It shows, here and there

Have you ever noticed that we reveal more of our thoughts than we intend to?

Not all of us experience such under-the-influence moments, you know.

I'm not talking about dropping the guard.

Including the occasions when we become too carried away with the subject and blurt out what we tried to bury deep down?

We may become so engrossed in talking about the effects of unhealthy lifestyles on public finance that we forget that a burden case is standing right next to us. Is this the kind of incident that you have in mind?

We may even exclaim, "We have to do something about those people!"

Do you have a nightmare on that theme, once in a while?

I utter the f- or s-word out loud, and everything stops, as if it were a movie and the projector went on strike. It takes a moment to realize that everyone is looking at me with expressions of anger or horror...

Anyway, we don't have to go that far to say that we communicate more than we plan to. As I said in our last meeting, we can't hide our true feelings. It shows through the way we say things. The voice is one obvious factor. The eyes tell an awful lot as well.

It is easy to see excitement, joy, surprise, sadness, boredom, indifference, annoyance, contempt, fear, and so on in them.

What we look at as we talk is another.

The floor/ground, the ceiling/sky, the face of the interlocutor, the object around her/him, her/his body parts or our own, etc.

Our gestures count, too. We can fiddle with the object that we happen to carry. If you have long hair, wearing a ring or mustache, you can play with it. We may cough, we may straighten our clothes when we start or finish talking, and they all say something about our mood, our true feelings behind the words. We usually don't plan those gestures and most of us have little control over what our eyes convey to others. How the talk was initiated and by whom, what was the topic before and after the part in question---these reveal not so much of mood, perhaps, but related thoughts.

And that is why we always reveal more than we intend to?

When we recount the conversations we had with others, we often fail to communicate the full significance of them because we omit the details.

The look in the eyes, gestures, etc., you mean?

Someone may say to me, "You're overly pedantic," but...

You still have hard feelings about that one, eh? I can see it in the movement of your facial muscles.

The problem with people who give me such evaluation is that they don't let me be me.

Are you saying that the negative remark was based on stereotypes?

Not necessarily, considering the fact that it came from my own mother.

Why did she say such a thing?

She meant it as a piece advice for enriching ma vie sentimentale. But what good is it to attract people by pretending to be a person that you are not?

Isn't that a problem that you have with almost anyone? That people do not like you any more if you reveal your true self?

I wouldn't say 'my true' self, because that sounds like I am deceiving others.

Let's say 'your core,' then.

Don't you think it best if we accept that any relationship is community service for each other?

You mean, all of us tolerate each other and nothing more...

Getting back to the topic of factors besides words, we are not so bad at integrating the unspoken elements. That is, we know from them whether the statement is meant as a joke, serious advice or even revenge. The curious thing is that we are hopeless at reproducing them.

That's why actors can keep their jobs, I'd say.

It doesn't have to be reenactment of the scene. We hear the tone, see the gestures and postures. In theory, we should be able to describe them.

We are bad at putting them into words?

What is mind boggling is that we forget the details in most cases. We cannot recall what we noticed and only remember the overall impression that they gave us.

Someone may complain that her/his lover said s/he was too pedantic, but s/he may not get the sympathy that s/he deserves unless s/he can explain how it was said.

I told you, it was my mother! I myself have experienced and also witnessed others go through the same process over and over. We are certain from the non-verbal cues what the true intentions of the interlocutor are, but because of our inability to explain them convincingly, we are told that we are interpreting people in a wrong way.

Isn't it usually the case that if we insist on our take of the event, we are labeled obstinate at best and psychotic at worst?

Or wishful-thinkers, scaremongers... I had been wondering for some time why quite a few people tell us that we should trust our intuitions and gut feelings.

I thought we are not supposed to.

We are taught to avoid emotional and impulsive reactions. These days, I am inclined to give such responses more credit than before.

Are they the same, intuition, gut feelings, hunches, emotions, and impulses?

They are similar in that they are considered irrational and cannot be explained neatly.

You are saying that so-called irrational responses should not be taken lightly, and quite a few people are of the same opinion.

We are very much influenced by what the ideal scientific methods are. That is, if something cannot be proved with evidence and reason, it has very little or no value.

But if we go astray from that principle, we will be allowing witch hunting.

There is that danger, but ignoring circumstantial "evidence" is also dangerous. The huge problem with those fuzzy factors is that they escape communication, and often memory as well. Our interpretation of a specific event is often based on the observation of similar ones over the years. Usually, we cannot remember enough of them to make our case convincing.

Doesn't it depend on how much your interpretations in general are trusted?

It does. In other words, neither credibility of our hunches to ourselves nor that to others can be established in an instant. To complicate matters, nobody has a static set of reactions, so we are never able to deduce with certainty whether interpretations of reactions were reasonable or not.

