The Third person

Don't you think it's time to add a new member to our meetings? 

Does that mean I am not good enough in what I do here?

Comrade... None of us is free from the fate of being ourselves. 

If we can be anything or everything, that would be confusing and scary.

The sad thing is that we get bored even with the very best. It is boredom that we find at the root of so-called 'change of heart.' 

On one hand, we need stability and reliability. On the other hand, we want novelty and excitement.

We have concluded before that one way to attain both is to keep on growing as persons. 

The problem, then, is that the two may grow apart. 

That is not as bad as one stunting the development of the other. I have seen many couples becoming more like the other, but for some reason, often in undesirable ways. 

Don't you think that we are essentially 'bad,' and having a partner who is already 'bad' serves as an excuse to be so? In other words, the 'bad' trait that is manifested in our partner brings out the same 'bad' trait in us that had been dormant?

Tidy and well-organized versus messy and ill-organized. Reliable versus flaky. Sociable versus anti-sociable. Fashionable versus unfashionable. Considerate versus self-centered. ... Well, it is not always the bad overwhelming the good, but I do think we tend to slide toward the least energy requiring and that is often the 'bad' rather than the 'good.' 

We sometimes see one trying hard to change the other, such as asking her/him to put the cap back on the tube of toothpaste when done, taking her/him to a rockclimbing trip that s/he does not care for, etc.

Some seem to convert, but when they break up, we hear that the conversion had not been a genuine one. 

'I went along, because he insisted.' 'She was really adamant, so that's why I did it.'

Why is happiness so elusive? 

Well, you're the one who implied that I'm no longer fit for this role.

I did not suggest replacing you with someone, simply adding a new member. 

That's what all adulterers say. They claim that they have no intention to abandon their wife, husband or steady lover. They say that they love their spouses/lovers as much as they did before.

Calm down, comrade. First of all, our relationship is not of that kind. Second, I realized that having another person would bring out the elements of who we are that two of us have not been able to by ourselves. 

But it does not mean that the third person is going to sit with us at the table and do nothing.

You are right, s/he has to participate in our talk. 

I still don't understand your proposal. You have been of the opinion that we are capable of understanding each other best when tête à tête.

I have become less sanguine about it lately. The trigger event was the meeting with Rainbow Trout and Red Herring. 

Rainbow Trout and Red Herring...? You must then be a Polka-dot Blowfish.

Sorry to disappoint you, comrade, but I quite like the sobriquet that you are giving me. Gaudy and poisonous! Honestly, what more can I ask? 

You're trying to act tough...

It's true, you can call me Pol-Blo from now on. Anyway, Rainbow Trout asked me some time ago what I thought about the film, "Deep Sea Rendez-Vous." 

What kind of movie is it?

Don't think hard, because it's another random nickname. I told Trout that it was not bad, but not great either. A good entertainment perhaps, but I could think of better ones. Trout told me then that Herring liked it very much.

So far, so good.

A week later, the three meet. Trout has a long history with both Herring and Blowfish, but Herring and Blowfish know each other little, only through Trout. In the middle of the conversation, Trout asks us how we thought about "Deep..." Trout has not seen the movie. I was surprised, because Trout knows our opinions. Trout also knows that I know what Herring thinks. Plus, Trout knows that mine is negative and Herring's positive. What do you think this is all about? 

Was an angel flying around?

Absolutely not. There had been no moment of silence, thanks to Trout who likes to have the ball rolling. 

Could it be that Trout wanted you two to have a debate?

It's not something you can talk about at length, though. Trout seemed to have wholly believed my take on the movie when two of us talked, but Trout was uncertain what to think of it, facing Herring's enthusiastic endorsement once again.

Isn't it natural?

It is. The question is: why did Trout choose the topic, knowing that it would divide us? 

Perhaps Trout thought 'Nobody else is providing conversation fodder, I've got to do something before we come to an halt' and made a hasty decision, or it could be that Trout had realized that s/he shouldn't have agreed so much with you earlier and wanted to correct it.

