Trust me any day, if you are lazy

Why do we trust others?

Are you saying that we shouldn't?

We have numerous choices in terms of actions that we could take, and yet, we think the others would opt for the one that we consider best, or at least, good. If that isn't wishful thinking, what is?

Trust isn't established in a second, though. It is based on experiences and observations from the past. Had you showed up here every week at the same time for years, I would naturally expect you to do so next week.

Inductive reasoning is weak, we all know that.

How else can we conduct our lives?

The brutal truth is...

Please do away with that announcement of yours for brutal truths, and just tell me what you think.

You would agree that it is brutal, though. The reason why we trust others is because we are lazy.

Are you talking about entrusting tasks to others?

I meant it more generally. Suppose I do not trust you. I will have to think what evil deeds you may commit and be prepared with a strategy for each possibility.

But if you trust me, you don't have to do all that thinking. Is this what you are getting at?

Well done, comrade! It doesn't have to concern anything that could be harmful. For example, an instructor can say that s/he trusts the student and shirk from giving appropriate advice and guidance. You see, what is conceived as freedom and liberty is brought to you by the courtesy of laziness.

If we do not trust someone or something when we safely can, we will be wasting our time and energy devising plans that we would never need. Besides, when we mistrust someone, it can well encourage her/him to act precisely in ways we consider undesirable.

When I was in high school, I went back home early one day and told my mother that I cut afternoon classes.

Who cuts school to go back home when you know your mother is waiting there? I knew you were à l'extrémité!

It wasn't that I wanted to smoke a cigarette and look at the sky or slip inside a movie theater when the attendant was looking the other way. I was eager to work on my own project at home, instead of attending boring lectures.

Knowing you, it must have been something like reading all of "À la recherche du temps perdu," making plans to replicate Captain Cook's and Marco Polo's journeys at the same time, or doing research on people who were outdone by others because they lacked marketing skills---Alfred Russel Wallace who lost to Charles Darwin, Nicola Tesla who lost to Thomas Edison and Wilhelm Röntgen among others, Rosalind Franklin who lost to Francis Crick and James Watson, and...

Ah, the glorious days when I could easily find people who had seen Minitel in use! It would be wickedly unfair to attribute the unfortunate turns of their professional lives to what you call lack of marketing skills, but let's say my project was something along those lines. Anyway, I was shocked when my mother started talking about her cutting school when she was in high school.

I didn't know that you thought she was a model student.

I didn't and still don't. It scared me that she talked approvingly of her own and my skipping classes. She even told me how bad some instructors were. You know that something is truly and grossly wrong when you are heartily endorsed by your parents.

You never cut school again?

I did, but I made sure that it was never excessive. Her showing trust in me worked in the way she wanted. I think that showing trust, rather than trusting, is a more sensible course to take.

Do you think trust on surface is better than genuine trust?

I have been noticing lately that we can't really hide our true feelings. When you don't mean what you are saying, it shows.

Especially you. It's written all over your face.

Our ability varies in detecting the discrepancy between what comes out of a person's mouth and what is on her/his mind.

Some of us are quite gullible and never lose that quality even as we age.

It then becomes liability... I happen to be highly allergic to people telling me one thing when it is obvious that they are thinking another.

Isn't it just that you are paranoid and in constant search of evil?

You will be surprised how much dishonesty goes around, particularly in the workplace.

What about calling it diplomacy, instead of dishonesty?

Diplomacy is an art, whereas dishonesty is deception! When we are diplomatic, we let the other party know that our true intentions are different from what we tell them.

It is diplomacy, because it is your intention to alert them that what you say is not exactly what you think, and you know that they know it? And, they know that you know that they know it?

Bravo, comrade! I am of the opinion that something similar holds for trust as well. Remember my claim that showing trust is important? First of all, it is of no use if the party you want to trust does not know that you trust them. Second, we can show that our trust is not entirely unconditional. It is possible to allude to the degree of your trust by giving a whiff of your contingency plan.

That coaxes the other party act in the way you want them to?

It will not work all the time, but it would at least put moral pressure in most cases. It is most effective if people involved do not have fixed ideas about or any stake in the issue.

I still don't understand why conditional trust is better than unconditional.

It is more realistic, and hence gives credibility to the claim that we trust someone. It acknowledges that the thoughts and the concerns are not identical for all involved and that the difference should not be the basis for retaliation or punishment in the future. In other words, it takes away the pressure to do as trusted.

But I thought that was the whole purpose of trusting!

Perhaps we could say that trust is something like an implicit request based on the information that we possess and the priorities of our own. The party that is trusted has its own set of information and priorities, so they may not wish to do exactly as desired by the other party. When we know that we are trusted by someone, we feel much more obliged to take into account her/his information and priorities as revealed to us.

Trust is a sneaky way of imposing our preferences to others, then!

Showing conditional trust requires skills and work. You have to convey a delicate message---you believe that s/he chooses the option that you prefer most, but you are aware that s/he may not do so.

And that s/he is well capable of pursuing your preferred option.

Conditionality also necessitates careful monitoring, because it means you have to verify the state and choose your strategy accordingly.

Aren't there cases that are not worth our trust at all?

In such cases, we still show trust and be prepared for the very worst.

Is it necessary to pretend that we trust?

We do it for ourselves, for who we are. If we care about civility, that is.

What about unconditional mistrust?

That is easier than conditional trust. You reduce the total number of possible outcomes by ruling out a certain kind, as you do with unconditional trust, but you still need a plan for each undesirable outcome. It remains that unconditional trust is the easiest.

Suppose I think I am perfectly trustworthy, but you indicate subtly that your trust in me is conditional. I am offended that it is so, and breach your trust.

What can I say, that's not clever at all.

It can well happen. You know those vengeful types.

