The Default love is faulty

You are here again in two weeks! You must have something that you need to complain urgently.

Wrong, comrade. It is nothing negative, but positive. I am here today to declare everlasting love.

If it were someone else, my eyes would be wide open and my ears pricked up. But it's none other than you who is to make such a declaration. I would be a complete fool if I do not sense something rather fishy...

Again wrong. It's really about true love, undying love. It's eternal, it's foreveeeeerrrr!

Ah, is it about you and your athlete's foot?

Neither am I in a love relationship with any fungus nor suffer from athlete's foot!

Hmmm, let me see... could it be related to your pessimism?

What can I say, you've come rather close. It's myself.

You came here today to declare undying love for... yourself?

That's right.

I was afraid that even gods might have given up on you. At last you found someone who would love you forever!

Mind you, I am not confessing my narcissism or self-righteousness.

Oh, tell me about it. How does self love differ from those two, if at all?

Narcissism is blind love for oneself, usually displayed in public. It implicitly urges others to love her/him as much as s/he does her/himself. Narcissistic people have their reasons why they consider themselves superior, but in most cases, they are not justified in the eyes of others. They cherish their attributes simply because they are theirs.

Such people are unaware that it is the ownership of the attributes that is playing a big role in their feelings.

Self-righteousness is to consider oneself morally above others. Again, what we forget is that our morality appears superior mostly because it is our morality.

If these are not self love, what is?

I guess it is analogous to true love and fake love.

You mean, narcissism and self-righteousness are wrong kind of love for ourselves, and what you call self love is the right one?

It may appear that I am exhibiting the very behavior that I criticized a second ago, but...

Comrade, I am glad that you realize that. How can you blame others of narcissism and self-righteousness when you have those traits?

Let's put aside for the moment the issue of whether we are qualified to talk about a certain topic.

Critics are often incapable of performing the task that they evaluate, but they do not hesitate to praise or curse as they see fit.

I think it is division of labor, or more precisely, talent. Accomplished artists are not necessarily informed of all the events in their world, or capable of writing and talking about what concerns the senses. The same holds for reporting. A wonderful tennis player is not always a good newscaster for tennis matches.

When it comes to morality and such, isn't it slightly different, because the problem is about how we live and all of us are fully engaged in that activity?

True, we would be hypocrites if we do not practice what we preach, because we are principle actors in our own lives.

Whatever we say about life could be used at some point as a piece of evidence for our hypocrisy, since we are all imperfect.

In other words, none of us can discuss life without being hypocritical. That would greatly inconvenience us, wouldn't it?

What do you suggest?

I think it is possible to talk about it with sincerity.

How so?

To be open to criticisms and be ready to admit mistakes. We should bear in mind that, because we love ourselves so much, a tad more leniency toward others and a bit more severity toward ourselves than we think are best would appear justly balanced to others.

I know what you mean... I have heard the line, "People are selfish, but I'm not," and the like. We are so clear-eyed about others and cloudy-eyed about ourselves.

We shall proceed on the premises that we are capable of discussing earnestly how we should live. We do so while acknowledging that none of us can eliminate all of our hypocrisy, because we are imperfect. Our imperfection in turn does not allow us to be a total hypocrite either.

We have those moments when we think the person who is in front of us is so hypocritical that we want to throw up on him. If we call him a total hypocrite, we will have to admit that we are letting our anger and disgust take over. Too bad, isn't it?

Comrade, you are reading my mind... You must know, then, that the ones who claim to be moral persons are absolutely the worst. They would do anything so that they would appear moral, even by taking advantage of others' distress.

For example?

They would admonish people who are in anguish, anger, sorrow, fear, etc., for those reactions. Further, they may say that immaturity has prevented them from accepting what caused such emotions.

Isn't that lack of compassion?

Yes. It is also hypocrisy on the side of the self-professed moral people, because they preach compassion. In the above case, they are not so much concerned about how to help mollify the emotions, but how to make use of the incident to display what they think is their advanced mentality. Oftentimes, they do so with the tone implying that they themselves are mature enough to accept a similar situation.

