The Proof is in the packaging

Look, my crème caramel today has a rather big hole in its side.

Let me see... It sure does, but I'm certain that it will be as good-tasting as the one you ordered last time.

...

Come on, aren't you complaining about something insignificant here?

It's true that a hole does not affect the overall taste, but in terms of presentation, it has failed.

... Comrade, I just decided to enter your name in the King and Queen of Crankiness Contest.

It's not a matter of crankiness! If you are thinking that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, you are gravely mistaken.

What if the pudding looks nice, but tastes bad?

All right, you have a point, too. But, the presentation, the packaging and the like play a much bigger role than we usually are aware of.

It's your urge to dig out the unsung heroes and bring them to the limelight...

The problem is bigger than that. We tend to underestimate the value of appearance, because we are taught to judge anything by its content.

It's good, because it means that we are acting as we are supposed to.

It's bad, because we are under the wrong impression that we attach little importance to the way things look.

I don't judge a book by the cover, either in literal or figurative sense.

I'm sure that you have bought a book, or at least took one in your hands, because the cover looked interesting. It could be that the title was intriguing.

Am I supposed to be interested in a book with awful covers and inane titles, and not others?

I didn't say that, but that given a choice, we would pick one with the presentation that arouses our curiosity.

I may take a look at a book that goes against my aesthetics in a far-fetched way. In other words, I would examine a copy because its unpleasantness makes me want to know its creator or source, but would not purchase it or read it carefully.

You see, you are greatly influenced by the appearance.

I thought you have been telling us that we shouldn't be.
 

We shouldn't be if the appearance has nothing to do with the qualities that we seek. However, the looks have the tendency to sneak into our decision making in an inconclusive way. Suppose we have two candidates for the job of a receptionist. One is competent and emotionally stable, but does not come across as your long-lost uncle. Another is less competent and panics rather easily, but has the looks of a Mr. Triangulum Galaxy. Which candidate would you choose?

Would Mr. Triangulum Galaxy have three eyes or two?

Let's say he comes with the features of normal homo sapiens, and they are of a high grade according to our criteria.

I think it greatly depends on the culture, because the case we are discussing could be cast as a question of long-term versus short-term interest. I bet that the societies with longer-term views would choose the former, and the shorter-term ones the latter.

We eventually get used to nice looks, so I'd imagine that the companies which put more weight on the looks wouldn't mind getting another receptionist when the current one quits after a short period. ... Hey, I think I figured out why we get bored with pretty faces easily.

Some of us burn ourselves out with jealousy, before getting used to having nice-looking people around.

Jealousy from not being as beautiful ourselves, jealousy from their attracting so much more attention than we do... But why do you think we get bored with beautiful people?

Are you sure we get bored with someone if s/he has the personality of our dreams and happens to have the looks of Ms. or Mr. Milky Way?

I told you, we get used to their looks! The problem is that they have one handsome face and no more. Suppose your lover is a nice-looking being, whose feature changes from day to day. You wouldn't get bored so easily.

It will be confusing if James Dean goes to bed and wakes up in the morning to find a John Wayne in the mirror instead of James.
 
Aren't you grateful that we are spared of such confusion? But it also means that we can get awfully used to good-looking persons.

I think we get used to any good quality, unfortunately.

True, but personality differs from looks in that it manifests in many different ways, depending on the circumstances.

Whereas an attractive smile is just that, you mean? Doesn't it imply that we get less bored with people if they are more expressive of their emotions?

We know that many occasions call for moderation in that department if we are to act as mature members of the society.

... We'd better get back to the discussion of whether appearance matters at all.

As the receptionist case shows, we may well take the appearance of a person into account, although the job description would not stipulate so.

I don't think any modern society would allow us to write: Good looks may be substituted for lack of competence and/or experience.

Exactly, but it does not mean that we avoid such decisions. "Oh, Candidate No. 1 may be able to field a wider range of questions, but Candidate No. 2 has such a happy smile that we would get more visitors to the company if he sits at the entrance."

The conclusions is...
 
While we are taught not to be fooled by the looks, our emotional states are affected by them. We do make decisions in which the looks play a much bigger role than we are willing to acknowledge.

That's one. What about your original proposition that the proof is in the packaging?

Have you ever tried to give a rather inexpensive gift to someone because you don't want to spend too much money?

You shouldn't talk about your experience as if it were mine!

You agonize over it, because you don't want to look too cheap...

That's you, not me!

Have you ever succeeded in making the recipient happy with a sub-optimal gift by putting it in a pretty box and wrapping it nicely?

It sounds like your friends are extremely lenient with you.

Don't you have the experience at the receiving end yourself? When you think about it carefully, the content is not great, but it gave you good feelings because it was presented artfully?

Is that what you were trying to do with a box of apples in gaudy paper that you gave to me the other day?

My principle in gift-giving is to aim for either practicality or pure entertainment. Somewhere in the middle is awfully troublesome. Suppose you want to give a present to an art loving friend. You want to give her/him something artsy, but preferably something unknown to her/him and yet to her/his taste.

We know how odiously difficult that is. Is that your excuse for your choice of apples?

By the way, art is all about packaging.

Are you trying to tell me that even C grade photographs could become B grade by presenting them in A grade frames?

What I meant is: art itself is nothing but repackaging of reality. Think about the Impressionist paintings. The objects and the sceneries that they chose to paint were not very different from their predecessors', but their innovative manner of painting has allowed us to see them differently from the previous schools and also from what we see with our own eyes.

The Monastery of Saint-Paul-de-Mausole is pretty in itself, but it has much less impact to me than Vincent Van Gogh's paintings of it. The same with Claude Monet's garden in Giverny and its paintings by him.

Similarly, we can say that the photographs capture the images that we may have seen, but never stopped to observe and admire. They tend to alter the reality much less compared to paintings, but still the photographers have the freedom in choosing the object, the angle, and the lighting, etc.

What about narratives?

Some time ago, I read a non-fictional account of a Resistance fighter during the Second World War. The story was not trivial; many people disappeared or got killed, and uncertainty and fear were always there. I was not familiar with the events described, and the writing was not bad either. But I felt so bored, and couldn't wait to get to the end so that I could start reading another book.

You take it as a piece of evidence that the presentation of events matters.

I do, although I still can't tell what was exactly wrong with that book. I even felt guilty for being bored with it.

What about performance arts? They provide us with something we do not see or hear on a daily basis.