In any case, I no longer know what Trout thinks. It does not only concern "Deep Sea...," but everything else. Trout and I have had an almost exclusive relationship and that may be why Trout had agreed to and appeared convinced of what I had said most of the time. 

And that is why you have lost faith in tête à tête?

I used to think that people show their true selves when they are alone with me, but... 

I'd say that's arrogance on your part. Did you think anybody would be so comfortable with you to show who they are?

I didn't exactly think so, but I have to admit that it comes down to that. What I believed was that I get to know someone better through one-on-one conversations. What I did not know was that the person would, consciously and unconsciously, adjust to who I am. That means, for better or worse, s/he becomes more suited to my framework, or turns her/himself into something that is easier to incorporate into my thought system.

Which gives you an illusion that you understand that person better than through other types of interactions, but that is not equivalent to knowing the 'true' nature of that person.

Bravo, bravo, bravo... 

You see, I'm worth keeping as your sole collaborator in this project.

Comrade, I told you that I am not questioning your adequacy in that capacity. 

Don't you think that some kind of politics would creep in when there are three of us?

Bravo, again. Even in this current setting, we cannot avoid politics. We sensor our talk depending on how we think we would be perceived by the other. I hate doing so, but I cannot escape it altogether. 

The scary thing about the third person is that s/he is an observer when two of us are talking. We cannot but notice that s/he is watching and hearing us and forming a view of how we are. S/he also gives rise to the possibility of inconsistency in our behavior.

I may employ non-aggressive mode with you, but not with the third person who happens to be terribly manipulative. I would hate seeing myself acting so differently in a few seconds about the same subject, sitting in the same chair. It goes to show that it is never a good idea to say or do something that we would not, had someone of the opposite opinion been around. That way, we can maintain our integrity, but it comes at the price of being a bore. 

Think about the highs that we reach when all of us can bash something or someone to the hilt!

It is possible to do so with agreement that all involved are staging it, but then, we could be misunderstood by someone who is unaware of that unspoken condition. 

Some fish are slashing the photographs of Polka-dot Blowfish with their fins, tearing up some others and throwing the pieces into the fire.

Fish and fire...? Are they thinking of grilling themselves?

They are not terribly fond of Blowfish, but they don't hate so much as to annihilate it. They think they are having a bit of fun.

Red Herring passes by, sees the scene, and tells Rainbow Trout how much Polka-dot Blowfish is detested. 

Terrified, Rainbow Trout informs Polka-dot Blowfish, who, upon hearing the news, blows her/himself up from anger and trauma...

Think also about the change in pecking order. Trout may not mind being No. 2 with Blowfish, but wishes not to portray her/himself so to Herring. Herring, on the other hand, wants to be No. 1 most of the time. 

Consequently, Trout becomes aggressive, more so than Blowfish has known...

The biggest problem for me is: how do I know a person? I thought I would find out who s/he is by talking and listening to her/him with nobody else around, but I now understand that it is not so. When I dig through my memory, I realize that I have had such experiences earlier as well. The impression the person gives me can be quite different when I see her/him with another person.

Which is her/his true self?

Somewhere in between. I am very unhappy with this ambiguity. 

Just don't say you can't trust anyone, Pol-Blo...

Words can be mightier than actions

Words are absolutely necessary on some occasions.

I thought you were of the opinion that all is in the act! You have been telling us not to judge by words but by actions.
 
I do think that it is easy to say something, but much more difficult to follow it up with actions. People around the world agree; sayings and dictums to that effect abound.

We can relay emotions, instruct what to do, or even enforce rules with facial expressions, gestures and drawings. We also encounter situations in which words fail.

I completely agree with that also.

Why backpeddaling then?

Don't be so negative, comrade... It has come to my attention that there are cases where actions do not suffice and words become necessary.

For example?

Why do you think greeting cards are so prevalent?

