But I would not believe it

Do you understand me?

...

Do you think you understand me?

... Before I answer, tell me what has motivated you to pose these questions.

Are your answers dependent on what I have in mind? They shouldn't be.

I disagree on that one. What if a good friend asks you, "Do you think I'm hopeless?"

Not much can be more pathetic than a question like that! You shouldn't mingle with such people.

Well, I tend to think that you are one of them.

That's... an offense, an insult, an act of derision, of insolence, it's a, it's a... I would never, ever say such a thing!

If so, you shouldn't react like that, you know...

I am deeply disappointed that, after all this time, you have not realized that I am a person full of, or rather overflowing with, pride. So much so that it gets in my way.

I answered your two questions, it seems.

You have demonstrated that you do not understand me, but you may still think that you do.

It looks like I have to put it bluntly. I don't think anyone understands you, and I don't think anyone thinks s/he understands you.

I wish what you said were true.

You don't want to be understood?

The brutal fact is that nobody understands anyone, including her/himself, completely.

If we can only incompletely understand each other and if we admit it, why are we here?

To differentiate what we understand from what we do not, and to strive for greater understanding.

Doesn't it mean that we should aim for complete understanding when we know it is unattainable? It sounds useless, pointless, meaningless, futile, unrewarding, stupid...

Without efforts to reach a goal, we will slip further away from that most desirable state. It is true for almost all human conditions: as an individual, the states of body and mind, and as a member of a group/community, the states of interactions and contributions.

After one day of no dancing practice, the effects are noticeable only to the dancer her/himself. After three days, her/his fellow dancers see it, and after a week the audience. Something like that?

Yes, although the ultimate purpose of practicing is to dance perfectly, if s/he does not practice, s/he would not even be able to maintain the imperfect, and yet the highest, level that has been reached.

Isn't it also true that when s/he thinks s/he is perfect, there is no more room for improvement and it is time to retire?

For the professionals in competitive sports, the equivalent would be when they no longer feel the irrepressible urge to win.

Can't we say, then, that we'd better retire from this business named life when we stop thinking about improving ourselves as human beings?

Have you noticed that there are so many of what we could call deadwood around us?

I am concerned that increasingly more people turn into deadwood as we age.

Nothing is more boring, annoying and damaging than people who think they understand when they do not, or they have understood enough when they have not. "Croyez ceux qui cherchent la vérité, doutez de ceux qui la trouvent," you remember?

"Believe the ones who are in search of the truth, and doubt those who find it." André Gide, I think.

One of the biggest problems for me is that I cannot tell them that they do not understand.

Saying so requires the assumption that you understand that they do not understand.

To hint at it is not only against my taste, but also counterproductive. If they are to be convinced of the necessity of further understanding, they need to reach that conclusion by themselves.

I know that you also abhor the arrogance behind the thoughts that s/he understands well.

All of us have moments with that idea, but it is something that should be kept to ourselves. Socrates went further and genuinely believed that he did not know anything.

"I know that I know nothing." That one, right? But doesn't that clash with your dictum that attractive persons are self-confident?

Self-confidence comes in various shades. I'd say many are of false kinds. They make us act self-confidently, chiefly because we are supposed to; they degenerate into aggression, overreaction at the slightest evidence against our worth, and lack of grace. Truly self-confident people do not intimidate others, readily admit their lack of information and mistakes, and all that without letting others and her/himself lose faith in her/him.

When you asked me if I understood you, should I have said that I do not understand you entirely, but I'm trying my best to understand better?

What matters more is actions, and people can act contradictorily to their own words, as we know too well.

You shouldn't take words too lightly, though. What if someone says you are an idiot, but s/he trusts you with tasks that s/he wouldn't to others?

My interpretation would be that almost everyone is an idiot in her/his world and I happen to be the least idiotic.

But you remain hurt and/or offended by being called an idiot.

Not after I am convinced that idiots alone inhabit in her/his world.

What if you are in love with someone, and that person says s/he doesn't understand you?

I value honesty above all.

Really?

Okay, let's say honesty with diplomacy. Anyway, I would be highly suspicious of someone who says everything about me is great.

How so?

Anyone of that opinion has a small brain or a long agenda.

Does it mean that only the weak-minded and the wicked-minded would be in love with you?

