It's just a bumper sticker

Do you remember talking about treating our family members as extension of ourselves?

When we feel insecure and jealous in front of a person who is better than us in something, we bring out our parents, children, spouses and siblings who would compare favorable. That one?

In such instances, many of us are more optimistic about our family members than about ourselves. Take, for example, parents flaunting the achievements of their children. They can be much more brazen than about themselves.

I've had enough of those "My Child was the Best Student of the Year" stickers.

Same here. They seem to be unaware that it is not quite like showing off your Olympic Gold Medal to the audience. In that case, the winner and the audience are not in competition. The medal won by the athlete is also for the audience from the athlete's country. However...

The parents with stickers on their cars drive around in the area close to their house, precisely where they are very likely to be seen by their competitors.

What are their thoughts about other parents' or children's feelings, especially for those who would never win such an honor, although every parent thinks her/his children are the best?

It's beyond me...

The parents with stickers must be happy already by the fact that their child was chosen. Advertising it cannot make them happier by a big margin, unless their happiness is dependent on others' jealousy and sense of failure.

I suppose they enjoy the act of peeling off the protective paper, placing the stickers on their cars, and seeing them.

It is much easier for the winners not to be so open about their victory than for the losers to deal with their disappointment in themselves. Curtailing display of victory is a negligible price to pay, if we think how much it would make the whole community a better place to live.

In other words, placing those stickers on your car is a selfish act.

To the hilt. Talking about achieving through our close ones, non-working spouses can sometimes be more ambitious than their spouses regarding their careers. Some time ago, I attended a seminar and sat behind the spouse of the speaker. When he finished talking and took the seat next to his wife, she showered him with praises in a loud voice while others focused on the next talk.

Was she the only one saying, "Oh, it was wonderful, honey."

I didn't know that you were there!

I wasn't, but by looking at your face, I can pretty much tell how bad it was.

And she ostensibly stroke his back...

Who knows, maybe he suggested that they break up the night before and she was trying to persuade him that they shouldn't?

I always welcome wacky explanations, however unconvincing they may be.

Getting back to stickers, what about political ones?

People who agree with the message may feel good when they see it, but nothing beyond that. Others who do not agree with it may become agitated, but the stickers do not come with detailed reason as to why the car owner supports the political stance or does not give anyone an opportunity to voice disagreement.

It doesn't serve any purpose.

It's worse, in my opinion. It just upsets people on the other side.

Some of us like to provoke, and sometimes provocation is the only way to induce people to think a bit further.

Reasons are easily taken over by emotions. I see little good in provoking, unless there is enough trust. Sadly, more people put on stickers than go to political debates or meetings, which are more effective, but also more time and energy consuming.

You know, driving cars makes you act strange.

Just like the Internet. We have found ways to say to others what we cannot say to their face.

Imperfection and hope make perfect, or almost

I think I took the contribution of Condi and Colin too lightly last time.

You mean, their role in elevating the status of African-Americans?

They may not have made much visible change, but I'm sure they managed to raise hope among Americans of African heritage. And, hope is what we most rely on to keep on living.

We are willing to live, because we believe that a better future awaits us.

If we knew that things are going to worsen, we'd rather not face that future and terminate our lives right at this moment.

Or live carelessly and recklessly, since whatever we possess is going to be lost anyway.

Such behavior would create utter chaos, and that is where religions come to the rescue for some of us.

There is a wonderful place called heaven or paradise, and we are allowed to get there only if we live ethically and constructively.

I'm always amazed how clever religions are. It is very tempting to think that there is something behind all this, which some people call God, the Divine One, the Holy One, etc.

Various cultures have invented what could collectively be called religion, and the similarity in their functions suggests that its origin can be traced to the elements which are common to us all.

Bravo, it's biology, again!

I'm afraid it is.

Look at young children, for example. Most of them are not aware of religious doctrines, but full of energy to live. I suppose we have a built-in mechanism which greatly encourages us to weather the difficulties until we are capable of reproduction, and hence, aiding in the continued existence of homo sapiens.

If that is true, is there any meaning in life without reproduction?

We can still make contribution to the survival of the species in way of worker ants or bees, so to speak.

Or that aunt or uncle, who seems to have no intention of marrying and takes care of nieces and nephews...

Worker ants and bees are sterile, but colonies would collapse without them. Lacking reproductive capacity and opportunity, or past the reproduction period, we need something that would give us hope, and thus, rein us in. Not surprisingly, we tend to become more religious as we age.