Some may not tell the distraught person that s/he is immature on the spot, but later tell why they did not say so then. It comes down to their own maturity.

It's all about themselves, not about the distressed person. It can be pretty condescending, I tell you. I have been subject to many of these, and it is only recently that I realized their self-serving nature.

It shouldn't have taken that long, comrade...

The more self-advertising people are about their honesty, kindness, compassion, and so on, the more hypocritical they are. Isn't that chilling?

That goes by definition. The more you market yourself, the more attention you and the claim receive.

You should have seen me when I was facing this guy who claimed that he was compassionate. Or another who claimed that he was nice. So far, I have not met a person who lived up to a positive characterization of who her/himself was.

We, human beings, do not have the ability to be nice in all senses and that all the time. We should not be congratulatory about ourselves, because it will look ridiculous sooner or later.

Agree. You may say, "Trust me, I will do it," but not "I will do it. I'm a trustworthy person."

It is a matter of generalization, then. We can make a strong claim for one event and act accordingly. As for general statements, we should know that we cannot help violating them. In other words, broad claims make us hypocritical.

It is quite embarrassing when we forget having made such encompassing claims but others remember that we did.

Are you trying to seek your way out of your hypocrisy?

... Getting back to our earlier topic of self love, I think too many of us are self-loathing or self-neglecting.

They are the opposite of narcissism and self-righteousness which you brought up earlier as big problems.

In my mind, they are all related by insecurity in oneself. When we cannot be confident about ourselves, we either hate or neglect ourselves, or try to think and show that we are more than what we are.

Insecurity can be very harmful, but doesn't self love lead to another type of harm, overconfidence and cockiness?

Once again, we should not go to the very extreme. The underlying problem is that we are the ones who have to live with ourselves, but we often forget that. It would be better if we are with someone we like than someone we do not.

Is that why we'd better love ourselves?

Biology has endowed us with the mechanism to think anything that is ours better than others'.

We are already self loving without trying?

Yes, but that love is problematic, because we love whatever we happen to be.

What about self-loathing and self-neglecting people?

For some, the mechanism is suppressed by negative feedback from others. We may say that they are victimized by people who wish to feel secure at the expense of easy preys. Some others think the affection that they receive is insufficient, and loathe or neglect themselves as a way of expressing the frustration. Since they cannot get enough attention for being "good," so to speak, they are unconsciously trying to be "bad."

They adopt the attitude that would correspond to, "You don't like me? I don't either. You don't care about me? I don't either," if articulated.

But in truth they are keenly waiting for someone who would like them or care about them.

We love ourselves, but at the same time we harbor insecurity about who we are.

You know how that works. If you are desperate, you become vulnerable. As with anything innate, the biological urge to love oneself is deep rooted, but inappropriate in situations that are more delicate and complicated than basic survival. It may in fact work to our disadvantage.

Comrade... Tell me, should I love myself or not?

Consider a world in which every member behaves as dictated by their blind, biological love for oneself. It would be quite brutal.

Deep down, we think we are sane and others insane, but those others think they themselves are sane.

It's hard to accept, but all of us are quite loony and unreasonable at times.

Naturally, some are so more often than others, right?

"To love a stranger as oneself, implies the reverse: to love oneself as a stranger."

Simone Weil... Is that why you brought that big mirror with you?

We need to look at ourselves as if we were strangers who are to be nurtured into ideal beings with care and attention. There are too many occasions in which I think, "Only if they knew how they appear to others!"

I fear that the very hypocritical wouldn't notice their hypocrisy, whatever we do.

You're right, I can think of an example or two... or three, or...

Let me hold the mirror for you.

...

... Comrade, your pulse is... weak! You just saw yourself. Your true love, your one and only, remember?

So, you don't like me

Here I am again in much less than one month!

In the meantime, have you thought carefully about big issues, such as punctuality, commitment, etc., and preferably, your personality?

In terms of punctuality, I come close to Immanuel Kant, and in terms of commitment, I am not as inexplicable as Søren Kierkegaard.

