Showing posts with label self-help books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self-help books. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

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.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

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.