Respect as aloofness, instincts before consciousness

Last time you argued how circumstantial evidence leads to richer interpretations of events.

Since we cannot remember all such pieces of evidence and describe them well, it is difficult to convince others of our interpretations.

Even if we could remember and describe well, most of us do not have the patience to listen to them. Somebody was complaining about the three-hour monologue on a family funeral, the other day...

You are right. That means we should forget about asking others to integrate the information that we give to them.

And yet, they tell us that our judgments are either too optimistic or pessimistic!

If we give a concise summary of an exchange or an event instead, that would necessarily be based on our view of it. For example, we could say, "He was very angry when he left the room," instead of recounting how his eyes looked, how he was breathing, how he turned around, how he grabbed the door knob, how he closed the door, and so on.

Whatever we do to explain better, we will be told that we are looking at it in a wrong way.

And you do look at an exchange in a wrong way.

Are you saying that you are unbiased, but I am?

It was a generic 'you,' comrade.

Why did you dropped the generic 'we,' then?

You see, these small things matter, but we usually do not remember them.

You have changed the focus of our conversation ever so slightly... Anyway, we tend to retain in our memory only the overall impression that the details give us. Plus, there are historical elements in most exchanges.

For all these reasons, I respect the interpretations of the persons involved.

If you are only indirectly related to the exchange or event, your view should matter less for that fact.

Unless you have a very strong reason to present yours as the more plausible, or you happen to have the obligation to rule over them. You could be a guardian, instructor, judge, supervisor, leader, and the like.

Aren't we back to the issue of personality, then?

I'm afraid we are. There will always be people who are pushy enough to tell others that they are wrong.

Overconfident souls do not see anything wrong in bulldozing their way with their opinions. Many are unaware of their might. The ones who are aware nonetheless push through, because they are so convinced of their goodness.

You know, many people like being told how they should think. For them, a person like myself is totally useless, because I don't tell them what they should be doing.

Even if they ask your opinion?

I would offer it if asked, but I always add that the final decision is theirs.

I bet they don't like that either.

To me, they are effectively asking me to play God. I refuse to accept the request because I do not believe that there exists an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being. If it did, I am certainly not that being.

How can they ever think that you are?

Some are quite desperate. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that they are so unwilling to think for themselves... The conclusion is that when you are decent enough to refuse to be God, people may resent you for that. They will say you are unsympathetic, cold, aloof, heartless and so on.

It's surely ironic that being respectful comes at a price. But I think the problem is that your definition of respect is different from others'.

Talking about respect, I have discovered lately that my instincts in that department are very much---how should I put it---developed. I always thought I had the tendency to overreact in general, but not so.

Comrade, you must admit that there are benefits to getting older. We become so sly that we find justification for everything we do!

Once in a while, I notice that I am acting angrily or offended, and surprised by my own action.

Slyness comes easily, but not maturity. Is this what you are getting at?

What you said is true, but that's not the point here. In the cases that I just described, I examine the situation later and realize that I was reacting to lack of respect.

If that is not an excuse for being rude, I don't know what to say.

Such a self-effacing and self-doubting person that I am...

An oxymoron, comrade. Would you ever trust someone who describes her/himself as nice?

The paradox is that a nice person ceases to be one by admitting so, but it is not rare that we encounter such declarations.

How easily people say, "I am nice," depends on the culture. Whether your "nice person" label should be confiscated upon reading it out loud yourself is culture dependent, too.

We need to make some kind of judgment, and in my world, uttering that line is an unmistakable proof to the contrary.

I thought you have been watching too many Hollywood movies, but you never get used to that one, eh?

Let's say I am so ruthless in my self-examination that most think I lack self-confidence. What they do not realize is that it is my self-confidence that allows me to disclose the results of those examinations.

I can't tell whether this is better than the earlier assessment of yourself. You are obscuring the true nature with convolutedness, ahem.