We should stay away from discussing romantic relationships for now. That is altogether a different territory where logic breaks down more than often. By the way, you shouldn't confuse "I don't agree with you" and "I don't understand you."

You are right, the second one is much more about the person as a whole. We say the first phrase more often and casually. Isn't it true, though, that the ones who make passes at you look like they would score very low on an IQ test?

I think that is why they make passes at anyone, including me. You may think that any gesture to show interest is a compliment to the target, but I can tell you that it can get very depressing, sometimes repelling.

I remember your getting angry, not depressed.

I want to be left alone sometimes, because people do not understand me, and what is worse is that they do not acknowledge that they do not understand. I have no desire to explain why they do not understand, or why I am not like them, because if I do, I would end up offending them.

We all want others to try to understand us. Otherwise, we would feel that nobody cares about us, or worse, that nobody acknowledges our presence.

I am always ready to give basic respect to everyone. I also demand that in return. As for certain people, I would take it as an insult if they think they understand me.

It's more than the people who make passes at you, I presume.

The curious thing is that if I enjoy, rather than be bothered by, the label, 'weird,' people who masterminded it change their thoughts.

They start thinking that there must be something good about the way you are?

I never intended to make use of psychology for such a purpose, but in effect, I have.

Don't worry, it hasn't worked on me.

"I wish someone could tell me who I am. But I know that I would not believe it." Do you happen to remember who said it?

Hmmm... it doesn't ring a bell. Is it... yours?

I would never pull your leg like that.

I'm trying my best to understand...

Everything and everybody, but myself

What if someone says s/he prefers another person over you?

Did you get snubbed again?

I don't always talk about my own experiences, you know...

Isn't it natural that we talk about ourselves? After all, it is what matters most to us.

In fact, that is what I want to discuss. Have you noticed that we are very much asymmetric in evaluation of ourselves versus that of others?

True. We tend to be lenient toward ourselves, but readily criticize others.

I have always been amazed that most of us fail to understand the simple principle that if an act hurts us, it will most likely hurt others as well.

I think most of us are aware of that principle, but carry on anyway, because we put satisfying our needs and desires before those of others. Plus, we always have a good excuse---we have different sensitivities.

And we manage to convince ourselves that our targets are always tougher than we are.

I am of the opinion that we do not think that much beforehand. We simply follow our base desire to protect ourselves, and if that means at the expense of others, so be it.

The problem with doing so is that we fall into a tit-for-tat situation. Just as you did not care about others' feelings, they would not care about yours. Your act to soothe your ego, which often hurt others', would come back as another act to hurt yours.

That downward spiral has to stop somewhere.

I consider that one of the important elements in civilization. We have to see several steps ahead of the "game," and choose the strategy that works best in the long term.

I already see a potential problem; we would not agree on how long is the "long term."

That is community dependent, I'd say. The longer its history is, the longer the "long term" would be.

Are you sure about that? Remember what happened to Armenians under the rule of the Ottoman Empire after nearly 400 years? Just as the Holocaust was the pinnacle of many pogroms since the ancient times, the Armenian Genocide was preceded by smaller scale massacres. So it was with the Rwandan Genocide, too. All of these are long histories of co-existence peppered by outbreaks of resentment and hatred.

If we compare cultures of similar lengths of history, we would find variations among them. If we compare those of different lengths, I think a shorter history is usually associated with a shorter "long term."

Perhaps we can say that about individuals as well. Older people seem have longer "long terms" than younger people of the same culture.

Getting back to the initial concern of mine, I have noticed two types of reaction to rejections: anger and dejection.

I'm afraid we cannot avoid them.

Agree, but if I have to choose, I'd take dejection.

Because it rhymes with the word, 'rejection'?

Anger can turn into violent actions toward others. Dejection, if it ever becomes violent, would be directed against ourselves. We are less of a nuisance in the dejection case.

Do you mean to say that it's better that I hang myself than throw a hand grenade in your direction?

Now, now, let's not get into that.

It was implied, though.

Think about it further. If that logic applies to you, it should apply to me as well. It then means that I should commit suicide and spare you. The bottom line is that I personally do not want to be a target of someone who is suffering from rejection.

You sound awfully unsympathetic!

