Consciousness is required for the job

There you are!

I'm not late, am I?

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

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

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

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

You mean, Symposium, the Republic, etc.?

Of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That includes you, I suppose?

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

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

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

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

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

Did you ever have a role model?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would not happen to other animals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that can make people conceited.

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

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

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

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

It was a generic 'you'!

Spare me, I'm stuck-up

What is your immediate reaction in an instance of insolence?

I get terribly angry.

Do you express that anger verbally or physically?

Neither.

You bottle it all up?

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

So, what do you do?

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

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

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

Wasn't humility your credo?

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

Like people giving you the smallest piece of cake?

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

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

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

Are we allowed to ask you anything then?

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

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

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

It doesn't sound that bad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was for the purpose of demonstration.

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

Is that why you are considered stuck-up?

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

For example?

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

Isn't it shouting again that is bothering you?

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

Isn't there an official hierarchy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let them be!

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

Revealing the true nature of baby talks

In your opinion, a person who behaves nicely only toward her/his lover/s cannot be trusted. Correct?

Yes, and there are many such people!

Again, in your opinion, a person who behaves nicely toward her/his superiors, but nasty toward her/his subordinates cannot be trusted.

Absolutely not, and there are tons of such people!

Once again, in your opinion, a person who evaluates others' capability based on their looks cannot be trusted.

An emphatic no!

And, in your opinion, a person who manipulates others to her/his benefit unless they show resistance cannot be trusted, right?

I'm getting nauseous.

Also in your opinion, a person who assumes that others are idiots until they prove otherwise cannot be trusted.

No, no, no and no!

Oops, one more. In your opinion, a person cannot be trusted if s/he derives comfort from informing you of her/his judgment that you are inferior to her/him?

The scary thing is that someone who claims to care about you may engage in this very act.

Is that why you have been dwelling on this topic?

...

Tell me all about it!

In my opinion, a person who values satisfaction of her/his curiosity more than respecting others' sense of privacy, however strict that may be, cannot be trusted.

In my humble opinion, one is less convincing if s/he cannot provide the details.

I disagree. Thoughts in general terms are often more powerful than those on individual incidents. By definition, they are supposed to be about commonalities and not anomalies. Generalization also allows us to be less emotionally attached and more objective.

Sweeping generalizations can get quite absurd, though... Anyway, did I miss any case of no respect in everyday life?

Before we get into what has been left out, let me say that people who belong to any of the above category do not understand the concepts of respect and human dignity.

The principles of respect and dignity apply universally to all human beings. Is this what you mean?

Exactly. These are the concepts that should not depend on the characteristics of each person, but only on the fact that s/he is a human being.

But isn't it natural that we are nicer to people that we like?

In terms of being considerate and forgiving, etc., we should not treat people differently.

Are you sure about that?

I am. It is not on such moral issues that we should differentiate the ones whom we care for from others.

You wouldn't deny, though, that you are nicer to people whom you are fond of.

The problem lies in the word 'nice.' Suppose I know all the rock bands that my lover likes. I can keep an eye on all of them: when a new album is going to be released, which magazine interviewed them, and so on. I cannot do the same for others, simply because I do not know their music preferences. As a result, I end up being nicer to my lover than to others. This is an example of what you have categorized as 'being nice'; applying different sets of moral codes to various people is something else.

Put differently, save such actions that require specific knowledge of that person, your lover should be treating everyone the same, and that naturally includes you.

Only then, I feel I can trust my lover.

Really? How can you tell that a lover is actually a lover in such cases?

I can't, and I like it that way.

I knew there was something grossly strange about you!

What we are focusing here is morality. Remember, we should regard interactions that necessitate moral judgment separately from other interactions. On moral issues, we all should be treated the same. On other issues, such as taste and temper, people who are closer to us have more information about us and would interact with us differently.

Do you think your assertion above applies to forgiving as well? Proximity can make forgiving more difficult or easy. I have seen both cases.

When we see the same person day in and day out, her/his small habits can get on our nerves.

I know that I cannot stand certain ways of gargling.

You see? On the other hand, you are more likely to forgive someone who is close to you, because you do not want to lose that closeness.

In short, we should judge an awful way of gargling by the person who happens to share the bed with us as if it were someone whom we saw once a month. Do you also think that we should judge infidelity of our lovers as if it concerned some other couple?