You are obscuring the discussion! What about you as a person?

Aren't you happy that I am not taking your questioning as a wholesale denial of my existence?

It could be that it is so, but you haven't realized yet...

Lately, I have been involved in a few episodes in which the target parties of criticism have responded rather emotionally.

I didn't know that you go around telling people to re-examine their personalities!

Comrade, I am disappointed that you think I am so crude...

Well then, do you wish to congratulate yourself that you are not emotional at this moment?

Don't you think most people would get very upset if you ask them to reflect on their personality? We often become too angered to assess the cause and the implications of such a suggestion. The first thought upon hearing it would be "What the hell is s/he talking about?" Then, "How rude!"

"Who does s/he think s/he is to tell me so!", and finally, "I don't want talk to her/him again."

I find it interesting that we usually do not investigate what could be the problem with us, or between us and the person who made the criticism. We respond with anger and sometimes hate, and not much more.

That points to the inefficacy of very explicit criticisms.

I agree. In my experience, it is more effective to avoid the person that we do not like rather than to tell her/him so in words.

I think it quite reasonable, though, that we respond with anger when we are told to rethink our personality, because it is a threat to our very existence.

Unemployment has the same effects. Lack of work is not only about being deprived of income, but also a report card from the society that we are incapable of doing anything that is worth payment. You can go further in interpretation and say that the society would rather see you dead, because it is not giving you an opportunity to earn your bread to stay alive. The unemployed frequently experience anger. Of course, this is not to say that any unemployment is justified.

Social welfare could prevent us from starving and mollify our angry feelings.

Some deny the usefulness of it on the grounds that it makes the diligent pay for the lazy. No system can possibly circumvent all cases of abuse, but many do not seem to acknowledge that, especially the ones who manage without welfare.

Everything has undesirable aspects, and if we cite them as reasons for terminating its existence, neither you nor I would be here.

What we should do instead is to list both pros and cons, weigh and compare them with those of the alternatives. Belgium has one of the highest income taxes in the world, and I heard Belgians comment that they'd better become ill just so that they could make good use of the taxes that they had paid and would be paying.

They weren't joking?

They were quite serious. Suppose they are given two choices for the coming year: pay their taxes and remain healthy, or become gravely ill and be cared for without paying income tax or medical expenses.

They would definitely choose the former.

I would think so, too. They are lucky that the choice happens to be that of their liking.

The problem here is that they are unaware what kind of choice they face and that it is not entirely up to them to make the choice.

The same holds for social welfare. Some of us are lucky enough to be employed and pay for others.

Many are not aware of the choice: to be employed and contribute to the funds, or to be unemployed and draw from the funds.

If we are faced with the choice, the majority of us would choose the former. We cannot deny that luck plays a big part in our lives. In other words, the choice is between to be lucky and not in need of handouts, or to be unlucky and in need of financial assistance. People who grumble about welfare do not know that the choice has been made in their favor.

Many would want to purchase luck if possible.

If income taxes are what we have to pay for our luck that enables us to earn money, I would consider it inexpensive.

What about the unproductive uses of public funds, i.e., the money collected from us?

As I said, no plan of ours can succeed in weeding out all waste. If we do, it would be through intimidation and fear, as would be under autocracy or totalitarianism. Besides, if we are to make noises about misuse of funds, why don't we complain about Bill Gates? He has locked many of us into Windows operating system, which is much inferior to Linux. What would the public think about his owning a 66,000-square-feet estate that includes a swimming pool with an underwater music system if he were the head of a state?

It has been built by the money that we paid for Windows... If he were a head of a nation, he would be seeing a scene just like the painting by Eugène Delacroix depicting the July Revolution of 1830 in front of his estate!

We often forget a very important fact that we as voters have a say in how the public funds are used and we can hold the public administrators accountable for it. However, we have no power over Bill's riches. It's his money, period.

Many want to keep him as an example of how rich you can become, although the chances are nil for 99.999% of us.