I've got my limits, and it is easier to be sympathetic toward a dejected person than an angry one. I'm sure you can easily recall when you were forced to listen to rants of a rejected person.

It's all about how stupid the rejectors are, because they did not see the true quality of her/him, and they are going to greatly suffer as a consequence.

The source of anger usually becomes larger with time: from the rejectors alone to include anyone who does not agree with the assessment that the rejection was the most inane event in history.

Rejected people often end up finding fault with everything and everyone except themselves, for not seeing their true value.

After listening to them for some time, the thought that comes to me is: "Are you sure that you are so worthy?"

We forget that we are all biased and have the built-in tendency to evaluate ourselves much more favorably than other people would.

They should realize that they start to look ridiculous, but they are blinded by their injured psyche; it all fits with our me-me-me inclination.

Should it be condoned then?

Let's say it is short-sighted me-me-me, which is inferior to long-term me-me-me. We do not realize often enough, but we do have a choice as to how to interpret an event. We can take it as an occasion to wallow in spite and hatred, or an opportunity to better our lives. The short-sighted me-me-me corresponds to the former, and the long-sighted to the latter.

You sound preachy today... Well, I'd say dejected people are a nuisance, too. You must have been in a situation where you were forced to say, "You deserve something better," when you didn't mean it.

That one is also tough, especially when you know that the person is fishing for some hyperbolic consolation. Still, I'd say that it is better than listening to rants. Plus, anger can be heightened into bitterness.

Anger has the potential to be a force for improvement, but bitterness does not.

Self-improvement with anger as the propelling factor may not be the best, because in essence, we seek revenge by doing so. But it can be considered productive. We are not sabotaging anything.

On the other hand, bitterness serves nothing, if I'm not mistaken.

It is difficult to interact with bitter people, because they have chosen to see the event in question, or sometimes the whole world, negatively and do not make attempts to change that stance.

They could adopt another perspective, but reject that possibility on the grounds of naïveté.

Bitter orange is also called sour orange.

We need a drink to toast.

To what are we going to toast?

What about life?

I know what to order! It has to be "Bittersweet with a Twist."

The backstage of morality is dark

Some time ago, you talked rather disparagingly about people whose interactions are driven primarily by intimidation and fear.

I can't talk about such people with admiration. Is that what you think I should have done?

On the same day, you also said role models are quite useful in steering our lives.

Did it have to be on a different day?

Can't we say that these poor people who operate on the basis of intimidation and fear have not had exposure to other modes of human interactions?

We could.

Then, can't we further say that they have become what they are as the inevitable result of the environment?

Do you want to say that it is not their fault?

Especially, if we take into account that they had no choice over their environment.

Suppose you are born into a family of mafia, and you grow up in a culture which allows murdering your enemies. Does that make you less of a criminal when you do commit a murder?

Why have you chosen an example that makes the matter more complicated? You know, murder has two aspects, legal and moral.

Anything that involves law comes with morality. Most of the laws have been put in place long before we were born, and hence, we have not explicitly agreed to all of them. However, it is a kind of a contract we have with the communities and the states that we live in. It would be immoral to breach any contract that you have made.

What about a law that prohibits jaywalking? I know that total defiance of red lights is your favorite pastime.

All right, let's exclude misdemeanors from our discussion. Back to the child of a mafia who has committed a murder, would the childhood environment be a good argument for a lighter sentence?

I think it would. The murderer did not have any choice over which family to be born into.

We have to draw a line somewhere, because otherwise we can put the blame on the environment whenever we do something wrong.

It will be difficult to say where that is, for example, in cases such as being trapped at high altitude after a plane crash. The living passengers of Uruguayan Air Force flight 571 resorted to cannibalism of the dead ones in order to survive.

We should focus on the particular case that you mentioned at the outset. Namely, if people act mainly by intimidation and fear, because they do not have been in any other environment, should they be forgiven for their behavior?

I think they should be.

What if they think such culture is the best in the whole wide world?

Ahem, I know what you are getting at! Let me remind you that they have not been exposed to other ways of life. That is why they cannot act differently, and that is also why they can believe that their culture is by far the very best.

I know that their morality is none of my business. What is my business is with whom I mingle. I would like to keep interactions with such people to a minimum.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

But they do! I let them be, so that they would let me be, but they don't. They take offense in the approach.

