So, you don't like me

Here I am again in much less than one month!

In the meantime, have you thought carefully about big issues, such as punctuality, commitment, etc., and preferably, your personality?

In terms of punctuality, I come close to Immanuel Kant, and in terms of commitment, I am not as inexplicable as Søren Kierkegaard.

You are obscuring the discussion! What about you as a person?

Aren't you happy that I am not taking your questioning as a wholesale denial of my existence?

It could be that it is so, but you haven't realized yet...

Lately, I have been involved in a few episodes in which the target parties of criticism have responded rather emotionally.

I didn't know that you go around telling people to re-examine their personalities!

Comrade, I am disappointed that you think I am so crude...

Well then, do you wish to congratulate yourself that you are not emotional at this moment?

Don't you think most people would get very upset if you ask them to reflect on their personality? We often become too angered to assess the cause and the implications of such a suggestion. The first thought upon hearing it would be "What the hell is s/he talking about?" Then, "How rude!"

"Who does s/he think s/he is to tell me so!", and finally, "I don't want talk to her/him again."

I find it interesting that we usually do not investigate what could be the problem with us, or between us and the person who made the criticism. We respond with anger and sometimes hate, and not much more.

That points to the inefficacy of very explicit criticisms.

I agree. In my experience, it is more effective to avoid the person that we do not like rather than to tell her/him so in words.

I think it quite reasonable, though, that we respond with anger when we are told to rethink our personality, because it is a threat to our very existence.

Unemployment has the same effects. Lack of work is not only about being deprived of income, but also a report card from the society that we are incapable of doing anything that is worth payment. You can go further in interpretation and say that the society would rather see you dead, because it is not giving you an opportunity to earn your bread to stay alive. The unemployed frequently experience anger. Of course, this is not to say that any unemployment is justified.

Social welfare could prevent us from starving and mollify our angry feelings.

Some deny the usefulness of it on the grounds that it makes the diligent pay for the lazy. No system can possibly circumvent all cases of abuse, but many do not seem to acknowledge that, especially the ones who manage without welfare.

Everything has undesirable aspects, and if we cite them as reasons for terminating its existence, neither you nor I would be here.

What we should do instead is to list both pros and cons, weigh and compare them with those of the alternatives. Belgium has one of the highest income taxes in the world, and I heard Belgians comment that they'd better become ill just so that they could make good use of the taxes that they had paid and would be paying.

They weren't joking?

They were quite serious. Suppose they are given two choices for the coming year: pay their taxes and remain healthy, or become gravely ill and be cared for without paying income tax or medical expenses.

They would definitely choose the former.

I would think so, too. They are lucky that the choice happens to be that of their liking.

The problem here is that they are unaware what kind of choice they face and that it is not entirely up to them to make the choice.

The same holds for social welfare. Some of us are lucky enough to be employed and pay for others.

Many are not aware of the choice: to be employed and contribute to the funds, or to be unemployed and draw from the funds.

If we are faced with the choice, the majority of us would choose the former. We cannot deny that luck plays a big part in our lives. In other words, the choice is between to be lucky and not in need of handouts, or to be unlucky and in need of financial assistance. People who grumble about welfare do not know that the choice has been made in their favor.

Many would want to purchase luck if possible.

If income taxes are what we have to pay for our luck that enables us to earn money, I would consider it inexpensive.

What about the unproductive uses of public funds, i.e., the money collected from us?

As I said, no plan of ours can succeed in weeding out all waste. If we do, it would be through intimidation and fear, as would be under autocracy or totalitarianism. Besides, if we are to make noises about misuse of funds, why don't we complain about Bill Gates? He has locked many of us into Windows operating system, which is much inferior to Linux. What would the public think about his owning a 66,000-square-feet estate that includes a swimming pool with an underwater music system if he were the head of a state?

It has been built by the money that we paid for Windows... If he were a head of a nation, he would be seeing a scene just like the painting by Eugène Delacroix depicting the July Revolution of 1830 in front of his estate!

We often forget a very important fact that we as voters have a say in how the public funds are used and we can hold the public administrators accountable for it. However, we have no power over Bill's riches. It's his money, period.

Many want to keep him as an example of how rich you can become, although the chances are nil for 99.999% of us.

Almost nobody thinks about the fact that we footed the bill for his 1000-square-feet dining room, but he still has to invite us for dinner!

Calm down, comrade. You can't fight against the idea, or rather myth, on which that country is founded.

It never ceases to astonish me... Getting back to the topic of reactions to criticisms, we oftentimes focus on the emotions provoked in us rather than the content of the criticisms. It is not rare that we see faces that want to tell us, "So, you don't like me, huh?"

Some actually say so.

It is a sneaky way to deflect criticism, because we are obliged to negate that allegation instead of talking about what made us criticize in the first place.

