Revealing the true nature of baby talks

In your opinion, a person who behaves nicely only toward her/his lover/s cannot be trusted. Correct?

Yes, and there are many such people!

Again, in your opinion, a person who behaves nicely toward her/his superiors, but nasty toward her/his subordinates cannot be trusted.

Absolutely not, and there are tons of such people!

Once again, in your opinion, a person who evaluates others' capability based on their looks cannot be trusted.

An emphatic no!

And, in your opinion, a person who manipulates others to her/his benefit unless they show resistance cannot be trusted, right?

I'm getting nauseous.

Also in your opinion, a person who assumes that others are idiots until they prove otherwise cannot be trusted.

No, no, no and no!

Oops, one more. In your opinion, a person cannot be trusted if s/he derives comfort from informing you of her/his judgment that you are inferior to her/him?

The scary thing is that someone who claims to care about you may engage in this very act.

Is that why you have been dwelling on this topic?

...

Tell me all about it!

In my opinion, a person who values satisfaction of her/his curiosity more than respecting others' sense of privacy, however strict that may be, cannot be trusted.

In my humble opinion, one is less convincing if s/he cannot provide the details.

I disagree. Thoughts in general terms are often more powerful than those on individual incidents. By definition, they are supposed to be about commonalities and not anomalies. Generalization also allows us to be less emotionally attached and more objective.

Sweeping generalizations can get quite absurd, though... Anyway, did I miss any case of no respect in everyday life?

Before we get into what has been left out, let me say that people who belong to any of the above category do not understand the concepts of respect and human dignity.

The principles of respect and dignity apply universally to all human beings. Is this what you mean?

Exactly. These are the concepts that should not depend on the characteristics of each person, but only on the fact that s/he is a human being.

But isn't it natural that we are nicer to people that we like?

In terms of being considerate and forgiving, etc., we should not treat people differently.

Are you sure about that?

I am. It is not on such moral issues that we should differentiate the ones whom we care for from others.

You wouldn't deny, though, that you are nicer to people whom you are fond of.

The problem lies in the word 'nice.' Suppose I know all the rock bands that my lover likes. I can keep an eye on all of them: when a new album is going to be released, which magazine interviewed them, and so on. I cannot do the same for others, simply because I do not know their music preferences. As a result, I end up being nicer to my lover than to others. This is an example of what you have categorized as 'being nice'; applying different sets of moral codes to various people is something else.

Put differently, save such actions that require specific knowledge of that person, your lover should be treating everyone the same, and that naturally includes you.

Only then, I feel I can trust my lover.

Really? How can you tell that a lover is actually a lover in such cases?

I can't, and I like it that way.

I knew there was something grossly strange about you!

What we are focusing here is morality. Remember, we should regard interactions that necessitate moral judgment separately from other interactions. On moral issues, we all should be treated the same. On other issues, such as taste and temper, people who are closer to us have more information about us and would interact with us differently.

Do you think your assertion above applies to forgiving as well? Proximity can make forgiving more difficult or easy. I have seen both cases.

When we see the same person day in and day out, her/his small habits can get on our nerves.

I know that I cannot stand certain ways of gargling.

You see? On the other hand, you are more likely to forgive someone who is close to you, because you do not want to lose that closeness.

In short, we should judge an awful way of gargling by the person who happens to share the bed with us as if it were someone whom we saw once a month. Do you also think that we should judge infidelity of our lovers as if it concerned some other couple?

In principle, yes. Whether we are capable of exercising such detachment is another issue.

Your attitude can be abused, I think. For example, my lover may stick to a particular manner of gargling, knowing that it drives me nuts, because I am supposed to tolerate it according to your principles.

Just like any relationship, efforts should come from both sides, and your lover should try to make it easier for you to stay in the relationship.

Lack of such efforts is a declaration of war, then!

It may not be that aggressive, but I agree that it amounts to admitting that the relationship is of little importance.

By the way, you had in mind another type of people who disregard dignity.

They are the ones who engage in baby talk.

I thought baby talks were signs of endearment.

You are wrong! The subjects are treated as if they were morons.

Isn't it true that children and pets do not understand adult conversation?

That does not mean that we should talk down to them. You shouldn't say anything to a child that you wouldn't to an adult.

What about the kind of encouragement that children need?

We praise adults for work that is sub-optimal for the purpose of encouragement, and we can do the same for children. That is, in a manner that respects children as persons.

What kind of attitude is of concern to you, then?

Exaggerated reactions that become condescending, including loud voice. I don't know why, but in some cultures, mothers jack up their volume when they talk to their children. And it's mostly non-sense that they babble.

Do you think they should discuss P = NP problem instead?

Honestly, I think that is far better than something like, "THERE GOES A RED CAR! WHEEEEEEE! THAT WAS FAST, HUH? DO YOU THINK THAT WAS FASTER THAN THE MINI CAR YOU HAVE AT HOME? ... WHAT DO YOU THINK? PROBABLY FASTER, HUH? A LOT FASTER, HUH?''

You know, I think you are more bothered by the loudness rather than the content.

There is an intelligent way to make an observation about the speed of a car, and as far as I am concerned, the monologue by a mother that I just reproduced for your benefit does not fit the bill. The real problem is not the lack of intelligence, but dumbing down.