We should certainly take into account what kind of personality we are dealing with. But I'm afraid there isn't much we can do, except for tinkering the amount of disclosure of our contingency plan. After all, we count on your understanding that even the most trustworthy persons sometimes make mistakes and that you have your own desires which may clash with ours. Plus, we depend on your knowing that we are aware of such caveats. In other words, we can't do anything about your naïveté which makes you think that you are trustworthy in the absolute.

Adjusting the amount of disclosure, doesn't that also require skills and work?

I told you, plain trust or mistrust is an easy way out.

By the way, did you mean to say that conditional trust is a sign of intelligence and sophistication?

You can put it that way.

I am wondering... Did you intend to tell me that you are good at it?

None of us can perfectly conceal what we believe in.

Or, what we want to believe in. Right?

You want to be... you?

You have been locking yourself up for too long at a time, these days.

It has become increasingly difficult to get out, because of the mounds of books to read, CDs to listen to, and DVDs to watch. They have practically blocked my way out of the house.

If you have piles of blueprints and recipes for hands-on projects, they should take you outside for procurement of necessary materials and ingredients.

I have those as well. Lately, I have been a bit paralyzed by the brutal truth that I may not be able to finish all I want to during my lifetime, or even start some of the projects.

Would it be better if you had already completed everything you wanted to at this point?

It would be awfully lonely at the summit, you know.

You shouldn't talk as if you knew how it is to be at the top! Humility is your credo, remember?

I have an epiphany once in a while, and one of the latest is how hard it is if you are part of the cream of the crop.

At least, you are not claiming to be that creamy bit.

What if you understand others, but they don't understand you? Most damagingly, they fail to understand that they do not understand?

Do you have a specific case in mind here? In your very vicinity, perhaps?

If you understand that the others do not understand you, but they themselves fail to understand that, you are obliged to play a patronizing role.

Like a parent toward a child, you mean?

Precisely. Mind you, it is not equivalent to condescension or belittlement. It would be, however, if you tell her/him that you understand while s/he does not. In any case, you have more control of the situation than others.

What's wrong with that?

It's no fun playing a parent all the time, especially with people who are supposed to be your friends. Some of us have to be parents to our own parents, although they are not senile.

It is impossible to be the one who comprehends more and controls on all occasions, though.

I agree, and that is the case with your equals. Sometimes, you have a better grip of the situation and other times not. What I enjoy about being among my equals is that they have convincing ways of representing various views, in particular the ones that I previously thought would never subscribe to or about the subjects that I had no knowledge of.

The reasons for their support would be at the level that you would understand, but not too low that you would be dismissing them despite their validity.

We could say that we speak the same language in those instances. A three-hour monologue on how a family funeral went could be well bearable, even thought-provoking and entertaining, if it were by an equal.

If not, you consider listening to such talks community service. Right?

Going back to the issue of understanding, we tend to mistake the frequency of contact with the degree of understanding. The more often and regularly we get in touch, the more we share information about each other. The volume of information gives us an illusion that our interpretations of the events are identical.

Until s/he tells you without your solicitation what you should be doing during the next five years...

Once I realized that the depths of understanding and empathy are animals quite different from the frequency of contact and that the problem had been my confusion of the two, the bulk of my frustration dissipated.

What do you think about comments regarding how you should live in more general terms?

We usually hear such statements when people find something that they disapprove of in us.

If an approval, it could at best encourage the person in that direction, and at worst sound supercilious just like in the case of disapproval.

Some tell us not to view life the way we do. I am of the opinion that saying so would only do harm and no good. The issue concerns our whole personality, so in effect, they are saying that we as persons have much to be desired.

Nobody is willing to change her/his entire self.

Exceptions may be people who wish to free themselves of dependency on certain relationships, thoughts and/or substances. Even they have the desire to keep the core of who they are.

Without some kind of continuity, it does not make sense to talk about selves.

Besides, who are we to tell others that their outlook on life is wrong? Another factor against doing so is that willingness to change oneself can never be effectively imposed upon by someone else. Plus, sometimes people have strange motives, but their manifestations are good. Other times their motives are good, but the manifestations are harmful to the rest of the world.

We should be very careful when we criticize others' thinking, especially if the person takes thinking seriously. Am I right?

Have you noticed that the same self-appointed counselors talk about confidence in oneself?

Now, now...

But I never ask them for any advice! Anyway, I used to be rather unsure of myself, but...

You, unsure of yourself?

I am good at fooling others with my non-assertive veneer.

A wolf in a red riding hood?

I used to have a lot of questions to which I knew no good answers. That made me act uncertain and look devoid of confidence on some occasions. What they did not realize was that I have been introspective enough to be uncertain about some issues.

It is always possible to interpret anything in the world in a self-serving way. What can I say, you are the champion!

It's a matter of age, too. You must have noticed that some dose of assertiveness comes with it. I admit that life is easier with I-don't-give-a-damn-what-you-think attitude, but it can prevent me from improving myself through prompts from outside.

Improvement above all else for you?

You can say that. I don't want to become one of the grown-ups that I used to despise as a child or a teenager: a person who is dead but does not know that s/he is, or who is alive but deadly arrogant and inflexible.

Aren't you exhibiting a symptom of Peter-Pan syndrome?

Talking about confidence, I have had interesting experiences. The same set of people who extol about it are shocked when I tell them that I like being myself.

May I point out that anybody would be shocked?

How am I supposed to be self-confident otherwise? In any case, what bothers them most is that I'd rather be me than them. I don't volunteer that information, of course, only if they get on my case regarding confidence and so forth.

"You have such a marvelous human being right in front of you, and you're saying you would not want to be that person but yourself?" That kind of reaction?

I would then know that their talks about the importance of self-esteem were about my wishing to be like them, although they might not have been conscious about it. In other words, I am supposed to participate in their self-assuring program, not mine.

