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?

Being is light, perhaps unbearably

We may admit that cultures are incompatible with each other, but we tend to ignore their enormous power to shape who we are.

If I had been born among people whose custom is to grow and braid hair, I guess I would be doing so.

Suppose the longer the braids, the nicer looking you are, and yours are considered among the best. Now if you go to a country where everybody is supposed to have her/his head shaved with an intricate pattern, what do you think is going to happen?

If I did not know anything about their practice, I will be greatly shocked. In their eyes, I will be an item of curiosity. They may think I am a complete weirdo, or it could be that they think I am a long awaited savior.

It is much more likely that you would be deemed a barbarian and be despised.

What if the Skin-head people come over to my Braid country?

You will be laughing at them.

So, we always win home games?
 

Culture is a set of unwritten codes of conduct; the more people adhere to it, the more powerful it is. Headcount matters, and that is one of the biggest reasons why Benedictus is against contraceptives and homosexuality. Going back to your trip to the Skin-head land as a Braid person, you would be disturbed and hurt by scornful reactions to your braids, instead of praises and respect that you have been used to.

Will I have a crisis?

That's certain. If you are destined to go back to your Braid country after a short period of time, you would endure the humiliating situation without doing anything to your braids. Once you return, you would hasten to tell your family, friends and colleagues how uncivilized things were in the Skin-head country.

If I had been deeply wounded by the disrespectful treatment, I will have every incentive to do so. I may even exaggerate, just to get even.

If you have to stay in the Skin-head country for a while, however, you may opt to cut off your braids and shave your head.

God forbid...

Do not despair, comrade. It will be a wise decision on your part. Suppose you keep your braids and try to do whatever you wanted to in the Skin-head country. It's going to be awfully time consuming and frustrating. In fact, it can take forever.

Are you telling me that I will not accomplish my mission, however noble that may be, simply because of my braids?

Yes, because you stand out so much that the focus will be on your braids. It will require quite a bit of time and effort to make the Skin-heads see beyond the strange appearance of yours. Your difference on surface is so big that it may be a fatal barrier against making yourself understood.

I shall blame them for judging by appearance alone!

It may be justified to do so, but as I have been telling you, we are so influenced by looks and there is not much we can do about it. Anyway, if you are practical enough, I am sure that you will be going to the barber's before too long.

And the Skin-heads will think that I am finally enlightened, liberated, emancipated... The bastards!

Shhhh, it's all hypothetical, comrade. Besides, the worse is yet to come.

You mean they may not accept me even when I do away with my beautiful braids?

That also. What I had in mind is the dilemma that you would face when your date of return to the Braid country nears.

... Quelle horreur ! I have to get my braids back, but I can't grow my hair to full length just on the day before my departure.

If you start letting your hair cover the nice pattern made on your skull, the Skin-head people are going to talk about it.

"We thought it was a miraculous case of assimilation to our refined culture, but alas, it looks like a barbarian is forever a barbarian." That kind of talk?
 
You got it. Plus, when you are back in the Braid country, you will find inconvenient aspects that you did not notice before: the trouble of washing your long hair and making it into braids, the fallen hair that you notice everywhere in your house, the attention you have to pay so that the braids do not get caught between elevator doors...

Oh no, will I be missing the Skin-head country?

You may even find the near religiosity that your people have for braids slightly ridiculous.

My stay among the Skin-heads has changed me...
 

We are very much influenced by the communities and the societies that we live in. Of course, there is a great variation in the direction and the degree of influences.

We often think ourselves independent of our environment, but that's not quite true. There is no definite 'I.'

It is a rather scary thought, but I have to agree with you. I happen to be who I am because of the places that I lived and the events I experienced, and the vast majority of those has been beyond my control. In turn, it means that I am a product of chances.

Are we getting into the nature-versus-nurture argument?

No, because I am not saying that our traits are formed either by nature or by nurture. I am simply underlining the importance of the nurture component. My main proposition is: who we are cannot be discussed without reference to our surroundings. When we examine our identity carefully, we discover that the bulk of it is about how we position ourselves in the community or the society that we are part of.

The smart one, the pretty one, the funny one, the complaining one, the nagging one, the bragging one, the one who runs fastest, the one who is good at fixing things around the house, the one who trips over everything, the one who...