I thought you would be the one who points out that it is an Occidental custom, spread by some corporations for their business purposes.

The cards that we see most often do fit your description. But we should not forget that some other cultures have had the tradition to give greeting cards or letters, albeit mostly on different occasions.

Isn't that a matter of whether a reliable postal system existed or not?

You are right---good postal service is indispensable for exchanging greeting cards in paper. It does not mean, however, that societies without courrier service were devoid of seasonal greetings.

How did they convey the greetings, then?

People visited each other for that purpose with gifts, or simply changed their everyday greetings in person for a seasonal one. The crucial factor here is that, in order to have our intention recognized, it becomes obligatory to employ one of the stock phrases for the occasion.

I can't simply knock on your door, hand out a present, and think that my purpose would be understood?

Haven't you been given something which made you scratch your head and mumble, 'But, but... why?'?

Most are from my admirers, I admit, but there are some that cannot be put in that category.

Actions need to be supplemented by words in such cases. Without them, the acts are useless.

You said that the words need to be the well-known ones. Why is that?

When actions are not sufficient to convey the purpose, you shouldn't be too innovative with your words. You say or write something so as to clarify the meaning of your gesture, because it alone happens to be hard to interpret.

Is that why we stick to 'Happy birthday,' 'Happy anniversary,' and so on?

Think about more difficult moments. When someone passes away, we want to say something to the survivors, but most of us become utterly lost.

And we turn on the computer and search for pre-made greetings?

I don't see anything wrong with that. We need to acknowledge the event in an accepted manner and that can be done by employing a stock phrase. We are free to add anything to them, of course.

Are we concerned mainly about milestones in life, here?

They are certainly the times when off-the-rack greetings are more important. Suppose we attend a wedding and never say 'Congratulations,' although we are very happy for the couple.

The newly-weds would wonder what we are thinking...

They would try to overcome the lack of that crucial word with what we have done for them, but still the frustration or the puzzlement would remain.

Not saying the required words may be all right for children, but...

In all societies, knowing the protocol is one of the prerequisites for adulthood. What is striking is that more traditional a society is, the more protocol it has. The problem with protocols is that we have to know exactly what they are; they cannot be deduced by logic or substituted with our creativity. If we are ignorant of them, we are given the labels, 'rude,' 'impolite,' 'badly raised,' 'weird,' 'no class,' etc.

Put differently, modernization has made becoming an adult easier?

We could certainly say so, and that to mixed results. Protocols demand time and effort to learn them, but once mastered, they enable us to run various relationships smoothly. We don't have to be happy about others' birthdays, but saying 'Happy birthday' demonstrates that you know the possible importance of the occasion to the person in question and that you care enough about the relationship to acknowledge it.

Why mixed results? Aren't we capable of making up with actions or lines of our choice, if protocols no longer exist?

That is the ideal, comrade. But haven't you encountered situations in which you strongly wished to hear the hackneyed sentences?

Such as, 'I'm sorry'?

We can do all sorts of things that point to our state of being sorry, but sometimes, they have to be topped with our saying 'I'm sorry.' Otherwise, the party that we are concerned with would think that we are beating around the bush. If it had been made into a protocol, it is more likely that the problem would not arise.

But haven't you argued that actions are more powerful than words and that it is so easy to be cocky with what we say?

Definitely, but it is also dangerous to think that stock phrases are useless.

I know what you are thinking about... Legal conflicts, right?

That is one of the reasons why I am against litigation culture. What was said commands undue importance, unless actions are obviously to the contrary---just as it is easier to ticket a driver who is going a tiny bit over the speed limit than one who is changing lanes for no good reason and posing danger to other drivers on the road.

There is a speedometer which clearly shows the number, while it is difficult to prove how dangerous certain zigzagging is.

Protocols also keep our behavior in line by serving as guidelines. I would like to think that people could better use their energy to come up with personal lines than learning the ones that are widely accepted and perhaps too well known, but that has not been what resulted from modernization as we see now.

