At the bottom of our rational choices

Your point was that logical analysis is more reliable than intuition, because logic can correct feelings, but not vice versa. What if two logical systems collide?

You are right. I realize that sets of logic that cannot be reconciled exist side by side. In fact, that is what cultures are all about.

If we operate within one culture, it all makes sense. But once we come into contact with another, we face contradictions.

One may tell us to be assertive, not to be stepped over, while the other may urge us to be self-deprecating so as to show our confidence in ourselves. There would be no problem if we know which rules prevail.

Things get tricky when we don't know which, because we don't say such things like, "I know that we come from incompatible cultural backgrounds, but I firmly believe that we should go about based on the Triangulum protocol."

What we leave out is, "I am from the Triangulum Galaxy, and I think we are culturally advanced than you guys from the Andromeda Galaxy, ha!"

While the guy from the Andromeda Galaxy is thinking the reverse.

 
Again the winner is the one that manages to be more brutal and ruthless.

We shouldn't act by the Gentlemen's Code, then?

I don't know why we should be bothered with it at all. Think about all the historical events. The ones who did away with such codes have always been the winners. Who said that the fighting should be on the ground only? If we realize that we can attack from the sky, we don't ask the enemy whether it is okay to do so. We just start dropping bombs from airplanes.

But isn't it self-destructive? If you take a no-holds-barred approach, the other party is going to retaliate with the same. The response could be more dramatic than the original acts, because they would be fueled by sense of defeat and revenge.

It is self-defeating only in the long run. What if the more brutal party annihilates the other? There is no point in our acting gentlemanly if the price to pay is our very existence.

If the tougher guys are going to win thanks to their toughness, why are they destined to self-destruction later?

When the culture is characterized by brutality, they can turn to each other with the same cruelness that they applied to their enemies. We know that once the first enemy is eliminated, the rest would split themselves to create enemies. With all regret, I have to say that it is human nature to do so.

We keep on destroying who is left until there is no one.

It is the course of fate that governs too many aspects of our lives. Think about price wars. They may benefit consumers, but not if the workers are insufficiently rewarded for their work to produce the goods. And the workers are consumers, too... Back to the issue of colliding logical systems, if we are to decide which to believe in when not threatened by immediate danger of annihilation, the choice will be dictated by our feelings and emotions.

We cannot logically compare logical systems that are incompatible in terms of logic.

Hence, if we are pressed to choose, it will be based on how we feel about each one against others.

You mean our decisions are more emotionally charged than we'd like to admit.

All of us try to present our arguments if they were the only ways that the discourses can reasonably unfold, but that's not true.

I know that one. Parents versus children, political left versus right, religious fundamentalists versus atheists, and more.

Sometimes we are brought up with one way of thoughts and do not deviate from them, because deviation may lead to reexamination of the fundamentals of what we believe in and how we are. We want to avoid that at all costs. But other times, we are given the freedom to choose.

Downhill versus cross-country skiing, sci-fi versus suspense novels, classical versus rock music...

Those are easy, because we may indulge in both without any problem. It becomes more interesting when it comes to political systems, for example. Nobody can say that s/he supports both democracy and dictatorship. The two cannot coexist.

Or, capitalist and communist economies.

The decisive thrust for one over the other comes from our feelings for them.

And the feelings originate in our experiences with them, right?

If your hard-earned assets have been forcibly confiscated by the communist party and that in front of your eyes, there is no way you are going to be a staunch communist. Likewise, if you and your parents have been exploited by a big landowner, there is little chance that you are going to be a capitalist.

That is irrespective of the logic behind the capitalist and communist systems.

We have to be careful not to treat the two systems as if our attraction to the two were the same. For the sheer reason that the capitalist system appeals to our base instincts to consume and own, it has a stronger draw.

In the case of the exploited peasant, s/he may strive to become a landowner her/himself instead of abolishing the unfair landholding scheme, then.

Exactly. It is our personal feelings generated through personal experiences that serve as the dice for the final selection among incompatible choices. However, when it comes to defense of that choice, we argue as if we had arrived by logic alone.

Well, not many people are going to be convinced by saying that your parent's castle was ransacked by the thuggish party members and that is why you hate the party and its doctrines.

That is why we build up arguments for our decision devoid of such events. Such behavior is not confined to our private thoughts and affiliations. It holds for various views in professional arena, including academia. Contrary to popular belief, we do not start with a clean slate of mind in deciding what we believe in. Rather, we start from our beliefs and build a fortress around it in the name of logic and science.

I bet that's why we seldom manage to convince the other camp.

Most of the time, we ourselves are even not aware of what is at the very bottom of our seemingly rational convictions. If we are, we are loathe to admit it, because we know that the material is not something that makes the other party to change sides. A variation of this theme is found in our appreciation of art.

We know what we like first and then try to find arguments as to why?

That is true, but it would be of the same theme. What I meant by a variation is that the knowledge of the personal aspects of artists affects how we appreciate their works.

Whether the painter was near starvation or living comfortably with the inheritance money should not matter when we judge how good a painting is.

I know an artist with paralyzed limbs who manipulates the brush with his mouth. I was greatly surprised to learn his handicap, considering the level of accomplishment. The question is: are we supposed to, or is it correct to, be more appreciative of his art now that we know his hardship.

