not discourage crowd psychology, that amounts to allowing seedlings of totalitarianism to grow among us.

What about the problem of personality, though? You have implied that, in the end, what matters is personality, and that the strong ones dominate the others. We have to learn to live with that imperfection.

I agree. In other words, the problem is how to deal with strong characters which tend to steer the system to their liking. We should be equipped with penalties for dictator types.

Ah, that sounds like another avenue to totalitarianism, though, because in the ideal situation, nobody should be dominating or dominated, which suggests that everyone should be alike.

What we need is diversity and value criteria that do not favor the loud and the manipulative over the rest.

I can see that the loud is obviously so, but detecting the manipulative may not be as easy. It will be similar to asking a liar if s/he lies.

Talking about manipulative persons, I have noticed that most people don't mind being friends with them. First of all, manipulation requires intelligence, and that can be useful to the manipulated.

The manipulated is so, precisely because they are less cunning or smart than the manipulating. The manipulating can use their intelligence to the true good of the manipulated, if they wish so.

In other occasions, they use the intelligence to do damage. The interesting thing is that the manipulated count the manipulating as friends, even good friends.

Oh, s/he is sometimes not so nice, but other times s/he is. Is this how the thinking goes?

I presume so. They take it as a fact of life that people are not nice all the time.

But it is.

That may be so, but the problem here is that the manipulating is in total control of the emotional ups and downs of her/his targets.

Isn't that one of ignorance-is-bliss cases?

Could be. For me, it is painful and frustrating to see that some people's happiness is subject to the whims of the manipulating, who belong to the category of the wicked and the evil.

When you are smarter than others, it's difficult not to be manipulative, even if you are against such behavior. We know that one, right?

Children are manipulated by grown-ups, I think we can say that.

I'm not sure whether manipulation is a good term. We make use of child psychology, and that is different from manipulation.

On paper, they are not the same, but in the real world, there are many borderline cases.

Borderline cases... your favorite!

Think about a parent who wishes her/his child not to take up horse riding. The parent can complain about the bad smell---existent or nonexistent---after riding lessons until the child is totally convinced that s/he should stop going to the stable if s/he wants to keep her/his friends.

But then again, isn't the outcome dependent on the personality of the parent versus that of the child?

It is, but that does not take away the fact that there is manipulative element in what we call education and discipline. Recommendation alone can be used to encourage or discourage children to think in certain ways.

Well, education and discipline are, after all, imposing on children what adults think best; we cannot get rid of what could be considered manipulation.

We should, however, recognize that factor and try our best not to force any idea down the throat.

It sounds almost impossible. How can you teach ethics, for example? Usually, our minds are not negotiable when it comes to what is good or bad.

You could present your ethical values as the best possible system that you know, which could be improved upon. Certainly, it should not be taught as the universal truth.

Isn't that rather weak?

I think not. It is always good to know that your thoughts may have some unknown shortcomings. And, it is possible to openly admit so while maintaining firm belief in them.

Are you trying to tell me how to graciously change my ideas, if need be?

Not allowing leeway for yourself could put you in a quite awkward or ugly situation. Plus, it is difficult to trust people who go from one extreme to another, I think.

But extremes are attractive because of their simplicity.

Certainly. Extreme positions are often crowned with the adjective, 'pure'... Getting back to relationships, it surprises me that most people seem to think that slighting and hurting each other is a normal element in any relationship.

If people could stand psychological manipulation, it's not so surprising, is it?

True, the biggest surprise for me may be that people fail to recognize the manipulative and the abusive motives. They are also ready to go on as if nothing had happened after they hurt each other. That astonishes me as well.

Let me guess, you do not want any slighting or hurting, needless to say manipulating. That's not quite possible, you should know that.

In my mind, slighting, hurting, abusing, manipulating, etc. preclude close relationships if they know what they are doing. What if someone puts you down because s/he wants to feel better about her/himself?

That one again...

If someone is capable of doing so even once, trust for that person cannot be re-established, I would think. Consider a rather complicated case in which a friend of yours and you talk about relationships and you agree that such an act would destroy any relationship forever.