Those could be called extensions of reality, perhaps. We do see and make bodily movements as well as hear and create tunes in our everyday life. The extraction of their finest elements and the extrapolations of them are what we know as dance, theater and music.

Can we say that they show us the distilled versions of reality?

"Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth./L'art est un mensonge qui nous permet de dévoiler la vérité."

Pablo, again...

Most communication, too, depends on how you say it. Politeness may be something on the surface, but it counts.

We can turn hypocritical, though.

Yes, but genuine attempts for politeness have the ability to change our thoughts accordingly.

... Hurray, it's the surface, the packaging, the wrapping, the ribbons, the bubbles in your crème caramel, the...

You know that not-so-nice looking people can be awfully attractive by properly packaging her/himself. I don't only mean clothes---and those do not need to be expensive---but the attitude, the outlook, the mind...

Wait, wait, you are now talking about the contents of a person.

The attitude, the outlook and so on are how we see and present the whole world to others. Our views are the results of our filtering and rearranging of what we see and hear; we repackage the reality.

... Hurray... it's... it's... the end of the year!

And we are so different, because we are so alike

We harbor about the same amount of nastiness inside us, but it is subject to modification by training on how to express it.

That is more or less where we left off last time, but I can't quite agree with the first part of that statement. Some babies are go-getters while some others are slackers, and that without any urging from the grown-ups.

True. But compared to the differences that we see later in their lives, aren't they more alike than ever?

Come to think of it, personal variations tend to increase as we age. Then, they start diminishing as we reach our old age, particularly if we become senile.

Is that meant to scare me---it implies that we revert to what we had been. Now I remember my grandparents wanting to eat more and more of what they used to eat in their childhood as they grew older.

If your strengths lie in physical activities, your prime time will pass early. As an athlete or a dancer, you can stay involved in the capacity of a coach or a choreographer, but there is no denying that you will be delegated to the backstage.

You can't blame me that I am an ageist, can you... Back to the topic of personal variations, our environment cannot plant in us what we are not born with, but they have tremendous influence in attenuating and accentuating what we do possess. Not everybody can be a professional tennis player, but respect for others, for example, can be inculcated.

Well, we need some people to organize tournaments, manufacture rackets, and so on.

Personal events have great power to shape who we are, while that power wanes as we age. In other words, there are two sides to maturity. You may be mature enough not to be disturbed by certain happenings, but it may also mean that you are too rigid to be corrected by them.

Is that meant to scare me---you are saying that there is a very fine line between maturity and inflexibility.

Genuine maturity should come with the ability to sort out meaningful events from others, but again, we have the tendency to become too selective in this regard over time. Let's turn to another factor that constitutes our environment: culture. Various cultures have their own ways to cope with our ugly side. Some condone it more than others.

Are you ranking cultures here?

I wish I could, because then, life would be easier.

Isn't it better to condone what we are born with rather than suppress it?

I didn't know that you are one of the people who consider anything natural is good. Well, it's not so unnatural of you to think so, because we are in that phase in history. After a flurry of activities to go in one direction always comes another in the opposite direction.

The technological progress in the past two centuries had the aim to subdue nature so that they would be of greater use to us. Lately in the developing world, we are seeing movements to live more along with nature. Recycling and composting, organic farming, local procurement of foodstuff, electronic cars, solar heating, power generation from wind and geothermal sources, search for wonder drugs in exotic plants...

Anger and hate come to us naturally without any instruction. Do you think it is better not to do anything about them?

I'd say that it is necessary to be angry against and hateful of certain things, for instance, discrimination based on attributes which are secondary to the question at hand.

That reminds me of a classmate who said that women should not major in chemical engineering.

Huh?

That was my reaction, too. When I asked him why, he said that it was because women could not haul by themselves the gas tanks required for experiments, and thus, were burden to male students.

Doesn't that imply that all disabled people should be killed because they are burden to the society?

I shall not disclose where he received his prior education... In any case, being angry about injustice can be destructive, too. Our anger shocks the other party and directs their attention to us, but it also tends to invoke anger on their side. If we are to make good use of anger, we should have control over it.

It should be measured and to the point, you mean... What about hatred?

I'm afraid that there is not much use for it.

Can't we show our commitment to justice by hating injustice?

Perhaps, but I think it only alienates people who engage in injustice.

I agree that we need to be under control in order to take advantage of our negative emotions inherent in us. But doesn't it deprive us of spontaneity in the good sense as well?

Bravo, comrade. If we are in control all the time, it makes us boring or unattractive.

Good news for a change! We should let ourselves go once in a while. We don't have to watch over ourselves every second.

One problem is how to select such moments.

But that itself takes away the casualness!

Another problem is how to remain spontaneous after choosing the moments to be so.

Comrade...

Did you expect life to be easy?

Not for you, obviously.

Isn't it amazing how much our cultural and personal environments can shape us to be so different, starting from the same basic material? The situation is further complicated by the fact that we greatly differ in how susceptible we are to such modifications.

Comrade...

I know a set of siblings who are close in age and grew up together in several continents because of their father's occupation. Some have become a true motley of cultures that they have been exposed to, while others are as if they had never left their home country.

... They must be looking forward to their old age when they become more alike.

Did you know that susceptibility to change by environment can be strengthened or weakened, depending on the environment itself?

...

Have you noticed that the more alike we are, the more we try to differentiate ourselves?

I know that one. Each country is often subject to its own fads, but within those fads, people try so hard to stand out.

If showing your tail is considered cool, almost everyone would be doing so, but some would show only the tip of it, some would tie a ribbon around it, some would tattoo it...

Tails...? A tattoo on a tail...? Are you talking about your friends from the Triangulum Galaxy?

We don't have to go that far. The Jews and the Arabs, the Hausa and the Yoruba, the Hutus and the Tutsis, the Welsh and the English, the Croats and the Serbs, the Georgians and the Russians, the Indians and the Pakistanis, the Japanese and the Koreans, the Americans and the Canadians, they are more alike than they care to admit, but if we mistake one for the other...

Unless they find it beneficial to form a united front.

As is the case with the Orthodox Jews and the conservative Muslims in the East End of London. Facing the outside world, they realized how much they share in terms of way of life.

After all, one can be Lev, Essad and Kurban, all at the same time.

You are just like me

Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.

I thought we were over that issue.

I thought so, too. I had even reached the conclusion that we all are the same at the very core.

