Dignity, and nothing else

Do you remember talking about relationships based on intimidation and fear?

I do. Your assessment was that some people are so used to the mode that they do not see it as anything bad.

It is convenient for many---which is rather scary, in my opinion---because it spares people from making judgments on their own. Some others have done the thinking for them, and they are willing to follow suit without careful consideration.

I'm afraid such people will always be with us. It does not necessarily have to be intimidation and fear; it could be crowd psychology which has its uses. Without it, we may never reach some kind of consensus.

I beg to differ. Every one of us can think independently, and still reach agreement through compromises. That is what democracy is all about. If we do not discourage crowd psychology, that amounts to allowing seedlings of totalitarianism to grow among us.

What about the problem of personality, though? You have implied that, in the end, what matters is personality, and that the strong ones dominate the others. We have to learn to live with that imperfection.

I agree. In other words, the problem is how to deal with strong characters which tend to steer the system to their liking. We should be equipped with penalties for dictator types.

Ah, that sounds like another avenue to totalitarianism, though, because in the ideal situation, nobody should be dominating or dominated, which suggests that everyone should be alike.

What we need is diversity and value criteria that do not favor the loud and the manipulative over the rest.

I can see that the loud is obviously so, but detecting the manipulative may not be as easy. It will be similar to asking a liar if s/he lies.

Talking about manipulative persons, I have noticed that most people don't mind being friends with them. First of all, manipulation requires intelligence, and that can be useful to the manipulated.

The manipulated is so, precisely because they are less cunning or smart than the manipulating. The manipulating can use their intelligence to the true good of the manipulated, if they wish so.

In other occasions, they use the intelligence to do damage. The interesting thing is that the manipulated count the manipulating as friends, even good friends.

Oh, s/he is sometimes not so nice, but other times s/he is. Is this how the thinking goes?

I presume so. They take it as a fact of life that people are not nice all the time.

But it is.

That may be so, but the problem here is that the manipulating is in total control of the emotional ups and downs of her/his targets.

Isn't that one of ignorance-is-bliss cases?

Could be. For me, it is painful and frustrating to see that some people's happiness is subject to the whims of the manipulating, who belong to the category of the wicked and the evil.

When you are smarter than others, it's difficult not to be manipulative, even if you are against such behavior. We know that one, right?

Children are manipulated by grown-ups, I think we can say that.

I'm not sure whether manipulation is a good term. We make use of child psychology, and that is different from manipulation.

On paper, they are not the same, but in the real world, there are many borderline cases.

Borderline cases... your favorite!

Think about a parent who wishes her/his child not to take up horse riding. The parent can complain about the bad smell---existent or nonexistent---after riding lessons until the child is totally convinced that s/he should stop going to the stable if s/he wants to keep her/his friends.

But then again, isn't the outcome dependent on the personality of the parent versus that of the child?

It is, but that does not take away the fact that there is manipulative element in what we call education and discipline. Recommendation alone can be used to encourage or discourage children to think in certain ways.

Well, education and discipline are, after all, imposing on children what adults think best; we cannot get rid of what could be considered manipulation.

We should, however, recognize that factor and try our best not to force any idea down the throat.

It sounds almost impossible. How can you teach ethics, for example? Usually, our minds are not negotiable when it comes to what is good or bad.

You could present your ethical values as the best possible system that you know, which could be improved upon. Certainly, it should not be taught as the universal truth.

Isn't that rather weak?

I think not. It is always good to know that your thoughts may have some unknown shortcomings. And, it is possible to openly admit so while maintaining firm belief in them.

Are you trying to tell me how to graciously change my ideas, if need be?

Not allowing leeway for yourself could put you in a quite awkward or ugly situation. Plus, it is difficult to trust people who go from one extreme to another, I think.

But extremes are attractive because of their simplicity.

Certainly. Extreme positions are often crowned with the adjective, 'pure'... Getting back to relationships, it surprises me that most people seem to think that slighting and hurting each other is a normal element in any relationship.

If people could stand psychological manipulation, it's not so surprising, is it?

True, the biggest surprise for me may be that people fail to recognize the manipulative and the abusive motives. They are also ready to go on as if nothing had happened after they hurt each other. That astonishes me as well.

Let me guess, you do not want any slighting or hurting, needless to say manipulating. That's not quite possible, you should know that.

In my mind, slighting, hurting, abusing, manipulating, etc. preclude close relationships if they know what they are doing. What if someone puts you down because s/he wants to feel better about her/himself?

That one again...

If someone is capable of doing so even once, trust for that person cannot be re-established, I would think. Consider a rather complicated case in which a friend of yours and you talk about relationships and you agree that such an act would destroy any relationship forever.

Good that we have like-minded people around.

What if that very person engages in that act of taking out her/his insecurity on you?

If we have talked about it explicitly, that is indeed serious.

What if s/he happens to be one of your best friends?

Does that change how wrong the act is?

It doesn't, but the impact is bigger, because it is someone whom you trusted. There is another case which happens, I suspect, more specifically to me.

Which is...?

They start with an assumption that I am ignorant and stupid.