A bigger problem is that we tend to think that we know ourselves best, but that is not true. We may inquire a person what s/he was thinking, but the answer can be far from what it really was, and that without attempting to lie.

Another danger is that a manipulative person can sell her/his interpretation to a less manipulative one. For example, the former can ingrain in the latter that s/he is useless.

Didn't you imply above that we have the capacity to detect malice in such cases so as not to believe in it?

I guess we differ in that ability. Most of us certainly become more adept at it as we accumulate various experiences in this world. Anyway, we should not underestimate how much people can pick up clues. I can't conceal disgust and contempt when dealing with insincere statements, and that has been a problem.

What about writing, does it come with circumstantial evidence as well?

Writing is a tough one. It is very easy to give an impression that you did not intend to and be totally unaware of it. Writing has a greater variation than the use of voice, I think, and it is much harder to find out the unwritten elements.

Sometimes little correspondence means laziness on one side or both, not necessarily lack of caring feelings.

That can work in the opposite direction as well. As I said before, if we write frequently to each other, that gives an illusion that we care and understand each other well.

Such illusions are backed by solid evidence such as the number of correspondence per month, whereas intuitions and hunches are devoid of proof of that sort...

I find it interesting that incidental details are often more powerful than our summaries of them, such as "He was very angry," "She was clearly shaken," etc.

But we tend not to remember the details that have contributed to those conclusions!

A few more snags to our claim that instincts should not be taken lightly...

I knew it, I knew it. It's your "Snag Time."

One is that deep-rooted prejudice can be misunderstood as legitimate instincts. Examples are ones based on appearance, including race, gender, and so on.

That one...

Another is that one bad incident can form and dominate our instinct.

A severe case of food poisoning would make you physically allergic to what caused it.

That's a good one. The last snag that I can list at this moment is the cultural dependency of incidental proofs. The other night, I was listening to the dialogue between Karen and Denys in the film, "Out of Africa." At that point in the story, they were in love with each other, but did not know whether their feelings were mutual. I felt a bit confused because their conversation did not seem to indicate that one was interested in the other.

If you mean that there were no too obvious, sugary lines, isn't that the only way of declaring love that you approve of?

I have been watching too many of more typical Hollywood movies lately that I didn't even recognize my preferred way of courting.

Mais quelle horreur !

Exactly... It goes to show that cues may not serve their purpose if you are not used to them.

Are you sure that we should trust our instincts after all?

Maturity transcends cultural boundaries, remember?

'Maturity,' our catch-all word are here to save us!

Trust me any day, if you are lazy

Why do we trust others?

Are you saying that we shouldn't?

We have numerous choices in terms of actions that we could take, and yet, we think the others would opt for the one that we consider best, or at least, good. If that isn't wishful thinking, what is?

Trust isn't established in a second, though. It is based on experiences and observations from the past. Had you showed up here every week at the same time for years, I would naturally expect you to do so next week.

Inductive reasoning is weak, we all know that.

How else can we conduct our lives?

The brutal truth is...

Please do away with that announcement of yours for brutal truths, and just tell me what you think.

You would agree that it is brutal, though. The reason why we trust others is because we are lazy.

Are you talking about entrusting tasks to others?

I meant it more generally. Suppose I do not trust you. I will have to think what evil deeds you may commit and be prepared with a strategy for each possibility.

But if you trust me, you don't have to do all that thinking. Is this what you are getting at?

Well done, comrade! It doesn't have to concern anything that could be harmful. For example, an instructor can say that s/he trusts the student and shirk from giving appropriate advice and guidance. You see, what is conceived as freedom and liberty is brought to you by the courtesy of laziness.

If we do not trust someone or something when we safely can, we will be wasting our time and energy devising plans that we would never need. Besides, when we mistrust someone, it can well encourage her/him to act precisely in ways we consider undesirable.

When I was in high school, I went back home early one day and told my mother that I cut afternoon classes.

Who cuts school to go back home when you know your mother is waiting there? I knew you were à l'extrémité!

It wasn't that I wanted to smoke a cigarette and look at the sky or slip inside a movie theater when the attendant was looking the other way. I was eager to work on my own project at home, instead of attending boring lectures.

Knowing you, it must have been something like reading all of "À la recherche du temps perdu," making plans to replicate Captain Cook's and Marco Polo's journeys at the same time, or doing research on people who were outdone by others because they lacked marketing skills---Alfred Russel Wallace who lost to Charles Darwin, Nicola Tesla who lost to Thomas Edison and Wilhelm Röntgen among others, Rosalind Franklin who lost to Francis Crick and James Watson, and...

Ah, the glorious days when I could easily find people who had seen Minitel in use! It would be wickedly unfair to attribute the unfortunate turns of their professional lives to what you call lack of marketing skills, but let's say my project was something along those lines. Anyway, I was shocked when my mother started talking about her cutting school when she was in high school.