Good that we have like-minded people around.

What if that very person engages in that act of taking out her/his insecurity on you?

If we have talked about it explicitly, that is indeed serious.

What if s/he happens to be one of your best friends?

Does that change how wrong the act is?

It doesn't, but the impact is bigger, because it is someone whom you trusted. There is another case which happens, I suspect, more specifically to me.

Which is...?

They start with an assumption that I am ignorant and stupid.

What can I say---who can blame them?

In my mind, they have made an inexcusable mistake at that point already, namely, they have violated the rule of treating every person so as to preserve her/his dignity.

Tell me the next offense.

They are very aggressive toward or dismissive of my opinion, until one day, they realize that I am not that dumb and start treating me a bit more nicely.

Shouldn't they be forgiven then?

I would say this is a variant of intimidation and fear. Only after they learn that I have the mental capacity that is equal or superior to theirs, I emerge as a full human being in their world.

At least, they acknowledge it.

There is another problem. If they happen to put me in their very-smarty category, they start taking my views as the best without examining them.

From one extreme to another, eh?

We do more or less the same with the information that we have no means of verifying. We all have favorite television and radio programs, newspapers, and websites, and we take what they present as accurate, unbiased description of the topic, most of the time.

How can we be absolutely sure that it wasn't Bill's double who went to Pyongyang? The rumor has it that the one who talked to Kim Jong-Il did not crack a single joke.

Comrade, that is not worth pursuing... Anyway, if the concern is something to which we have roughly equal access in terms of relevant information, we should not cede our right and duty to think and make a judgment on our own.

I see, they turn unnecessarily submissive from being wrongly dismissive. In short, they commit three grave crimes.

There's more.

Oh, no!

What if they become frustrated because I do not want to be friends with them?

You may have to forgive, you know.

Forgive? Should I be friends with people who turn nice only after I was able to appear---and that in their eyes---not as a total idiot, and who are most likely to commit the same crimes against others?

Perhaps some of them have changed for good.

The soul of a three year old until a hundred. What is learned in the cradle is carried to the grave. Ce que poulain prend en jeunesse, il le continue en vieillesse. Lo que se aprende en la cuna, siempre dura.

Shhhh, calm down. Shall we talk about experience, learning and all that next time?

It's about dignity, the most important thing in our lives. How come that most people don't care, their own or others'?

That may be because dignity as the most important aspect in life is your universal truth, and not the universal truth, you see...

Dictated by internal math

It looks like you survived another session of personal details.

After all, we all eat, sleep, and play, work or study. Most of us have friends and families. Our experiences ought to be similar. In turn, it means that we should be able to identify and sympathize with almost anyone on earth.

If I remember correctly, you could no longer bear listening to what you just described as common experiences of humanity.

I can explain myself better. It's the dose...

The very best food stays that way only if you stop eating it while you still want more of it.

...and the perspective that are crucial.

The view, the light, the angle... Anything can be interesting when its picture is taken by a gifted photographer, put on stage by a talented company, performed by an artistic musician, or told by a skillful storyteller. Come to think of it, the adjective, oblique, means indirect or evasive.

If something is not of an oblique angle, it is of a right angle or a multiple of a right angle.

I don't think it implies that being direct is correct.

It certainly depends on the situation, but I am of the opinion that insinuations are much more effective in the long run than making your thoughts too clear.

Think about the chill that runs along the spine when the message is finally understood!

That chill can be from joy or... It is effective, because it makes you realize that you had stayed ignorant up to that point. In other words, you have made a fool of yourself. Since the message is indirect, you start examining the situation yourself, and that gradually. It is almost like taking slow-working medicine/poison unknowingly before going to bed every night.

And one day... Quelle horreur ! Ah non, quelle joie ! It could be that, too, I hope.

It is powerful, because you reach the conclusion on your own.

We would not want to put a good friend in that position if the message is negative, do we?