What can I say---who can blame them?

In my mind, they have made an inexcusable mistake at that point already, namely, they have violated the rule of treating every person so as to preserve her/his dignity.

Tell me the next offense.

They are very aggressive toward or dismissive of my opinion, until one day, they realize that I am not that dumb and start treating me a bit more nicely.

Shouldn't they be forgiven then?

I would say this is a variant of intimidation and fear. Only after they learn that I have the mental capacity that is equal or superior to theirs, I emerge as a full human being in their world.

At least, they acknowledge it.

There is another problem. If they happen to put me in their very-smarty category, they start taking my views as the best without examining them.

From one extreme to another, eh?

We do more or less the same with the information that we have no means of verifying. We all have favorite television and radio programs, newspapers, and websites, and we take what they present as accurate, unbiased description of the topic, most of the time.

How can we be absolutely sure that it wasn't Bill's double who went to Pyongyang? The rumor has it that the one who talked to Kim Jong-Il did not crack a single joke.

Comrade, that is not worth pursuing... Anyway, if the concern is something to which we have roughly equal access in terms of relevant information, we should not cede our right and duty to think and make a judgment on our own.

I see, they turn unnecessarily submissive from being wrongly dismissive. In short, they commit three grave crimes.

There's more.

Oh, no!

What if they become frustrated because I do not want to be friends with them?

You may have to forgive, you know.

Forgive? Should I be friends with people who turn nice only after I was able to appear---and that in their eyes---not as a total idiot, and who are most likely to commit the same crimes against others?

Perhaps some of them have changed for good.

The soul of a three year old until a hundred. What is learned in the cradle is carried to the grave. Ce que poulain prend en jeunesse, il le continue en vieillesse. Lo que se aprende en la cuna, siempre dura.

Shhhh, calm down. Shall we talk about experience, learning and all that next time?

It's about dignity, the most important thing in our lives. How come that most people don't care, their own or others'?

That may be because dignity as the most important aspect in life is your universal truth, and not the universal truth, you see...

Mediocrity for world peace

I've further thought about the proliferation of self-help books, and I don't think it is a problem at all.

But it's like fast food! Easy to purchase and consume, but hardly good for you.

Do you think people would read Friedrich Nietzsche if self-help books become suddenly unavailable? I bet they wouldn't.

What do you think they would be reading then?

Not Arthur Schopenhauer for sure. Probably one of the holy scriptures, or more likely, nothing. You see, most of us do not enjoy thinking on our own.

That contradicts my daily experience. I see too many people wanting to boss around others.

I'd say that's slightly different. Bossing around means imposing one's will on others without giving sufficient consideration to theirs, but it certainly does not mean thinking independently. Confidantes of powerful people come in the guise of vice-presidents, wives, etc. and are well known to give crucial advice. They provide the ideas, the ones in power pick among them and force others to follow that choice.

How can we avoid fascism when all of us are not thinking hard?

In my opinion, the proportion of population which is inclined to engage in independent thinking does not change dramatically over time. Sure, with the technological progress, we have more of excess time and energy that could be devoted to thinking. With universal education, more of us have access to formal knowledge. So, the proportion must have increased in the past century, but not by a whole lot.

Universal suffrage used to be a stimulus for political thinking, but no longer so in many countries.

Don't you think it would be a problem if every one of us engaged in independent thinking?

For example, your neighbors could be John Locke and René Descartes. Every time they meet on the street, they would have a great empiricism versus rationalism debate. John challenges, "Show me your prior," and René replies, "Only if you show me your posterior!"

What if we throw in Bayesian and non-Bayesian statisticians to this verbal mayhem? And, suppose Immanuel Kant lives across the street and tries to bring John and René together by saying that both have a point: that we acquire knowledge from both experience and rational deduction.

Of course, David Hume lives around the corner and tells Kant that he should get lost because what Kant says is impossible. What fun!

We shouldn't get too excited, though. Think about John's inviting his neighbors for afternoon tea.

True, I think René would hate John even more for his cucumber sandwiches. I guess we need leaders and followers.

Just like we can't all be full-time poets.

What if your grandmother happens to be Emily Dickinson and your brother Allen Ginsberg? Would you look forward to a family reunion?

It would be something like this. The grandmother says, "Water is taught by thirst. Land---by the Oceans passed. Transport---by throe---Peace---by its battles told---Love, by Memorial Mould---Birds, by the Snow." Upon hearing, the brother snorts and says, "Kissass is the Part of Peace, America will have to Kissass Mother Earth, Whites have to Kissass blacks, for Peace & Pleasure, Only Pathway to Peace, Kissass."

Unspeakable horror!

We contribute to world harmony and peace by our very mediocrity...

Talented or not, I don't understand people who happily submit themselves to be bullied. Plus, how can we have a truly democratic society if most people are willing to follow others just like that?

What if others aren't exactly others?

I am you, and you are me?

Yes, we are them, and they are us: a society in which everybody is the same.

That defeats the purpose! It means that democracy works perfectly only in a situation where you do not need it.

Barring such society of clones, the closest we can get to true democracy is when we coalesce around several thoughts, I imagine.