If we are to publish one book of paintings, should it be his or the other's whose artistic value may be higher but without such difficulties?

In terms of pure profit, I am certain that the publisher would choose the former. But in terms of artistry, I am not certain if we should appreciate the handicapped more. It is like giving a student a better grade just because s/he suffers from learning disability. The implicit agreement is to evaluate the results, but we take efforts into account as well.

It is true that we are often curious about the artists' private lives, and we tend to like their work more if we are familiar with their biography.

Sometimes it can go the other way, too. If we find out that the artist is awfully conceited, that puts off quite a number of people and make them dislike her/his art. Similarly, our own personal events associated with a certain work can determine whether we like that particular piece.

It is hard for me to listen to the music that I heard when my dear pet beetle passed away. I was digging a hole in the backyard to bury it...

I know that Francisco Goya will forever be a very special painter for me. His exhibition was the first one that I remember attending as a child. It's amazing how vivid the memory has stayed. The crowd, the atmosphere, the weather, the changes in the dominant color in paintings as Goya aged, asking my mother about it, seeing his painting shortly afterward as a poster and recognizing it as his right away, and so on.

A piece of music suddenly means more if a story is attached to it, right?

It is not that I think about the story as I listen, but somehow the music becomes alive. Art begins to mean much more when a bit of context is given. In fact, the story or the context only serves to make me truly listen or see.

Without a story or a context, you pay cursory attention to art?

It seems that I often---not always, mind you---need a story that allows me into the world that each piece of art creates. Once I gain access to that world, I don't need to go back to the story or the context. Sometimes, they even become bothersome during the moments when I appreciate the more abstract nature of art.

Who said that we are rational beings?

The Obligations of the moderate

Life is hard if your brain happens not to be of great quality.
 

I'm glad you've finally realized your predicament.

Think about the constant fear and stress that you feel from not comprehending the situation that you are involved in.

Smart people get stressed out, too, you know.

Many of the smart ones are aware of their stress, and that is the starting point for knowing from which factors the stress has originated, as well as to which actions it has led.

In other words, without that awareness we are incapable of resolving the stress.

If you are not smart enough to know that you are under pressure, it is impossible to get rid of that pressure. 

I disagree. We are usually quite certain about our unhappiness. We can and do simply walk away from it all, and that without going into the analysis of cause and effect, or separating the unhappy aspects of life from the rest.

True. But in most cases, extracting yourself from the mess is not an option, or at least, not the most productive one. Consider a 15 year old who is failing in school. The only people who have finished school in her/his circle are the teachers. If s/he does not like the school environment and realizes that it is because s/he is not trying hard enough to learn, it may prompt her/him to study in earnest. After all, it creates the possibility of obtaining a better job and a better future. 

That's a better plan of attack than running away from home and school, you mean.

I have had some unpleasant interactions which made me wonder whether the strong, negative emotions from the other party was totally justified. It took some time before I realized that their acts were due to their fear, insecurity, etc. In order to get out of the unpleasant and/or unfamiliar situation that they faced, they would find something and someone that could take the responsibility. Since they are in fear, the choice of the responsible object/party is often unreasonable. What is quite amazing in the incidents that I have been witnessing is that the same pattern may persist. 

Thus, you have come to the conclusion that their brain is of quality that has much to be desired...

First, what they think is a conundrum is often not so. Second, they do not seem to realize that if they encounter the same situation often, it pays to give it a careful thought and devise a tactic so that they do not panic every time. 

Do you really think many people are that bad at the art of living? I am sure that we collectively knew how to live well long before all the self-help books were written, even before the oldest religion in the world was established.

Many of us do not have the capacity to analyze and devise a detailed plan, but most of us have the capacity to mimic. It is not a coincidence that the word, to ape, means to copy.

It allows people to act as if their brains were of greater quality?

Precisely. We have the powerful capability to internalize what other people do through observation. That is, without fully understanding the causes and the effects. If we focus on a particular person to emulate, we could say that s/he is a role model. If it concerns the way established by the society, we could say that it is culture. 

What distinguishes the brains of great quality from the not-so-great, then?

I would say that the high-quality brains have less limitation in terms of the breadth of issues that they can cope with ease. The better the ability to analyze is, the bigger chances s/he has to extrapolate what s/he already knows and has experienced.

Doesn't it all boil down to consciousness?

Yes. The problem with crediting consciousness is that...

We should be conscious that consciousness alone is not a panacea. 

Bravo, comrade! 

I must say that I am getting a bit too familiar with the pattern of your thoughts.

But it's true! Haven't you had the experience of being chastised by someone who you thought was not so smart?

"You think you're so smart, but you're dead wrong that..." That kind?

And they reveal what is important to the problem at hand, but you have somehow neglected.

Isn't it something that a snooty youngster experiences vis-à-vis an old hand with less formal education? ... Time to confess, comrade! 

My point here is that we shouldn't underestimate intuitions and instincts.

A snooty youngster has turned into a New Age guru?