We as individuals are limited compared to the wisdom of hundreds of generations. 

Each individual by her/himself is also limited in terms of awareness of situations which require words. It would be better, in my opinion, if all cultures had pre-made sentences in some of the situations that are often neglected.

Even if the person does not mean it?

Even so. In fact, a stock phrase is a very convenient compromise for both parties; it is the minimum acceptable for the grieving and the maximum permissible for the offending.

Wouldn't it be stifling to live in a society with countless societal rules, though?

Think about how chaotic the world has become with fewer and fewer protocols. In a protocol regulated society, we know exactly what is happening. If we say the minimum required, we care little but do not wish to go as far as to be impolite. If we do something or say in addition, it is understood that we are personally concerned.

When only a handful of rules exist and we are free to express our feelings in our own way, what happens is...

We tend to turn a blind eye to many circumstances where words---or actions for that matter---would do great good. Plus, we often cannot deduce the thoughts of the other party from their behavior, because there is no protocol which serves as the norm.

It's a... it's a... mess!

The Art of mingling and flirting

I am always amazed that some cultures are very good at mingling and flirting whereas some others are very bad at them. 

Ah... your opening statement is rather vacuous, comrade. Some are good at certain things and others not. You are simply saying that we are not uniform.

Doesn't it surprise you, though---what some people can do effortlessly is impossible for others, and that division is drawn not by variation in personal competence but culture?
 

It is remarkable that all we need is to grow up in a particular way---is this what you mean?

Yes. What is very natural to one group is awfully unnatural to another. If you are born into the Flirty Ethnic, but kidnapped by the Shy Ethnic the day after your birth, you would definitely become a Shy.
 

Are you trying to come up with an excuse for your behavior? If so, it may be best to make a straight confession that you are from Mars, abducted by Plutonians.

What do you think when a person from the Flirty Ethnic meets someone from the Shy Ethnic? 

The Flirty tries to flirt with the Shy while the latter attempts to flee from the scene. Both have little idea what the others' behavior means and why their respective strategies are not working... Absolutely hilarious!

It is sitcom material for the third party, but not for those involved. The big question is what to do so that both could get out of the awkward situation.
 

I can imagine the worst case scenario. The Flirty does not understand that her/his flirting is not appreciated by the Shy and flirts more passionately, making the Shy feel more uncomfortable or even threatened.

Well done, comrade! In this case, the Flirty has the power to resolve the 'conflict' by withdrawing.
 

But that results in the Flirty's frustration. Isn't it unfair that the Shy is spared of taking action on her/his part and the ending suits her/his inclination, not the Flirty's?

I agree with you, save fairness. The best solution is to interact less, and it so happens that it matches with what the Shy desires.
 

If refraining from flirting is as natural to the Shy as flirting is to the Flirty, can't the Shy flirt a bit so that the middle ground is reached?

I don't think such 'middle ground' is practical or possible. It would be much easier for the Flirty to give up than for the Shy to go along with the Flirty. The problem for the Flirty in this kind of situation is that s/he may not notice the Shy's signal at an appropriate moment and may end up going too far. 

The Shy may well think that s/he is being harassed.

I do not think that the Shy should be blamed for that. No doubt it requires much more effort when we encounter people who behave according to cultural codes that we are less familiar with, but we should have the generic capability to assess the degree of comfort of the person that we are dealing with. 

What if the Culture Flirty measures the comfort level of a person by how much laughter there is? The harder the Flirty flirts to make the Shy laugh, the tenser the Shy becomes.
 

We can say that the problem of the Flirty versus the Shy is nothing but the differences in how feelings are expressed and the difficulty of seeing beneath the surface. But the Flirty can deduce from the observation---her/his flirting is not having the intended effects on the Shy---that the Shy's behavior should be interpreted differently from what the Flirty is used to.
 

Isn't that a bit much to ask?
 