Almost nobody thinks about the fact that we footed the bill for his 1000-square-feet dining room, but he still has to invite us for dinner!

Calm down, comrade. You can't fight against the idea, or rather myth, on which that country is founded.

It never ceases to astonish me... Getting back to the topic of reactions to criticisms, we oftentimes focus on the emotions provoked in us rather than the content of the criticisms. It is not rare that we see faces that want to tell us, "So, you don't like me, huh?"

Some actually say so.

It is a sneaky way to deflect criticism, because we are obliged to negate that allegation instead of talking about what made us criticize in the first place.

I'd say childish, too.

I agree. Do you remember that as kids we would fight, for example over play grounds, and soon it would escalate into abuses, such as how stupid the others' siblings or parents were?

It became a contest of showing how much more we detested the others than they disliked us, and how much more we could insult them than they could insult us.

Many engage in that strategy or derivations of it, even as adults. They change the point of dispute or add more points so that the original one becomes out of focus.

They don't want to discuss in depth what was at issue at the beginning.

It becomes impossible to talk about it, when you see the face or hear the line, "So, you don't like me." If we accept that there is no pure black or white in this world, the most mature action to take is to search for something that we agree with in our "enemy's" argument.

If we don't, we are probably allowing our self love to overrule everything else.

Precisely. We tend to make a similar mistake when we talk to people in other ideological camps. It is easy to divide the worldly views into two: the ones from our side, and the rest.

Our inclination is to agree with everything from our side and dismiss everything from the other sides.

There should be valid points in our opposition's opinions, too. Conversely, if we agree on everything with the members of the same camp, we were most likely coerced. To accept that fact and to search for such points is one sign of maturity, I think.

If so, most politicians are puerile. Not only they like making simplistic contrast among camps, but in some countries they also like to dig for dirt which has little to do with the ability to govern.

It is rare that we see politicians publicly acknowledging validity of the opponents' opinion. When we do, that is also when they are accused of selling out or being weak. Holding an extreme stance is much easier than reaching a balance in the middle.

Maintaining it is difficult, too, because you would be considered an unreliable ally by all sides.

Courage is seldom rewarded...

You know, striking the middle-ground is sometimes meant to deceive others by way of wearing two hats at a time.

Cowardice and even manipulation can be indistinguishable from courage!

Let's hope that true courage is recognizable to all of us...

The Utility of apologies

I've been thinking lately how useless apologies are. We should do away with them.

You, the ultimate apology-dispenser and paradoxically also the champion apology-extractor! I am shocked. Is that because you don't want to apologize for not meeting for more than a month? I never dreamed that I would witness your denunciation of apologies. How are you going to define yourself without them?

All right, you want me to apologize for not coming for so long. Is this right?

According to what you have been preaching, an apology at this instant wouldn't hurt.

I'm sorry.

Was that an apology? I thought it was an grunt with 'm' and 'e' sounds. It doesn't make me feel any better.

You see? Apologies are no good.

Of course, if you say it that way, nobody is going to be placated.

You got it, comrade! It all depends on how you say it.

Apologies count only if you say them effectively. It means that they need to be backed sincere feelings of guiltiness.

Not so fast. We only have to pretend that we are sincere.

My goodness, what happened to you?

Nothing, except that I have been exposed to so many fake apologies recently that I am over the edge.

Oh, oh. I know that you are of the type never to return from the other side of that edge.

I am not happy about it either, but I can't do anything. I tolerate, tolerate, tolerate, and one day, boom!

I thought it was a plonk... You know, because you tolerate rather well, you invite more of it, while the parties that have been heaping it on you have no idea that you are retreating step by step toward that grande falaise, one of the Cliffs of Moher.

I tend to get penalized for trying to be decent. By the way, I prefer Cabo Girão which is more than twice the height of the Cliffs of Moher.

Decency requires intelligence. Have you thought about it? An early warning system would help, for example.

Thanks for telling me that I lack intelligence.

You may want an apology for my statement, but I know that I cannot offer a sincere one for such a trivial case. What do you advise?