Also, when we are young, we can be hopeful that we would succeed in a big way or go down in history. But as we grow older, such hopes become less and less convincing. For starters, most of us have discovered that we were not exactly child prodigies.

Not only because the time left gets incredibly shorter, but also because we accumulate increasingly many pieces of evidence to the contrary of such hopes. Even with a good dose of me-me-me spirit, believing in it yourself becomes rather absurd. We need other types of things to bring us hope, and religions are good at filling such gaps.

Why do we want to believe, in the first place, that the situation at hand is to improve?

Because the world is never perfect for any of us and the imperfection is tolerable only if we think it is on the track to be what we wish it to be.

It also makes us think that changes are possible and urges us to be innovative.

Not always, because some of us think that the changes are going to happen without any effort on our part. Anyway, in the slim chance that we acquire or attain all we ever wished for in life, you may get a destructive urge.

Why do we want to destroy the perfect state that we desired so much?

For fear of losing it when you least expect it.

Are you sure that we are as perverse as that?

Long ago, I wasn't so sure, but I was convinced when I saw "The Hairdresser's Husband" by Patrice Leconte. We may also feel disoriented or bored from not knowing what more to want.

Ah, "Le Mari de la coiffeuse." So, the morale is...

People live on or kill themselves for reasons that make little sense to others.

Hurray, you managed to be optimistic and pessimistic at the same time!

WYSIWIG, WYSIWYM, WYSIAYG

You know, the presidential election in the US...

I thought we were never going to get into politics.

We've already talked about it by referring to taxation, income equality, and so on.

Having done something sneakily makes it all right to do so in the open?

Do not seek logic, as there is hardly any in this world.

Ask, and you will receive. Search, and you will find.

It really sounds like one of the self-help books, not to mention very similar teachings in other religions and philosophies. There are billions of people wanting to be billionaires, but we know that only few of them are going to succeed.

In fact, none of the books says "Or your money back."

Anyway, I heard that some female voters in the US are agonizing over the issue of rewriting Hillary into Sarah.

They represent different political parties, and hence, supposedly different agenda.

Many people are voting based on the race and the gender of the presidential candidates and their running mates.

Quite a few voters checked the box for Hillary in the primary as support for a fellow woman, I heard.

Many of African origin are staunch supporters of Barack.

Isn't that natural? It perfectly fits with what you have been describing as biology. We all back someone who is biologically closer.

I also heard about people who were in a quandary because they wanted to support Barack for his underrepresented race and Hillary for her underrepresented gender.

Makes sense.

You think so? Neither Condi nor Colin had much to do with improvement of racial discrimination in the US, just as Indira and Benazir had little influence on the status of women in India and Pakistan.

The mere facts that Condi and Colin became the US Secretary of State were symbolic achievement for people of the same color. And don't forget that the rich-poor gap matters more than the men-women gap in South Asia. I also think that one knows more about her/his own race and gender.

But that doesn't mean s/he knows what is best for her/his race and gender, much less whether s/he would adopt policies that benefit the group.

Again, your biology says s/he would.

Then again, that shouldn't be the case.

Is it "let not biology dictate you," one more time?

How good is a politician if s/he favors a certain ethnic and/or gender group, just for that reason?

It is an attempt to redress the unfair inequality that exists, not to confer special advantage.

If a competent person is elected as the president, priorities would be similar, irrespective of her/his biological attributes.

Take Hurricane Katrina. The poor who need the most assistance are not getting enough of it, and they happen to be the black people. If the governor of Louisiana had been of the same background, things could have been different.

We tend to disagree on what is a fair share. In the eyes of the privileged, the underprivileged ask for more than fair, once one of them gets elected to high office. It could be lack of empathy and understanding that they see the situation in that manner, but can we say that there has been absolutely no abuse of power in such cases?

Take as much as you can while you're there, because you have missed out and may miss out again in the future...

I'm concerned about the candidates' principal labeling by race and gender. Whatever s/he does, those biological factors are taken to be the cause.

Because he is black, because she is a woman...

That line of thinking is precisely what is behind unfair treatment. If Barack takes the office and performs miserably, we would hear "never a black president again."

But it's just Barack.

If Hillary had taken the office and made a further mess of, for example, the social security system, it would be "never a female president again."

But it's just Hillary.