Well, you can't do anything about that one. As grown-ups, we should respect each others' preferences without being judgmental.

Ah, no such sweeping statements, please. What are you going to do with people who have certain preferences in the area of gender, race, religion, age, sexual orientation, and so on?

My point is that you may judge their ideas, but that should not be reflected in how you treat them.

My dear comrade, I have long ago made clear that I try to be nice to every human being. If I am nicer to someone, that is because I know her/him better than others and that gives me many more opportunities to be so. That does not prevent me from saying that I want to stay away from people whom I consider puerile.

You are judging people based on your own notion of maturity, but they may have a different idea about it.

We're going in circles! Difference in the notion of maturity is precisely why I have problems. They cannot be considered mature in my world, and I want little to do with them. In other words, their concept of maturity allows them to behave in the way I can hardly tolerate. To make matters worse, they are not mature enough to understand why I take issues with their ways of life.

It looks like there is no solution that would make everyone happy.

I take your statement as an endorsement of my strategy vis-à-vis intimidation and fear.

I think the problem is that you can't hide your feelings. They are written all over your face.

You seem to advocate a version of tolerance that comes close to forgiving. But have you ever thought why it is easier to forgive children?

That's because we know that they have insufficient experience and intelligence for better judgments.

Have you ever realized that to view your enemies as children is the best way to forgive them peacefully?

To think that they are limited in their capacity?

Yes. And, did you know that you can judge someone as limited only if you are less limited?

Put differently, if you think your enemies are a rank or more lower than you are as human beings, you can forgive them most easily?

It amounts to that. And, that is why I have to hold the intimidation-and-fear bunch in contempt. It's all about forgiving, you see.

I told you that you shouldn't be judgmental!

If I am to forgive their behavior because they did not have any choice over which environment to live in, we are admitting that environment has enormous power to mold who we are.

Correct.

That, in turn, means that the intimidation-and-fear environment is trying to pull me in with the great force that it has applied to others.

I guess you can say that.

The pull is so powerful that they could not resist it. Or alternatively, we could say that they were sucked in before they could even think of resisting. I, on the other hand, am aware of the force, thanks to my culturally méli-mélo upbringing, and wish to fight it. In order to do so, I need to put up a tall and thick barrier against that tide.

Let me guess, the barrier is called 'contempt'... No, no, you should put your hand down. I'm not sure if this is an occasion for high-five.

Why not? I proved the very necessity of not-so-pretty feelings on the grounds of protecting my own lofty morality!

Consciousness is required for the job

There you are!

I'm not late, am I?

No, you're not. But, it seems like we have settled into this pattern of meeting every other week. I thought it was supposed to be every week.

I would like to make it that often, but things are a bit hectic right now.

Isn't that your excuse when you don't have anything to complain about? It seems like only when you do, you call a meeting to give me an earful.

I am shocked to hear that you think our talks are like that! I thought we were aiming for truly meaningful conversations like Plato's.

You mean, Symposium, the Republic, etc.?

Of course.

Let's say we can't stop anyone from aiming high. Think also about the psychological suffering that your statement may give to the admirers of Plato. Remember when we got comments from random people because of our chat about oxygen masks?

Talking about goals and such, I think role models are important in our lives.

Isn't it interesting that we can take advantage of our innate behavior to ape others?

We unconsciously mimic the ones around us. We also do to others what others did to us, again without any explicit plan to replicate.

That's why many who are molested as children grow up to become child molesters.

In general, any kind of abuse of the younger tends to be passed on from generation to generation. The role models are different from such cases, because we consciously decide that we want to be like them. In other words, you are supplementing your biological urge to imitate with recognition that you want to make use of it, but in a selective manner.

Most people cannot vision an ideal person from the abstract, and thus, are need of more concrete examples?

For most, there is a big gap between understanding in theory and applying that theory to real-life situations.

That includes you, I suppose?

It is true that sometimes I do not have a satisfactory solution as to how to behave in certain situations for a long time. I keep on observing until I encounter a good one. In that sense, the answer is yes. But I also learn from what I don't like about people. In many such cases, I only have to adopt a strategy that is opposite of what I see.

Doesn't it help to be exposed to people from different cultures?