So much for free counseling!

Imagine their looks when I further confess that I quite like myself who always see room for improvement in who I am, and that betterment is toward becoming more myself, not anyone else.

Are the looks something much worse than what you see now?

You are you, and I am not you. We should be happy about all that!

Have you realized that you are putting imperfect you above perfect others?

If it offends you, that's because you lack self-confidence, comrade...

The Art of relating

It dawned on me...

That you would never be as knowledgeable as you aspire to be?

I try not to look at that possibility too closely. It may have negative effects on my aspiration. What dawned on me is that we should never say certain things. If we did and even if they happen to be the plain truth, the act will make us villains.

Let's hear what your 'certain things' are.

Our evaluation of persons whom we know first hand.

Even the positive thoughts?

True, some occasions call for positive evaluations.

Suppose we wish to defend someone who we think is erroneously accused for wrongdoing. We are sure of our hunches, judging from what we know about that person, but we do not have any strong evidence for this particular case. We could say, "We know her/him well, and s/he is not a person who would do such things.''

It is weak in the sense that it is inductive reasoning, but it is better than nothing. Another instance would be when we want to encourage someone to strengthen or maintain a specific trait in her/him. We could say, "I admire your organizing skills," for example.

It could be pure encouragement, too. "I know that you have exceptional jumping capabilities. I am sure that you would do well in the upcoming 'Let's Jump Over the Moon' contest."

But most of the time, we do not want to represent a person with a single trait, event, etc.

Why not?

It is easy for us to forget her/his other qualities. We are so drawn to a simple, neat view of the world that if there is any opportunity to do so, we would make use of it.

In other words, none of us is fit for a simple description. Are you sure about that?

Absolutely. Even a simpleton is not simple after all.

It's just that s/he may be simpler than others? By the way, isn't this related to what you said earlier---if we itemize the traits of a person whom we like, the list would look rather absurd and false?

Yes and yes.

You know, most of us don't mind reductionism if it results in something good about us.

Not me.

I should have known...

Seriously, I think it offensive to reduce a person into one characteristic or one sentence.

Let's say that positive comments make us---barring cases like you---so happy that we don't care whether they omit the details. Come to think of it, you shouldn't think it as negligence of some aspects, but instead, as focus on our assets.

What if the person takes pride in her/his complexity?

Ah, comrade...

Or in the fact that s/he is not only this, but a bit of that, too, and a lot of this, almost entirely that, plus a pinch of this and that and...

And everything else? What about the following, then---we praise you that you are a complicated being? It captures the complexity in a simple manner.

I don't know about that. A lot of people use the word, 'complicated,' as an excuse, when careful analyses are possible, but would like to avoid them. It could be due to the seeming cumbersomeness of the process, or in anticipation of inconvenient results.

I see, you have experienced occasions in which people told you that you were complicated, but you knew that they meant 'annoying'?

What if someone says you are wonderful?

I would thank that person. I don't hear it often, perhaps because it is evident.

Comrade... You should be thinking hard what s/he may want from you.

I didn't know that your mind was wretched to that extent!

I shall prove not. Think about the most benign situation in which you would hear that phrase.

Let me see... It could be when my lover looks at me at the beach where nobody else is around.

Stop, please. I'm getting dizzy. I feel nausea is about to hit me.

Did I ever tell you that normal people enjoy at least a bit of romance?

Oh, I didn't say I'm against it all. I'm highly allergic to schmaltz, mush, glop, slop, slush. Let's say, anything cheap. Tell me, what is going to happen next?

Are you ready? ... A kiss, of course!

You managed to prove that I am right, just as I expected.

How is that?

"You are wonderful" was meant to lure you into kissing.

Lure me into? But perhaps I, too, was ready for a kiss.

The situation required a signal so that you wouldn't look the other way by accident when another face approaches yours. Another possibility is that it was to indicate that your lover was ready for your face getting closer.

What's bad about that?

The statement that you are wonderful did not mean that you really are. It was another way of saying, "I'm going to kiss you in three seconds. On your mark, get set," or alternatively, "A kiss in three seconds is anticipated. I am fully prepared."

All right, suppose my lover truly believes that I am wonderful and wishes to express that feeling. What is your recommended strategy?

First of all, I would eschew any encompassing term, such as 'wonderful.' None of us can be wonderful, remarkable, lovable, adorable in all senses and all circumstances. There would be a time when your lover would want to take back that sentence.

Are you saying that we are not allowed to say what we feel at the moment?

It is okay as long as we do not forget that it is much less unconditional than it sounds.

You are here to destroy happiness on earth...

On the contrary. Much of unhappiness comes from being unrealistic.

On certain occasions, people are sincere in using the word 'wonderful,' and it would be insolent if we do not accept their positive judgment of us.

We should still know that the conditions happen to be met for that person to employ that word at that certain moment, and nothing more. In other words, it says something about the relationship between you and that person at that instant only.

It will keep me on my toes.

Secondly, it is easier to say, "I trust you," than to trust that person.

The proof is in the act, you mean.

Yes, anyone can say "I love you," but finding out what the person you love values and helping her/him acquire more of it----it could be something tangible or intangible---is much more time and labor consuming.

Are we allowed to say "I love you," though?

Of course, but in my opinion, it is best used sparingly. Occasionally, the person you love needs reassurance about the relationship. That would be the most appropriate times.

What do you think about saying that you are a good friend?

Ditto. I would say it only if it is truly necessary---as when the friend needs confirmation of the relationship. Other times, I would rely on actions. In fact, if someone says that to you, although you are not feeling insecure about the relationship, that means s/he is feeling insecure.

S/he senses that I am moving away from her/him.