If someone is chosen for her/his race or gender, s/he can be rejected for that, too. In a fair world, we do not care about race or gender. They simply would not be an issue. The act of voting for a candidate who has the same biological attributes as ours---and mainly for that reason---perpetuates what we denounced to begin with.

Do you think we will ever be free of judgment based on what we see first in a person? In a split second, we usually know the race and the gender. If we don't, some of us feel uncomfortable.

I know that one. It can get as tactless as, "So, what are you?"

You once replied that you were a human being.

That's what I am! Just as we have come to treat people more or less independently of how pretty that person is, we should have the capacity to be color and gender blind.

Hmmm... Are you sure about not being affected by pretty faces?

Well, I think we try harder, at least, to treat each individual fairly.

What about voice? We are attracted to certain ones.

Any person should be judged by what s/he can do and does for the designated job, not by what s/he does after work, like singing in a jazz bar...

Why you may not be a hypocrite

When I was about seven years old, my mother casually mentioned that there was something called a war going on and terrible things were happening.

Killings, destruction of houses and other buildings, deprivation of basic goods and services... fear, anger, trauma, hunger... Basically, lives and dignity taken away.

I wasn't that much informed then, but I was immediately puzzled as to why such things take place. My mother told me that it was a fight between nations.

She didn't think about civil or ethnic wars.

Apparently not. Anyway, I could not believe that grown-ups fight, too. I had always been told to resolve conflicts amicably, without resorting to yelling, cursing, or exercising violence.

I've noticed that you get very upset when you are yelled at.

I just can't take yelling, not even loud voices. More than often, they are patronizing and condescending.

It may not be that bad, all the time, but some self-righteousness does come with high volume. You are loud when you think you are worth being heard.

Getting back to what a war is, I said, "What? Grown-ups fight, too, like us kids?"

Your parents didn't fight or quarrel?

I don't think they were into co-ed wrestling. They wouldn't quarrel, either. They just stopped talking to each other when there was a disagreement, and that didn't last so long.

You hadn't seen any fighting on the streets?

I grew up in a peaceful society where yelling is a grave offense.

But people are nasty in other ways, I bet.

My next question was what do grown-ups fight over. Somewhere in my mind, I knew that the fights I get into were rather petty, and I couldn't imagine that adults' fights would be equally trivial.

Calling names, insulting the other's parents and siblings, telling lies, breaking promises, snatching the other's possession... Unfortunately, these are the acts people engage themselves in even when they are so-called adults.

"This is our alleyway, so you guys are not allowed to play here." "Who says?" "We were here first and declared this one ours, so you go somewhere else."

Yes, territory disputes as well. Did your mother admit that grown-ups fight just as kids do?

She said "yes" in a very low voice and shrugged. I further asked why they fought with each other while telling us not to. She said I should finish my dinner.

Double standards are not exactly the trick you want your children to pick up---not too soon, at least.

That was when I realized that adults are bunch of, without knowing the word, hypocrites.

You loathed becoming a hypocrite so much that you decided not to become a grown-up.

Brilliant deduction!

Congratulations, you have partly succeeded.

Certain hypocrisies are obvious and easier to avoid, such as believing in washing hands after going to the toilet.

Good manners are bit more difficult.

Emotional issues are harder still. Some people think whatever they get upset about is earth-shattering and whatever others are bothered about is rather unimportant. They blame their friends and family for not showing enough empathy when they are struck with a problem. The same people do not hesitate to tell others that they have to rough out when in trouble.

Although it is our immediate biological reaction to make our situation, either good or bad, look much more attention worthy than others', civilized people resist that urge, according to you.

Yes! One of the cases that I find not so obvious at first and rather sinister is a person who professes to be against war, but domineering at home and work.

Because war is all about dominating others?

Certainly. He may claim that he does not kill people at home or work, but he does not show enough respect for the people around him and does not hesitate to intimidate and manipulate. In my opinion, lack of respect and empathy is what lies at the core of any conflict.

Does he happen to be a children's rights activist, a vegan and a tree hugger to boot?

Scary, isn't it? Another may be a person who cries over a squirrel that got flattened by a car and a mouse killed by a poison-laced bait, but goes back home to have a steak dinner.

It may have been for display effects, you know, for the people who were around when the dead squirrel and mouse were discovered. But what about the collection of mosquitoes that you killed? I saw your opening the box and counting with glee.

