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...

I'm an accomplice in the crime (and so are you)

Comrade... turn around! ... Stay still.

...

Hey, I just plucked this out of your back. Hmmm... doesn't it look like an ostrich feather?

It's a bad joke, comrade... The issue is still tormenting me, but I have drummed up enough courage to talk about something else.

You didn't want to harp on it?

If I don't talk about my problems, people think they have been resolved, or worse, I have accepted to live with them. If I talk about it more than once, people get tired of me.

Don't worry, everyone can tell that you look more like a ghost than an ostrich with its head buried in a hole. You're so pale, almost transparent...

You know, I think all of us wish others to be ostriches. We know that problems in life are difficult to solve, and we are too powerless, lazy, or self-centered to provide help until they are happily resolved.

Plus, we'd rather hear good stories, not the same, old, gloomy ones.

In other words, we give each other tremendous pressure to focus on obligations, duties and fun at the moment, or short-term at best... Incidentally, I was thinking whatever is good about me owes to my own efforts.

I'm relieved. You sound more like yourself now.

Many of us think that we are doing extremely well, given the traits and the personalities of our parents. Have you ever thought how suspiciously universal the idea is? We didn't even need figures like J.C., M.A., or S.G. to spread the word.

Don't they tell you instead to respect your parents?

That is precisely because we are biologically wired to think that we are much better than our parents. Without that wiring, most will never become independent from them and take on the task of changing the world for the better.

To view the elders unfavorably has a positive side to it, you mean.

The willingness to change is useful, because adaptation to different circumstances necessarily requires change. As we know well, nothing is static in this world.

The ability to change allows you to stay put, too, if necessary.

Think about various societies around the world. The ones that are further away from the Plastic Age tend to have more rigid hierarchies based on age and less impetus to change on their own.

Although they face enormous force to do so from outside, mainly from the people of the Plastic Age...

Respect for the seniors means respect for their contribution to the society. The problem is that most of us become less creative over age.

That is, they become averse to change while the rest of the world is changing.

At least two factors contribute to that aversion. One is the vested interest that we develop over the years. We naturally position ourselves so as to derive the maximum possible benefit from the world as we find it.

We need some time to develop attitude, thoughts, and life style that are suited for the societies that we live in. By the time we have managed to optimize them given the constraints, we no longer wish to change the constraints.

The second is biological. Our brain can get cluttered with all the conventions set up by the previous generation, through our efforts to learn and live with them. It may prevent us from being different from the older generations, despite our wish to be so.

That's why we are told that we are unrealistic when we are young.

Sois jeune et tais toi !

Be young and shut up! So said the General...

When we read the slogans from that time, it is evident that the young pushed for changes and accused the not-so-old, the old and the very old for their complacency and lack of imagination. You know this one? Soyez réalistes, demandez l'impossible.

Be realistic, ask the impossible.

Prenez vos désirs pour la réalité.

Take your desires for reality.

Le patron a besoin de toi, tu n'as pas besoin de lui.

The boss needs you, you don't need him. ... Comrade, your breathing has gotten audibly heavy.

Anyway, we haven't heard of the older generation revolting against the younger.

Well, they don't need to. They are the ones with power, so when they don't like how things are, they can punish whom they think are culprits.

You know, it is not only our ability and willingness to question the status quo that decline with age, but also politeness.

What about kids who throw tantrums at the toy department? Surely, they don't do the same when they are older.

As children, we are taught to be polite and considerate toward others, and it takes time before we become capable of practicing it. I'd say we reach our peak when we are around eighteen with respect to politeness and consideration.

Do you want to tell me that a thirty-six-year old is rude compared to an eighteen-year old?

Of course, there is variation among individuals and that gets greater as we age. But, I do not hesitate to say that an average eighteen-year old tends to take more of her/his environment into account than an average thirty-six-year old from the same society.

I am not sure about that. When I think how I was at that age...

You are blushing.

Some things I did and thought were quite immature, embarrassing, and stupid, but I did not think so at all. The word, immature, was not in my dictionary to begin with.

You are right, an eighteen-year old would most likely do not have the ability to judge his own action, but when s/he is told that it is stupid, s/he tends to listen. Whereas a thirty-six-year old has a better idea of what s/he should be doing, s/he tends to go with whatever suits her/him. The former has less experience, but also less shrewdness.

Your theory must be strictly about averages, because I can think of thousands of counterexamples.

The world population is soon to pass the 7 billion mark, so thousands is nothing... Has it never struck you that we seem to regress over time?

I don't think I have become increasingly ruder after my eighteenth birthday.

Remember, we are talking in the aggregate. I think honesty is another good example.

We have touched on that subject, and I agreed with you that honesty is promoted by grown-ups because it gives them a means to control children.

What do you think will happen when the children become grown-ups?

They will teach their kids to be honest, because they will want to control their own kids.

You are almost there, comrade. The grown-ups who were once children...

We all were, ahem.