I didn't know that you thought she was a model student.

I didn't and still don't. It scared me that she talked approvingly of her own and my skipping classes. She even told me how bad some instructors were. You know that something is truly and grossly wrong when you are heartily endorsed by your parents.

You never cut school again?

I did, but I made sure that it was never excessive. Her showing trust in me worked in the way she wanted. I think that showing trust, rather than trusting, is a more sensible course to take.

Do you think trust on surface is better than genuine trust?

I have been noticing lately that we can't really hide our true feelings. When you don't mean what you are saying, it shows.

Especially you. It's written all over your face.

Our ability varies in detecting the discrepancy between what comes out of a person's mouth and what is on her/his mind.

Some of us are quite gullible and never lose that quality even as we age.

It then becomes liability... I happen to be highly allergic to people telling me one thing when it is obvious that they are thinking another.

Isn't it just that you are paranoid and in constant search of evil?

You will be surprised how much dishonesty goes around, particularly in the workplace.

What about calling it diplomacy, instead of dishonesty?

Diplomacy is an art, whereas dishonesty is deception! When we are diplomatic, we let the other party know that our true intentions are different from what we tell them.

It is diplomacy, because it is your intention to alert them that what you say is not exactly what you think, and you know that they know it? And, they know that you know that they know it?

Bravo, comrade! I am of the opinion that something similar holds for trust as well. Remember my claim that showing trust is important? First of all, it is of no use if the party you want to trust does not know that you trust them. Second, we can show that our trust is not entirely unconditional. It is possible to allude to the degree of your trust by giving a whiff of your contingency plan.

That coaxes the other party act in the way you want them to?

It will not work all the time, but it would at least put moral pressure in most cases. It is most effective if people involved do not have fixed ideas about or any stake in the issue.

I still don't understand why conditional trust is better than unconditional.

It is more realistic, and hence gives credibility to the claim that we trust someone. It acknowledges that the thoughts and the concerns are not identical for all involved and that the difference should not be the basis for retaliation or punishment in the future. In other words, it takes away the pressure to do as trusted.

But I thought that was the whole purpose of trusting!

Perhaps we could say that trust is something like an implicit request based on the information that we possess and the priorities of our own. The party that is trusted has its own set of information and priorities, so they may not wish to do exactly as desired by the other party. When we know that we are trusted by someone, we feel much more obliged to take into account her/his information and priorities as revealed to us.

Trust is a sneaky way of imposing our preferences to others, then!

Showing conditional trust requires skills and work. You have to convey a delicate message---you believe that s/he chooses the option that you prefer most, but you are aware that s/he may not do so.

And that s/he is well capable of pursuing your preferred option.

Conditionality also necessitates careful monitoring, because it means you have to verify the state and choose your strategy accordingly.

Aren't there cases that are not worth our trust at all?

In such cases, we still show trust and be prepared for the very worst.

Is it necessary to pretend that we trust?

We do it for ourselves, for who we are. If we care about civility, that is.

What about unconditional mistrust?

That is easier than conditional trust. You reduce the total number of possible outcomes by ruling out a certain kind, as you do with unconditional trust, but you still need a plan for each undesirable outcome. It remains that unconditional trust is the easiest.

Suppose I think I am perfectly trustworthy, but you indicate subtly that your trust in me is conditional. I am offended that it is so, and breach your trust.

What can I say, that's not clever at all.

It can well happen. You know those vengeful types.

We should certainly take into account what kind of personality we are dealing with. But I'm afraid there isn't much we can do, except for tinkering the amount of disclosure of our contingency plan. After all, we count on your understanding that even the most trustworthy persons sometimes make mistakes and that you have your own desires which may clash with ours. Plus, we depend on your knowing that we are aware of such caveats. In other words, we can't do anything about your naïveté which makes you think that you are trustworthy in the absolute.

Adjusting the amount of disclosure, doesn't that also require skills and work?

I told you, plain trust or mistrust is an easy way out.

By the way, did you mean to say that conditional trust is a sign of intelligence and sophistication?

You can put it that way.

I am wondering... Did you intend to tell me that you are good at it?

None of us can perfectly conceal what we believe in.

Or, what we want to believe in. Right?

You want to be... you?

You have been locking yourself up for too long at a time, these days.

It has become increasingly difficult to get out, because of the mounds of books to read, CDs to listen to, and DVDs to watch. They have practically blocked my way out of the house.

If you have piles of blueprints and recipes for hands-on projects, they should take you outside for procurement of necessary materials and ingredients.

I have those as well. Lately, I have been a bit paralyzed by the brutal truth that I may not be able to finish all I want to during my lifetime, or even start some of the projects.

Would it be better if you had already completed everything you wanted to at this point?

It would be awfully lonely at the summit, you know.

You shouldn't talk as if you knew how it is to be at the top! Humility is your credo, remember?