It is not easy because we are ingrained in our own ways, but it is a goal that we should strive for. I know quite a few incidents in which the harassing party claimed that s/he was simply trying to be friendly. One strange case that happened to me went as follows. I was complaining about a group of people in my usual vague manner. Then, one among those whom I was talking to started defending himself that the reason why he blabbered was that he wanted to be friendly toward me.
 

Were you complaining about him?

Of course, not. But for some reason, he volunteered to provide an excuse for his behavior. It was funny because I knew then that he had noticed that I had been annoyed with his bla-bla-bla. It was all the more interesting that he nonetheless had continued to be that bla-bla-bla person with me.
 

Isn't that because he cannot change himself?

That may be so, but what intrigued me most was: he did what he wanted to do at my expense, he was aware of that, and yet told me that his aim was to be friendly with me, namely he did it for my sake. To me, this is one of the lesser known manifestations of selfishness.
 

It sounds like life is easier for the non-Flirty, because s/he would not have to go against her/his natural behavior.

Have you ever observed the Shy in action of flirting?
 

Wait... Does the Shy flirt, too?

All of us have the biological urge to befriend and mate, and even the Shy knows by instinct that flirting is a necessary preamble.
 

Why can't the Shy flirt with the Flirty, then? It solves the problem that we have been talking about.

Alas, the Shy's flirting is so modest---or underhanded, we could say---that it goes unnoticed by the Flirty. So, in addition to the worst case that you described, it could be that the Shy understands the Flirty's flirting gesture, appreciates it, attempts to reciprocate, but the Shy's gesture is not understood by the Flirty.
 

The Flirty leaves the scene frustrated or disheartened... I like this scenario better.

Anyway, if culture discourages flirting to the extent of suppressing it, that is not healthy for the people. If you forbid something that human beings have innate affinity for, it will only go underground and can be associated with all sorts of crimes.
 

Drugs and prostitution come to mind.

It is not only ironic but also hypocritical that suppression of mingling among different sexes results in more prostitutes.
 

The biological desire cannot be eliminated and it finds the means to satisfy itself.

It sounds as if they wanted to protect women, but that by creating a separate class of women who can be used as tools to release men's biological desire.
 

And, the differentiation of women into those two groups originates almost exclusively from economic status.

I'd say people become more preoccupied with the other sex when you discourage interaction with them.
 

That's natural. I heard that simply seeing an object that is for exclusive use by the other gender can arouse strong emotions and shoot up the hormone level if intersexual mingling is stricitly curtailed.

The phenomenon is not restricted to specific regions or religious affliations; it was observed not so long ago also in countries which pride themselves in gender equality today. 

Equality on paper, at least...

If we are not well trained in mingling, it can become absurd when we want to show interest in others. Our attempts are usually too timid or overly explicit, and the clumsiness is not confined to romantic associations. 

In other words, we cannot 'pick up' with style.

Plus, almost all actions and attributes of a person of the opposite sex gets attributed to being of that sex.

'Oh, she does that because she's a woman.' 'He says so because he's a guy.' These shortcut conclusions are quite tiresome.

You bet. We become unable to evaluate and appreciate a person as an  individual.
 

What do you think is important in connecting gracefully with others?

We should not change our behavior dramatically between people of special interest and others. At the initial stage of relationship, it is all the more important because we need an escape route ready.
 

How do we know that we are in a relationship that is more than casual?

As you know, I do not believe in saying 'you are special,' etc.
 

Oh, I remember, you are special in that sense...

How much you cherish the relationship can be expressed by how much you are capable of thinking about being in the other's shoes.  

Aren't there cultures which are much better than others at training people in that regard?

Definitely.
 

Doesn't it mean that people from those cultures are misunderstood by others---when the former is doing something they would do to anybody, the latter thinks that they are getting exceptional attention?

... Comrade, think about a world without misunderstandings. It would be awfully boring, wouldn't it?