It doesn't have to be anything spiritual, or even moral. One time, I saw a video showing the manufacturing process of macarons d'Amiens. It was important that each piece weighed the same so that the baking time will be identical; it would be inefficient to keep a watch on the cookies and take out the ones that are baked faster than others. The pâtisserie had a machine that weighed and sorted out the macarons that were either too small or too big. The owner stood by that machine and picked out the under- and over-weight ones after the machine had made the sorting.

He was filling the gaps left by the machine, then.

When they measured the macarons that he had chosen as non-qualified, indeed, they were of the weight that should have been rejected. So you see, sometimes our instincts are more robust than machines. As a related example, I can measure one cup of water without a measuring cup. It is not that I trained myself to do so, but after having done it so many times, I found out one day that I can put one cup in a bowl in one try. 

Hmmm, I know a person who consistently puts water for ten cups of coffee or more in the kettle when only two cups are to be brewed...

I did not mean to claim that our instincts are superior to our logic, but it will be a mistake to dismiss intuitions and instincts altogether. We often hear about intuitions, instincts and luck playing a big role in great discoveries and inventions. Their paths to success cannot be explained by application of logic alone. Intuitions and instincts are not formal knowledge, however, and there lies their inherent weakness. 

It is difficult to convey the information or confirm the understanding of it.

Or, even to establish its existence. 

"I feel it, right here in my guts!"

Anybody can make that kind of a claim.

In order to be convincing, I bet that you have to be a good actor.

That leads to another problem. You can be more convincing when you can make yourself believe in it. It means that the moderates, or the persons who take into account various viewpoints, will never appear as strong as the extremists. Add our penchant for sensational stories to it, and it is clear that we have a very toxic mix. 

The loonies, who have no doubt about themselves, govern the world!

Sadly, that is the state we drift into too often. Think about all the terrorist acts going on. They are what we are mainly informed of and what we react to. I know that there is more than our affinity to sensationalism that gives support to terrorism, but it is certainly part of the story.

If the extremists have such built-in strength, is there any way that we can stop them from charting the course of history?

The moderates have the obligation to condemn the extremists. It is an uphill task, because the very definition of who the moderates are could be taken as a sign of weakness. But without their expression of opposition against the very far-fetched, there is no hope for humanity.

Back to the requirement of consciousness in dealing with our life problems, can't we say that the people of higher quality brain have similar obligations, namely to show the preferred ways to cope?

I agree on the condition that they need to be cautious of arrogance.

Brainy people have the tendency to walk over the less articulate, and that even when they know that they are wrong, right? 

Obscurantism, elitism... I believe that many of the famous philosophical works could have written more simply and concisely.

That's what everybody says about anything that is beyond her/his intellectual capacity, comrade.

By the way, I know a number of religious people who are very devoted or in the profession of religion and are hypocritical.

They run greater risks, because they preach how we should behave. But they are just like the rest of us and cannot be perfect.

Some time ago, my brother helped organize a conference for professors in ethics. He told me that it was quite remarkable that they were all, well, ethical.

So the professors in ethics can do a better job than the monks and the priests?

I would like to draw a more general conclusion.

All right...

Do you agree that the professors are better than the monks and the priests at analyzing human frailty in a methodological way?

That's what they are supposed to do, while most monks and priests need only compassion.

My conclusion is that analysis is superior to intuition. We can overcome intuition by analysis, but not the other way round. Intuition can only raise red flags to faulty logic.
  

Without such warnings, analytic minds can more easily engage in manipulation and abuse. But knowledge does not guarantee that we will act accordingly. Besides, your evidence is purely anecdotal. 

True. But it's my hunch, you see...

Can't we have good doses of both, the logical and the intuitive minds? 

Most of us are better in one than the other, and naturally, we would like to think that the one that we are better at is more important. I'd say that there is a tendency among us to polarize. 

Ah, humans... But then, don't the ones who can balance the logical and the intuitive have the obligation to promote their way?

The Proof is in the packaging

Look, my crème caramel today has a rather big hole in its side.

Let me see... It sure does, but I'm certain that it will be as good-tasting as the one you ordered last time.

...

Come on, aren't you complaining about something insignificant here?

It's true that a hole does not affect the overall taste, but in terms of presentation, it has failed.

... Comrade, I just decided to enter your name in the King and Queen of Crankiness Contest.

It's not a matter of crankiness! If you are thinking that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, you are gravely mistaken.

What if the pudding looks nice, but tastes bad?

All right, you have a point, too. But, the presentation, the packaging and the like play a much bigger role than we usually are aware of.

It's your urge to dig out the unsung heroes and bring them to the limelight...

The problem is bigger than that. We tend to underestimate the value of appearance, because we are taught to judge anything by its content.

It's good, because it means that we are acting as we are supposed to.

It's bad, because we are under the wrong impression that we attach little importance to the way things look.

I don't judge a book by the cover, either in literal or figurative sense.

I'm sure that you have bought a book, or at least took one in your hands, because the cover looked interesting. It could be that the title was intriguing.

Am I supposed to be interested in a book with awful covers and inane titles, and not others?

I didn't say that, but that given a choice, we would pick one with the presentation that arouses our curiosity.

I may take a look at a book that goes against my aesthetics in a far-fetched way. In other words, I would examine a copy because its unpleasantness makes me want to know its creator or source, but would not purchase it or read it carefully.

You see, you are greatly influenced by the appearance.