If someone acts in a way that shows that our definitions of friendships are incompatible, I would try to maintain appropriate distance from that person. I know that our own definitions---mostly about what is permissible and what is not---are rather arbitrary, and if my friend and I happen to have criteria that cannot be satisfied at the same time, there is no use arguing about it. The sole productive path for the future is to keep a courteous space.

What about engaging in discussions to reconcile the differences?

That is precisely one of the things that are best avoided. I used to be all for let's-talk-and-resolve, but no longer.

You don't mind living with conflicts?

It would be impertinent of me to criticize someone's idea of relationships. I myself have concrete ideas of how they should be. We should discuss explicitly only if we think it is worth the personal pain that we would inflict on each other and if we think we can overcome the pain later.

I had assumed that you encouraged verbalization of our fuzzy thoughts.

I do, but we should stop short of communicating the results that concern people around us. The problem here is that once verbalized in our mind, it becomes easier for us to handle the problem, but also easier to say it out loud in a coherent way.

We should think hard, but not so hard that we speak our mind without intending to do so.

By the way, have you noticed the psychology that prevails behind "You are wonderful," "I love you," "I miss you," and such? ... Sorry, I have to get to a sink, it's getting too much.

Have some water, comrade. ... Better?

Yes... When people utter those lines, they are expecting the other party to have the same feelings.

You think so?

I'm pretty sure about this one. Who is going to say, "You are wonderful," knowing that s/he would hear, "You are a scum," and be given a scornful look?

It may be a simple thank you and a smile that they want.

You wouldn't disagree that hearing, "You are wonderful, too," is much more preferred to hearing, "You are a scum."

I told you that it could be a kiss that is expected afterward.

It's the same. They are looking for reciprocation of sentiments.

It sounds awfully natural to me.

When someone says s/he misses me, I feel obliged to say I miss her/him as well.

You don't have to, though.

I can't tell her/him, "You do? Well, I don't miss you at all." Anyone who says, "I miss you," to me has not given careful thoughts to what I may be thinking and in what kind of situation s/he is putting me.

Even "I miss you" can make you go up the wall.

How can I miss a person who does not know how I feel, chiefly that I do not miss her/him? Now consider others who like being seen with me because I pay attention to what I wear, but do not do anything about how they look.

They haven't thought about the possibility that you, too, would rather be with someone who looks nice outwardly.

I wouldn't say that they should be nicely dressed or I would not see them. It is a matter of giving thoughts to what the other party's desires may be. Some others get excited for the opportunity to show me what they love, but they do not seem to care much that I am trying my best to be positive.

If you are too good at it, it could be suicidal. "Ah, we love the same stuff! Here's more." May I make an obvious and simple recommendation that you show or talk about what interests you?

Only a few are genuinely interested in what fascinates me, and I don't want to impose myself on others.

You said it before---true friendships are rare. In any case, the people who are problematic in your eyes, are they aware of the problem?

The bigger problem is that if I tell them what the problem is, I would be a villain... What are you going to do if someone comes up with a five-year life plan for you without any urging from your side, and it includes dropping the activity that you value doing most as well as the relationships that you cherish?

And s/he says you are a good friend of hers/his?

Once we were hunters (and most still are)

Do you remember talking about my classmates in language classes? The ones who were jealous about me for odd reasons?

Are you sure that they were angry about your language capabilities?

I realized that the same psychology is behind almost all our actions.

Misplaced jealousy, you mean?

We can say more generally, rivalry. We feel competitive against people who live similarly to the way we do and whom we happen to know. We live to outdo them.

I didn't know that your life goal was to get ahead of your next door neighbor!

Others who live differently---who belong to a different tribe, class, nation, gender, etc.---are less prone to become targets of jealousy, even if they are much more endowed.

Didn't you tell me that a classmate in your Klingon course stood up during pronunciation exercises and said, "If someone from the Andromeda Galaxy can say that word right, I should be able to."?

Such things happen... The comment by the student from the Triangulum Galaxy was based on the thought that both galaxies are known to produce linguistically handicapped creatures and that Andromeda was worse on that score. The fact that they were in the same class had already set the stage for the Triangulumian to feel competitive against the Andromedean.

Having hailed from places which are comparable in terms of notoriety for their inaptness in languages, the Triangulumian felt much stronger jealousy... Tell me, did this student manage to master Klingon pronunciation?

If she had been equipped with the ability, she wouldn't have had to make that declaration in the middle of the class. By the way, do you also remember why we are eager to own more and something better than the people around us?

The things that we own and the persons to whom we are closely related are extensions of who we are. By adding more extensions, we attempt to become more powerful than others.

In sum, we want to be superior to the people around us, and one way to achieve this end is to accumulate objects and relationships. There is more to this equation, though. Most of us not only wish to acquire more, but also enjoy the process of acquiring.

Don't count me in. I am one of those who prefer to go straight to the item that I intend to purchase in the store, pay, and get out as quickly as possible.

It doesn't have to be shopping. I know that some people are into fishing, because they love to eat what they catch, but I also know some others who release immediately whatever tugs the line.

Are they vegetarian fishermen who use fishing lures?

Not necessarily. Most of them go to the supermarket to purchase fish for dinner.

Does that make sense?

We can say that the process of making something our own brings us satisfaction.

That sounds familiar, all of the sudden. What about chasing a potential lover until that person becomes interested in you?

It is another case of cherishing the process more than the prize at the end.

Aren't we talking about rather perverse cases here?

Many of us love bargain hunting.

But we also value what we end up buying.

Are you sure about that? You must have some items in your closet that you bought with great excitement because you thought they were good deals, but are now covered with a thick layer of dust.

How did you find out about my wear-on-your-wrist mosquito detector?

Suppose everybody knows what is available at what price, at which store, at what time.

There would be no opportunity for bargain hunting.