Perhaps it's just like companies. Perfect competition among firms results in devoting too much resource to fend off competitors, and monopoly means power abuse. The best would be somewhere between the extremes.

Road to totalitarianism is paved with self-help

Let's talk about something that interests every person on earth.

If you want my opinion on Panino numero sei, I can assure you that it was pretty good.

No, it's not about food.

It must be about your visit to Monte Carlo, then.

Wrong, not about money or gambling.

Oh, oh, does it start with the letter 's'?

Don't be hypocritically prudent. What I have in mind does not rhyme with "regression of y on x."

I'm lost! Tell me what interests me and everyone else, but I am unaware of. It must be something very special.

Self-help books.

It starts with the letter 's'! But I swear, I've never read one.

If you don't want to admit it, that's fine.

It's not a matter of admitting or not, I am speaking the truth and only the truth.

If you indeed haven't read any, I am pretty sure you will be reading one soon.

How can you be so confident?

Recently, I have been noticing the conspicuous growth of self-help publication industry around the world. What I thought was a typically American phenomenon has been transplanted in countries with long traditions of literature, be it Europe, Asia or the New World, and is doing well in new soil.

You mean writings on how to lead a satisfying life, how to have a fulfilling relationship, how to grow rich, how to raise children, how to deal with annoying people, how to retire comfortably, and so on?

Yes, they are sometime called "how-to" books.

Fear not, such books have existed for a long time. It was in 1922 that Emily Post wrote "Etiquette in Society, in Business, in Politics, and at Home." We can even go back further in time. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in 1513 and "The Art of War" around 1520. Probably already in the thirteenth century, "Book of the Civilized Man" was penned by Daniel of Beccles. We may say that "Kama Sutra" that came to be in the present form around the second century is also a self-help book.

If you stretch that far, we can say that all Sutras, Torah, the Bible and Qur'an, too, belong to the genre. They tell you how to behave.

Older is the Analects of Confucius, which was written sometime between 480 BC and 220 BC, and "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, written in the 6th century BC. I think any conduct guidance, if in a written form, is a kind of self-help manual. I don't see anything new here.

The problem may have existed from time immemorial, indeed.

So, what is that problem of yours with self-help books?

They give us short-cut answers to life's challenges.

Hurray! I now know why I should be reading one.

Almost in any language there is an adage that says the seemingly shortest route is in fact the longest one to your goal, remember?

Hmmm... I don't see why reading a book on how to write your will would lengthen my time to write a good will.

You are right. Do-it-yourself manuals are justified for issues which require a fair amount of factual information. I am thinking more of topics on life in general.

I don't see anything wrong with, let's say, "Marriage for the Thick-skulled."

That is a borderline case, I would say.

I know that you would not put "Physiologie du Mariage" or "Scènes de la Vie Conjugale" by Honoré de Balzac in your self-help category. But I don't see any fundamental difference between "For the Thick-skulled" and "Physiologie."

How insolent! Philosophy tackles with life's problems, even practical ones such as marriage, but refrains from dishing out detailed what-to-do lists.

Balzac says in "Physiologie": a lover not only gives her life everything, but also makes her forget about life, whereas a husband gives nothing to her life.

He does not say a wife should or is allowed to have an affair. By the way, he ended up marrying his lover.

"The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue." From Bertrand Russell's "Marriage and Morals," as you may have recognized.

But he does not say you should or are allowed to commit adultery. He does not say how to start an extra-martial affair either.

Based on that criterion, they are not self-help writers, but philosophers?

You can say that. The biggest problem with contemporary self-help books is that they exist to minimize your own analysis of your problem. Philosophers write books to present their views of life. You may agree or disagree, and it is up to you to decide what to do with the information. Present day self-help books, on the other hand, very often include a guided analysis of the reader's character. In that sense, most of the books that we cited as self-help books from the old times are more philosophy than self-help.

An analysis of your character... Are you an extrovert, an introvert, a school clown who chews on nails after dark in the backyard, a saint who would not kill an ant, but eats pork chops, a professor in ethics who moonlights as a drug dealer... that kind of a thing?

You and your perversity! Anyway, self-help books not only tell you who you are, but also based on that information, what you should be doing and that in practical terms.

Isn't that awfully helpful?

I agree and there lies the problem. We are asking the self-help gurus to do the thinking for us. But a great deal of the value of solutions to life's problems is in the process of reaching a solution.

In other words, "no pain, no gain"?

I believe so. It may sound easy to memorize a self-help rule, such as "always lend a willing ear to your partner's problems." If it is not a conclusion that you have reached through self-examination, however, you wouldn't be acting according to that rule when you are caught up in the situation.

That may be why there are so many self-help books. People read one, expecting that it would be a panacea, but because of the drawback that you pointed out, their life problems remain as they are; they have to buy another self-help book.

Thinking on your own is extremely important... I think! It should be emphasized more in education.

We don't want rowdy dissenters, you see.

But think about populism, or worse totalitarianism and fascism. Constituents who shirk from thinking on their own are breeding grounds for them.