That is true, but there are limits, as always. I don't want to tell a person that I get tired of listening to the-tip-of-my-cat's-tail-hasn't-been-quite-right, I-am-spending-too-much-time-on-the-phone-but-I-don't-know-what-to-do, I-thought-Barber-A-was-decent-but-he-isn't-and-I-much-prefer-Barber-Z-now, all-my-neighbors-are-either-boring-or-nasty, my-distant-relative-who-lives-far-away-ran-away-from-home, etc., etc., etc. That would make me an evil person.

It's all about you, eh? Don't you care about the person to whom you would be saying that?

As I said, I would never say anything like that. I know that I would feel very bad, thinking about the psychological damage that I would have inflicted. And, that is the deterrent.

Put differently, you don't want to make someone feel bad, because that would make you feel bad---correct?

The most reliable source of our actions is biological impulses that directly concern ourselves.

Not again!

Sadly, we will always go back to that one. But don't get it wrong, it certainly does not mean that we are all destined to act like savages.

I thought almost everyone expect us was a savage...

The trick is to how to program morality into your biology.

How can you do that?

Emotions are based on biochemical reactions, and we can train ourselves so that we would feel psychological pain when we envisage engaging in immoral acts.

Do I have to sign up for a brain-washing camp?

Some of our psychological reactions are innate, but we can also experience an event that creates a response pattern to similar ones.

The stronger the emotions invoked by an event are, the more entrenched that pattern would be. If it is too negative, it can wreck you for good. Is this how it works?

In order to make use of our biological processes to meet our needs, conscious management of our emotions is required.

May I ask how you manage yours, ahem?

It may sound trivial, but just summarizing your experience in words in your mind reinforces your view of it.

This was good, I would like to do it again. That was bad, I hope I don't have to get into that situation any more. If I do, I would like to act differently. That kind of stuff?

Exactly, our thoughts are based on biochemical reactions, just as emotions are.

Thinking about what you want to do would help realizing it. I think we talked about this one.

That was more about life goals, but the principle applies to mundane acts as well. Anyway, are you now convinced that the very source of our behavior is biology, but the mechanism is alterable by our conscious efforts to do so?

Doesn't it mean, though, that we only do what brings us pleasure?

In effect, yes.

I know that I wouldn't feel good if I leave dirty dishes in the sink overnight, but I occasionally do.

I would say that the pain of washing the dishes immediately is larger than the pain of seeing them next morning still dirty. It may appear like a stupid act, but I don't think it is.

Really?

Lately, I have been amazed how complicated a calculation we carry out on deciding what to do.

Aren't the calculations sometimes wrong?

I used to think that way, but I no longer believe so. You may not be able to verbalize how you reached your conclusion, but your mind with all the biological inputs have done the intricate calculation for you. You choose to let the dirt on your dishes cake overnight if the biochemical output says so.

Where is my consciousness, then?

It is possible that on certain occasions you think, "No, I don't want to see caked food on my dishes tomorrow morning. I am going to do the dishes tonight." Your conscious thinking makes you overcome your unconscious thinking.

If both thinking are biochemical, shouldn't the result be the same at any time?

I guess your willingness to wash the dishes right away is weak. Not entrenched, so to speak. Sometimes the chemicals work to make that feeling strong, other times not. If you think about it more strongly, I am sure that you will be able to trigger that reaction every time.

What about drug addiction and such? Many people do want to quit, but many also do not manage.

We do need our will, but the environment affects it. For example, what if there is no prospect of finding a job, even for drug-free people? It is better to stay addicted and feel good. There is little incentive to quit, and that diminishes our desire to do so.

I'd say that is the same with people who engage in one crime after another.

I agree. Some people know that there is little to lose by engaging to criminal acts. They may not be able to explain it so, but their desperation is supported by nothing other than their biochemical reactions in their mind. We all do intricate math in our heads without knowing its precise mechanism.

We can run without being able to explain how to move which muscle at a given moment. It's akin to that.

We also know people who remain in so-called bad relationships. I'd say that they have done their calculations, too, and the outcomes tell them to keep the relationships.

You can listen to others' complaints and pretend that you are a nice person, as long as you can complain to me about them---is this what you are implying?