During an interaction with a person, I sometimes realize that I am all of the sudden angry for seemingly no reason. I am surprised by my own emotions, and that surprise sometimes shows as well. I am struck by feelings of remorse for exhibiting anger, especially because it does not seem to be justified. After the event, I think about it carefully and cannot but conclude that the person that I was with lacked respect and my behavior was in response to that.

How could anyone agree to that kind of argument?

This is exactly what we talked about last time. The other persons' gesture, eyes, tone, etc. indicate that they have little respect for me. They are certainly not aware what these details reveal. In most instances, they do not even know how little respect they have for me. But my instincts pick up the clues before I can clearly formulate in my mind what the attitude of the other party is.

As I recall our previous conversation, you know that it is almost impossible to convince others of your interpretation.

They'll just say I am paranoid and/or rude. But trust me, because I am loathe to be self-congratulatory, I had thought about this mechanism of mine for the longest time.

And you have come to the conclusion that your actions are provoked by others...

You should be happy; I fully accept that many will not understand the mechanism.

Do not despair, the American Psychiatric Association is to release the new version of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders very soon.

Did you want to talk about the Americanization of the fields of psychology and psychiatry? If you are diagnosed ill according to that manual, it simply means you are not an average American. As we all know, that can be a very good thing. Most likely, you will be making contribution to world peace for being who you are. Or, you may be labeled mentally ill even when you are not. Think about their aversion to unhappiness and pessimism---it's unhealthy!

Now, now, let's just say that psychologists and psychiatrists need to talk more to anthropologists and sociologists, but they have not done so yet. About being average, we are all ambivalent about it. We find both comfort and boredom in being surrounded by people who are more or less like us.

By definition, most of us cannot escape the fate of being average.

It's more precisely called 'mean' for good reason, my dear comrade.

Would you be late, if it were Barack or Hugo?

... You're late.

Sorry, I wasn't quite prepared for another meeting in less than two weeks. I know that we used to meet weekly, but it has been every other week for over half a year now.

Would you be making the same excuse if the appointment were not with me, but with Barack?

Are you saying that I should have been here an hour before our agreed meeting time?

My question is: why are you casual about being late to see me, but probably would not be so if it were Barack?

Well, he has other important engagements and I don't know if I would be able to have a meeting with him again very soon.

I, too, have other activities that are mighty important.

I didn't know that you were going to attend the meeting with senior advisers at the White House.

How do you know that my activities are less important? Plus, this may be the last time that we meet.

You didn't tell me that we were going to terminate our project without reaching our goal!

I asked you to come over today, because the café will be closed for a month or so for miscellaneous repair works. The owner informed me a couple of days ago.

I take it that you do not wish to carry on at other venues in the meantime.

Where else can you find mandazi, halva, cendol, and hot chocolate made from chocolate and not cocoa powder, all on the same menu?

I tried hard to be on time today, though.

I think you would have tried harder if it were Hugo.

All right, I admit that it depends on the temper and the character of the person whom I am to see. I know that you wouldn't start accusing me of bourgeois habits and so on.

You are another victim of the intimidation-and-fear equation.

It's natural! Wouldn't you take more precautions if Sonja, Graça, or Angela were waiting instead of me?

No, I will make sure to be on time whether it is Lula or you.

Why wouldn't you be more careful with them?

We are all human beings---nothing more, nothing less. That fact alone says we should be on time.

Regardless of the official title, political and financial power, you mean.

Of course. If any of them makes difference in observing punctuality, you are classifying human beings into several categories and that based on how much damage they can do to you. As I pointed out, it's intimidation and fear.

Just as you wouldn't pat Al on his shoulder for a good job, you wouldn't be a nano second late to our meeting. Is this it? I suspect you are one of those who would ensure not to wear kid-gloves when dealing with people in power. You wish not to be affected by any privilege that you happen to lack.

Bravo, comrade! You have a pretty good grip of my thoughts.

But suppose Sonja is your sister. You wouldn't mind being a bit late, would you?