Usually, we think as if the attributes were absolute, but for accuracy, we should be adding the word, "around."

The smartest one around, the prettiest one around, and so on?

Have you heard about a village prodigy who goes to the city to attend school and experiences great shock, because s/he is mediocre compared to other students?

We hear that story all the time. In movies, they are the successful ones in the end, though.

Have you thought about why they are shocked?

It's simple. There are many more competitors than s/he imagined earlier.

Another way to phrase it is: the village prodigy can no longer be identified as the smartest one because s/he is in a new environment.

It's an identity crisis, then?

You see, her/his idea of who s/he is hinged on how other people fared compared to her/him. Think about a teenager who aspires to be radical. If s/he lives in a rural area, how radical s/he can be and still be accepted by family and friends would certainly differ from the radicalism allowed to her/him had s/he lived in one of the biggest cities in the world.

It is possible, though, that a radical will be a radical wherever s/he is.

Certainly. But for most of us, our tendency to go in particular directions is measured against how the rest of the society goes along those paths. Our identities are built on where we are in relation to the whole society.

That is why there is no absolute 'I.'

I was brought up by leftish parents in rightish places, and I took pride in being progressive. But at some point in my life, I became friends with leftish people from leftish places. Imagine how shocked I was to find out that I was not a true progressive in this big world!

What did you do?

I was horrified to find out that I was experiencing myself the feelings that I knew the rightish people in rightish places had when they heard of my opinion. I was also surprised to discover that the label of 'left' or 'progressive' was so important to me. I had sleepless nights before I could fully subscribe to the new ideas that I was exposed to, but I managed. I was propelled by the desire to stay progressive, and not become backward by any measure.

So you are now an 'all-region left'?

I know many people who describe themselves left, right, center-left, center-right...

For some reason, no extremists call themselves extremists.

What those labels mean is deeply dependent on where they grew up and have lived. As with any aspects of identity, they think that their adherence is to the ideas and not to their place along the local, political spectrum that they inhabit. On some occasions, I have pointed out that they would be thinking differently had they lived or had lived elsewhere. They would be taking the same political seats in any society---one to the left, to the right, or in the center. However, where that whole assembly room is situated varies, depending on the community that they belong to.

Did you manage to convince them?

They didn't believe me... I have also met quite a number of people in the West who have abandoned Western religions to embrace the Eastern ones, and quite a few in the East who have converted to Western religions. I am certain that had their birthplace been the reverse, their beliefs of choice would be reversed as well. In other words, what matters is the fact of conversion rather than the content of religions that they convert into.

Rejecting what we were imposed upon, and accepting what is presented as an option. Denouncing the institution whose unsavory aspects we have been exposed to, and embracing one whose ugly side we are yet unaware of. I trust that you didn't point these out to them...

The analogy would be taking a seat on a boat on a river. Each of us has a preferred seat: facing upstream or downstream, closer to the center, to the bow or to the stern. We usually choose the same spot of a boat, regardless of which river or where in the stream we are.

Things tend to be all right until we encounter another boat, correct?

It's the same as purchasing the latest model of whichever gadget you are crazy about. You think you are in love with the latest one, but that is true only as long as there is no newer model. In most cases, once another version becomes available on the market, that becomes your passion.

The attribute of being the newest is not absolute, but relative to other existing models.

People who go back and forth among different cultures, thus face a delicate task of balancing their fidelity to certain ideas and their desire to maintain a fixed set of adjectives for their identities.

It will be awfully confusing if you are progressive in some places and backward in others.

Alas, a person who is a true amalgam of red and blue cultures and has turned purple will be considered red among the blue, and blue among the red...

At the bottom of our rational choices

Your point was that logical analysis is more reliable than intuition, because logic can correct feelings, but not vice versa. What if two logical systems collide?

You are right. I realize that sets of logic that cannot be reconciled exist side by side. In fact, that is what cultures are all about.

If we operate within one culture, it all makes sense. But once we come into contact with another, we face contradictions.

One may tell us to be assertive, not to be stepped over, while the other may urge us to be self-deprecating so as to show our confidence in ourselves. There would be no problem if we know which rules prevail.