Once the children grow up and are freed from their guardians who could punish you for lying, they have little incentive to stay honest, besides their moral belief in honesty.

We discard all the virtues that we were taught to strive for, because being bad has different consequences now.

I wouldn't say 'all,' but we certainly gain the freedom to pick and choose as we please. Naturally, it means that almost everyone would become more self-centered than s/he has been. In other words, we begin switching our identity from the intimidated to the intimidating.

Isn't it manifested in the revolutionary spirits among the youth?

Yes. The transition period is very fertile, because the sentiments of the intimidated are still fresh in our memory, but we have just gained the mental and the physical strengths to be the intimidating. I think that is why movements or protests that are started by the youth have wide appeal.

For their earnestness, compassion, passion... and naïvité. We can't deny that they are more inspiring, identifiable and photogenic, compared to retirees who take to the streets to protest cuts in pensions.

May of 1968, the Velvet Revolution, the Tiananmen Square...

Are you shivering?

We talked how we are influenced by the people around us, especially our seniors, but we tend to forget that it means that we influence the people around us in turn.

I am 'I' for myself, but I am 'you' for you.

I continue to be bothered by people who adjust their attitude depending on whom they face. It looks awfully absurd when you see it happening in a split second with the subjects within their earshot.

Obsequious to the one who can wield power over you, and oppressive to the other over whom you can wield power. Isn't this one of the typical patterns?

Some minor changes are natural and even required, but the change that you described comes from the desire to be favored by the powerful. Put differently, this person is hoping that fairness be misinterpreted to her/his advantage.

How is this related to our influencing the people around us?

Our attitude and reactions vary depending on whom we are with. The converse is also true. How we are perceived is a factor in how a person behaves toward us, or we are determinants in who they are.

But it doesn't mean that we can remake any person.

The irony is that, while we cannot escape changes in us caused by our environment, we cannot change our very personality however hard we or others may try.

Excepting unusually traumatic experiences...

I have seen many persons change their attitude toward me after having learned how I am, but they revert to their old attitude when they are not paying enough attention. Certainly, they exhibit their original self as much as it is allowed by the occasion and by the person that they interact with.

We can't help being changed on the surface, but we can't change the core. Well, it can be both good and bad.

True, although we often focus on our powerlessness to change the bad traits of others... Anyway, we forget that much of our feedback is of the kind that enhances what we find unattractive.

Are we so perverse?

Take an example of a dog. Effective training would mean: to be very affectionate toward her and reward with treats when she does something good, and to ignore her call for attention when she does something bad or wrong.

Instead, we tend to scold her severely for misbehaving. It may well result in fear, anger, or resentment.

We are stingy on words of encouragement and rewards, too. The same principle applies to human beings. We complain about the stupidity, the ineffectiveness, and the destructiveness of politicians, but lately, I have come to think that it is our fault to a great extent.

Comrade, I have had nothing to do with the quality of brains possessed by Sarko, Silvio, Jong-Il, Robert...

Politicians, if they are chosen through elections, would do anything to be elected. If elected, they would do anything to be re-elected. If there is no prospect for re-election, they would do anything to leave their legacy.

That is when they start thinking what they can do so that the later generations would recognize them as great politicians.

Before then, they are at the mercy of the electorate.

We as voters are supposed to have enormous power, but it doesn't feel that way.

My theory is that we have allowed the incompetent ones to flourish by electing them.

But what if I did not vote for that particular dumbo?

They are smart at least when it comes to election. If we bought their rhetoric, it's our fault.

I told you, I did not write that name on the ballot paper! It must have been my next door neighbor...

I acknowledge that there is difficulty here. You may be well educated and well informed, but if the rest is ill educated and ill informed, the manipulative one would be chosen.

It happens in many countries around the world, from developing to developed. For example, in order to attract the rural votes, politicians distribute food and cash, and promise pork barrel projects, agricultural subsidies, and so on.

I maintain, however, that if the electorate is sophisticated, so would be the politicians and their politics. In fact, I believe that it is the only way to improve the way the world is governed.

Tell me, when was the last time you attended the town meeting.

... I had hopes in direct democracy, but I am no longer certain. I read that five cantons in Switzerland have a female majority among the legislators.

Considering the fact that women were granted suffrage in 1971, isn't that great news?

One canton's self-analysis is that people are so disillusioned by politics that there is no more prestige in becoming a legislator with low pay at the canton level. Men with ambition have fled to other professions. Most locals don't even know that they have more female legislators than male ones.

I just hope that we do not have to wait for another worldwide calamity before we effectively re-engage ourselves in politics.

I hope so, too, but nothing is more effective than a war to make us realize that politics matters to our lives.

Not just any war, but ones that seriously interrupt our daily lives. Bombs, utility disruption, food and material shortage, and you, your family members or friends sent to the front...

Global warming wouldn't do. It is a slower process and its causes and effects can be disputed more easily.

I have an idea! Let's secretly call the Martians and ask them to threaten us with imminent attacks.