I thought you have been telling us that we shouldn't be.
 

We shouldn't be if the appearance has nothing to do with the qualities that we seek. However, the looks have the tendency to sneak into our decision making in an inconclusive way. Suppose we have two candidates for the job of a receptionist. One is competent and emotionally stable, but does not come across as your long-lost uncle. Another is less competent and panics rather easily, but has the looks of a Mr. Triangulum Galaxy. Which candidate would you choose?

Would Mr. Triangulum Galaxy have three eyes or two?

Let's say he comes with the features of normal homo sapiens, and they are of a high grade according to our criteria.

I think it greatly depends on the culture, because the case we are discussing could be cast as a question of long-term versus short-term interest. I bet that the societies with longer-term views would choose the former, and the shorter-term ones the latter.

We eventually get used to nice looks, so I'd imagine that the companies which put more weight on the looks wouldn't mind getting another receptionist when the current one quits after a short period. ... Hey, I think I figured out why we get bored with pretty faces easily.

Some of us burn ourselves out with jealousy, before getting used to having nice-looking people around.

Jealousy from not being as beautiful ourselves, jealousy from their attracting so much more attention than we do... But why do you think we get bored with beautiful people?

Are you sure we get bored with someone if s/he has the personality of our dreams and happens to have the looks of Ms. or Mr. Milky Way?

I told you, we get used to their looks! The problem is that they have one handsome face and no more. Suppose your lover is a nice-looking being, whose feature changes from day to day. You wouldn't get bored so easily.

It will be confusing if James Dean goes to bed and wakes up in the morning to find a John Wayne in the mirror instead of James.
 
Aren't you grateful that we are spared of such confusion? But it also means that we can get awfully used to good-looking persons.

I think we get used to any good quality, unfortunately.

True, but personality differs from looks in that it manifests in many different ways, depending on the circumstances.

Whereas an attractive smile is just that, you mean? Doesn't it imply that we get less bored with people if they are more expressive of their emotions?

We know that many occasions call for moderation in that department if we are to act as mature members of the society.

... We'd better get back to the discussion of whether appearance matters at all.

As the receptionist case shows, we may well take the appearance of a person into account, although the job description would not stipulate so.

I don't think any modern society would allow us to write: Good looks may be substituted for lack of competence and/or experience.

Exactly, but it does not mean that we avoid such decisions. "Oh, Candidate No. 1 may be able to field a wider range of questions, but Candidate No. 2 has such a happy smile that we would get more visitors to the company if he sits at the entrance."

The conclusions is...
 
While we are taught not to be fooled by the looks, our emotional states are affected by them. We do make decisions in which the looks play a much bigger role than we are willing to acknowledge.

That's one. What about your original proposition that the proof is in the packaging?

Have you ever tried to give a rather inexpensive gift to someone because you don't want to spend too much money?

You shouldn't talk about your experience as if it were mine!

You agonize over it, because you don't want to look too cheap...

That's you, not me!

Have you ever succeeded in making the recipient happy with a sub-optimal gift by putting it in a pretty box and wrapping it nicely?

It sounds like your friends are extremely lenient with you.

Don't you have the experience at the receiving end yourself? When you think about it carefully, the content is not great, but it gave you good feelings because it was presented artfully?

Is that what you were trying to do with a box of apples in gaudy paper that you gave to me the other day?

My principle in gift-giving is to aim for either practicality or pure entertainment. Somewhere in the middle is awfully troublesome. Suppose you want to give a present to an art loving friend. You want to give her/him something artsy, but preferably something unknown to her/him and yet to her/his taste.

We know how odiously difficult that is. Is that your excuse for your choice of apples?

By the way, art is all about packaging.

Are you trying to tell me that even C grade photographs could become B grade by presenting them in A grade frames?

What I meant is: art itself is nothing but repackaging of reality. Think about the Impressionist paintings. The objects and the sceneries that they chose to paint were not very different from their predecessors', but their innovative manner of painting has allowed us to see them differently from the previous schools and also from what we see with our own eyes.

The Monastery of Saint-Paul-de-Mausole is pretty in itself, but it has much less impact to me than Vincent Van Gogh's paintings of it. The same with Claude Monet's garden in Giverny and its paintings by him.

Similarly, we can say that the photographs capture the images that we may have seen, but never stopped to observe and admire. They tend to alter the reality much less compared to paintings, but still the photographers have the freedom in choosing the object, the angle, and the lighting, etc.

What about narratives?

Some time ago, I read a non-fictional account of a Resistance fighter during the Second World War. The story was not trivial; many people disappeared or got killed, and uncertainty and fear were always there. I was not familiar with the events described, and the writing was not bad either. But I felt so bored, and couldn't wait to get to the end so that I could start reading another book.

You take it as a piece of evidence that the presentation of events matters.

I do, although I still can't tell what was exactly wrong with that book. I even felt guilty for being bored with it.

What about performance arts? They provide us with something we do not see or hear on a daily basis.

Those could be called extensions of reality, perhaps. We do see and make bodily movements as well as hear and create tunes in our everyday life. The extraction of their finest elements and the extrapolations of them are what we know as dance, theater and music.

Can we say that they show us the distilled versions of reality?

"Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth./L'art est un mensonge qui nous permet de dévoiler la vérité."

Pablo, again...

Most communication, too, depends on how you say it. Politeness may be something on the surface, but it counts.

We can turn hypocritical, though.

Yes, but genuine attempts for politeness have the ability to change our thoughts accordingly.

... Hurray, it's the surface, the packaging, the wrapping, the ribbons, the bubbles in your crème caramel, the...

You know that not-so-nice looking people can be awfully attractive by properly packaging her/himself. I don't only mean clothes---and those do not need to be expensive---but the attitude, the outlook, the mind...

Wait, wait, you are now talking about the contents of a person.

The attitude, the outlook and so on are how we see and present the whole world to others. Our views are the results of our filtering and rearranging of what we see and hear; we repackage the reality.

... Hurray... it's... it's... the end of the year!

And we are so different, because we are so alike

We harbor about the same amount of nastiness inside us, but it is subject to modification by training on how to express it.

That is more or less where we left off last time, but I can't quite agree with the first part of that statement. Some babies are go-getters while some others are slackers, and that without any urging from the grown-ups.

True. But compared to the differences that we see later in their lives, aren't they more alike than ever?

Come to think of it, personal variations tend to increase as we age. Then, they start diminishing as we reach our old age, particularly if we become senile.

Is that meant to scare me---it implies that we revert to what we had been. Now I remember my grandparents wanting to eat more and more of what they used to eat in their childhood as they grew older.

If your strengths lie in physical activities, your prime time will pass early. As an athlete or a dancer, you can stay involved in the capacity of a coach or a choreographer, but there is no denying that you will be delegated to the backstage.

You can't blame me that I am an ageist, can you... Back to the topic of personal variations, our environment cannot plant in us what we are not born with, but they have tremendous influence in attenuating and accentuating what we do possess. Not everybody can be a professional tennis player, but respect for others, for example, can be inculcated.

Well, we need some people to organize tournaments, manufacture rackets, and so on.

Personal events have great power to shape who we are, while that power wanes as we age. In other words, there are two sides to maturity. You may be mature enough not to be disturbed by certain happenings, but it may also mean that you are too rigid to be corrected by them.

Is that meant to scare me---you are saying that there is a very fine line between maturity and inflexibility.

Genuine maturity should come with the ability to sort out meaningful events from others, but again, we have the tendency to become too selective in this regard over time. Let's turn to another factor that constitutes our environment: culture. Various cultures have their own ways to cope with our ugly side. Some condone it more than others.

Are you ranking cultures here?

I wish I could, because then, life would be easier.

Isn't it better to condone what we are born with rather than suppress it?

I didn't know that you are one of the people who consider anything natural is good. Well, it's not so unnatural of you to think so, because we are in that phase in history. After a flurry of activities to go in one direction always comes another in the opposite direction.

The technological progress in the past two centuries had the aim to subdue nature so that they would be of greater use to us. Lately in the developing world, we are seeing movements to live more along with nature. Recycling and composting, organic farming, local procurement of foodstuff, electronic cars, solar heating, power generation from wind and geothermal sources, search for wonder drugs in exotic plants...

Anger and hate come to us naturally without any instruction. Do you think it is better not to do anything about them?

I'd say that it is necessary to be angry against and hateful of certain things, for instance, discrimination based on attributes which are secondary to the question at hand.

That reminds me of a classmate who said that women should not major in chemical engineering.

Huh?

That was my reaction, too. When I asked him why, he said that it was because women could not haul by themselves the gas tanks required for experiments, and thus, were burden to male students.

Doesn't that imply that all disabled people should be killed because they are burden to the society?

I shall not disclose where he received his prior education... In any case, being angry about injustice can be destructive, too. Our anger shocks the other party and directs their attention to us, but it also tends to invoke anger on their side. If we are to make good use of anger, we should have control over it.

It should be measured and to the point, you mean... What about hatred?

I'm afraid that there is not much use for it.

Can't we show our commitment to justice by hating injustice?

Perhaps, but I think it only alienates people who engage in injustice.

I agree that we need to be under control in order to take advantage of our negative emotions inherent in us. But doesn't it deprive us of spontaneity in the good sense as well?

Bravo, comrade. If we are in control all the time, it makes us boring or unattractive.

Good news for a change! We should let ourselves go once in a while. We don't have to watch over ourselves every second.

One problem is how to select such moments.

But that itself takes away the casualness!

Another problem is how to remain spontaneous after choosing the moments to be so.

Comrade...

Did you expect life to be easy?

Not for you, obviously.

Isn't it amazing how much our cultural and personal environments can shape us to be so different, starting from the same basic material? The situation is further complicated by the fact that we greatly differ in how susceptible we are to such modifications.

Comrade...

I know a set of siblings who are close in age and grew up together in several continents because of their father's occupation. Some have become a true motley of cultures that they have been exposed to, while others are as if they had never left their home country.

... They must be looking forward to their old age when they become more alike.

Did you know that susceptibility to change by environment can be strengthened or weakened, depending on the environment itself?

...

Have you noticed that the more alike we are, the more we try to differentiate ourselves?

I know that one. Each country is often subject to its own fads, but within those fads, people try so hard to stand out.