Exactly. We tend to think that perfect information is always better than imperfect information, but not so. Many enjoy making use of that imperfection.

And, it has to be you who has less imperfect information than the rest of us, right?

That is what everyone wishes for her/himself. The joy of finding a good deal comes from outwitting the masses. Suppose you come across a great find and purchase it. That should make you happy.

But if I discover the following day that everybody in the neighborhood bought exactly the same thing at the same price...

Or even slightly cheaper...

I would feel very disappointed. I may even feel stupid or angry.

You see? Here, too, is the desire to be better off than others.

I thought it was more about outwitting others.

You are right---the word, 'outwitting,' is more suited for our discussion. The word can nicely explain our attraction not only to good-deal hunting, but also to animal hunting and fishing. In the latter, it is about outwitting the animals and fish that you want to catch.

Whereas in good-deal hunting, it is about outwitting other buyers.

We could say that we outsmart the sellers, too, because we are paying less than we are willing to for that particular item or service. Or at least, that is how we perceive good bargains. In some cases, the sellers succeed in giving us that impression through clever merchandising.

That's true. I have seen advertisements for offers with limitations. It is valid only for members, only for a certain period, or while the supply lasts.

They sometimes take the opposite tack and say that it is an opportunity that nobody should miss. If you do, you are stupid.

But you know, I derive satisfaction from taking advantage of a good deal, and that without talking about it to other people.

Do you feel smart and lucky when you find a deal of your liking?

I don't feel dumb and unlucky for sure!

You will feel dumb if you later learn that the 'deal' was not exactly so.

I may not confirm that the deal is truly a deal by boasting about it to others, but it is important for my satisfaction that I believe in its value. Is this your point?

Yes, you need to be convinced that you have gone about more cleverly than others.

Deal-hunting is all about trying to be smarter than people around us, then...

Do you know what is so infuriating about the squirrels that feast on your strawberries in the garden and manage to avoid your traps?

They steal my fruits of labor.

That, of course. More crucially, they are outsmarting you.

With their tiny brains! I wouldn't ask them for shopping advice, though.

The other side of the coin is that our aversion to being outwitted is so strong that it prevents many of us from behaving cooperatively.

We are afraid that compromising would be taken as a sign of weakness and submission.

It is possible to get the message across that it is not so, but that would be a long-term project.

Civility and civilization are time consuming...

Our view is supported by the evolution of Slow Food movement into a more general Slow Movement.

We have talked about how proximity breeds jealousy. I think it is also true that proximity engenders compassion.

How does that work?

When I was in primary school, we were taught that we should not forget that we are all alike. Therefore, if an act by someone inflicts pain on us, we should not act similarly upon others. In short, we were told to be nice to each other, because we were more or less the same.

What your teacher taught you is ideal and what I argued is reality.

I disagree. When we think that the other party consists of beings which are below us, we hesitate little in hating them. Consider war propaganda, for example. But once we recognize that they are human beings, just as we are, we develop warm feelings toward them.

If that were true, we would have no conflict among people who recognize that all of us are of the same species.

I'd say some of us have not embraced that fact.

We can say that. But attaining that understanding is not the end of the story.

How so?

Once we get used to each other, or realize that we are alike, we enter the situation that I described.

Competition against one another?

There is a honeymoon period in any relationship, be it between persons or between a person and an object---we talked about it some time ago. The ideal is to stay at that stage, but the reality is that sooner or later it degenerates.

Little respect for each other? But how do you explain your case of helping the starving babies in Darfur, then? That is based on the recognition that we are all on the same boat.

Many of us are ready to help others if doing so would not empower them to threaten our standing.

You're terrible...

You're shooting the messenger, my dear comrade. Think about it, life would be deadly boring if there were no room to strive for the ideal!

That's what friends are for

Tell me, why did you come today?

Is that a greeting? I arrived on time, although you are not Barack or Hugo, or sister Sonja for that matter...

My dear comrade, it is a simple and honest question.

We finally agreed to meet today after nearly a month of feet dragging on your part.

You didn't have to come, though.

¡Madre mía! We set up an appointment, but you did not want me to come?

Comrade, I am glad that you came, but I wouldn't go to your house and pound on the door in case you failed to show up.

I came because... We're friends, aren't we?

It is that question which has been bothering me. Why are we friends?

That one... Aren't we stuck with each other in a way?

The give-and-take elements in relationships have come to my mind more often than I like lately.

What did you---or I---do to make myself feel obliged to come here?

I do not wish to claim that all of my friends have the explicit intentions to benefit from keeping me as a friend. There are instances when I sense their true concern for me.

That statement sounds rather weak.

It does to me as well. In too many cases, I cannot dispel the idea that I serve some purpose in their lives.

I thought that is how friendships should be.

What I call 'some purpose' includes all sorts of things. For example, I know that some people like being seen with me.

Really? Do they work for a circus or a You-Wouldn't-Believe-It museum?

It's just that there are too many sloppy dressers around that if you pay a nano second of attention to what you wear, you are more or less a winner.

That says something about your living environment rather than you... If they don't work for a circus or the like and still want to be seen with you, isn't it because your allure is rather off the mainstream?

Some keep me on their friends' lists just because there are not many who were born in that odd corner of the world.

What is there to complain? You are contributing to diversity.

To some, I am a little lamb to be saved, and that is why they like me.

Proselytizing? I see that they hardly have any clue about you.

There are some others who like me because I always share all costs incurred during an outing.

What's wrong with that?

Others like me because I let them grab the bill.

A patronizing type can be useful, though.

Some others think I am worse off than they are in all aspects of life, and that is why they like me.

There isn't anyone who likes you because you always take out your wallet before s/he does? ... By the way, we do like some people who are superior in just about everything.