Some cultures handle certain difficult situations so well, whereas other cultures do not; it is better to have contact with as many cultures as possible. The problem is that when I am in Lilliput, I become exasperated by what I see as undesirable behavior and would never be witnessed in Laputa. While I am in Laputa, I get incensed by what I think is undesirable behavior and would never be seen in Lilliput.

It gives you more exposure to both good and bad ways.

People with such background often become some kind of a chameleon as a result.

Did you ever have a role model?

No, I shun anything that has a hint of personal cult. I like copying bits and pieces from all over the place.

It fits your self-description as a chameleon. Do you prefer yourself that way?

Naturally. It comes with a stamp of approval from Blaise Pascal! "Le centre du monde est partout."

I somehow knew that this was all leading to your self-aggrandisement...

More seriously, the thoughts about role models have made me re-evaluate the perennial principle of life that we mentioned very briefly, namely, ask-and-shall-be-given type of teachings and advice. I realize that role models are variant of that, and as I believe in the power of role models, I began to think that ask-and-shall-be-given may have a grain of truth in it.

After all, almost any culture has a proverb to that effect.

Role models are different from the generic ask-and-shall-be-given in that we make use of our biological nature to mimic.

If you now think the ask-and-shall-be-given principle is valid, how do you explain the fact that there are thousands of millions of people who wish to be billionaires, but are not?

Let's say most of us have to start from setting a goal. Wanting to be rich and famous wouldn't make you so overnight, but having that explicit goal may help you keep your antennas tuned for appropriate opportunities. I think it is quite remarkable that we can steer the course of our lives and control what kind of persons we become with our desire as the principal tool.

That would not happen to other animals.

Goal setting is the mechanism that makes our mimicking selective; we do not follow any example, but the examples that we have chosen and approved. I believe that selective mimicking occurs among animals, too, but in a less conscious manner, of course. What differentiates homo sapiens from others is that we do not have to be in direct contact with the person who is our role model.

Any autobiography can be a good substitute for a live role model.

On a slightly different note, I am getting terribly annoyed with people who literally beg for attention. They are the ones who haven't thought about goals.

Some people ask for your attention? They must be quite desperate.

Dropping a stupid line to get a response is just a starter. In some cases, they tell me how much time they have on their hands and how bored they are.

Just a stupid line? You, on the other hand, babble all the time!

Okay, I do, but not to get attention. Complaining how bored you are is exactly what you should avoid to get people's attention. Who would want to spend time with someone who cannot even take care of her/himself? Anyway, my point here is about attraction. It seems that you cannot become an attractive person worthy of attention, unless you aim for it.

In other words, all attractive people actually think that they are attractive?

At least, they think they want to be so and they have thought about how they should go about it. I think the same applies to people who have managed to set themselves apart in various ways. It could be something as simple as dressing well, or as complicated as becoming recognized as a maverick. Or, mastering some skills and techniques. Consciousness is required for all of these.

But that can make people conceited.

I agree. There is a fine line between, for example, people who want to appear as cultivated persons and those who want to be cultivated persons. Being truly cultivated sometimes requires us to want to appear cultivated.

Now tell me, have you ever tried to set yourself above the hoi polloi in any of your bizzard ways?

The funny thing is that if you start thinking that you yourself is attractive, you can convince some people that you are, and that without becoming truly attractive.

I'm surprised that you think I've got such charisma.

It was a generic 'you'!

Spare me, I'm stuck-up

What is your immediate reaction in an instance of insolence?

I get terribly angry.

Do you express that anger verbally or physically?

Neither.

You bottle it all up?

I want to show anger to let the offending party know that their action is immoral. At the same time, I do not want to, because anyone---save the offender---should not suffer from my anger. In fact, I prefer not to get angry, because I don't enjoy it myself.

So, what do you do?

As I said, nothing. I don't slap or stab anyone. I don't blurt out anything on the spot. I don't start talking more because of it, or less, and keep my voice the same.

Hmmm, is that your honest assessment? I think your voice changes and you tend to talk much less. Plus, your face reminds me of how to draw angry cartoon figures.

Let's say I am much better than most people in controlling myself. But apparently, it shows quite a bit, because people around me become tense.

Wasn't humility your credo?

Somebody has to say the truth out loud, especially when... Anyway, it's inconvenient, because even when I contain myself, the gossip version would be that I became angry. And, I can get quite upset over what may be trivial matters to others.