I have an epiphany once in a while, and one of the latest is how hard it is if you are part of the cream of the crop.

At least, you are not claiming to be that creamy bit.

What if you understand others, but they don't understand you? Most damagingly, they fail to understand that they do not understand?

Do you have a specific case in mind here? In your very vicinity, perhaps?

If you understand that the others do not understand you, but they themselves fail to understand that, you are obliged to play a patronizing role.

Like a parent toward a child, you mean?

Precisely. Mind you, it is not equivalent to condescension or belittlement. It would be, however, if you tell her/him that you understand while s/he does not. In any case, you have more control of the situation than others.

What's wrong with that?

It's no fun playing a parent all the time, especially with people who are supposed to be your friends. Some of us have to be parents to our own parents, although they are not senile.

It is impossible to be the one who comprehends more and controls on all occasions, though.

I agree, and that is the case with your equals. Sometimes, you have a better grip of the situation and other times not. What I enjoy about being among my equals is that they have convincing ways of representing various views, in particular the ones that I previously thought would never subscribe to or about the subjects that I had no knowledge of.

The reasons for their support would be at the level that you would understand, but not too low that you would be dismissing them despite their validity.

We could say that we speak the same language in those instances. A three-hour monologue on how a family funeral went could be well bearable, even thought-provoking and entertaining, if it were by an equal.

If not, you consider listening to such talks community service. Right?

Going back to the issue of understanding, we tend to mistake the frequency of contact with the degree of understanding. The more often and regularly we get in touch, the more we share information about each other. The volume of information gives us an illusion that our interpretations of the events are identical.

Until s/he tells you without your solicitation what you should be doing during the next five years...

Once I realized that the depths of understanding and empathy are animals quite different from the frequency of contact and that the problem had been my confusion of the two, the bulk of my frustration dissipated.

What do you think about comments regarding how you should live in more general terms?

We usually hear such statements when people find something that they disapprove of in us.

If an approval, it could at best encourage the person in that direction, and at worst sound supercilious just like in the case of disapproval.

Some tell us not to view life the way we do. I am of the opinion that saying so would only do harm and no good. The issue concerns our whole personality, so in effect, they are saying that we as persons have much to be desired.

Nobody is willing to change her/his entire self.

Exceptions may be people who wish to free themselves of dependency on certain relationships, thoughts and/or substances. Even they have the desire to keep the core of who they are.

Without some kind of continuity, it does not make sense to talk about selves.

Besides, who are we to tell others that their outlook on life is wrong? Another factor against doing so is that willingness to change oneself can never be effectively imposed upon by someone else. Plus, sometimes people have strange motives, but their manifestations are good. Other times their motives are good, but the manifestations are harmful to the rest of the world.

We should be very careful when we criticize others' thinking, especially if the person takes thinking seriously. Am I right?

Have you noticed that the same self-appointed counselors talk about confidence in oneself?

Now, now...

But I never ask them for any advice! Anyway, I used to be rather unsure of myself, but...

You, unsure of yourself?

I am good at fooling others with my non-assertive veneer.

A wolf in a red riding hood?

I used to have a lot of questions to which I knew no good answers. That made me act uncertain and look devoid of confidence on some occasions. What they did not realize was that I have been introspective enough to be uncertain about some issues.

It is always possible to interpret anything in the world in a self-serving way. What can I say, you are the champion!

It's a matter of age, too. You must have noticed that some dose of assertiveness comes with it. I admit that life is easier with I-don't-give-a-damn-what-you-think attitude, but it can prevent me from improving myself through prompts from outside.

Improvement above all else for you?

You can say that. I don't want to become one of the grown-ups that I used to despise as a child or a teenager: a person who is dead but does not know that s/he is, or who is alive but deadly arrogant and inflexible.

Aren't you exhibiting a symptom of Peter-Pan syndrome?

Talking about confidence, I have had interesting experiences. The same set of people who extol about it are shocked when I tell them that I like being myself.

May I point out that anybody would be shocked?

How am I supposed to be self-confident otherwise? In any case, what bothers them most is that I'd rather be me than them. I don't volunteer that information, of course, only if they get on my case regarding confidence and so forth.

"You have such a marvelous human being right in front of you, and you're saying you would not want to be that person but yourself?" That kind of reaction?

I would then know that their talks about the importance of self-esteem were about my wishing to be like them, although they might not have been conscious about it. In other words, I am supposed to participate in their self-assuring program, not mine.

So much for free counseling!

Imagine their looks when I further confess that I quite like myself who always see room for improvement in who I am, and that betterment is toward becoming more myself, not anyone else.

Are the looks something much worse than what you see now?

You are you, and I am not you. We should be happy about all that!

Have you realized that you are putting imperfect you above perfect others?

If it offends you, that's because you lack self-confidence, comrade...