It's not that I take joy in killing, but mosquitoes! They can finish me if I don't finish them. I admit, I would be a total failure as a Jain.

Pity that you attract mosquitoes by the dozen, but not much else. By the way, if you want to make a true contribution to the environment, you should kill yourself and ask to be converted into fertilizer of sorts.

You have just branded all environmentalists, who are not ready to or did not commit suicide, hypocrites!

We have to draw a line somewhere, as you've already implied. It is very unlikely, though, that we agree on where that line should be drawn.

I know a good definition for it. Nobody would label a person whom s/he likes a hypocrite.

If you like her/him, s/he is not a hypocrite. If you don't, s/he may or may not be. If you hate her/him, s/he is definitely a hypocrite. Is this how it works?

Why not everybody?

I didn't think our talk would be so...

Passion arousing...

It doesn't seem to be of the right kind, unfortunately. After I said good-bye to you, I heard someone say "So you think I shouldn't buy a Scorpion Woman doll for my daughter, although it's all the rage and every girl in her class has one. But instead, I should send the money to Darfur for feeding the orphaned and starving children?''

Ça alors ! Someone was following us?

Yes. I don't know why she waited until then to speak up.

What was your reply?

When I turned around, she didn't give me the time to answer and said, "I bet you don't have kids.'' It was almost a growl.

Oops, she chose one of the most deadly lines, but I suppose she didn't know that...

We'll talk about this some other time, but most people claim ignorance when it comes to the fact that their words could hurt, offend, or anger others.

I've been given explanations like, "Everybody says such things, so naturally, I thought it harmless. I think you're overly touchy.... No, no, I meant sensitive.'' Only if they knew how much I dislike the word, sensitive.

You give high rankings to your friends who do not use that word, I know that.

Needless to say, it has to come naturally, not by arm twisting.

I hope we're allowed to say you're difficult, at least!

Sure, I like the word "difficult" much better. I would even take "abnormal."

Can you say that, never in your life, you have said anything that hurt someone?

We should be talking about hypocrisy, you're saying... Getting back to our share-or-not-share discussion, I had the opposite experience.

Let me guess... You ran into Queen Elizabeth, II. She said she was very much impressed by what we said and would like to give up Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle for promoting antiviral therapy for AIDS patients in the third world. Right?

It was an old lady, wearing an ornate hat and walking a dachshund. She said she was delighted to hear our sophisticated conversation, because she would rather bequeath her four homes to her dog than to her son and his family.

Her dog rather than her son... I wonder if she had thought about her son becoming the custodian of the dog.

I was just thinking that a parent-child relationship is something even the law takes for granted. In other words, some legislations are based on pure biological facts.

Parents are legally responsible for their children's welfare until they are no longer minors.

Most laws around the world stipulate that the parents' assets would be shared among the surviving family members, and their children are given the priority.

It would not be against the law if I send one of the pacifiers of my hypothetical baby to other babies without one. It would probably be against the law if I feed my baby just enough to keep it alive and send the rest of the money to Darfur.

If there is a passenger who can put the oxygen mask alone and could help others around her/him, you do not have to risk your life by going to that aisle. In the starving babies' case, that passenger would be the parents who can take care of them. No problem either, if you do not have to sacrifice any of your responsibility to assist others.

After all, we are all free to do as we wish. Nobody can force a billionaire to send his money to Darfur; he may buy a yacht for his son, go on a vacation around the world with his mistress, and even have a dinner with his fifth wife at Tour d'Argent.

Your sexist overtone is distracting... We could argue that as long as one's well-being is not affected, we should give to those whose biological survival is at stake. I bet the billionaire would say that he would be very unhappy if he didn't get to do all of what you listed. He may even say that it is his responsibility to take care in that way.

Some are willing to share and others not. It has always been so.

I suppose such tendencies are innate. We have managed, however, to expand our definition of human beings, those whom we are supposed to be compassionate about, although not always in material terms.

If it were not for the revisions, most of us would not count as one.

The 1960s saw the addition of three types of human beings, according to Yujiro Nakamura. The children through "Centuries of Childhood" by Philippe Ariès, the mentally-ill through "Madness and Civilization" by Michel Foucault, and the primitive through "The Savage Mind" by Claude Lévi-Strauss.

"L'Enfant et la vie familiale sous l’ancient régime," "Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique," et "La Pensée sauvage"...

The powerful turned their attention to the less powerful and recognized that they, too, are human beings.