Hmmm, may I ask what the similarities could be between my next door neighbor and Johnny Hallyday?

They're both persons.

Comrade...

At the precocious age of nine, I wondered why factories that pollute air and water remained in operation, knowing that they were destroying the environment and harming people's health and lives. I couldn't understand why the polluters were not willing to stop even after learning about the deaths that they caused.

I don't think Johnny was there to give a charity concert on behalf of the victims.

I kept thinking hard and realized that it was just fate that some happened to be owners and others workers and residents. It could have been the other way around.

By a slight of hand of Fortuna, or her wink, tick, nod, snort, cough, sneeze...

It occurred to me that all involved were fighting for the same thing, but that without realizing.

How so?

The factory owners needed to support their families and so did the residents. Closing down the factories would help the locals, but not the owners. Allowing them open would help the owners, but not the people who live in the area. I thought they ought to have a frank talk. "Look, we wish to stay healthy and buy nice gifts for our children, and so do you. All of us desire the same. We should work together."

Instead of recognizing their commonality, they were driven by their own immediate needs.

Later, I learned that the people in capitalist countries thought that the communist regimes must be doing a better job in protecting the environment, while the people in communist countries thought that capitalism must be superior.

In both systems, people in power are driven more by personal interest than by common good; neither has a clearly better record than the other.

I went as far as to say that the amount of evilness we carry in ourselves are more or less the same.

Obviously, you can't say we are all Hitler or all Mother Teresa, and in fact, they are no different from each other!

I do not disagree with that. Apart from personal variations, we have about the same amount of tendency to be mean and cruel.

And how big the variations are! Your statements are meaningless, I'm afraid.

My claim is that we grossly differ in how we are trained to suppress and conceal them. Some of such tricks we learn as part of our culture, and some others we pick up based on our individual experiences.

So your conclusion is that we are the same, and yet different in exhibiting that sameness.

You can say that. Nastiness can be hidden somewhere. For example, Culture Cherry may inculcate politeness. Suppose Cherry People happen to have little contact with the outside world. When they encounter Apple People, some would extend the politeness, but others could be outright impolite.

Doesn't it depend on whether Apple People are considered on par with Cherry People?

It is dependent on each Cherry person, whether s/he thinks politeness is a virtue with or without conditional clauses. Especially, if Culture Apple does not discipline its people to conceal nastiness as much, it encourages Cherry People to show their meanness as they come to contact with it.

We often mistake that Cherry People will be polite whatever the circumstances, but that is not true.

Cherry People may retain their politeness because they are inflexible and cannot change their behavior, or because they examine the situation and conclude that the same principle should be applied to Apple People. Politeness could be either unconscious or conscious.

Put differently, some Cherry People may unknowingly extrapolate their rule on politeness to Apple People, but they may also abandon it without knowing if Apple People are impolite.

We cannot avoid being influenced by our surroundings, and that especially if we have not thought about that possibility. In any case, the point was that I thought I could say that we are the same if we are to abandon our conventions.

That's a big 'if,' isn't it?

It is... And I already know that it is not true, because conventions have the power to become our true intentions if practiced for a long time.

You mean, we can become genuine devils by vigorous training which aims for that? Or saints through appropriate training?

Yes, I am quite certain that some cultures are adept at suppressing certain negative emotions and that for good.

But you have been telling me that people cannot fundamentally change!

I realize that the statement needs some qualifications. Cultures shape us while growing up.

In other words, some Cherry kids become genuinely polite and some Apple kids truly impolite?

Yes. I think we are born with about the same amount of evilness, but that can be suppressed, even eliminated, depending on the way we are brought up to see human relationships and the world. Once we reach that critical age of eighteen, most of us become set in that aspect. Either as children or adults, we can only imagine that others would be like us, but when very young, we still have the flexibility to understand and incorporate ways that are totally different from ours.

I thought we all wanted to think that others are inferior to us in one way or another, not exactly like us.

We harbor the contradictory idea that we are all alike and yet we are the best among them. It is fascinating that the contradiction is so common.

What about young children who think that their parents are the best people in the world?

That is an important exception, and so are the lovers who are in adoration of each other.

Those cases aside, we think that we are at least in one aspect better than the people whom we know. At the same time, we think that they are just like us?

Just like us in the sense that we are constrained in imagining the motivations that drive behavior. Lately, I have been witnessing exasperation among people who wish to understand me.

... Who can blame them?

Themselves, because I am consistent.

In your own wicked way...

It is interesting to observe people trying little gimmicks to get my attention and failing. They keep on going in circles as if blinded by a blizzard.

You are wicked!

Well, the insults and lies meant to discredit and hurt me cannot be made up by telling me that the bread that I brought---it was a cake, mind you---was delicious, or by smiling emphatically and being chummy with me more than usual.

Sounds like you are back in elementary school.

Doesn't it? I was wondering why they resort to such means and why they are surprised that those fall flat.

Isn't it because they think that you are at that level?

That did pass my mind, but I came to the conclusion that it is not the case. I am certain that they themselves are at that very level and cannot think of other levels or types of motivation and behavior.

Don't we all suffer from that problem, though? Suppose I come across a person who is addicted to drugs. If I learn her/his background, I would probably understand how s/he came to be an addict, but not how s/he has failed to kick the habit.

You are right. There are many cases for which we would say, "Yes, yes, yes, I understand. But, why doesn't he go for the Obvious Solution?" "Well, that's not what he wants." "But, he wants to get out of the current state, right?" "Yes, but the Obvious Solution is not the one for him, apparently..."

Hence, your withdrawal of the statement that we are all the same at the core.

We are very much limited by who we are in understanding others. People who expect to have official rules bent for themselves would do so for you in return. Many do not understand that I am against such actions, even after hundreds of my refusal to take part in them.

I know that you are not talking about some country at the bottom of the list composed by Transparency International...

It can get pretty explicit, too. Once I found out what Monsieur Untel planned to do to Madame Unetelle, and I could not hide my astonishment. Monsieur Untel assured me not to worry, because he did not plan to do the same to me.

You'd start wondering about Monsieur Untel's definition of justice and fairness.

Precisely. He does not seem to be aware of his own criterion, or at least that is the impression that he wants to give to others. Anything is permissible if it does not happen to him. He was puzzled when I remained appalled after his reassurance. He is in the dark about one important principle. That is, if one takes a certain action against someone, there is a very good chance that s/he would do the same to some other.