In principle, yes. Whether we are capable of exercising such detachment is another issue.

Your attitude can be abused, I think. For example, my lover may stick to a particular manner of gargling, knowing that it drives me nuts, because I am supposed to tolerate it according to your principles.

Just like any relationship, efforts should come from both sides, and your lover should try to make it easier for you to stay in the relationship.

Lack of such efforts is a declaration of war, then!

It may not be that aggressive, but I agree that it amounts to admitting that the relationship is of little importance.

By the way, you had in mind another type of people who disregard dignity.

They are the ones who engage in baby talk.

I thought baby talks were signs of endearment.

You are wrong! The subjects are treated as if they were morons.

Isn't it true that children and pets do not understand adult conversation?

That does not mean that we should talk down to them. You shouldn't say anything to a child that you wouldn't to an adult.

What about the kind of encouragement that children need?

We praise adults for work that is sub-optimal for the purpose of encouragement, and we can do the same for children. That is, in a manner that respects children as persons.

What kind of attitude is of concern to you, then?

Exaggerated reactions that become condescending, including loud voice. I don't know why, but in some cultures, mothers jack up their volume when they talk to their children. And it's mostly non-sense that they babble.

Do you think they should discuss P = NP problem instead?

Honestly, I think that is far better than something like, "THERE GOES A RED CAR! WHEEEEEEE! THAT WAS FAST, HUH? DO YOU THINK THAT WAS FASTER THAN THE MINI CAR YOU HAVE AT HOME? ... WHAT DO YOU THINK? PROBABLY FASTER, HUH? A LOT FASTER, HUH?''

You know, I think you are more bothered by the loudness rather than the content.

There is an intelligent way to make an observation about the speed of a car, and as far as I am concerned, the monologue by a mother that I just reproduced for your benefit does not fit the bill. The real problem is not the lack of intelligence, but dumbing down.

Perhaps that mother is stupid.

If so, that is also a problem, because I see too many of them around. Anyway, I am more than certain that she would relate the same incident differently if she were with a friend of her age.

You think the world is filled with such mothers, simply because they annoy you.

In some other cultures, it is rather the opposite; mothers are dismissive of everything children do.

No carrots and only sticks?

In the extreme, indeed that is what happens. They believe that telling the children how clumsy and stupid they are is the most effective way to motivate them to acquire skills and knowledge. I'd say no respect in such cases, either.

In your world, it is awfully difficult to find people who are capable of respecting others.

Who said it was easy? I only said that respect and dignity are the most important aspects in our lives...

Familiarity poses a limit to Operation Mosquito Sting

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

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

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

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

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

The rationale for each strategy is...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think Bill ever apologized to Hillary?

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

Or a serial offender!

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

Not only that. The offender can get angry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good, old Aristotle.

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

How so?

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

It's all about ice cream, then!

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

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

"Man is by nature a political animal."

Aristotle strikes again!

Treacherous trinity: trust, dignity and proximity

You've been suggesting that dignity is the most important aspect in our lives.

I'm not the only one to think so. The very first Article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

The Declaration talks about human dignity, but it never defines what it really is.

We can say that it is about inherent worthiness of each person.

What does that mean? It surely shouldn't mean that an idiot deserves less respect than other people.

What is the respect that an idiot deserves? The concept of human dignity says that idiocy should not make a difference in how that person is treated.

Suppose that there is a person who is easily offended. Won't it be more difficult for her/him to protect her/his dignity than for others who are less easily offended? If so, it suggests that we are not uniform in terms of dignity.

You are talking about dignity in a sense slightly different from that in the Universal Declaration. The Declaration is more about how to set up social institutions so that human dignity could be systematically protected. Examples would be intolerance of torture, slavery and the like.

Dignity can be taken away by personal injuries and that is where our focus has shifted, I see. The shift probably suggests that we---you and I---do not see with our own eyes any systematic damage done to human dignity on a daily basis.

Are you sure that you do not witness dignity challenged in our everyday lives? It is possible that such instances are so prevalent that we have become blind to them. I think the kinds of discrimination touched upon by Article 2 of the Declaration happens everyday, everywhere.