Things get tricky when we don't know which, because we don't say such things like, "I know that we come from incompatible cultural backgrounds, but I firmly believe that we should go about based on the Triangulum protocol."

What we leave out is, "I am from the Triangulum Galaxy, and I think we are culturally advanced than you guys from the Andromeda Galaxy, ha!"

While the guy from the Andromeda Galaxy is thinking the reverse.

 
Again the winner is the one that manages to be more brutal and ruthless.

We shouldn't act by the Gentlemen's Code, then?

I don't know why we should be bothered with it at all. Think about all the historical events. The ones who did away with such codes have always been the winners. Who said that the fighting should be on the ground only? If we realize that we can attack from the sky, we don't ask the enemy whether it is okay to do so. We just start dropping bombs from airplanes.

But isn't it self-destructive? If you take a no-holds-barred approach, the other party is going to retaliate with the same. The response could be more dramatic than the original acts, because they would be fueled by sense of defeat and revenge.

It is self-defeating only in the long run. What if the more brutal party annihilates the other? There is no point in our acting gentlemanly if the price to pay is our very existence.

If the tougher guys are going to win thanks to their toughness, why are they destined to self-destruction later?

When the culture is characterized by brutality, they can turn to each other with the same cruelness that they applied to their enemies. We know that once the first enemy is eliminated, the rest would split themselves to create enemies. With all regret, I have to say that it is human nature to do so.

We keep on destroying who is left until there is no one.

It is the course of fate that governs too many aspects of our lives. Think about price wars. They may benefit consumers, but not if the workers are insufficiently rewarded for their work to produce the goods. And the workers are consumers, too... Back to the issue of colliding logical systems, if we are to decide which to believe in when not threatened by immediate danger of annihilation, the choice will be dictated by our feelings and emotions.

We cannot logically compare logical systems that are incompatible in terms of logic.

Hence, if we are pressed to choose, it will be based on how we feel about each one against others.

You mean our decisions are more emotionally charged than we'd like to admit.

All of us try to present our arguments if they were the only ways that the discourses can reasonably unfold, but that's not true.

I know that one. Parents versus children, political left versus right, religious fundamentalists versus atheists, and more.

Sometimes we are brought up with one way of thoughts and do not deviate from them, because deviation may lead to reexamination of the fundamentals of what we believe in and how we are. We want to avoid that at all costs. But other times, we are given the freedom to choose.

Downhill versus cross-country skiing, sci-fi versus suspense novels, classical versus rock music...

Those are easy, because we may indulge in both without any problem. It becomes more interesting when it comes to political systems, for example. Nobody can say that s/he supports both democracy and dictatorship. The two cannot coexist.

Or, capitalist and communist economies.

The decisive thrust for one over the other comes from our feelings for them.

And the feelings originate in our experiences with them, right?

If your hard-earned assets have been forcibly confiscated by the communist party and that in front of your eyes, there is no way you are going to be a staunch communist. Likewise, if you and your parents have been exploited by a big landowner, there is little chance that you are going to be a capitalist.

That is irrespective of the logic behind the capitalist and communist systems.

We have to be careful not to treat the two systems as if our attraction to the two were the same. For the sheer reason that the capitalist system appeals to our base instincts to consume and own, it has a stronger draw.

In the case of the exploited peasant, s/he may strive to become a landowner her/himself instead of abolishing the unfair landholding scheme, then.

Exactly. It is our personal feelings generated through personal experiences that serve as the dice for the final selection among incompatible choices. However, when it comes to defense of that choice, we argue as if we had arrived by logic alone.

Well, not many people are going to be convinced by saying that your parent's castle was ransacked by the thuggish party members and that is why you hate the party and its doctrines.

That is why we build up arguments for our decision devoid of such events. Such behavior is not confined to our private thoughts and affiliations. It holds for various views in professional arena, including academia. Contrary to popular belief, we do not start with a clean slate of mind in deciding what we believe in. Rather, we start from our beliefs and build a fortress around it in the name of logic and science.

I bet that's why we seldom manage to convince the other camp.