Like people giving you the smallest piece of cake?

I got upset when one person gave me a huge piece, although I asked for a small one. It seems that he thought that was funny. When we talk about dignity, we tend to think that it concerns heavy-duty moral issues. However, we are capable of hurting others' dignity by ignoring, mocking or deriding their wishes, desires, gestures and thoughts.

Does that mean that our dignity could be hurt by reactions to anything we do in our daily lives?

Exactly. It can be as simple as a comment on where you are from, which languages you speak, where you live, etc. I am always amazed how little imagination people seem to have. Some of us have complicated lives, and even seemingly innocent questions should not be posed care-free.

Are we allowed to ask you anything then?

It all depends on how you ask. Talking about manner of presentation, many of the rumors we hear are stripped not only of context, but also of how each line was enunciated. No wonder gossips get juicy as they are passed on.

Incidentally, I heard that you blew up the other day when someone assumed that the weird tasting cookies in a bag with weird characters were your contribution.

I did not blow up, but certainly took offense. The question was, "Did you bring those cookies?", and that in a tone which would have been justified had I brought in a bag of cookies with worms crawling in and out. It looked like she was going to tell me how weird the cookies tasted, had I been the culprit.

It doesn't sound that bad.

I think she should have been appreciative faced with a person whom she thought had made the contribution. She showed zero respect for the good-will gesture. That is already pretty bad, but for me, it was offensive because the description of the package was in characters that she could not read.

Doesn't it mean that she values your linguistic skills?

I give benefit of a doubt, even after all these years of abuses related to off-the-mark assumptions based on my appearance alone. This incident was not an exception to that rule.

What made you think that it was an offense, rather than appreciation?

Her manner of presentation. You see, if this exchange travels along the grapevine, I am sure that it will soon become monstrous, because an important element will be inevitably left out, namely how she articulated the question.

"You know what happened? I simply asked if s/he brought in these goodies, and then..." Like that?

You have already used the more positive word 'goodies,' in place of more neutral 'cookies'!

It was for the purpose of demonstration.

I have my sense of morality, and it tells me that I should be polite to people, including her and the like. Politeness and friendship are two different animals.

Is that why you are considered stuck-up?

I suppose so, and I don't mind at all. What amazes me is that such people engage in hefty rounds of hurting and offending each other and still think they get on well.

For example?

They would lose temper over misplaced items and send nasty notes about it. They even get into a shouting and yelling match.

Isn't it shouting again that is bothering you?

As I may have said before, I don't know any good occasion for yelling except for asking for help in emergency situations. Another thing that I find incomprehensible is that they want some kind of a pecking order and that is established by intimidation and fear.

Isn't there an official hierarchy?

What on earth makes you think that this is all about my work place? Anyway, they follow what the more forceful one says at the expense of the other less forceful ones.

Don't they believe in collective decision making, a pillar of democracy?

Apparently, not. Mind you, if you ask them whether they believe in democracy, the answer would be an astounding 'yes.' Back to the issue of pecking order, if you don't intimidate them, they think you are not confident enough. Further, it amounts to self-acknowledgment on your part that you are not competent enough.

Don't they want to follow the one with the most reasonable opinion or strategy?

That used to be my question, too, until I found out that they don't want to think and they simply want to be told what to do.

They need a forceful person, who is even intimidating, because that is the only way to obtain reassurance that they are doing the right thing, and that without thinking on their own.

That's why I have very little tolerance for non-independent thinkers...

I'd say they have thought enough to realize that an intimidating person would defend them if they pledge allegiance to her/him.

They are so used to the situation that they are unaware of the intimidation-fear equation. The same kind of unawareness must be at work when they think they get along well, although they yell at and insult each other.

You know, ignorance is bliss, and they may be happier than you are.

Let them be!

Hey, it's a happy ending, did you know that? They are happy the way they are, and so are you!

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...

Familiarity poses a limit to Operation Mosquito Sting

Humiliation by a stranger is easier to handle than by someone we know.

I suppose you are thinking about a dirty look or name-calling on the street.

Most likely we will not see the "aggressor" again, so we don't have to worry about what to do then.

We tend to treat people whom we know with kid gloves anyway.