That article is rather lengthy. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Do you remember talking about forgiving---that the burden of coming to terms with what happened is on the victims? I'm afraid the same principle applies here.

That is...?

When someone does or says something that deprives of your dignity, you cannot obviously go back in time and undo the doing or the saying. Your dignity is taken away for the moment.

And, you are saying that the best is to forget about it?

We can restore our dignity by responding or reacting to the incident in certain ways. To act as if it were nothing may be indeed the best way in some cases.

We should not act as if the offense was effective. That is, we should not take their bait or play their game. Is this what you have in mind?

Yes. You may reveal that you have noticed the offensive action or remark, but never show explicit anger or shock caused by it.

That will be easier for a verbal one than for a physical one...

Certainly. It is again up to the offended whether something can be done to the damage. It is possible to protect our dignity by firmly believing that others cannot possibly do something like that to us, in other words, by staying calm.

It will be best if the "aggressor" admits or realizes that they have not succeeded in humiliating. Does it come so easily?

Most likely, it will take a several rounds or more. It is possible that it never happens. But compared to preserving one's dignity, establishing and maintaining trust may be more difficult.

I remember that you run away whenever someone indicates that s/he does not trust you.

I don't actually run away! I just feel like it.

You also said that trusting a stranger, or acting as if you did, is against what biology dictates us to do, and that is what civilization consists of: defiance of biology.

The trust issue is more difficult on that account than the dignity issue. After all, our dignity is about how we think about ourselves.

Can we say that safeguarding dignity is part of our biological mechanism to survive?

I think so. On the other hand, the most primitive survival instinct says it is best not to place trust in someone casually. Trust is more about how we evaluate other people; it depends much more on others' behavior than in dignity.

Didn't you say human relationships are based on reciprocity? If so, you do have control.

The reciprocity principle works in many cases, but not in all. Trusting others would not make them trustworthy, at least, overnight. I can think of many complicated examples.

For example?

A person may be very nice to you, but nasty to others. Should you trust that person?

I've seen such relationships. Some couples are like that; they are only nice to each other.

You have stepped into yet another territory. Even devils become angelic when in love.

Doesn't that suggest that we should all be in love with each other?

Fortunately, we can't be forced to be in love with someone. Anyway, you implied that closeness in relationships brings trust. I think you have mistaken predictability as trust.

Predictability comes from observed consistency of past events, and so does trust. However, you can also be untrustworthy and consistently so. I know that predictability and trust are not the same.

When we are close to someone, you have more opportunities to observe that person and s/he becomes more predictable than others. Closeness also means that you are more likely to say to each other what you would not to people who are less close.

And that includes all the bad things about each other, right?

Yes, I knew I could trust you!

Let's say you have become predictable.

Closeness does not necessary mean belittling each other, but the possibility of exposing dark emotions and thoughts is certainly larger.

The dark emotions and thoughts could be about your partner in the relationship, but also about yourself and everything else in the world.

The problem is that it is difficult to maintain dignity when you let out your fear, anger, jealousy in unedited forms.

Proximity is a difficult ground for dignity, then.

How can you have trust, if dignity is damaged, now and then? That means the sources of comfort can be self-destructive by their very nature. But we all need our own coterie, a group of people who, we think, understand us well.

I knew it! It's treacherous---trust, dignity and proximity.

What you read is a double-edged sword for the chicken and the egg

Birds of a feather flock together.

Let's say our meetings are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I thought we could start the new year with a more positive note.

Why do you think that different minds' getting together is negative?

True, Adam Smith saw the danger of like minds convening in one room.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That one?

Yes, and do you remember the cliques in high school?

Their aim was to create birds of a feather by focusing on what could be labeled cool.

We need a sense of togetherness or belonging, but that often comes at the expense of the excluded.

Don't you think there are people who are happy to be excluded?

Oh no, do you want to start the year with a Unabomber-like note?

I don't want to be part of my grandmother's bridge circle, for sure.

Or, my nephew's Teletubbies fan club.

You see, there are groups that you'd rather not join. But in most cases, we need to belong to more than one group to satisfy our diverse needs and interests.

Family, close friends of similar interest/history, local community, student/professional associations, etc. come to mind...

The dark side of the psychology to belong is that it comes from the realization that we feel less at ease with people outside the groups.