Most of the time, we ourselves are even not aware of what is at the very bottom of our seemingly rational convictions. If we are, we are loathe to admit it, because we know that the material is not something that makes the other party to change sides. A variation of this theme is found in our appreciation of art.

We know what we like first and then try to find arguments as to why?

That is true, but it would be of the same theme. What I meant by a variation is that the knowledge of the personal aspects of artists affects how we appreciate their works.

Whether the painter was near starvation or living comfortably with the inheritance money should not matter when we judge how good a painting is.

I know an artist with paralyzed limbs who manipulates the brush with his mouth. I was greatly surprised to learn his handicap, considering the level of accomplishment. The question is: are we supposed to, or is it correct to, be more appreciative of his art now that we know his hardship.

If we are to publish one book of paintings, should it be his or the other's whose artistic value may be higher but without such difficulties?

In terms of pure profit, I am certain that the publisher would choose the former. But in terms of artistry, I am not certain if we should appreciate the handicapped more. It is like giving a student a better grade just because s/he suffers from learning disability. The implicit agreement is to evaluate the results, but we take efforts into account as well.

It is true that we are often curious about the artists' private lives, and we tend to like their work more if we are familiar with their biography.

Sometimes it can go the other way, too. If we find out that the artist is awfully conceited, that puts off quite a number of people and make them dislike her/his art. Similarly, our own personal events associated with a certain work can determine whether we like that particular piece.

It is hard for me to listen to the music that I heard when my dear pet beetle passed away. I was digging a hole in the backyard to bury it...

I know that Francisco Goya will forever be a very special painter for me. His exhibition was the first one that I remember attending as a child. It's amazing how vivid the memory has stayed. The crowd, the atmosphere, the weather, the changes in the dominant color in paintings as Goya aged, asking my mother about it, seeing his painting shortly afterward as a poster and recognizing it as his right away, and so on.

A piece of music suddenly means more if a story is attached to it, right?

It is not that I think about the story as I listen, but somehow the music becomes alive. Art begins to mean much more when a bit of context is given. In fact, the story or the context only serves to make me truly listen or see.

Without a story or a context, you pay cursory attention to art?

It seems that I often---not always, mind you---need a story that allows me into the world that each piece of art creates. Once I gain access to that world, I don't need to go back to the story or the context. Sometimes, they even become bothersome during the moments when I appreciate the more abstract nature of art.

Who said that we are rational beings?

Praise unmasked

You said last time that dignity may not necessarily be the most important element in people's lives. If not, tell me what could be.

Have you brought a powder keg with you today? You strongly reek of it.

You may be thinking that I am belligerent, but you sound even more so! This is a great start for a conversation about dignity.

I was just teasing, trying to make things a bit lighter.

How can you make things light when you order tiramisù, mille feuille, appelgebak, Sachertorte, and Linzertorte, all at the same time?

In honor of the European Union...

But you have skipped many countries, and Austria is represented twice.

If we think about the House of Hapsburg, what we consider Austrian pastry covers quite a bit of ground.

You are trampling on political, historical and cultural sensibilities!

I was just kidding, you know that.

I can never be sure about you.

You don't trust me?

I was teasing. But, it's true that joking and teasing need trust in order to function as such. We talked about this in connection with stereotypes.

I believe that it is possible to say a friendly joke to a total stranger, though.

The trick is how to build that instant rapport. That does not imply that a short introductory exchange is a sine qua non. It is a matter of how you say it and which facial expression you adopt.

Circumstances, wording, voice, sharpness of the eyes, shrug or lack thereof, smile or lack thereof, laugh or lack thereof...

The good news is that it comes with so many conditional clauses that no self-help book can teach you what is right on all occasions.

Is that good? My suspicion is that some cultures are quite adept at it, while others aren't. I also suspect that what is taken as amicable in one culture is not so in others.

I used to be of that opinion, but lately, I have been thinking that if your intention is good, that shows in spite of cultural differences.

That's quite sweeping and optimistic, especially coming from you.

Do you remember my claim that maturity transcends cultural boundaries?

Hardly. ... Yes, yes, I do! I was just kidding.

That claim implies that teasing can be done artfully with anyone, even across cultures.

I recall that, because faux pas cannot be avoided, maturity is about how to make amends for it. Does that mean we should tell another joke when the first one turns out to be a dud?