I wouldn't put it that way. They were made to adopt a more egalitarian system by force. The starving masses couldn't take it any more, and in the face of violence that could cost their lives, those in power did not have any other choice.

You must be thinking of the French Revolution and the like. But what about abolitionism? Some in power thought we should share this world more equally among human beings as newly defined, and they have prevailed to a good extent over those who resisted the change.

Our mental capacity has accommodated the changes and come to care about the added groups as humans.

If that is what we call progress, shouldn't we continue to enlarge the circle of those we care, to include the groups that are more and more removed from our family, clan, tribe, gender and race?

The history of suffrage is a good example. It started with a small group of male population from the upper class, and the voting population in every country has become more and more inclusive.

Take family-run businesses. Nowadays, we applaud an owner who chooses a competent niece, or even an extremely capable outsider, over a dumb son as a successor.

It has also made it possible to say something like, "Nous sommes tous Américains."

May I recommend to stay away from that one...?

Helping with the oxygen-mask

Pssst... Look carefully. Are they around?

Doesn't look like it. Phew, it was quite unexpected!

Certainly. It was beyond my wildest dreams that some people would be listening to us.

Approach us with their opinion to boot...

It's all your fault, you know. You're the one who gave the definition of civilization.

But you acknowledged it!

One said I should be telling him a joke because that's what civilized people do among strangers, you remember?

Another guy suggested that we stop talking like this altogether. "It's nonsense," he said.

And made a grin to say, "Trust me."

What I meant was that even when I have some doubts about the stranger in front of me, I prefer to behave as if I trusted that person. To prove that point, I didn't tell those guys to get lost.

I see, you're even avoiding the generic "you" today.

I emphasize that it is about respect and light-heartedness. I wish not to live among people who are so stressed out and horrified that they think anybody outside their circle is a con-artist or a terrorist. As for me, when someone shows lack of trust, be it in terms of intelligence or dependability, I feel like running away as fast as I can.

Or slapping his face...

It happens too often. After a few sentences, it becomes clear that the person I met a few seconds ago thinks that I am an idiot, a social misfit, or even a crook.

Hmmm, do you think that's their fault? I bet it depends on which country you are in, too.

You should hide such thoughts from the person if you can't suppress them. Most importantly, you should always maintain the flexibility to revise who and what s/he is.

Hey, we live to have fun!

Calm down... Don't look around nervously and shout like that.

Can we say that civilization is what separates us from other animals?

Yes, civilization is a fight against our instincts as animals that could be destructive.

Those that drain our energy from productive and creative activities, such as the desire to kill your enemy.

Jealousy, anger, hatred, fear, insecurity, resentment and so on, are emotions that could get out of hand and inflict harm on others, as well as on yourself. I remember talking about this a bit. When an animal sees another that does not belong to its family or clan, the best thing to do is to make a menacing gesture.

Unless it looks like a potential mate.

Please...! Nothing bad about being cautious, it is even required in most cases, but showing friendliness rather than hostility and contempt is more cultivated behavior.

I thought about your examples of civilized behavior from last time, and realized that it doesn't cost you much. Greeting hikers on the trails, wishing "bon appétit" to a lone diner on the terrace, helping an elderly lady with a large suitcase... I should have known!

You're right. We don't have to sacrifice much, or not at all, in those cases. It becomes challenging when it concerns allocation of limited resources.

I think the oxygen-mask rule applies.

What is that oxygen-mask rule of yours?

When the oxygen pressure in an aircraft drops, we need to wear the mask that supplies oxygen in order to avoid hypoxia. In such a situation, you must help yourself before turning to others who need your help. Otherwise, none of you would be saved.

I agree that it is counter-productive to go totally against our biological instinct to care about ourselves first.

What do you think about Mother Teresa, isn't she an exception to that?

Even she had to take care of herself first. She wouldn't have been able to help others if she let herself fall ill. It's your oxygen-mask rule at work.

But you agree that not all of us can and have to be a Mother Teresa?

One contentious point is how far should you go in helping others with masks. Should you go to the next aisle?

Not if there is another passenger who can put it on by her/himself and assist others in the next aisle.

Another is how much of what is, or could be, mine, should be given to others. What if the supply of oxygen is not enough for everyone on the plane?

Some people wait sharing until they reach their first five million in the bank...