An apology for something like that? If you offer me one, I would think that you are being sarcastic. Anyway, the most obvious misuse of apologies is to utter one when you do not mean it.

Why do they say it, though?

In order to transfer the guilt to the other party. It would be considered unjust not to accept an apology, even when we know that it is not a sincere one.

Proving insincerity of a statement is impossible, although most of us can tell it.

The latest case that I have been involved in has been marked with great disrespect and insincerity toward me. The perpetrator has been offering apologies in which I have not seen a speck of truthfulness. He has also offered a solution which is totally impractical. After so many rounds of the same farce, I had to tell him that I would judge him by actions and not words.

I heard bits about it. How impractical was the proposed solution?

I tell you, it was as bad as making him run completely naked in circles in deep snow for three hours.

Yikes, it wouldn't be useful, pretty or even funny. What happened next?

I don't think he understood the gravity of the situation. He kept laughing.

Wasn't that some kind of embarrassment?

Even if embarrassment is what it was, it is not permissible to repeat the identical exchange over and over. The more you do, the more absurd the whole incident becomes.

You didn't say all that to your boss, did you?

Mon dieu, who said this has anything to do with him?

That's what I heard, I swear.

The issue here is that apologies are used as a substitute for indulgence. An apology is offered each time the same mistake is committed, but without any intention to avoid one in the future. Another grave problem with respect to apologies is that oftentimes they are given for wrong causes.

People apologize for what they do not need to?

It may sound funny, but yes.

I thought that is what you yourself are guilty of. Quite a few have told you that you don't need to apologize so much, right?

Some see how bad I am feeling about the rut that I managed to put them in, and wish to reassure me that they would overcome that setback. They tell me that I don't have to apologize in such instances.

And others?

They say how wrong it is to apologize for so many things, and in effect, show how little understanding they have of me.

How do you know that you are not committing the mistake that you pointed out?

I sure would be if I apologize only for the wrong causes and not for the right ones.

You offer apologies for just about anything to make sure that every cause has been covered... That may dilute the efficacy of each apology, you know.

But I mean it each time!

It looks like we may understand you better, if we do away with apologies as you proposed.

I did not say that I was going to eliminate the feelings of guilt and the wish to bear responsibility for wrongdoing and errors and to correct them. As I implied earlier, I will continue to express them through actions.

Don't you think it makes a difference to say explicitly that you are sorry?

I do want to hear it from others as long as they believe in it and are planning to follow it up. As for saying it myself, I have to think that I do so for the proof that I am doing my best to be moral. If some complain about my apologies, well, I will just put a big X next to their names.

That may be the best, because we cannot please everyone on the planet and we need to be accountable to ourselves.

Anyway, the serious problem with apologies that I want to address here is the following. Many apologize for something rather trivial and unrelated to the real and bigger issue. For example, I may be upset because my partner---mind you, I had no choice over who that would be---always cunningly takes the easy part of the job and leaves the difficult part for me to deal with. That itself may not be too bad if he does not advertise to others how much contribution he is making.

He senses that you have been unhappy and apologizes profusely for colliding with you in the corridor.

Such people are so skilled at not looking at what is inconvenient to them. Some manage to take advantage of the rumor mill, too.

"Are you guys in bad terms?" "Yeah, we bumped into each other the other day, and I apologized because it was my fault. But..." "Upset because of that?" "Looks like it." And for some reason, they never turn to you to ask what's the matter between you two, right?

I wouldn't say much anyway. What's the point of complaining about the third party?

You firmly believe in discussing any problem with the culprit and not with others.

Another person went as far as to admit that he had become rather self-righteous in a certain domain, but seemed to want to believe that he was not overall a self-righteous soul. I'm afraid he is turning a blind eye to the real problem.

Isn't it usually the case that the parts tell us quite a bit about the whole? People who are cruel to animals tend to suffer from psychological disorders, and are abusive toward fellow human beings as well.

What about people who are nasty toward family members, but nice toward colleagues? It can be the other way around, too.

True, some manage to maintain that duality for decades.