In case of jokes that are perceived as offensive and/or tasteless, it is best to offer a sincere apology, I think. My point this time is that your intention gets conveyed most of the time.

I don't understand. You are now saying that teasing and jokes are almost failure proof.

No, my dear comrade, on the contrary. Many of them fail, because the little bits of nastiness almost always manage to manifest themselves.

Perhaps that is the purpose, to dress up a nasty remark and present it as a joke.

If so, you should be prepared for defense. In many problem cases that I witness, the words 'teasing' and 'joke' are used as shields when the nasty core is exposed.

"What are you getting all upset about, it's only a joke." "You have no sense of humor." ... Such lines would not count as proper defense.

If you are going to make someone uncomfortable with a joke, I presume that you are doing so with good reason. You'd better be prepared with another good biting joke to fend off the counterattack. This is another variant of my stance that the proof of maturity is in making amends.

I don't think the last example is exactly making amends, but yes, I understand your point. We have to take responsibility for what we say and that graciously, whenever possible. Getting back to nastiness shining through, do you mean to say that if there is none of it behind, people would sense so across cultural and social fences?

Yes.

In other words, if your intention is filled with affection and nothing else, the teased would understand as such?

It sounds rather simplistic and sugary, but yes, that is what I mean.

I know that you like everything complicated and rugged, so I stated your point on your behalf. And, this is what I get in return...

My tone should have made it clear that I agreed that it was the most efficient way of expressing the idea.

What can I say, I missed that.

It happened because you do not trust me as much as I thought you did. Good intentions have the power to come through, but not all the time. The same happens to bad intentions. That is why manipulation succeeds.

Aren't there variations in sensitivity among us in that sense?

I happen to be particularly fine-scaled in that regard.

Avoiding the expression, 'chips on one's shoulder,' eh?

I was avoiding the word, 'sensitive.' Once in a while, I react negatively to a remark for seemingly no good reason.

Your evil streak comes out.

That used to be my interpretation. But now I think it is because I sense lack of respect, behind the ordinary, or even sweet, words. Sometimes it is plain malice, more than lack of respect.

If it is not dignity, it's respect...

They are related, of course. To honor dignity is to show respect.

Hurray, we are back to dignity!

Some people shower me with praises, but...

Really? Can I meet them? Are they homo sapiens?

If they do not quite mean it, it shows. Some pose as sincere, but in fact, they are condescending.

Why does everything become so twisted when you are involved?

We are under this great misunderstanding that any praise would make anyone happy.

Not to worry. We know that you are an exception.

Many of us have not thought carefully about the premises of praising.

As you may have noticed already, not all of us list thinking hard as a favorite pastime.

Think about it...

I told you, many of us don't. ... Okay, I will keep quiet for a while.

To praise someone assumes that we have the capability to evaluate that person. In addition, by allowing our evaluation be known to its subject, who has not asked for any evaluation by us, we unilaterally declare authority over the evaluated. You wouldn't go up to Albert and say, "Hey, Al, good job, that theory of yours, the general theory of relativity. I thought that was quite nifty. Keep it up."

I can't. He's dead.

...

My knowledge is too limited to fully appreciate its contribution to modern physics, and further to natural science in general, not to speak of the underlying mathematics and its beauty. Hence, I wouldn't.

You see? You would think, "Who am I to tell Al that I think highly of him as if that would make a difference?"

The flip side of that is: if you commend a person, you are assuming that you are someone vis-à-vis her/him.

What if a person who does not have the capability to properly evaluate you gives you praise?

Are you again thinking of unwanted suitors?

I am thinking of a wider group of people, including them.

Most of us are not equipped with adequate knowledge to evaluate a case like yours, unless s/he has dabbled in clinical psychology or psychiatry. Plus, according to what you said earlier, if we have good intentions, shouldn't it come through?

Bravo, my dear comrade! Yes, it does. And, I can tell you that, in too many cases, I see patronizing or self-serving motives.

How does a self-serving motive work?

"I want to make this person feel good so that s/he would think that I am a very nice person." In some cases, it is meant to make up for a gaffe committed earlier. Curiously, the gaffe and the praise usually concern different areas. In yet other cases, it goes further: "If s/he thinks that I am so nice, s/he would fall in love with me."