They wouldn't have been able to make that five million if there had not been others paving the highway with asphalt, tending the hypermarkets, working on the factory floor, watering the lawn and the flowers of her/his office, cleaning the toilets, etc.

It is difficult to share when you think you earned it all by yourself.

We know that happiness is closely related to how you rank yourself with respect to the average. In fact, with all the progress in technology, the feeling of well-being hasn't become stronger.

Dignity for all necessitates redistribution...

Civilization as defiance of biology

Let me start with a simple question. Do you want to be nice to others?

It depends!

Not so simple, after all... I'll rephrase. When you feel you want to be nice to someone, why is that?

You've said it already. It's because I want to.

Can we say that you are acting on your desire to be nice?

I wouldn't be nice, if I didn't want to. Wait... There are times when I feel I really don't want to, but I have to.

It's either you want to or you have to be nice. In both cases, if you don't manage to be so, you would feel bad.

Compassion, empathy, and altruism have roots in me-me-me. They are about yourself, at least partly, although they give you an impression as if they were all about others.

I knew you would go back to me-me-me! I am nice to others, because if not, I would feel bad about myself. Being nice to others is about fulfilling my desire to be so. But sometimes I'm not sure if I want to, say, put the biggest piece of cake on your plate instead of mine.

That's because you don't know if you want to be nice to me or not. Naturally, you find it difficult to act satisfactorily when you have an ill-defined goal.

It's easy to be nice to people whom you like.

Ah, is it one of your cough-cough, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?

It was a general statement.

Do you think it is possible to like someone who does not like you?

I didn't know that you have been dragging a dead horse with you today. It's quite old news, you know. It even has a name.

Are you thinking about unrequited love? The situation I have in mind is more generic.

If someone doesn't like me, it would be difficult to sustain favorable feelings for that person. After some time, I would label her/him as aloof, cold, distant, anti-social, strange, weird, stupid, idiot, moron...

You agree that when you like a person, that's usually also when s/he likes you. That means, barring perverse cases, you are nice to each other.

It's a chicken-or-egg problem. I like her/him, because s/he is nice to me, and because I like her/him, I am nice to her/him. That person would be feeling the same about me.

Another way of describing that situation is that you are nice to her/him, because you know s/he is going to be nice to you.

I don't do arithematics in relationships!

But you can't deny that you assume reciprocity. In fact, that is how relationships are maintained. Reciprocity also says that I will be nice to some people that I dislike, even detest, so as to avoid any potential harm they may inflict upon me.

I thought there was a minimum level of courtesy that we ought to observe under the name of dignity and respect for all.

If I apply biology to what you just said, minimum courtesy is motivated by self-protection, because consciously or unconsciously, we treat others in the way we want others to treat us. We are talking about the same thing.

What about unequal relationships, like the one between a serf-owner and a serf?

Even in such relationships, mutual respect is possible. But what would you do with people whom you do not know?

For all practical purposes, they do not exist.

You ignore them.

It comes down to that. How can I think about people whom I do not know?

What if you learn about starving babies in a faraway land?

Starving babies, again! Do I have a brother who has tragically turned into a Captain Hook, also known as Captaine Crochet and by some other names?

No brother this time. Would you help these babies, knowing that they would not be able to return the favor, in kind or even emotionally?

Tell me what the choices are. 50, 100, 500, and "Other"? You should specify the currency, too.

It is about civilization. I can make it sound less grandoise by saying urban sophistication, instead, because in the villages, everyone knows everyone else and almost all acts are based on reciprocity.

What does your civilization, oops, urban sophistication say, when faced with babies whom we don't know but happen to be starving?

Act with total strangers as if you had known them for a considerable length of time. Mind you, I do not mean giving up your purse or confessing everything about your life.

I know what you mean. An example would be a meaningful conversation with a person who sits next to you by chance at the bar.

That without delving into petty details and also without the intention to have any relationship after the conversation is over.

Or telling a joke to a person who stands behind you at the register.

That with the sole purpose of having a good time then and there.

All without expecting any positive consequence.

Nothing in the past or in the future, but treat the present as if there had been and would be something.

Instant trust without risking your wallet or life... But there are some people I don't want to mingle with, let alone look at.

That's natural and certainly there is no obligation to talk to every single person. In grossly simplified terms, I'd say civilization is about defying the limits of biology.

I'll match your contribution, how's that? Knowing you, it's going to be "Other," right? What I am not sure about is whether it's going to be 20 or 25.