That doesn't happen unless it is a person who is distinguished for talent that we value. As Seneca the Younger said, "[E]nvy operates on what is at hand, but we can more openly admire things from a distance."

It is easier to be fond of a movie star than an acquaintance who has it all and whom you have the opportunities to see in person.

The funny thing is that the acquaintance usually has much less than the movie star, but we tend to harbor jealousy for the former and admiration for the latter. I have had analogous experiences in language classes, especially at the beginner's level.

Why beginner's level?

The student body would contain so many with no linguistic aptitude, and they would drop out before reaching advanced levels.

Whereas you would go to higher levels and never see them again in the same class---is this what you mean?

They would hate me with passion!

Comrade, that is quite a novel way of bragging.

But it's true! It made no sense, because there are millions of people in this entire universe who have studied and become fluent in Klingon, and my classmates were not jealous about them. They admired the fluent speakers, but hated me.

Are you sure it was all about language skills?

Never mind the native Klingon speakers; they, too, were off limits.

If their rotten command of the language was making your classmates feel nasty, they should have hated the ones with the most agility in that language. But instead, they turned to the fluent speakers with dreamy, starry eyes, and to you with angry, square ones... Are you sure it was about foreign languages alone?

Should I say that my classmates in any subject hated me, because I am a polymath?

And you have been preaching us about modesty!

It was just a rhetorical question, comrade. Getting back to the discussion of what constitutes a friendship, it is not that I constantly scrutinize each relationship.

Am I supposed to believe so after this discussion?

I don't devise a strategy every time I see a friend. It's just that sometimes what they say or do makes me realize why they like me.

Are you sure they don't hate you?

An ideal friendship is about two people caring about each other, not about filling the void in your world map of friends or taking advantage of her/his attributes.

Don't you think that there is give and take element in any relationship?

My view is that when the relationship is satisfactory to both parties, they don't engage themselves in such calculations. Suppose a friend that you really value asks you for a favor, you wouldn't think twice about agreeing to it.

Whereas if it were a Class-B friend, you start listing all the things you have already done for her/him?

"I walked her dog for three weeks when a very important project was due. I visited her grandmother in the hospital at her request although I barely knew her. I have tried to remember her favorite brand of tissue..."

"And now she's asking me to attend her cousin's wedding on the opposite side of the globe and that under the guise of her lover, because she doesn't want to be grilled by her relatives why she is still single!"

If you genuinely value someone and the relationship you have with her/him, you derive enough satisfaction from your action for her/him alone and do not think about what s/he could do for you in return.

For Claude, I would gladly go to the Amazon and collect information on his behalf. I know that such trips have become difficult for him, especially since November last year.

It may have become easier, we never know. Anyway, do you think he would reciprocate your action? If yes, I'd say that you and Claude are very good friends, but I think we can safely say that the answer is no.

Lacking reciprocity, it's not a good friendship, but just one-sided admiration, you mean?

Just as we wouldn't make a list of what we did for a very good friend, we wouldn't itemize what we like about that person. We could, but it would look rather absurd and false. The same holds for a lover.

It's her/him as a whole... I don't think it immoral that I take good care of the bushes that separate my house and the neighbors' in the hope that they would reciprocate the gesture.

I don't either. What I would say is that they are your neighbors, perhaps good neighbors, but not good friends.

I can't be good friends with everyone, though.

Luckily, you are not running for any kind of political post. My point is that true friendships are rare. What puzzles me is that many people do not seem to care whether friendships are genuine or not.

If genuine friendships are rare, why should you examine your set of friends only to find out that most are based on give-and-take?

We are bound for disappointment if we do not recognize that fact. Many of the frictions among people that I witness are based on the illusion that the relationships are altruistic, much more so than they could be.

But if we act wisely from the accounting department's point of view, we would be overly shrewd and unpleasantly cunning, don't you think?

For the manipulative ones, that is the ideal.

Although it is inevitable that most relationships are based on business-like considerations, we should not act so as to make use of that fact, because that would push us more in that direction. Is this our conclusion?

The acknowledgment of that nature would make relationships launch on a downward spiral. On the other hand, such considerations would encourage you to be nice to a person that you cannot have fond feelings for.

It's useful, then.

A condition has to be met: s/he would reciprocate your good-willed actions.

In sum, while most friendships are not pretty under the surface, we should not think about it too often, because if we do, it would negatively affect the nice cover. Oftentimes, the pretty cover is all there is to it. If friendship of any kind is inconceivable, it's best to think the relationship as business.

That is life, it seems... I find it interesting that if the friendship is a very good one, I wouldn't hear lines such as, "That's what friends are for," "I meant it well," etc., from that friend.

Your friend does not need to explain that s/he is a nice and kind person, either.

All is natural, and there lies the pitfall.

A pitfall of yours, again?

When something is very natural, we take it for granted. As for good relationships, we often fail to appreciate them and do not realize their value until they are lost for some reason.

A good relationship lost for some reason? It's impossible by definition.

Ach, if only good reasons prevailed in this world!

Not just any good reason, but yours, right?

My reasons are good, all of them, all the time.

Okay, okay, let's just say that you're not a verificationist...

It's mine, mine, mine, and not yours

If you like it, you want to make it yours and preferably exclusively yours.

And when it is yours, you care about it more than when it isn't.

You care more because you like it, not because you own it.

I know that you absolutely adore macarons parisiens. Suppose you are promised to have a dozen of them delivered every week.

From Laudrée? Or Gérard Mulot? Can I choose? Is this arrangement forever?

Now wipe that rather viscous liquid off your face, please. It's just a hypothesis.

What does such a hypothesis have to do with our discussion?

If you are not involved in any way with the ownership of the pâtisseries, you don't mind whether one closes or not.

As long as I can get the same macarons...