I'd say childish, too.

I agree. Do you remember that as kids we would fight, for example over play grounds, and soon it would escalate into abuses, such as how stupid the others' siblings or parents were?

It became a contest of showing how much more we detested the others than they disliked us, and how much more we could insult them than they could insult us.

Many engage in that strategy or derivations of it, even as adults. They change the point of dispute or add more points so that the original one becomes out of focus.

They don't want to discuss in depth what was at issue at the beginning.

It becomes impossible to talk about it, when you see the face or hear the line, "So, you don't like me." If we accept that there is no pure black or white in this world, the most mature action to take is to search for something that we agree with in our "enemy's" argument.

If we don't, we are probably allowing our self love to overrule everything else.

Precisely. We tend to make a similar mistake when we talk to people in other ideological camps. It is easy to divide the worldly views into two: the ones from our side, and the rest.

Our inclination is to agree with everything from our side and dismiss everything from the other sides.

There should be valid points in our opposition's opinions, too. Conversely, if we agree on everything with the members of the same camp, we were most likely coerced. To accept that fact and to search for such points is one sign of maturity, I think.

If so, most politicians are puerile. Not only they like making simplistic contrast among camps, but in some countries they also like to dig for dirt which has little to do with the ability to govern.

It is rare that we see politicians publicly acknowledging validity of the opponents' opinion. When we do, that is also when they are accused of selling out or being weak. Holding an extreme stance is much easier than reaching a balance in the middle.

Maintaining it is difficult, too, because you would be considered an unreliable ally by all sides.

Courage is seldom rewarded...

You know, striking the middle-ground is sometimes meant to deceive others by way of wearing two hats at a time.

Cowardice and even manipulation can be indistinguishable from courage!

Let's hope that true courage is recognizable to all of us...

The Utility of apologies

I've been thinking lately how useless apologies are. We should do away with them.

You, the ultimate apology-dispenser and paradoxically also the champion apology-extractor! I am shocked. Is that because you don't want to apologize for not meeting for more than a month? I never dreamed that I would witness your denunciation of apologies. How are you going to define yourself without them?

All right, you want me to apologize for not coming for so long. Is this right?

According to what you have been preaching, an apology at this instant wouldn't hurt.

I'm sorry.

Was that an apology? I thought it was an grunt with 'm' and 'e' sounds. It doesn't make me feel any better.

You see? Apologies are no good.

Of course, if you say it that way, nobody is going to be placated.

You got it, comrade! It all depends on how you say it.

Apologies count only if you say them effectively. It means that they need to be backed sincere feelings of guiltiness.

Not so fast. We only have to pretend that we are sincere.

My goodness, what happened to you?

Nothing, except that I have been exposed to so many fake apologies recently that I am over the edge.

Oh, oh. I know that you are of the type never to return from the other side of that edge.

I am not happy about it either, but I can't do anything. I tolerate, tolerate, tolerate, and one day, boom!

I thought it was a plonk... You know, because you tolerate rather well, you invite more of it, while the parties that have been heaping it on you have no idea that you are retreating step by step toward that grande falaise, one of the Cliffs of Moher.

I tend to get penalized for trying to be decent. By the way, I prefer Cabo Girão which is more than twice the height of the Cliffs of Moher.

Decency requires intelligence. Have you thought about it? An early warning system would help, for example.

Thanks for telling me that I lack intelligence.

You may want an apology for my statement, but I know that I cannot offer a sincere one for such a trivial case. What do you advise?

An apology for something like that? If you offer me one, I would think that you are being sarcastic. Anyway, the most obvious misuse of apologies is to utter one when you do not mean it.

Why do they say it, though?

In order to transfer the guilt to the other party. It would be considered unjust not to accept an apology, even when we know that it is not a sincere one.

Proving insincerity of a statement is impossible, although most of us can tell it.

The latest case that I have been involved in has been marked with great disrespect and insincerity toward me. The perpetrator has been offering apologies in which I have not seen a speck of truthfulness. He has also offered a solution which is totally impractical. After so many rounds of the same farce, I had to tell him that I would judge him by actions and not words.

I heard bits about it. How impractical was the proposed solution?

I tell you, it was as bad as making him run completely naked in circles in deep snow for three hours.

Yikes, it wouldn't be useful, pretty or even funny. What happened next?

I don't think he understood the gravity of the situation. He kept laughing.

Wasn't that some kind of embarrassment?

Even if embarrassment is what it was, it is not permissible to repeat the identical exchange over and over. The more you do, the more absurd the whole incident becomes.

You didn't say all that to your boss, did you?

Mon dieu, who said this has anything to do with him?

That's what I heard, I swear.

The issue here is that apologies are used as a substitute for indulgence. An apology is offered each time the same mistake is committed, but without any intention to avoid one in the future. Another grave problem with respect to apologies is that oftentimes they are given for wrong causes.