If showing your tail is considered cool, almost everyone would be doing so, but some would show only the tip of it, some would tie a ribbon around it, some would tattoo it...

Tails...? A tattoo on a tail...? Are you talking about your friends from the Triangulum Galaxy?

We don't have to go that far. The Jews and the Arabs, the Hausa and the Yoruba, the Hutus and the Tutsis, the Welsh and the English, the Croats and the Serbs, the Georgians and the Russians, the Indians and the Pakistanis, the Japanese and the Koreans, the Americans and the Canadians, they are more alike than they care to admit, but if we mistake one for the other...

Unless they find it beneficial to form a united front.

As is the case with the Orthodox Jews and the conservative Muslims in the East End of London. Facing the outside world, they realized how much they share in terms of way of life.

After all, one can be Lev, Essad and Kurban, all at the same time.

You are just like me

Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.

I thought we were over that issue.

I thought so, too. I had even reached the conclusion that we all are the same at the very core.

Hmmm, may I ask what the similarities could be between my next door neighbor and Johnny Hallyday?

They're both persons.

Comrade...

At the precocious age of nine, I wondered why factories that pollute air and water remained in operation, knowing that they were destroying the environment and harming people's health and lives. I couldn't understand why the polluters were not willing to stop even after learning about the deaths that they caused.

I don't think Johnny was there to give a charity concert on behalf of the victims.

I kept thinking hard and realized that it was just fate that some happened to be owners and others workers and residents. It could have been the other way around.

By a slight of hand of Fortuna, or her wink, tick, nod, snort, cough, sneeze...

It occurred to me that all involved were fighting for the same thing, but that without realizing.

How so?

The factory owners needed to support their families and so did the residents. Closing down the factories would help the locals, but not the owners. Allowing them open would help the owners, but not the people who live in the area. I thought they ought to have a frank talk. "Look, we wish to stay healthy and buy nice gifts for our children, and so do you. All of us desire the same. We should work together."

Instead of recognizing their commonality, they were driven by their own immediate needs.

Later, I learned that the people in capitalist countries thought that the communist regimes must be doing a better job in protecting the environment, while the people in communist countries thought that capitalism must be superior.

In both systems, people in power are driven more by personal interest than by common good; neither has a clearly better record than the other.

I went as far as to say that the amount of evilness we carry in ourselves are more or less the same.

Obviously, you can't say we are all Hitler or all Mother Teresa, and in fact, they are no different from each other!

I do not disagree with that. Apart from personal variations, we have about the same amount of tendency to be mean and cruel.

And how big the variations are! Your statements are meaningless, I'm afraid.

My claim is that we grossly differ in how we are trained to suppress and conceal them. Some of such tricks we learn as part of our culture, and some others we pick up based on our individual experiences.

So your conclusion is that we are the same, and yet different in exhibiting that sameness.

You can say that. Nastiness can be hidden somewhere. For example, Culture Cherry may inculcate politeness. Suppose Cherry People happen to have little contact with the outside world. When they encounter Apple People, some would extend the politeness, but others could be outright impolite.

Doesn't it depend on whether Apple People are considered on par with Cherry People?

It is dependent on each Cherry person, whether s/he thinks politeness is a virtue with or without conditional clauses. Especially, if Culture Apple does not discipline its people to conceal nastiness as much, it encourages Cherry People to show their meanness as they come to contact with it.

We often mistake that Cherry People will be polite whatever the circumstances, but that is not true.

Cherry People may retain their politeness because they are inflexible and cannot change their behavior, or because they examine the situation and conclude that the same principle should be applied to Apple People. Politeness could be either unconscious or conscious.

Put differently, some Cherry People may unknowingly extrapolate their rule on politeness to Apple People, but they may also abandon it without knowing if Apple People are impolite.

We cannot avoid being influenced by our surroundings, and that especially if we have not thought about that possibility. In any case, the point was that I thought I could say that we are the same if we are to abandon our conventions.

That's a big 'if,' isn't it?

It is... And I already know that it is not true, because conventions have the power to become our true intentions if practiced for a long time.

You mean, we can become genuine devils by vigorous training which aims for that? Or saints through appropriate training?

Yes, I am quite certain that some cultures are adept at suppressing certain negative emotions and that for good.

But you have been telling me that people cannot fundamentally change!

I realize that the statement needs some qualifications. Cultures shape us while growing up.

In other words, some Cherry kids become genuinely polite and some Apple kids truly impolite?

Yes. I think we are born with about the same amount of evilness, but that can be suppressed, even eliminated, depending on the way we are brought up to see human relationships and the world. Once we reach that critical age of eighteen, most of us become set in that aspect. Either as children or adults, we can only imagine that others would be like us, but when very young, we still have the flexibility to understand and incorporate ways that are totally different from ours.

I thought we all wanted to think that others are inferior to us in one way or another, not exactly like us.

We harbor the contradictory idea that we are all alike and yet we are the best among them. It is fascinating that the contradiction is so common.

What about young children who think that their parents are the best people in the world?

That is an important exception, and so are the lovers who are in adoration of each other.

Those cases aside, we think that we are at least in one aspect better than the people whom we know. At the same time, we think that they are just like us?