As long as we don't go out to hurt the non-members, I would say forming groups based on feeling at ease is not bad at all. On the contrary, it happens because the population is not uniform. If it were, there would be no need for various groups. Diversity is a good thing, I thought you said that.

Only if it were so simple! Haven't you ever met people who give you an "are-you-one-of-us-or-not" exam, immediately after you are introduced to each other?

Where I was born, which schools I attended, which subject that I majored in, where I live, whether I have children, what I do on my days off, what is my favorite cuisine, whether I prefer coffee hot or cold in summer---I've been asked these.

Didn't the conversations come to an awkward end when it became clear that there was nothing in common between you two?

I remember the silence when I confessed my hatred for all iced drinks. But that's only natural. We have closer relationships with people who are similar to us. When people are similar, they don't even have to get to know each other through explicit means; similar and close are almost synonymous.

We seek validation of ourselves in others, and that leads to the desire to belong to a group. That group could be a couple or an extended family, too.

What's wrong with that?

When we belong to a big or solid enough group that all our different needs and desires are satisfied, we do not bother to get to know people outside the group.

One of your double-edged swords, again!

I'm afraid it is. Only when we are still in search of people that we could feel comfortable with, we are open to different types.

I suppose the open-mindedness of youth comes from that.

I would also say that long-established couples and tightly-knit families are---not always but usually---less outgoing due to the same reason. By the way, I think it is the same with the novels that we choose to read.

Do you mean to say that we tend to read a wide variety of fiction when we are young?

Most of us discover the kind of fiction that we like quite early in life. I only know of sci-fi fans who became so when they were teenagers and never changed.

Indeed, I haven't heard of anyone being transformed into a sci-fi fan from a romance fan.

We read what satisfies our desire and assures our existence, as far as fiction goes. I always happen to choose fiction whose protagonist I can identify with.

You read horror stories, I didn't know that!

My concern here is that the reading habit amounts to seeking validation of myself and not much else.

Surely, you cannot embody all the protagonists of the novels that you read and liked.

You are right, but it remains true that reading fiction for me has become reaffirming who I am, instead of expanding the possibility of whom I could be.

Isn't it something like a tight hug or a gentle tap on the shoulder? We need them.

I agree, but it is our duty to be able to understand increasingly divergent people as we continue to live on.

I've never heard of that one.

We shouldn't get old for nothing. You would agree to that, wouldn't you?

You mean, we should compensate for the loss of outer beauty with a gain in inner beauty?

If you could relate to people on the other side of the globe as much as you could relate to your neighbors, there would be more interest in world affairs. I believe that will lead to wiser political decisions.

What is your recommended strategy for greater understanding among people from different backgrounds?

You have to like them first.

You have to like them first to understand them? That doesn't make sense!

I know, but that's how our psychology works. If you detest something or somebody, it is guaranteed that you are not going to make sense out of it.

Isn't it the other way around---because it does not make sense, you don't like it?

If it does not make sense and if that is why you don't like it, you have to force yourself to like it so that it starts making sense.

First it was a double-edged sword, and now the-chicken-or-the-egg problem!

A wonderful way to start the new year!

Direct democracy to the rescue

Your ideal state of mind is an individualistic one, correct?

With willingness to compromise when necessary.

Can we say that it is often the crowd psychology that spoils well-intentioned social systems?

Take democracy. It drifts toward populism because of the if-you-say-so kind of laziness in us.

Sure, laziness is to blame for everything. By the way, when is the last time you cleaned up your place?

It's not only populism and fascism that the crowd psychology leads us to. Bank runs, too, are caused by it. Any kind of run is nasty, because it is the expectation of a big enough group that creates the real phenomenon.

Runs can be over sugar, rice, petro---anything people believe would be very scarce.

Crowds are responsible for fads which are all about following the so-called trend-setter without thinking much. It has also contributed to the making of winner-take-all societies. Think about the contracts that sports players, singers, kiss-and-tell authors sign. We value the very few as if there were an abyss between the top and the rest.

How can we avoid such undesirable consequences of our innate nature to follow the leader? In other words, is it possible to make even the most thinking-averse ones to think on their own?

I'm afraid some of us are die-hard followers, but I know a way to make the majority of us think more. It is direct democracy.