We'd better stay away from anyone who gossips badly, because most likely, s/he would be gossiping about us as badly to other people.

These happenings have led me to suspect that we more often fail than succeed in understanding each other, because we are limited by our own thinking circuits. If we want to please others, we do to them what we would like them to do to us. If it doesn't, we are often at a loss. A person, who thinks everybody is out to get him, believes that I, too, think that everybody is out to get me.

Ah, I know which one you are talking about... So Comrade, are we the same, or are we not?

We are so similar that we easily agree on the importance of concepts such as: love, charity, kindness, honor, respect, friendship, kinship, knowledge, and so on. What they mean in practice is a totally different story.

For some, love would mean love for and of God, and then, it gets even worse as we cannot agree on who that is.

It is nothing but irony that people hate each other over love. Some people love their own god so much that they do not hesitate to kill others who love some other gods.

Something similar happens on an individual basis, too. You remember the days of duels over love?

That was before my time... By the way, have you noticed that we try extremely hard to understand another person when we are in love with her/him? I can't think of any other occasion that matches in its intensity.

Considering the human nature that we seek confirmation of who we are and what we think, it's quite remarkable.

Or, we can say that it is why it becomes difficult to fall in love as we age and become set in our ways.

Comrade, we have to start calling you an ageist...

Do you remember our discussion that the desire for diversity, change, or control makes us want to have multiple partners, either successively or simultaneously, with benefits in the bedroom? I am beginning to realize that artists have an additional incentive to fulfill that desire: to take their artistic endeavors to another domain.

They want sensuous experiences that would inspire them, and that is possible by being in love.

Pablo has left wonderful art for which his lover at the time served as a model and/or muse, as well as a number of profound remarks about art.

He has also left a trail of family members who were extremely unhappy and depressed.

What are we to think about someone who sent the people around him to hell, but continues to save thousands of other souls?

Know your reality, and forget it

You will be greatly distressed upon hearing this, I know, but as a friend of yours and a project partner to boot, I feel very much obliged to tell you... I was approached by the café owner the other day who commented that we had been occupying a table for an increasingly long time with only a couple of glasses of wine.

Is that a complaint that we are undesirable customers?

Well, the suggestion was that we make each talk short and come more frequently.

So that we would be ordering more per hour?

It's a natural desire for a owner, isn't it?

But we are here to save the world and that single-handedly. It's a motivation much more sublime and worthy than profit making!

I am fully aware that you don't like talking about money, but even you can't deny that it is what allows us to live.

I thought it was food.

Unless you are a versatile farmer, you need money to purchase foodstuff.

To tell you the truth, I have been getting rather scared by the mightiness of it.

Shall we call money 'It,' if you feel more comfortable that way?

Recently, I have come to the conclusion that to live a full life is to seek maximum sensuous stimulus.

How could I have guessed that you would turn into a hedonist?

In what I call sensuous stimulus, I am including acquisition of intellectual insights and knowledge. You must know those 'Aha!' moments that give us great pleasure.

It could be instances of 'What the hell is this?'

Or, 'There is a unifying force behind all these seemingly unrelated phenomena...'

That must be why so many people love mystery/detective novels and conspiracy theories.

I agree. It's a pity, because the folks who restrict their reading to such material are diverting their energy that could be used to learn and understand mysteries in real life as well as true conspiracies.

Come on, we all need diversions!

Think about it. Isn't it rather irresponsible to be intensely interested in Miss Marple's adventures, but not at all in the mysteries of hedge funds, hoping your money will forever enjoy an above-the-average return, and complain about the financial regulators when it doesn't?

We neither have the time or the capacity to understand everything that goes on in this world.

True, but that is not a license for staying ignorant. As I claimed last time, in order to manage a complex world in the way we see fit, we need to be sophisticated enough to face the complexity. To me, the mechanism is the same as with the politicians. If the voters are sophisticated enough, so would be the politicians. If the private investors are vigilant enough, so would be the brokers.

On average and in the long run, you mean...

How else could you change their behavior?

Strikes and protests are certainly attention grabbing, but most likely for a short time and for the addressed issues only.

Getting back to the issue of sensuous stimuli, they do not need to be pleasure deriving.

So you are a masochist?

Not exactly. What we truly value about sensuous stimuli is that they make us forget everything else.

We are constantly in search of an escape from reality, then?

I would say that the feeling of being mesmerized and captivated is the best experience that life has to offer. We all seek it, although many are unconscious about their search. We would be mistaken to think that there is more to life.

I thought it was all about status, fame and money!

It would be awfully nice to have those, but only if they are associated with stimuli of the senses. Besides, we can acquire them even after we are dead, but not sensuous experiences.

Shall I ring up Hugh and ask him to organize a party in your honor?

Remember the stories of kings and queens, emperors and empresses, sultans and their wives, who were always on the look for something that would get them out of their boredom? The most famous example may be the preamble to 'One Thousand and One Nights.'

Their wealth and power would make life enjoyable only if they lead to interest-piquing ideas, objects and physical activities...

Wealth and power are useful in the sense that they enable you to meet celebrity people, see celebrity objects, and engage in very expensive activities, like going to the moon for fun. Such opportunities by themselves are excellent gossip fodder, but there is no guarantee that they would be anything meaningful. By the way, I was at the Palace of Versailles a while ago.

Cursing about all the bloody tourists who marred your view, right?

At first, I thought how nice it would be to turn into Louis XIV and have the entire place to myself. Then, I realized that I would quickly get used to it---having at my disposal the huge palace, gardens and hunting grounds. Looking outside the window from that vast residence, I would be clicking my tongue for want of something that I did not know before and turns out to be amusing.

I'm glad that you are of a budget-type. You could experience being a Louis XIV without building another palace for yourself.

I also realized that I need what we decided to call 'It' in order to obtain stimuli on a regular basis.

Getting to and entering natural parks, attending concerts, exhibitions, film shows and lectures, purchasing books, supplies, equipment, gear and instruments, taking lessons and courses, having a drink at a café, dining at a restaurant---all these activities require money.

My argument further implies that the poor people should not be deprived of such opportunities just because they happen not to have enough funds. They, too, should be allowed to indulge in what life can offer, through subsidies.

I can already hear objections to that. Some will say that the poor do not deserve it, because it is their laziness and/or lack of planning that led them to poverty.