Just like us in the sense that we are constrained in imagining the motivations that drive behavior. Lately, I have been witnessing exasperation among people who wish to understand me.

... Who can blame them?

Themselves, because I am consistent.

In your own wicked way...

It is interesting to observe people trying little gimmicks to get my attention and failing. They keep on going in circles as if blinded by a blizzard.

You are wicked!

Well, the insults and lies meant to discredit and hurt me cannot be made up by telling me that the bread that I brought---it was a cake, mind you---was delicious, or by smiling emphatically and being chummy with me more than usual.

Sounds like you are back in elementary school.

Doesn't it? I was wondering why they resort to such means and why they are surprised that those fall flat.

Isn't it because they think that you are at that level?

That did pass my mind, but I came to the conclusion that it is not the case. I am certain that they themselves are at that very level and cannot think of other levels or types of motivation and behavior.

Don't we all suffer from that problem, though? Suppose I come across a person who is addicted to drugs. If I learn her/his background, I would probably understand how s/he came to be an addict, but not how s/he has failed to kick the habit.

You are right. There are many cases for which we would say, "Yes, yes, yes, I understand. But, why doesn't he go for the Obvious Solution?" "Well, that's not what he wants." "But, he wants to get out of the current state, right?" "Yes, but the Obvious Solution is not the one for him, apparently..."

Hence, your withdrawal of the statement that we are all the same at the core.

We are very much limited by who we are in understanding others. People who expect to have official rules bent for themselves would do so for you in return. Many do not understand that I am against such actions, even after hundreds of my refusal to take part in them.

I know that you are not talking about some country at the bottom of the list composed by Transparency International...

It can get pretty explicit, too. Once I found out what Monsieur Untel planned to do to Madame Unetelle, and I could not hide my astonishment. Monsieur Untel assured me not to worry, because he did not plan to do the same to me.

You'd start wondering about Monsieur Untel's definition of justice and fairness.

Precisely. He does not seem to be aware of his own criterion, or at least that is the impression that he wants to give to others. Anything is permissible if it does not happen to him. He was puzzled when I remained appalled after his reassurance. He is in the dark about one important principle. That is, if one takes a certain action against someone, there is a very good chance that s/he would do the same to some other.

We'd better stay away from anyone who gossips badly, because most likely, s/he would be gossiping about us as badly to other people.

These happenings have led me to suspect that we more often fail than succeed in understanding each other, because we are limited by our own thinking circuits. If we want to please others, we do to them what we would like them to do to us. If it doesn't, we are often at a loss. A person, who thinks everybody is out to get him, believes that I, too, think that everybody is out to get me.

Ah, I know which one you are talking about... So Comrade, are we the same, or are we not?

We are so similar that we easily agree on the importance of concepts such as: love, charity, kindness, honor, respect, friendship, kinship, knowledge, and so on. What they mean in practice is a totally different story.

For some, love would mean love for and of God, and then, it gets even worse as we cannot agree on who that is.

It is nothing but irony that people hate each other over love. Some people love their own god so much that they do not hesitate to kill others who love some other gods.

Something similar happens on an individual basis, too. You remember the days of duels over love?

That was before my time... By the way, have you noticed that we try extremely hard to understand another person when we are in love with her/him? I can't think of any other occasion that matches in its intensity.

Considering the human nature that we seek confirmation of who we are and what we think, it's quite remarkable.

Or, we can say that it is why it becomes difficult to fall in love as we age and become set in our ways.

Comrade, we have to start calling you an ageist...

Do you remember our discussion that the desire for diversity, change, or control makes us want to have multiple partners, either successively or simultaneously, with benefits in the bedroom? I am beginning to realize that artists have an additional incentive to fulfill that desire: to take their artistic endeavors to another domain.

They want sensuous experiences that would inspire them, and that is possible by being in love.

Pablo has left wonderful art for which his lover at the time served as a model and/or muse, as well as a number of profound remarks about art.

He has also left a trail of family members who were extremely unhappy and depressed.

What are we to think about someone who sent the people around him to hell, but continues to save thousands of other souls?

Know your reality, and forget it

You will be greatly distressed upon hearing this, I know, but as a friend of yours and a project partner to boot, I feel very much obliged to tell you... I was approached by the café owner the other day who commented that we had been occupying a table for an increasingly long time with only a couple of glasses of wine.

Is that a complaint that we are undesirable customers?

Well, the suggestion was that we make each talk short and come more frequently.

So that we would be ordering more per hour?

It's a natural desire for a owner, isn't it?

But we are here to save the world and that single-handedly. It's a motivation much more sublime and worthy than profit making!

I am fully aware that you don't like talking about money, but even you can't deny that it is what allows us to live.

I thought it was food.

Unless you are a versatile farmer, you need money to purchase foodstuff.

To tell you the truth, I have been getting rather scared by the mightiness of it.

Shall we call money 'It,' if you feel more comfortable that way?

Recently, I have come to the conclusion that to live a full life is to seek maximum sensuous stimulus.

How could I have guessed that you would turn into a hedonist?

In what I call sensuous stimulus, I am including acquisition of intellectual insights and knowledge. You must know those 'Aha!' moments that give us great pleasure.

It could be instances of 'What the hell is this?'