I would. We should not abuse a relationship, just because it is one that we are obliged to keep: in this case, siblings.

True, we tend to be more careful with friends than with family members.

That is exactly what I call abuse of relationships.

We are more careful with lovers, but less so, once they become spouses.

It happens because the relationship is transformed from one that can be easily terminated to another that cannot.

Isn't there a honeymoon period for any relationship, though? When you are in the process of getting to know each other, you tend to be more considerate.

When we face someone whom we favorably view, but whose details are unknown to us, we exercise caution with the hope to establish a good relationship with that person. It can happen with something not so organic, such as a new city that we move into or a new position that we take on.

Lack of familiarity also means that we do not know the unpleasant aspects.

That is why a honeymoon period is possible with anything that we deal with; something new and different can bring us excitement, and some of the pitfalls are not evident at first sight.

Sadly enough, enthusiasm almost invariably wanes over time, even if we do not find anything grossly wrong with it.

That is indeed a sad fact of life.

I have heard of couples who met when they were 18 or so, immediately fell in love, and carried on with the same intensity for the rest of their lives.

Such anomalies aside, we tend to lose respect and care that we had at the initial stages of getting to know someone or something.

Some people cast all respect aside once they find out that I am not going to, or cannot, do any harm to them.

If you do not make them fear you, they would make you fear them. "I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

Thomas Hobbes!

People whom I trust without reservation are those who pay sufficient respect to all others in a constant and steady manner. The other side of the coin is that I do not trust people who are unnaturally nice to me at the beginning of relationships. Life would not be so bad, if it were easy to come across trustworthy people.

Is the temporary closing of this café also meant to be a sort of time-out for me?

Why do you think so?

I remember your telling me about the cough-cough, wink-wink, nudge-nudge strategy. Since then, you have been going back to it quite often. It has made me paranoid, even terrified. I think your favorite tactic belongs to what you have been condemning, namely, intimidation and fear. And my feeling is that Thomas would agree with me...

Revealing the true nature of baby talks

In your opinion, a person who behaves nicely only toward her/his lover/s cannot be trusted. Correct?

Yes, and there are many such people!

Again, in your opinion, a person who behaves nicely toward her/his superiors, but nasty toward her/his subordinates cannot be trusted.

Absolutely not, and there are tons of such people!

Once again, in your opinion, a person who evaluates others' capability based on their looks cannot be trusted.

An emphatic no!

And, in your opinion, a person who manipulates others to her/his benefit unless they show resistance cannot be trusted, right?

I'm getting nauseous.

Also in your opinion, a person who assumes that others are idiots until they prove otherwise cannot be trusted.

No, no, no and no!

Oops, one more. In your opinion, a person cannot be trusted if s/he derives comfort from informing you of her/his judgment that you are inferior to her/him?

The scary thing is that someone who claims to care about you may engage in this very act.

Is that why you have been dwelling on this topic?

...

Tell me all about it!

In my opinion, a person who values satisfaction of her/his curiosity more than respecting others' sense of privacy, however strict that may be, cannot be trusted.

In my humble opinion, one is less convincing if s/he cannot provide the details.

I disagree. Thoughts in general terms are often more powerful than those on individual incidents. By definition, they are supposed to be about commonalities and not anomalies. Generalization also allows us to be less emotionally attached and more objective.

Sweeping generalizations can get quite absurd, though... Anyway, did I miss any case of no respect in everyday life?

Before we get into what has been left out, let me say that people who belong to any of the above category do not understand the concepts of respect and human dignity.

The principles of respect and dignity apply universally to all human beings. Is this what you mean?

Exactly. These are the concepts that should not depend on the characteristics of each person, but only on the fact that s/he is a human being.

But isn't it natural that we are nicer to people that we like?

In terms of being considerate and forgiving, etc., we should not treat people differently.

Are you sure about that?

I am. It is not on such moral issues that we should differentiate the ones whom we care for from others.

You wouldn't deny, though, that you are nicer to people whom you are fond of.