Like the one practiced in Switzerland? I suppose your line of thought is that we act only if the consequences are dire.

To some extent, yes. But unfortunately, if we think we have no power to influence the system or our daily lives, we turn apathetic and do not exercise our rights to participate in politics. That is, we may cease to act, even when our action can prevent dire consequences to fall upon us. Eventual depletion of petro may be one such instant.

Let me rephrase it then. We would act only if we know that our actions have real consequences on our everyday lives.

Yes, we are much more likely to take action, if not doing so would inconvenience us tomorrow. Our mental capacity is so limited that we need direct feedback to feel responsible for what we do. Consider hazardous waste, for example. As long as it is taken to a far away place, we do not think much about its treatment and effects on the environment.

Waste that is hard to treat is often shipped to developing countries, because they are in need of cash.

And only when the toxic material makes its way into the food system in the developed countries that people who generated it start worrying.

As long as you don't see, hear, or smell, anything goes.

Sadly enough, that is our natural behavior. It is one of the reasons why gated communities are not a good idea. They allow the rich to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, but it is the rich who have the power to make changes so that gated communities would not be necessary. Some are opposed against universal health care, because their family and friends do not need it.

If it is about people whom you could not relate to, you care much less.

The same with income redistribution. If you don't know anyone suffering from bad luck of having no father and an alcoholic mother, you think it unnecessary.

What about the case of parents dying in a car accident and no relatives with the financial means to take care of the children?

You know, a single, alcoholic mother was simply one of the myriad possible cases...

I know another one. Political refugees with no linguistic skills to survive in the host country. Or losing your limbs while working in a factory, or...

The first world is dependent on the low prices of primary resources and simple manufactured goods from the third world. Not all, perhaps, but the vast majority who are employed by such industries work in dismal environments for a pittance. And, that is a big contributing factor in the affluence in the first world. The consumers in the developed countries, however, do not see the abhorrent labor condition or the absence of proper waste treatment; it encourages them to be careless and wasteful about what they purchase.

Anything cheap is good, although they are made possible by underpaying for labor and material.

The important point is that all of us on the globe are connected and support each other in one way or another. You may not be interested in Amazon Rainforest, but we all benefit from its mere existence as natural wonder, not to mention its biodiversity and function as a carbon sink. We owe to the people of the Rainforest for the knowledge of plants and animals unique to the area.

I heard that many companies have turned to the forest as a hunting ground for new drugs.

We have called the enlargement of the definition of human beings as progress. We have managed to relate to more and more people, even if we do not share the same biological attributes---such as skin color and gender---or beliefs and life styles.

If you are incapable of sympathizing with types of people whom you have never met or come in contact with, such as starving babies in Darfur...

Or, if you cannot treat the person whom you despise with basic respect, you are going against what civilization should be. Given the latest gross wealth of the world, universal health care is possible and sufficiently progressive tax systems are musts.

After all, it's a piece of cake to be nice to people whom we know and like.

A socially formal system for supporting the disadvantaged allows us to be more business like, compared to reliance on informal support system, such as extended families.

A formal system is more convenient, though, because there would be cases in which we have to say 'no more support' due to abuse.

At the same time, it is inconvenient, because there would be occasions in which we would like to extend support, but bureaucracy does not permit it. Getting back to the issue of direct democracy, it will make us more aware that nobody but ourselves are responsible for government actions.

We often accuse governments of their abuse of power, including corruption.

In some countries, people with the most resources have decided unilaterally to govern others. In such cases, we cannot say that the masses are responsible for what the government does. But, if you claim that democracy is working well...

It's a generic 'you,' I hope!

Of course, ahem! If you think your country is governed by well-working democracy, you are responsible for the body that you happen to elect.

It's a generic 'you,' I hope!

I told you so! You are responsible for government actions, under either type of democracy, but I am sure that the point would be driven home better in the case of direct democracy.

Our government is not 'them,' but 'us,' so to speak.

Most of the time, people complain about certain government decisions but do not do anything to change the situation. If we were truly serious about it, we would take to the streets.

Ah, your revolutionary streak, again. But you know, we can't be out on the street everyday.

That is one of the reasons why student protests are powerful. They have the time to engage in protests and not much of a job to lose.

For people whose daily bread depends on how your boss views you...

Direct democracy to the rescue!