I would like to emphasize here once again that it is human nature to downplay the roles of chance and luck in our lives and worldly events. Some are simply unlucky to be poor, and their children even more so. A humane society is to shoulder the burden of misfortune that is beyond anybody's control.

The poor may have bigger reasons to momentarily put the reality aside...

The trick is not to forget the reality altogether.

You said that life's joy is in moments that make us oblivious of everything but what is in front of us!

Yes, but we will be unhappy if we have a poor grasp of the reality.

You mean a misconception, such as your money manager cannot make mistakes.

Or, justice prevails.

Or, good work will be recognized as such against any odds.

It is tragicomic to go from one society to another and see what is common wisdom in one is not so in the other, and due to lack of such wisdom people suffer throughout their lives. It depends on the culture how much people attribute certain outcomes to chance and luck. So are the expectations that men and women have about each other. Even how much people take advertisements as impartial facts is culture dependent.

In sum, it is best to look at the reality straight in its face...

And seek as many opportunities as possible to turn your eyes away from it.

Isn't that the reason why some of us are addicted to traveling? We manage to forget about big issues in our lives by swapping them with the problem of how to get from Point Here to Point There when we have little idea about the local transportation system.


I wouldn't say 'the reason,' but one of the reasons for sure. But what's wrong with that? It poses an intellectual challenge in an unfamiliar milieu, and yet, we usually manage to accomplish our tasks.

It gives us a great sense of achievement, plus some funny stories to share later.

The best part is that we can laugh about ourselves in the end, which may not be true with respect to life.

... Comrade, the next round is on me... What would you like?

I'm an accomplice in the crime (and so are you)

Comrade... turn around! ... Stay still.

...

Hey, I just plucked this out of your back. Hmmm... doesn't it look like an ostrich feather?

It's a bad joke, comrade... The issue is still tormenting me, but I have drummed up enough courage to talk about something else.

You didn't want to harp on it?

If I don't talk about my problems, people think they have been resolved, or worse, I have accepted to live with them. If I talk about it more than once, people get tired of me.

Don't worry, everyone can tell that you look more like a ghost than an ostrich with its head buried in a hole. You're so pale, almost transparent...

You know, I think all of us wish others to be ostriches. We know that problems in life are difficult to solve, and we are too powerless, lazy, or self-centered to provide help until they are happily resolved.

Plus, we'd rather hear good stories, not the same, old, gloomy ones.

In other words, we give each other tremendous pressure to focus on obligations, duties and fun at the moment, or short-term at best... Incidentally, I was thinking whatever is good about me owes to my own efforts.

I'm relieved. You sound more like yourself now.

Many of us think that we are doing extremely well, given the traits and the personalities of our parents. Have you ever thought how suspiciously universal the idea is? We didn't even need figures like J.C., M.A., or S.G. to spread the word.

Don't they tell you instead to respect your parents?

That is precisely because we are biologically wired to think that we are much better than our parents. Without that wiring, most will never become independent from them and take on the task of changing the world for the better.

To view the elders unfavorably has a positive side to it, you mean.

The willingness to change is useful, because adaptation to different circumstances necessarily requires change. As we know well, nothing is static in this world.

The ability to change allows you to stay put, too, if necessary.

Think about various societies around the world. The ones that are further away from the Plastic Age tend to have more rigid hierarchies based on age and less impetus to change on their own.

Although they face enormous force to do so from outside, mainly from the people of the Plastic Age...

Respect for the seniors means respect for their contribution to the society. The problem is that most of us become less creative over age.

That is, they become averse to change while the rest of the world is changing.

At least two factors contribute to that aversion. One is the vested interest that we develop over the years. We naturally position ourselves so as to derive the maximum possible benefit from the world as we find it.

We need some time to develop attitude, thoughts, and life style that are suited for the societies that we live in. By the time we have managed to optimize them given the constraints, we no longer wish to change the constraints.

The second is biological. Our brain can get cluttered with all the conventions set up by the previous generation, through our efforts to learn and live with them. It may prevent us from being different from the older generations, despite our wish to be so.

That's why we are told that we are unrealistic when we are young.

Sois jeune et tais toi !

Be young and shut up! So said the General...

When we read the slogans from that time, it is evident that the young pushed for changes and accused the not-so-old, the old and the very old for their complacency and lack of imagination. You know this one? Soyez réalistes, demandez l'impossible.

Be realistic, ask the impossible.

Prenez vos désirs pour la réalité.

Take your desires for reality.

Le patron a besoin de toi, tu n'as pas besoin de lui.

The boss needs you, you don't need him. ... Comrade, your breathing has gotten audibly heavy.

Anyway, we haven't heard of the older generation revolting against the younger.

Well, they don't need to. They are the ones with power, so when they don't like how things are, they can punish whom they think are culprits.

You know, it is not only our ability and willingness to question the status quo that decline with age, but also politeness.

What about kids who throw tantrums at the toy department? Surely, they don't do the same when they are older.

As children, we are taught to be polite and considerate toward others, and it takes time before we become capable of practicing it. I'd say we reach our peak when we are around eighteen with respect to politeness and consideration.

Do you want to tell me that a thirty-six-year old is rude compared to an eighteen-year old?

Of course, there is variation among individuals and that gets greater as we age. But, I do not hesitate to say that an average eighteen-year old tends to take more of her/his environment into account than an average thirty-six-year old from the same society.

I am not sure about that. When I think how I was at that age...

You are blushing.

Some things I did and thought were quite immature, embarrassing, and stupid, but I did not think so at all. The word, immature, was not in my dictionary to begin with.

You are right, an eighteen-year old would most likely do not have the ability to judge his own action, but when s/he is told that it is stupid, s/he tends to listen. Whereas a thirty-six-year old has a better idea of what s/he should be doing, s/he tends to go with whatever suits her/him. The former has less experience, but also less shrewdness.

Your theory must be strictly about averages, because I can think of thousands of counterexamples.

The world population is soon to pass the 7 billion mark, so thousands is nothing... Has it never struck you that we seem to regress over time?

I don't think I have become increasingly ruder after my eighteenth birthday.

Remember, we are talking in the aggregate. I think honesty is another good example.

We have touched on that subject, and I agreed with you that honesty is promoted by grown-ups because it gives them a means to control children.

What do you think will happen when the children become grown-ups?

They will teach their kids to be honest, because they will want to control their own kids.

You are almost there, comrade. The grown-ups who were once children...