Or, 'There is a unifying force behind all these seemingly unrelated phenomena...'

That must be why so many people love mystery/detective novels and conspiracy theories.

I agree. It's a pity, because the folks who restrict their reading to such material are diverting their energy that could be used to learn and understand mysteries in real life as well as true conspiracies.

Come on, we all need diversions!

Think about it. Isn't it rather irresponsible to be intensely interested in Miss Marple's adventures, but not at all in the mysteries of hedge funds, hoping your money will forever enjoy an above-the-average return, and complain about the financial regulators when it doesn't?

We neither have the time or the capacity to understand everything that goes on in this world.

True, but that is not a license for staying ignorant. As I claimed last time, in order to manage a complex world in the way we see fit, we need to be sophisticated enough to face the complexity. To me, the mechanism is the same as with the politicians. If the voters are sophisticated enough, so would be the politicians. If the private investors are vigilant enough, so would be the brokers.

On average and in the long run, you mean...

How else could you change their behavior?

Strikes and protests are certainly attention grabbing, but most likely for a short time and for the addressed issues only.

Getting back to the issue of sensuous stimuli, they do not need to be pleasure deriving.

So you are a masochist?

Not exactly. What we truly value about sensuous stimuli is that they make us forget everything else.

We are constantly in search of an escape from reality, then?

I would say that the feeling of being mesmerized and captivated is the best experience that life has to offer. We all seek it, although many are unconscious about their search. We would be mistaken to think that there is more to life.

I thought it was all about status, fame and money!

It would be awfully nice to have those, but only if they are associated with stimuli of the senses. Besides, we can acquire them even after we are dead, but not sensuous experiences.

Shall I ring up Hugh and ask him to organize a party in your honor?

Remember the stories of kings and queens, emperors and empresses, sultans and their wives, who were always on the look for something that would get them out of their boredom? The most famous example may be the preamble to 'One Thousand and One Nights.'

Their wealth and power would make life enjoyable only if they lead to interest-piquing ideas, objects and physical activities...

Wealth and power are useful in the sense that they enable you to meet celebrity people, see celebrity objects, and engage in very expensive activities, like going to the moon for fun. Such opportunities by themselves are excellent gossip fodder, but there is no guarantee that they would be anything meaningful. By the way, I was at the Palace of Versailles a while ago.

Cursing about all the bloody tourists who marred your view, right?

At first, I thought how nice it would be to turn into Louis XIV and have the entire place to myself. Then, I realized that I would quickly get used to it---having at my disposal the huge palace, gardens and hunting grounds. Looking outside the window from that vast residence, I would be clicking my tongue for want of something that I did not know before and turns out to be amusing.

I'm glad that you are of a budget-type. You could experience being a Louis XIV without building another palace for yourself.

I also realized that I need what we decided to call 'It' in order to obtain stimuli on a regular basis.

Getting to and entering natural parks, attending concerts, exhibitions, film shows and lectures, purchasing books, supplies, equipment, gear and instruments, taking lessons and courses, having a drink at a café, dining at a restaurant---all these activities require money.

My argument further implies that the poor people should not be deprived of such opportunities just because they happen not to have enough funds. They, too, should be allowed to indulge in what life can offer, through subsidies.

I can already hear objections to that. Some will say that the poor do not deserve it, because it is their laziness and/or lack of planning that led them to poverty.

I would like to emphasize here once again that it is human nature to downplay the roles of chance and luck in our lives and worldly events. Some are simply unlucky to be poor, and their children even more so. A humane society is to shoulder the burden of misfortune that is beyond anybody's control.

The poor may have bigger reasons to momentarily put the reality aside...

The trick is not to forget the reality altogether.

You said that life's joy is in moments that make us oblivious of everything but what is in front of us!

Yes, but we will be unhappy if we have a poor grasp of the reality.

You mean a misconception, such as your money manager cannot make mistakes.

Or, justice prevails.

Or, good work will be recognized as such against any odds.

It is tragicomic to go from one society to another and see what is common wisdom in one is not so in the other, and due to lack of such wisdom people suffer throughout their lives. It depends on the culture how much people attribute certain outcomes to chance and luck. So are the expectations that men and women have about each other. Even how much people take advertisements as impartial facts is culture dependent.

In sum, it is best to look at the reality straight in its face...

And seek as many opportunities as possible to turn your eyes away from it.

Isn't that the reason why some of us are addicted to traveling? We manage to forget about big issues in our lives by swapping them with the problem of how to get from Point Here to Point There when we have little idea about the local transportation system.


I wouldn't say 'the reason,' but one of the reasons for sure. But what's wrong with that? It poses an intellectual challenge in an unfamiliar milieu, and yet, we usually manage to accomplish our tasks.

It gives us a great sense of achievement, plus some funny stories to share later.

The best part is that we can laugh about ourselves in the end, which may not be true with respect to life.

... Comrade, the next round is on me... What would you like?

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

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

...

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

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

You didn't want to harp on it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sois jeune et tais toi !

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

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

Be realistic, ask the impossible.

Prenez vos désirs pour la réalité.

Take your desires for reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are blushing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all were, ahem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you shivering?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excepting unusually traumatic experiences...

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

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

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

Are we so perverse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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