Perhaps that mother is stupid.

If so, that is also a problem, because I see too many of them around. Anyway, I am more than certain that she would relate the same incident differently if she were with a friend of her age.

You think the world is filled with such mothers, simply because they annoy you.

In some other cultures, it is rather the opposite; mothers are dismissive of everything children do.

No carrots and only sticks?

In the extreme, indeed that is what happens. They believe that telling the children how clumsy and stupid they are is the most effective way to motivate them to acquire skills and knowledge. I'd say no respect in such cases, either.

In your world, it is awfully difficult to find people who are capable of respecting others.

Who said it was easy? I only said that respect and dignity are the most important aspects in our lives...

Familiarity poses a limit to Operation Mosquito Sting

Humiliation by a stranger is easier to handle than by someone we know.

I suppose you are thinking about a dirty look or name-calling on the street.

Most likely we will not see the "aggressor" again, so we don't have to worry about what to do then.

We tend to treat people whom we know with kid gloves anyway.

Are you sure about that? I'd say it depends on the culture. Some cultures mold people to be more polite to strangers and some other the other way around.

The rationale for each strategy is...?

For the former, you take the safest approach not to offend the person whose hotspots are unknown to you. For the latter, you take extra care, because someone is closer and matters more to you.

You said last time that we can maintain our dignity by acting as if the humiliating act were a mere mosquito sting; whether the "aggressor" is a stranger or an acquaintance should not matter.

The problem is a bit more complicated if we are more or less forced to have close relationships with the person in question. Neighbors, classmates, colleagues, friends, family members...

Relationships with such people can vary widely, but they are certainly closer than strangers are to us. You were of the opinion that people who are closer to us have a much bigger chance of hurting us, and we are also prone to hurt them more easily. Doesn't that depend on the culture, as you implied earlier today?

I think not. Even when culture codes instruct us to be more careful with people whom we know than with people whom we do not know, proximity makes hurting more of a profound nature.

You also said when someone hurts us badly or frequently, it becomes difficult to trust that person.

It is also very difficult to spend more than a few fleeting moments with a person whom you cannot trust.

I guess I can keep a courteous distance from her/him, if s/he were a neighbor, a classmate, or a colleague.

You guessed it right. It becomes a problem for a family member or a very close friend with a long history, whom we are obliged to see at family or social gatherings. If we skip such gatherings, there will be some blaming going around.

What if the personalities are such that, despite the legal and/or biological relatedness, the parties involved simply do not get along?

Ah, so you have noticed how much people complain about parents, children, spouses, in-laws...

What should we do when our dignity is damaged by one of those people? Your suggestion was to stick to the mosquito-sting interpretation.

I am beginning to think that it may not work with these super-close people. They think they know the other party so well in these relationships, while Operation Mosquito Sting works only if the "aggressors" are observant enough.

These relationships will endure come what may in the foreseeable future, and that makes us less careful and observing about each other. In some cases, people know that they have committed an offense but ignore it, because they know that the other party will come back.

You see that it is truly a toxic mix? Because we are closer, we have more information about each other. Because we are closer, our psychological barriers are lower. Because we are closer, our efforts to restore our dignity may not even be recognized. And, because we are closer, we have plenty of instances in which we are obliged to come face to face.

Do you think Bill ever apologized to Hillary?

Do you think it could have made any difference? Anyway, I do not want to be a serial victim.

Or a serial offender!

When we cough up the courage and finally tell the offender, who happens to be super close to you, that s/he has hurt our dignity, the reaction is usually to play it down.

Not only that. The offender can get angry.

Isn't that curious? Sometimes, we are even told that it is our problem if our dignity has been damaged.

Nobody likes to be criticized, and if a criticism comes from someone they felt comfortable with or they thought were "on their side," it becomes something like a proclamation of betrayal.

By the way, we tend to think that the smaller the number of members involved in the group, the more intimate and the stronger the relationships.

Why not? The vast majority of deep conversations is tête à tête.

We forget that there are occasions when we have to cool off. If it is a big group, we can turn to others whom we do not have conflict with, and that often prevents us from being driven to an irrevocable split. We can stay in the group for the sake of other members, even if we cease to communicate with the offender.

It is not good to belong to a big group that satisfies all our needs because we would stop trying to reach out to more different types of people---didn't you say that?

My focus here is a kind of group to which we have no recourse but to belong, e.g., family. As we all know, "[h]e who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." It holds not only for society, but for family as well.

Good, old Aristotle.

When the membership is compulsory and for a lifetime, it is best if the group contains diverse members and has the capacity to let off steam. Even as a child, I could see that there are benefits to be part of a bigger family.

How so?

My parents, my siblings and I lived with my grandparents, my two aunts and my grandparents' housekeeper for a while. When my mother denied me ice cream on a hot summer day, I knew I could turn to my grandmother.

It's all about ice cream, then!

Not only that. I could tell that there does not exist anything like "the correct" way for anything, because when I posed the same question to different adults separately, they gave me various responses. I believe that it gave me a more balanced view of the world.

That may be true, but haven't you heard of Aunt We-Are-A-Good-Family and Uncle No-Arguing-In-the-Family-Please heading factions and dividing the big clan?

"Man is by nature a political animal."

Aristotle strikes again!