According to your guiding principle of, "Deep down, we are constrained by our biological impulses," we cannot be any other way. We praise others, only because we ourselves want to feel better.

I agree. But as you may recall, civilization lies in how we control those impulses to fit our goals which may go counter to them. As for praises, we should make clear that our evaluation is based on our limited capability, that it concerns solely the object of evaluation, and that we are disclosing the evaluation without solicitation or permission.

If I say that much as a prelude to a praise, it would be awfully contrived, wouldn't it? Plus, there is nothing immoral about using praises to advance our own agenda.

Whether we have an agenda behind a praise or not, we want to be effective. That means, we want to sound genuine.

There is little use praising someone, if s/he sees your attitude of: "I am fully aware that you may find out that I don't believe in it, but I am saying it anyway..."

The art of praising is in how to convey the content of the 'prelude' with our choice of words, tone, gesture, timing, etc. If we are not careful, we would be effectively saying, "Our opinion of you is so valuable and important that it has the power to make you happy or unhappy." Put differently, we need to suppress our primal urge so as to transform the act into a selfless one and make it appear so.

What about distrustful people? You know that there are around, ahem.

The above approach should enable us to overcome distrust to a great extent. Mind you, they may not appreciate the words of praise on the spot, but I am confident that they will become aware of the good intentions over time.

I'm glad that it's awfully complicated and almost impossible after all.

Not so, comrade. Even with a blunder or two in the factors that I listed above, if we are selfless, I believe that it comes across as such. I would not say that the success rate would be 100%, but that is the case with anything in our world.

Three cheers for the simplicity that is so in a complicated way! Tell me, are there people who manage to utter a phrase of praise in the manner that you recommended?

If not, I would have said that all praises are phony.

Not counting yours, I mean.

...

Just kidding! A joke, une blague, una broma, een grapje...

"A joke is a very serious thing."

All right, Sir Winston to the rescue.

Big, big leaf with tiny hair versus big leaf with tiny hair

Do you really think social conventions are arbitrary?

How else can you explain the fact that opening a gift in front of the offerer is considered rude in one culture and not doing so is rude in another culture?

I think those two rules are based on different aspects of the same action. Since it is not nice to show disappointment, it is better to open the gift after the guest has left. This is the rationale for the first one.

As for the second case, promptly unwrapping the gift is supposed to be a sign that the receipt alone has already made you happy. It also allows showing appreciation in person, rather than in a thank-you note to be sent later. This approach requires that you be prepared to smile and look delighted, even when you are given the ugliest and the most useless object in the entire universe.

Your examples do not say customs and conventions are arbitrary. On the contrary, the common, ultimate goal is to convey appreciation for the act of giving itself, that is, regardless of what is given.

You are right. It is all about showing appreciation for one another. But if we agree that the two takes on gift giving make equal sense, the preference of one approach over the other is arbitrary.

You cannot open right then and there, and also later---you have to choose. Plus, if you are inconsistent in the timing of opening, people would start searching for meanings. Did s/he open it right away, because it was from Monsieur Untel and not from Madame Unetelle? Or, because it was bulky and wrapped with a colorful paper?

I have seen quite a bit of frustration among people who crossed the lines of these two types of culture.

Another well known source of friction is how lavish a spread you present when you invite people.

In many cultures, showing that you are stretching your means to entertain the guests is very important. That said, I feel really uncomfortable when a precious goat, sheep, pig, or chicken is slaughtered, just because I am from a far away place or faintly connected to a person who is mighty important to them.

They are eager to chop the heads off, even if you just met them an hour ago.

How am I going to tell them that I am a vegetarian?

The spread issue can go the other way around, too. If you are raised in a culture which says any guest is to be fed until s/he has to lie down for digestion enhancement, some other cultures come across as offensive.

True. One time, I brought a nice bouquet of flowers to a luncheon, only to find out that the hostess had decided to have a rather soggy and plastic-looking pizza delivered, instead of cooking herself.

I suppose she had a coupon?

I think that was the case, indeed. I was shocked, too, that I was the only one who presented something to the hostess.