Are you sure about that? I'd say it depends on the culture. Some cultures mold people to be more polite to strangers and some other the other way around.

The rationale for each strategy is...?

For the former, you take the safest approach not to offend the person whose hotspots are unknown to you. For the latter, you take extra care, because someone is closer and matters more to you.

You said last time that we can maintain our dignity by acting as if the humiliating act were a mere mosquito sting; whether the "aggressor" is a stranger or an acquaintance should not matter.

The problem is a bit more complicated if we are more or less forced to have close relationships with the person in question. Neighbors, classmates, colleagues, friends, family members...

Relationships with such people can vary widely, but they are certainly closer than strangers are to us. You were of the opinion that people who are closer to us have a much bigger chance of hurting us, and we are also prone to hurt them more easily. Doesn't that depend on the culture, as you implied earlier today?

I think not. Even when culture codes instruct us to be more careful with people whom we know than with people whom we do not know, proximity makes hurting more of a profound nature.

You also said when someone hurts us badly or frequently, it becomes difficult to trust that person.

It is also very difficult to spend more than a few fleeting moments with a person whom you cannot trust.

I guess I can keep a courteous distance from her/him, if s/he were a neighbor, a classmate, or a colleague.

You guessed it right. It becomes a problem for a family member or a very close friend with a long history, whom we are obliged to see at family or social gatherings. If we skip such gatherings, there will be some blaming going around.

What if the personalities are such that, despite the legal and/or biological relatedness, the parties involved simply do not get along?

Ah, so you have noticed how much people complain about parents, children, spouses, in-laws...

What should we do when our dignity is damaged by one of those people? Your suggestion was to stick to the mosquito-sting interpretation.

I am beginning to think that it may not work with these super-close people. They think they know the other party so well in these relationships, while Operation Mosquito Sting works only if the "aggressors" are observant enough.

These relationships will endure come what may in the foreseeable future, and that makes us less careful and observing about each other. In some cases, people know that they have committed an offense but ignore it, because they know that the other party will come back.

You see that it is truly a toxic mix? Because we are closer, we have more information about each other. Because we are closer, our psychological barriers are lower. Because we are closer, our efforts to restore our dignity may not even be recognized. And, because we are closer, we have plenty of instances in which we are obliged to come face to face.

Do you think Bill ever apologized to Hillary?

Do you think it could have made any difference? Anyway, I do not want to be a serial victim.

Or a serial offender!

When we cough up the courage and finally tell the offender, who happens to be super close to you, that s/he has hurt our dignity, the reaction is usually to play it down.

Not only that. The offender can get angry.

Isn't that curious? Sometimes, we are even told that it is our problem if our dignity has been damaged.

Nobody likes to be criticized, and if a criticism comes from someone they felt comfortable with or they thought were "on their side," it becomes something like a proclamation of betrayal.

By the way, we tend to think that the smaller the number of members involved in the group, the more intimate and the stronger the relationships.

Why not? The vast majority of deep conversations is tête à tête.

We forget that there are occasions when we have to cool off. If it is a big group, we can turn to others whom we do not have conflict with, and that often prevents us from being driven to an irrevocable split. We can stay in the group for the sake of other members, even if we cease to communicate with the offender.

It is not good to belong to a big group that satisfies all our needs because we would stop trying to reach out to more different types of people---didn't you say that?

My focus here is a kind of group to which we have no recourse but to belong, e.g., family. As we all know, "[h]e who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." It holds not only for society, but for family as well.

Good, old Aristotle.

When the membership is compulsory and for a lifetime, it is best if the group contains diverse members and has the capacity to let off steam. Even as a child, I could see that there are benefits to be part of a bigger family.

How so?

My parents, my siblings and I lived with my grandparents, my two aunts and my grandparents' housekeeper for a while. When my mother denied me ice cream on a hot summer day, I knew I could turn to my grandmother.

It's all about ice cream, then!

Not only that. I could tell that there does not exist anything like "the correct" way for anything, because when I posed the same question to different adults separately, they gave me various responses. I believe that it gave me a more balanced view of the world.

That may be true, but haven't you heard of Aunt We-Are-A-Good-Family and Uncle No-Arguing-In-the-Family-Please heading factions and dividing the big clan?

"Man is by nature a political animal."

Aristotle strikes again!