We all were, ahem.

Once the children grow up and are freed from their guardians who could punish you for lying, they have little incentive to stay honest, besides their moral belief in honesty.

We discard all the virtues that we were taught to strive for, because being bad has different consequences now.

I wouldn't say 'all,' but we certainly gain the freedom to pick and choose as we please. Naturally, it means that almost everyone would become more self-centered than s/he has been. In other words, we begin switching our identity from the intimidated to the intimidating.

Isn't it manifested in the revolutionary spirits among the youth?

Yes. The transition period is very fertile, because the sentiments of the intimidated are still fresh in our memory, but we have just gained the mental and the physical strengths to be the intimidating. I think that is why movements or protests that are started by the youth have wide appeal.

For their earnestness, compassion, passion... and naïvité. We can't deny that they are more inspiring, identifiable and photogenic, compared to retirees who take to the streets to protest cuts in pensions.

May of 1968, the Velvet Revolution, the Tiananmen Square...

Are you shivering?

We talked how we are influenced by the people around us, especially our seniors, but we tend to forget that it means that we influence the people around us in turn.

I am 'I' for myself, but I am 'you' for you.

I continue to be bothered by people who adjust their attitude depending on whom they face. It looks awfully absurd when you see it happening in a split second with the subjects within their earshot.

Obsequious to the one who can wield power over you, and oppressive to the other over whom you can wield power. Isn't this one of the typical patterns?

Some minor changes are natural and even required, but the change that you described comes from the desire to be favored by the powerful. Put differently, this person is hoping that fairness be misinterpreted to her/his advantage.

How is this related to our influencing the people around us?

Our attitude and reactions vary depending on whom we are with. The converse is also true. How we are perceived is a factor in how a person behaves toward us, or we are determinants in who they are.

But it doesn't mean that we can remake any person.

The irony is that, while we cannot escape changes in us caused by our environment, we cannot change our very personality however hard we or others may try.

Excepting unusually traumatic experiences...

I have seen many persons change their attitude toward me after having learned how I am, but they revert to their old attitude when they are not paying enough attention. Certainly, they exhibit their original self as much as it is allowed by the occasion and by the person that they interact with.

We can't help being changed on the surface, but we can't change the core. Well, it can be both good and bad.

True, although we often focus on our powerlessness to change the bad traits of others... Anyway, we forget that much of our feedback is of the kind that enhances what we find unattractive.

Are we so perverse?

Take an example of a dog. Effective training would mean: to be very affectionate toward her and reward with treats when she does something good, and to ignore her call for attention when she does something bad or wrong.

Instead, we tend to scold her severely for misbehaving. It may well result in fear, anger, or resentment.

We are stingy on words of encouragement and rewards, too. The same principle applies to human beings. We complain about the stupidity, the ineffectiveness, and the destructiveness of politicians, but lately, I have come to think that it is our fault to a great extent.

Comrade, I have had nothing to do with the quality of brains possessed by Sarko, Silvio, Jong-Il, Robert...

Politicians, if they are chosen through elections, would do anything to be elected. If elected, they would do anything to be re-elected. If there is no prospect for re-election, they would do anything to leave their legacy.

That is when they start thinking what they can do so that the later generations would recognize them as great politicians.

Before then, they are at the mercy of the electorate.

We as voters are supposed to have enormous power, but it doesn't feel that way.

My theory is that we have allowed the incompetent ones to flourish by electing them.

But what if I did not vote for that particular dumbo?

They are smart at least when it comes to election. If we bought their rhetoric, it's our fault.

I told you, I did not write that name on the ballot paper! It must have been my next door neighbor...

I acknowledge that there is difficulty here. You may be well educated and well informed, but if the rest is ill educated and ill informed, the manipulative one would be chosen.

It happens in many countries around the world, from developing to developed. For example, in order to attract the rural votes, politicians distribute food and cash, and promise pork barrel projects, agricultural subsidies, and so on.

I maintain, however, that if the electorate is sophisticated, so would be the politicians and their politics. In fact, I believe that it is the only way to improve the way the world is governed.

Tell me, when was the last time you attended the town meeting.

... I had hopes in direct democracy, but I am no longer certain. I read that five cantons in Switzerland have a female majority among the legislators.

Considering the fact that women were granted suffrage in 1971, isn't that great news?

One canton's self-analysis is that people are so disillusioned by politics that there is no more prestige in becoming a legislator with low pay at the canton level. Men with ambition have fled to other professions. Most locals don't even know that they have more female legislators than male ones.

I just hope that we do not have to wait for another worldwide calamity before we effectively re-engage ourselves in politics.

I hope so, too, but nothing is more effective than a war to make us realize that politics matters to our lives.

Not just any war, but ones that seriously interrupt our daily lives. Bombs, utility disruption, food and material shortage, and you, your family members or friends sent to the front...

Global warming wouldn't do. It is a slower process and its causes and effects can be disputed more easily.

I have an idea! Let's secretly call the Martians and ask them to threaten us with imminent attacks.

The Insidious timelessness of the pee-word

I shouldn't have waited this long. It's inexusable...

I'm only three minutes and twenty seconds late and you're complaining?

According to my watch, it's four minutes or more.

You should get a watch that comes with a second hand, and be a bit more patient.

I bet your mother told you to be patient when you were growing up. But hasn't her advice led you to calamities?

Let me see... Once I had been too patient and found myself standing in a puddle of slightly colored and faintly steaming water. First it was nice and warm, but quickly turned soggy and cold. It's a bad idea to delay going to the toilet anyway. Your logic is a fallacy of accident.

Did your father ever tell you that the last piece of a cake is the biggest?

If it is a proverb, I've never heard of it. Besides, it sounds so untrue. If the biggest is left, it is most likely because nobody really wanted the cake to start with.

You see, we all think patience is a virtue, but it has an insidious side. Many people could not quite see what was to take place when Adolf Hitler came into power. Those who exercised patience and stayed put, especially the Jewish, suffered the most.

Patience is inappropriate in certain situations. Is this your point?

Not only that, but it is also used as a trick to raise false hope.

Comrade, your language reeks of perniciousness today.

Well, that is what patience is mostly about.

There are many satirical works about penny-pinching---"The Miser/L'Avare" by Molière comes to my mind first---but not about patience.

"Waiting for Godot/En attendant Godot" by Samuel Beckett is open to various interpretations, but as far as I am concerned, it is not about patience paving the path to the desired state in life.