But if you happen to have some stake in the ownership of a pâtisserie, you would make efforts so that it would stay happily open.

My interest is not in the macaron business, but purely in the macarons.

Think about your house. Your ultimate interest is in the service that it provides, but that means you are interested in the house as well. They are inseparable. The point is that exclusive or near-exclusive ownership has great significance in terms of how we treat that object.

What concerns us is the function of the house, such as the quality of the roof, the number of toilets, the orientation and the size of the windows, etc. However, if we are renting the house, we tend to be less careful about its maintenance as compared to when we own it.

You see?

Isn't that about responsibility and not ownership, though?

Even as a tenant, you have certain responsibilities, and in fact, it is in your interest to do your best for its maintenance. We know that if the tenant buys the same house, her/his attitude toward the house changes.

Doesn't it depend on the landlord whether we feel like doing our best or not?

To some extent, yes. But I can safely say that, on average, owners are more concerned than renters. The principle applies to any rental: car, furniture, sports equipment, party dresses, etc. That is one of the important reasons why home ownership is encouraged by numerous governments around the world.

Why are they worried whether we look after our dwellings or not?

Once the house becomes yours, you start thinking about the neighborhood more as your neighborhood. You will be much more concerned about the wellness of the community, and hence, of the nation.

You don't want any anti-government riot down the street that would damage and even destroy your house.

For example, yes.

On the other hand, we know that making everything belong to everybody does not work.

Collectivism and communism have made a grave error in that sense. Our desire to own is so basic that any system that attempts to suppress it is doomed to fail.

We could say that they tried to satisfy that very desire of everyone by making ownership a collective one.

Yes. But remember: if it purports to be everything, it is in fact nothing.

Applying that to our case, we can say: if something belongs to all of us, it is equivalent to not to belonging to anyone. Right?

Unfortunately, the answer is 'yes.' If all of us could muster the same enthusiasm that we have for our own houses for our ultimate home, the planet earth, we wouldn't have had serious environmental problems in the first place.

I think the key is the knowledge that something belongs to me, but not to the archenemy in your class or office.

True, we take greater care if that allows us to exhibit our superiority to people whom we are not fond of. The same principle works with those that you like, too. In that case, we may say that it is pride---instead of superiority---that you feel.

It sounds more benign, but the core principle remains the same.

Right again. You want your family members, for example, to be proud of you, but that does not make too much sense if every family has a member who has achieved exactly what you have. In other words, instead of individual against another individual, it is family against another family.

I'd say ownership is a powerful device for enlarging or enhancing who you are.

You can become more desirable and elevated in status if you own an object that everyone else wants but does not have. The item that you own is an extension of who you are.

We know many men who flaunt their pretty lovers and spouses in the identical manner as they show off their fancy cars, Rolex watches and fat cigars.

Women tend to put similar items on exhibition: successful lovers and spouses, Hermès scarves and so on. Perhaps you remember---we talked about how we treat our family members as extensions of ourselves. We bring up the members' skills and abilities in a certain domain, when the person in front of you has an upper hand vis-à-vis you in that field.

You may be better at flapping your ears than I am, but let me tell you, my brother is reaaaaallly good at it. That one?

If an object is under collective ownership, it is not clear to which individuals it owes its current existence. In contrast, if it belongs to you and nobody else, people around you will get an unmistakable message that you alone are responsible for its condition, splendid or miserable. In short, private ownership gives a clear signal as to who had the power to acquire it and who put in the efforts for its upkeep.

All of us are eager to show to others that we are powerful enough to obtain consent from the object to be possessed, or from its former owner to transfer its ownership to us.

Isn't it funny and sad at the same time that we discover tremendous energy in order to get ahead of, or even defeat, not only the ones that we do not like but also anyone around us? In the same vein, if collective efforts are to be fruitful, we need a common enemy.

All we need is not love, but a galaxy wide contest for containing the excessive emission of greenhouse gases!

Do you think extraterrestrial beings are as stupid and selfish as we are? The paradox here is that we would not survive collectively, if we do not follow our egotistic instincts to some degree---that is, if we do not look after the little world around each of us, because that is what most of us are equipped to do and no more.

Let us be selfish for the common good, then.

There is great danger in saying that. 'Everyone for her/himself' certainly does not aggregate into 'the system for itself.' It's a fallacy of composition. Here's another tenet of mine: the optimal is between the extremes.

Isn't that a logical fallacy as well---that any compromise between two positions is correct?

I think not. The Golden Mean Fallacy concerns any two propositions that are present, not necessarily the extremes.

Okay, another one of yours: we will never come to an agreement where that optimal is.

Because if we unanimously agree, it means someone had her/his arm twisted.

Comrade, it's a promising start for the new year!

Gotta have it, it's retail therapy

Absolutely anyone with an artistic pair of eyes can take good pictures these days.

We agreed on that last time. The 'auto' functions of the latest cameras and Adobe Photoshop go a long way in compensating for the lack of technical skills in photography.

I do not see many photographers making efforts to take good pictures, though. When tourists come to a scenic spot, they very often use it as a simple backdrop for hastily composed group pictures. How artistic can that be, and hence, interesting to others?

I thought your complaint was that there were too many of overly serious amateur photographers.

Yes, that is one of my complaints.

Another is that there are too many of bad photographers, is that it?

Comrade, you're beyond my wildest dreams... I have noticed that if it is a couple, the guy usually does the shooting and orders his spouse/lover/girlfriend to pose in front of a monument, etc. It's often a command. "You stand there," kind of a line, his model scurries to the spot indicated by his finger, she turns around to look at the camera, and immediately a click.

Now, are we talking about the artistic values of tourist photos, the manners of tourist-photographers, or relationship dynamics?