People apologize for what they do not need to?

It may sound funny, but yes.

I thought that is what you yourself are guilty of. Quite a few have told you that you don't need to apologize so much, right?

Some see how bad I am feeling about the rut that I managed to put them in, and wish to reassure me that they would overcome that setback. They tell me that I don't have to apologize in such instances.

And others?

They say how wrong it is to apologize for so many things, and in effect, show how little understanding they have of me.

How do you know that you are not committing the mistake that you pointed out?

I sure would be if I apologize only for the wrong causes and not for the right ones.

You offer apologies for just about anything to make sure that every cause has been covered... That may dilute the efficacy of each apology, you know.

But I mean it each time!

It looks like we may understand you better, if we do away with apologies as you proposed.

I did not say that I was going to eliminate the feelings of guilt and the wish to bear responsibility for wrongdoing and errors and to correct them. As I implied earlier, I will continue to express them through actions.

Don't you think it makes a difference to say explicitly that you are sorry?

I do want to hear it from others as long as they believe in it and are planning to follow it up. As for saying it myself, I have to think that I do so for the proof that I am doing my best to be moral. If some complain about my apologies, well, I will just put a big X next to their names.

That may be the best, because we cannot please everyone on the planet and we need to be accountable to ourselves.

Anyway, the serious problem with apologies that I want to address here is the following. Many apologize for something rather trivial and unrelated to the real and bigger issue. For example, I may be upset because my partner---mind you, I had no choice over who that would be---always cunningly takes the easy part of the job and leaves the difficult part for me to deal with. That itself may not be too bad if he does not advertise to others how much contribution he is making.

He senses that you have been unhappy and apologizes profusely for colliding with you in the corridor.

Such people are so skilled at not looking at what is inconvenient to them. Some manage to take advantage of the rumor mill, too.

"Are you guys in bad terms?" "Yeah, we bumped into each other the other day, and I apologized because it was my fault. But..." "Upset because of that?" "Looks like it." And for some reason, they never turn to you to ask what's the matter between you two, right?

I wouldn't say much anyway. What's the point of complaining about the third party?

You firmly believe in discussing any problem with the culprit and not with others.

Another person went as far as to admit that he had become rather self-righteous in a certain domain, but seemed to want to believe that he was not overall a self-righteous soul. I'm afraid he is turning a blind eye to the real problem.

Isn't it usually the case that the parts tell us quite a bit about the whole? People who are cruel to animals tend to suffer from psychological disorders, and are abusive toward fellow human beings as well.

What about people who are nasty toward family members, but nice toward colleagues? It can be the other way around, too.

True, some manage to maintain that duality for decades.

We hear what loving parents some dictators were when their hands had been soaked in tons of blood of others.

Joseph Stalin remains a good example of consistency.

Some other problem cases concern shifting the blame to factors beyond our control by way of apology.

"I lied because the earth orbits around the sun. The motion makes my tongue wiggle." That genre?

It could be a bit less absurd. "I couldn't help snatching your carefully prepared lunch while you weren't looking, because I hadn't eaten anything since last night and it looked so good." Or even more plausible. "I may have the tendency to be self-righteous, but that is because I live alone." That raises the question of: are all who live by themselves self-righteous?

If the answer is no, s/he has to look for an excuse elsewhere.

We try hard to find excuses in our environment, because we do not want to admit that it is our personality or lack of morality that is the true problem. You would be surprised how far we go to avoid questioning who we are.

Isn't that natural?

Yes, and that is why apologies are very often useless. Most of the time, we do not address the real issue with the earnestness that is required to prevent similar incidents. In many cases, apologies are harmful, because they are used as indulgences and put the pressure on the victim of the mistake or wrongdoing to act as if nothing bad had happened. If we are still angry after given an apology, it will be us who would be accused of spitefulness, childishness, and so on.

Having considered all the difficulties of offering useful apologies, you want others to apologize and you plan to apologize as often as you used to after all.

Let's say it is like saying 'good morning.' If you don't, it's rude in most cases. Many people neither think it is a good morning nor want to wish you a good morning, but say it as a courtesy. I want to be civilized enough to say 'good morning' to as many as possible, and would like to hear a pleasant 'good morning' rather than a grouchy one. If people think I am making too big a fuss about 'good morning,' they don't understand me.

Now who wants to understand you?

We all pretend that we either understand each other or are doing our best to reach that goal, comrade.

You are more Machiavellian than usual today. In any case, what do you say about not coming for so long?

I'm really sorry about it, but you know... I don't want to make excuses.

In other words, you could have made it, but you didn't.

It's a matter of priority... Nobody can do million things in a day.

Apology rejected! You are not showing enough remorse, comrade. You should have volunteered to reexamine your morality and personality.