Are you sure that patience is so bad? If you are facing a child, aged six, who is frustrated that he cannot swim as far as he wishes to, isn't it good to tell him to be patient?

When he turns eighteen or so, he would be able to swim as far as he could in his life. But that is based on a relatively safe assumption that he would grow up normally.

If it were an eighty-six year old, it would indeed be inappropriate to suggest patience. In fact, there wouldn't be anything you can say to or do for him, but to share the sadness that the stretch that he covered today will be the best ever compared to what he would be able to do in the future.

Patience is not for all ages. It makes most sense when you know that external factors are evolving in your favor and that they are beyond your control.

Like physiological maturity in the case of six-year old swimmer.

Unfortunately, the world is replete with cases of other types.

Tell me what they are.

We have already discussed one type in which external factors are beyond your control and they become less favorable over time.

The old man and the sea...

Another type is that the normal set of external factors become unfavorable over time, but they could be overcome.

I suppose that is not by simple waiting.

It requires a set of abnormal external factors---called luck---and/or hard work during an extended period of time.

Luck is beyond our control by definition, so it may not be out of line to exercise patience and wait for the Goddess of Destiny to turn to you and smile.

Yes and no. Sometimes you can sniff where luck could be found and deliberately place yourself there. Some other times, you have to be able to recognize luck as such when it comes around.

The problem with patience stems from our equating it to picking our nose and waiting, then?

Or, to simple repetition of our routine. For example, strengthening of certain muscles would be most effective with a changing menu of workouts. Plus, it is usually beneficial to try something that is slightly beyond your capability. The same applies for anything mental, too.

When we train on a higher level, we can be confident about one level lower to ourselves and about two levels lower to others.

In short, when the normal set of external factors become unfavorable over time, they could be overcome with luck and/or effective activities.

Put differently, the identification of those 'effective activities' is the crux of the problem.

Bravo, comrade. Even the six-year old must keep on swimming regularly and try his best all the time to be able to cover a long stretch in the future. If he doesn't and gets up on his eighteenth birthday thinking that he can cross the Strait of Dover in the afternoon, he would be in for a major disappointment.

I have been taught to be patient, as you guessed correctly, but not what I should be doing in the meantime.

Waiting would be a good idea when we are stranded in the middle of nowhere and we know that the next available transportation will be arriving in three hours and eighteen minutes. However, it is not the best idea.

What about reading a book or listening to music for three hours and seventeen minutes, and reserving the last minute for packing up and getting ready for boarding a rickshaw, sleigh, motor bike, bus, jeep, canoe, 470, submarine, airplane, helicopter, balloon, zeppelin, or space shuttle?

No, still not the best strategy.

Should we hatch a plot against the cause which made us stranded?

Not exactly. We should seriously think what we could do in case the expected transportation does not appear in three hours and eighteen minutes.

We tend to think that patience is to wait, and hence, to let time pass by. But that interpretation may turn out not to be helpful even in the simplest case as transportation.

Yet, people who advise you to be patient usually do not tell you that you should continue to strive for obtaining a better grasp of the situation that you are in and be on the lookout for its actual and possible changes.

After all, if circumstances change, staying put is seldom wise.

A person who is unhappy because of unfulfilled goals and wishes is often counseled to be patient. But if it is not accompanied by what s/he should be doing in the meantime, it is equivalent to advising her/him to accept things as they are. One of its hideous effects is to raise hope in the person that s/he would attain her/his goal without doing anything in particular.

"Be patient, and you will get there."

Which is nonsense in most instances. You should not be repeating what you have been doing, because it has not led to achievement of your goal, and that is why you are unhappy. In most cases, you have to change your strategy, or at least you need to become more vigilant about monitoring the state of parameters that are important in attaining your goal.

But they never tell you such things...

I think talking about patience is a convenient way to make a whining person shut up.

I'm afraid many people resort to what you call a trick.

Patience is insidious because it makes us hopeful when there is no concrete reason to be.

We are happier, because we have become hopeful without realizing that it is unwarranted, and the person who told us about patience is also happier, because we stopped complaining...

Persistence is almost as bad, but marginally better for not urging passivity as much.

Comrade, I think that's simply your personal preference of words, just as you prefer 'perceptive' over 'sensitive.'

It could be even more damaging when we are patient without being told to be so.

More?

Any belief can be quite tenacious.

What is wrong with that?

I am disappointed that you haven't see through, comrade... Because patience is plain passiveness in most cases, we are exposed to great danger of becoming comfortable with the situation that we earlier wished to escape from.

Patience tells us to close our eyes half way to weather out the storm.

The key is to keep our eyes half open, but we can get too good at not seeing the brutal reality.

Ah, it's the ostrich in us...

If we manage to maintain dignity in a wretched environment, naturally our desire to flee from it is tamed. That is the hidden, but huge, cost of successfully living through the undesirable circumstances.

We become so good at handling them that they are elevated from the status of undesirable.

That happens without our knowing and remains so for some of us for the rest of our lives.

Doesn't it mean that they find contentment in life and come to terms with what they are given?

We could say that they have turned into true ostriches, and eventually forgot that they were something else earlier in their lives with their heads out of the hole in the ground.

Well, they're lucky that nobody has poked their butt.

Some do get that poking one day, forced to take their heads out of the hole, and experience the horrible realization that the time spent with patience was not time spent to achieve their goals.

It's not after a week or a month that happens. It can take years, right?

Half past twelve. How the time has gone by.

Half past twelve. How the years have gone by. Constantine Cavafy's "Since Nine O'Clock"...

People with belief in plain patience have nobody to turn to, but themselves to blame for their unhappiness.

It's because they don't examine their plight carefully, never give serious thoughts to what could be the best possible action for fulfilling their goals or utilizing their precious time... They fall asleep, in a way.

As I told you, some never wake up but others do. Patience is hideous---first, it gives us false hope, and then, it gradually makes us forget what we aimed for. If we happen to be jolted out of that lukewarm water slowly reaching the boiling point to kill us, we face the terrible fact that an enormous amount of time has passed, with little action on our part to obtain what we wanted in our lives. And during that time, the external factors have turned even less conducive for reaching our goals.

Comrade... you look awfully pale... I'd say like a ghost.

It can well happen to those who think they know very well that they can get used to almost anything and must guard themselves against that process, who think they know the finiteness of their existence...