And that the pizza was served from the box... Are you resentful, because you had gone a long way to compose a bouquet which looked classy, but not as inexpensive as it actually was?

... But I don't remember your coming to the florist or to the luncheon with me!

Isn't it the company and the content of conversation that matter?

In theory, yes. But, to this day, I feel I have to make more dishes than the guests can possibly consume and I consider a "little something" for the host/ess an absolute must.

I thought you were more open-minded.

It's similar to saying "good morning" to strangers on the street. It certainly does not make everyone on earth on good terms with each other, but it is a gesture that acknowledges your presence and existence. I am convinced that contentment in life is made of such seemingly trivial acts.

In short, although you admit that there are various possible ways to achieve the same goal, you are offended if people do not take the way that you prefer.

I would avoid saying offended, but I was disappointed in this particular example. You may think that I only approve of the manners that I am most accustomed to, but not so. After all, what do we have our thinking faculty for?

Conventions are conventions, because some thinking has been done for you beforehand.

If you cross cultural boundaries, you are most likely to encounter customs and conventions that tell you to do what you were told not to do in some other place.

Just as in the case of gift opening.

As a person with the experience of having lived and living in other cultural environments, you are given the opportunity to choose among multiple solutions to a problem. That is where thinking becomes required.

While you had accepted in toto the customs and conventions taught by your parents, you now reflect on them, compare them with the solutions that you yourself have discovered, and make a rational judgment as to which solution is best.

How successful that can be depends on how open-minded your environment is, and even if people around you are receptive to alien manners, it may take some time to be understood that your way is a viable alternative.

In other words, if people think you are strange, their closed-mindedness is to blame. How convenient!

I remember reading about an anthropologist who lived in a village in a foreign country for his case study. The very first task was to learn the local language. The village elders assembled for the occasion with a bunch of different leaves.

To teach him how to count?

I don't remember if it was the very first lesson, but anyway, he had to learn the name of each plant, looking at the leaves. For him, they were so much alike that he could not distinguish one from another. Of course, the villagers did not understand why a grown-up like him could not tell the big leaf with small veins and short hair from another big leaf with similarly small veins and short hair, but with different luster.

You mean his mental capacity was inferior to that of a five-year old, as far as the villagers were concerned?

Yes. It took some time for the anthropologist to understand that the ability to identify different leaves was very important in their daily lives, in terms of medicine, toxin and nutrition, and that was why the village elders insisted that he master the art. The villagers themselves could not articulate the purpose of the exercise explicitly, because they had not been exposed to other cultures; they had not consciously examined their ways of life in relation to others'.

Does it mean that the definition of full adulthood is culture dependent?

Consider the case of our anthropologist. He does not have the knowledge and the skills to function as the head of a household in the village. Even surviving on his own is probably impossible. Put differently, he may be an adult in his own country, but no doubt disqualified as such in this village. In many cultures, you become an adult only after you are married and have children. In some others, that is no longer part of proper adulthood.

We can say, then, that maturity is about how well you behave along the socially accepted norms. That further means you will have to adopt whatever the local culture says one should do.

It is impossible to abide by all culture codes that we come across.

Come to think of it, if social conventions are arbitrary and maturity is about following such conventions, being mature is arbitrary. We can't be serious about a standard that is arbitrary to start with and changes from place to place.

The most important component of maturity is about knowing when you are going to violate or have violated the codes, and how you make up for that. I believe how you amend is, in fact, more important than whether you commit a cultural transgression or not; however careful we may be, we all make faux pas.

I know about that one! So, what is your recommended strategy?

Be ready to admit your mistake or conscious violation, and be sincere about your past and future intentions that you did and will not act out of malice. Arrogance is always a bad idea, of course, but self-deprecation can also get absurd.

Should we be insincere if we wanted and want to be malicious?

...

Okay, skip that question. But, aren't we back to the same, fuzzy idea that everything should be in moderation?

Yes, and the world will never agree on what that moderation is.

Three cheers for your pessimism!

Oh no, I'm quite optimistic today. If you haven't noticed, that is a problem.

Blame others at a hint of criticism... So much for mature behavior, I'd say.

I declared that maturity can well transcend cultural boundaries. How more optimistic can one get?