The problem lies in the word 'nice.' Suppose I know all the rock bands that my lover likes. I can keep an eye on all of them: when a new album is going to be released, which magazine interviewed them, and so on. I cannot do the same for others, simply because I do not know their music preferences. As a result, I end up being nicer to my lover than to others. This is an example of what you have categorized as 'being nice'; applying different sets of moral codes to various people is something else.

Put differently, save such actions that require specific knowledge of that person, your lover should be treating everyone the same, and that naturally includes you.

Only then, I feel I can trust my lover.

Really? How can you tell that a lover is actually a lover in such cases?

I can't, and I like it that way.

I knew there was something grossly strange about you!

What we are focusing here is morality. Remember, we should regard interactions that necessitate moral judgment separately from other interactions. On moral issues, we all should be treated the same. On other issues, such as taste and temper, people who are closer to us have more information about us and would interact with us differently.

Do you think your assertion above applies to forgiving as well? Proximity can make forgiving more difficult or easy. I have seen both cases.

When we see the same person day in and day out, her/his small habits can get on our nerves.

I know that I cannot stand certain ways of gargling.

You see? On the other hand, you are more likely to forgive someone who is close to you, because you do not want to lose that closeness.

In short, we should judge an awful way of gargling by the person who happens to share the bed with us as if it were someone whom we saw once a month. Do you also think that we should judge infidelity of our lovers as if it concerned some other couple?

In principle, yes. Whether we are capable of exercising such detachment is another issue.

Your attitude can be abused, I think. For example, my lover may stick to a particular manner of gargling, knowing that it drives me nuts, because I am supposed to tolerate it according to your principles.

Just like any relationship, efforts should come from both sides, and your lover should try to make it easier for you to stay in the relationship.

Lack of such efforts is a declaration of war, then!

It may not be that aggressive, but I agree that it amounts to admitting that the relationship is of little importance.

By the way, you had in mind another type of people who disregard dignity.

They are the ones who engage in baby talk.

I thought baby talks were signs of endearment.

You are wrong! The subjects are treated as if they were morons.

Isn't it true that children and pets do not understand adult conversation?

That does not mean that we should talk down to them. You shouldn't say anything to a child that you wouldn't to an adult.

What about the kind of encouragement that children need?

We praise adults for work that is sub-optimal for the purpose of encouragement, and we can do the same for children. That is, in a manner that respects children as persons.

What kind of attitude is of concern to you, then?

Exaggerated reactions that become condescending, including loud voice. I don't know why, but in some cultures, mothers jack up their volume when they talk to their children. And it's mostly non-sense that they babble.

Do you think they should discuss P = NP problem instead?

Honestly, I think that is far better than something like, "THERE GOES A RED CAR! WHEEEEEEE! THAT WAS FAST, HUH? DO YOU THINK THAT WAS FASTER THAN THE MINI CAR YOU HAVE AT HOME? ... WHAT DO YOU THINK? PROBABLY FASTER, HUH? A LOT FASTER, HUH?''

You know, I think you are more bothered by the loudness rather than the content.

There is an intelligent way to make an observation about the speed of a car, and as far as I am concerned, the monologue by a mother that I just reproduced for your benefit does not fit the bill. The real problem is not the lack of intelligence, but dumbing down.

Perhaps that mother is stupid.

If so, that is also a problem, because I see too many of them around. Anyway, I am more than certain that she would relate the same incident differently if she were with a friend of her age.

You think the world is filled with such mothers, simply because they annoy you.

In some other cultures, it is rather the opposite; mothers are dismissive of everything children do.

No carrots and only sticks?

In the extreme, indeed that is what happens. They believe that telling the children how clumsy and stupid they are is the most effective way to motivate them to acquire skills and knowledge. I'd say no respect in such cases, either.

In your world, it is awfully difficult to find people who are capable of respecting others.

Who said it was easy? I only said that respect and dignity are the most important aspects in our lives...