... Let me treat you to a glass of Médoc.

Isn't it one of the tricks to avert our eyes from what is in front of us?

It's not la Baie des Anges that we are overlooking, but you shouldn't spoil my gesture which is meant to help ease your self-reproach, you know...

Signs of maturity (or lack thereof)

It's that time of the year, the school has started again.

New encounters, new subjects, new classrooms... always a mixture of excitement and anxiety.

I happened to read a piece of advice for teachers the other day. It said that if you are a teacher, you should never talk negatively about your predecessor.

Such as, "No? You guys didn't cover the nine essential nutrients for Martians last year? That can't be! ... All right, I will prepare an extra handout on that subject and distribute it next time. It's very, very important."

With eyebrow knitted and eyes squinted... The article said that from then on the students would start making claims that the previous instructor skipped the topic whatever it may be.

Including the ones that they had been taught.

I hereby confess that I committed a crime that is similar in nature in the past.

I am shocked!

It is again to my disadvantage to be endowed with good memory and a strong will to be impartial... Almost all of us are guilty of the same, but many conveniently are unconscious or forget about it.

So much for excuses. Let's hear what you have done.

When the school year started, we had a new teacher. She was a substitute until the regular hire came back from her maternity leave.

That's not unusual.

We knew neither instructor before. When the term was over for the fill-in and we got to know the regular instructor, we found out that we liked the substitute much better. We talked nostalgically how nice and good she was. One day, I showed my exam to my parents and said that I would have gotten a perfect grade had it been the former teacher.

It's a very flimsy excuse, comrade.

The scary thing is that I believed in it. All of my classmates were of the same opinion. So, when my parents told me that my explanation for the grade was not a good one, I told them that everyone in the class thought the same.

Yes, yes, that familiar "everyone," which can mean a handful of persons.

They replied that we would be saying the same had the regular been the substitute, and the substitute the regular.

It was not about their teaching methods or even personality, but about the role that they assumed.

I was very much surprised by their take on the event, of course.

Did you believe it?

I didn't dismiss it. I remembered it and wondered how that could be. Although I do not recall whether we claimed we had not been taught something we should have, I have a vague feeling that I participated in that kind of collective rewriting of history with my classmates. I think we knew that our claim might not have been true, but after some time, we simply believed in the revised "facts."

Hmmm... we as adults engage in acts of the same genre to more disastrous results.

People who deny all sorts of atrocities, such as genocides, fit that description.

They must have started their training early in their lives.

My recent discovery is that it happens on a smaller scale, too. Some people truly believe in what I think is grossly distorted versions of events. When I confront them, they are adamant that their version is true.

They must be thinking the same about you.

How come that they always come out unambiguously favorable in their stories?

Whereas you do not in your versions?

I know that it's not quite tight, but I claim that it is a proof that I am less biased than they are.

If your argument holds, some people may make themselves appear only partially guilty when they are wholly so, and claim that their take on the event is the true one.

The lack of impartiality in this world is mind boggling. What is even more flabbergasting is that the ones who genuinely believe in their distorted, self-serving history more than often win in the end. At least, they never lose thanks to their single-minded tenacity.

Blessed are the believers...

Back to my memories from school years, we once had a teacher trainee whom we liked very much because she was a lot closer in age. She had big sunglasses and boyfriend sweaters on. Her hair was adult and feminine. She radiated youthful confidence. In sum, she was awfully cool.

Everybody liked her, I bet.

Yes, until I was told to stop chitchatting and pay attention to her lecture.

Aha...

When some students got together and talked about how cool and effective in teaching she was, I snorted and said I wasn't sure. Then one in the circle said, "You changed your mind, because you were told to be quiet.''

There's no denying that it's a very good point.

I was shocked, because I realized then that it was true. The teacher trainee was no different before and after her telling me to be quiet, but I allowed myself to be biased against her in aspects that had little to do with her telling me so.

Don't you think maturity is founded on the separation of our private impressions of and feelings about persons from our judgments of their attributes?

You certainly can say that again. Professionalism is a kind of maturity that pertains to a subset of our activities. What puzzles me is that there seems to be little recognition of that very important principle.

You shouldn't make such a universal statement. It's your little living and working environment that you are talking about.

There is basic courtesy that should be observed regardless of our feelings toward that person.

We talked along this line some time ago.

I recently discovered that for people...

In your little environment, ahem.

All right, in my teeny-weeny environment, enforcement of rules are subject to how much positive feelings the enforcer has about the subjects.

"According to the official schedule, it is your turn to do this not-so-fun job, but okay, I know you are busy, so I will do it for you." That kind of a thing?

I would say so if the person is under pressure, although s/he has not been slacking off, and that to every such person.

People around you are totally confused because you help whom you like and don't like in the same way.

There are times when I want the people that I like to be strictly rule-abiding with me, although there are not many who defy rules and whom I like.

If I recall well, the willingness to be considerate and courteous is not only related to the feelings that we have for the persons involved, but also how repairable the relationships are with those people.

For some, the desire to go by the accepted rules is proportional to the fragility of relationships that they have with the parties involved. In extreme cases, they would go along with anything if they see that the person who is in front needs to be made happy.

Comrade, your hands are trembling with anger...

I tell you, it's total breakdown of communication! You would think that you have gotten an okay to something, only to learn later that it was a no, for example. It creates an anarchic and chaotic world. We have rules and laws precisely so as to be fair and predictable when we make important judgments.

You would doubt whether such persons have any principle.

It's balls that they don't have.

Hush, comrade.

Should I say instead that the ones that they have are shriveled up and about to fall off? They fail to understand that liking a person should neither be necessary nor sufficient to be ethical with her/him. Similarly, we do not have to pretend that we like someone in order to act ethically toward that person. If we do, it would be...

Comes your favorite word of the season, right? The one that starts with an 'h' and ends with a 'y'? There's a 'p' in it, a 'c' in it...

When people turn chummy because they want me to do something for them, I feel as if they were trying a cheap trick on me. If it is in my power to do it and if I see it necessary and reasonable, I would. It has no relation with whether I like her/him or not!

They are again totally confused, because they were nice to you and you agreed to carry out the task, but you look as if you were about to blow fire out of your mouth to scorch them.

The same people think that if they shower me with praises I would become fond of them.

Of course, they shouldn't lie.

They have absolutely no idea that they are showing the ends of their diapers as they walk around...