They are all related; if a person fails in one, s/he tends to also fail in the other two. How many times did I stand next to a guy to mumble to myself, "Oh no, you shouldn't do that. Her clothes/hair-do/posture does not make your disastrous angle any better."

Mon dieu ! Have you thought about the possibility of his thinking along the same line about you? "What's the use of taking a picture of a church, from behind a pillar? The poor soul must be nuts. The fact that I can't tell where this person originated confirms my suspicion," for example?

To me, ill-taken pictures of a tourist spot have no value other than for establishing an alibi.

That the photographer was there with her/his legitimate partner, whoever that is? You never know with digital trick these days...

... I know! The purpose of such pictures is to rub it in that they went to places where their friends and families have not been but would love to.

That may be true, because many say things such as, "You have been to Mars, haven't you? Oh, I had forgotten, but you are from Mars, aren't you? Then, you don't have to see these pictures of sexy rocks from that marvelous planet. But, John, I know you haven't been there, come see these photos. Aren't they gorgeous?"

For some reason, it is almost guaranteed that people who forcibly make you look at their photographs take horrible shots.

It makes sense, doesn't it? If the goal is simply to show off to others that you had the opportunity to go to a place where they have not been, or never would even if they wanted to, why care about artistry? Plus, being artistic does not mean anything to some people, you know.

There is something more fundamental to our urge to snap.

Which is...?

It can be traced to our desire to possess what we find beautiful.

Taking photographs is the second best after purchasing the pyramid, you mean?

If Napoleon Bonaparte's people had the technology to cart off the pyramid, they would have. Think about the fate of obelisks that presently sit far away from where they used to be---the one at the Spanish Steps in Rome, another at la Place de la Concorde in Paris, and so on.

Nowadays we create images of the object which become ours instantly.

Most of us have become civilized in that sense, because we simply take pictures of the object instead of stealing it, carving off a piece of it, or defacing it with graffiti.

The use of flashes when we are not supposed to is still destructive.

Vandalizing acts are based on our desire to demonstrate to the public our power over the fate of that object. If benign, the desire takes the form of owning the object in question. On the other hand, vandalism is self-defeating, since it makes the object less desirable.

We obviously wish to see objects that touch us, but our desire to claim power is even bigger...

Isn't it scary? The same pattern is seen in purchases of so-called souvenirs. When we are very much taken by the place we visit, we feel the urge to purchase something that is unique to that location.

It's a variation on the theme of owning what you like, I take it.

That's why some of us spend money on ridiculous, ugly, and/or useless items that we would never purchase had we found them at the grocery store that we visit weekly. We see similar phenomena in relationships. If you like someone, you want to be her/his best friend, or if the sexual orientation is right, her/his lover/spouse. You want that person to be yours.

True, we even acknowledge that desire by saying, "be mine," "tuyo/tuya para siempre," etc.

It doesn't even have to be romantic relationships. You have heard children arguing, "He's my papa," "No, he's my papa," although they are siblings. I remember wanting to be the only child holding hands with either my mother or father, but it was problematic because there were more than two children in the family and all of us wanted that exclusivity.

I have a feeling that there is more to our desire to possess what we like and admire.

I think it is the nature of being fond of something and what the disclosure of that information entails. Being in favor of something means we are inclined to make concessions for that object or person.

In other words, when you announce that you admire something, you are also telling people that you would do more for preserving or obtaining it than for other things in the world.

You are showing your weakness, so to speak. In numerous languages, the expression, "to have a weakness for something," means "to be fond of it."

Whereas dislike and hatred are more linked to combativeness.

As you make your weakness public, you naturally seek compensation for that act.

Naturally?

Alas, that is our animal instinct, and the compensation is in the form of obtaining an exclusive relationship with that object or person.

Mutual submission?

Exactly.

But I don't mind at all telling people that I admire Itzhak Perlman's performance as well as Gil Shaham's.

Some people can hurt you by telling you how better other violinists are and that you understand nothing about classical music.

I am old enough not to be bothered by such childish behavior.

What if someone says s/he will give you a ticket to Perlman's concert that is impossible to obtain on your own, and in turn, you have to share with her/him what you'd rather keep as a secret? Your preferences can be used to manipulate you.

You make it sound as if we were so calculating.

But we are, at least unconsciously. As I have been emphasizing, the civilization consists in acknowledging the unsavory streaks and suppressing them. Talking about civilization, I have been appalled lately of blatant appeals to our base desires by the retail sector.

Is it more than telling you how good a certain product is?

I saw signs such as, "Gotta have it" and "Retail therapy."

Hmmm, pretty raw, I'd say.

I'm glad that you agree. The terrifying thing is that, although I was very much displeased and even shocked when I first read them, they became rather convincing after some time.

Gotta have it...? How do you know? Gotta have it? Really? Gotta have it? Perhaps. Gotta have it, maybe. Gotta have it. Gotta have it. Gotta have it! GOTTA HAVE IIIITTT!... Is this how it goes?

... Kind of...

Retail therapy? How shameful you talk about your profit making scheme as if you were helping us. Retail therapy may work for others, but not for me. Let's examine the first word, retail. Yes, I purchased something. Therapy? Well, the purchase has not exactly made me unhappy. Retail therapy. Perhaps. Retail therapy, maybe. Retail therapy. Retail therapy. Yes, retail therapy, because I'm happier after buying! ... This is how it works, right?

...

Comrade, I'm calling my marketing people right now. What do you say to holding a press conference about the triumph of le capitalisme anglo-saxon?

I'd rather have a discussion with a sociologist or a psychologist over the effects of words and the power of propaganda...

Are you sure? Think about it. There will be lights, cameras, microphones, and everyone will be focusing on you, baby... oops, comrade!

If I am not allowed to see a sociologist or a psychologist, can I have a session with a psychiatrist?