We hear what loving parents some dictators were when their hands had been soaked in tons of blood of others.

Joseph Stalin remains a good example of consistency.

Some other problem cases concern shifting the blame to factors beyond our control by way of apology.

"I lied because the earth orbits around the sun. The motion makes my tongue wiggle." That genre?

It could be a bit less absurd. "I couldn't help snatching your carefully prepared lunch while you weren't looking, because I hadn't eaten anything since last night and it looked so good." Or even more plausible. "I may have the tendency to be self-righteous, but that is because I live alone." That raises the question of: are all who live by themselves self-righteous?

If the answer is no, s/he has to look for an excuse elsewhere.

We try hard to find excuses in our environment, because we do not want to admit that it is our personality or lack of morality that is the true problem. You would be surprised how far we go to avoid questioning who we are.

Isn't that natural?

Yes, and that is why apologies are very often useless. Most of the time, we do not address the real issue with the earnestness that is required to prevent similar incidents. In many cases, apologies are harmful, because they are used as indulgences and put the pressure on the victim of the mistake or wrongdoing to act as if nothing bad had happened. If we are still angry after given an apology, it will be us who would be accused of spitefulness, childishness, and so on.

Having considered all the difficulties of offering useful apologies, you want others to apologize and you plan to apologize as often as you used to after all.

Let's say it is like saying 'good morning.' If you don't, it's rude in most cases. Many people neither think it is a good morning nor want to wish you a good morning, but say it as a courtesy. I want to be civilized enough to say 'good morning' to as many as possible, and would like to hear a pleasant 'good morning' rather than a grouchy one. If people think I am making too big a fuss about 'good morning,' they don't understand me.

Now who wants to understand you?

We all pretend that we either understand each other or are doing our best to reach that goal, comrade.

You are more Machiavellian than usual today. In any case, what do you say about not coming for so long?

I'm really sorry about it, but you know... I don't want to make excuses.

In other words, you could have made it, but you didn't.

It's a matter of priority... Nobody can do million things in a day.

Apology rejected! You are not showing enough remorse, comrade. You should have volunteered to reexamine your morality and personality.

Respect as aloofness, instincts before consciousness

Last time you argued how circumstantial evidence leads to richer interpretations of events.

Since we cannot remember all such pieces of evidence and describe them well, it is difficult to convince others of our interpretations.

Even if we could remember and describe well, most of us do not have the patience to listen to them. Somebody was complaining about the three-hour monologue on a family funeral, the other day...

You are right. That means we should forget about asking others to integrate the information that we give to them.

And yet, they tell us that our judgments are either too optimistic or pessimistic!

If we give a concise summary of an exchange or an event instead, that would necessarily be based on our view of it. For example, we could say, "He was very angry when he left the room," instead of recounting how his eyes looked, how he was breathing, how he turned around, how he grabbed the door knob, how he closed the door, and so on.

Whatever we do to explain better, we will be told that we are looking at it in a wrong way.

And you do look at an exchange in a wrong way.

Are you saying that you are unbiased, but I am?

It was a generic 'you,' comrade.

Why did you dropped the generic 'we,' then?

You see, these small things matter, but we usually do not remember them.

You have changed the focus of our conversation ever so slightly... Anyway, we tend to retain in our memory only the overall impression that the details give us. Plus, there are historical elements in most exchanges.

For all these reasons, I respect the interpretations of the persons involved.

If you are only indirectly related to the exchange or event, your view should matter less for that fact.

Unless you have a very strong reason to present yours as the more plausible, or you happen to have the obligation to rule over them. You could be a guardian, instructor, judge, supervisor, leader, and the like.

Aren't we back to the issue of personality, then?

I'm afraid we are. There will always be people who are pushy enough to tell others that they are wrong.

Overconfident souls do not see anything wrong in bulldozing their way with their opinions. Many are unaware of their might. The ones who are aware nonetheless push through, because they are so convinced of their goodness.

You know, many people like being told how they should think. For them, a person like myself is totally useless, because I don't tell them what they should be doing.

Even if they ask your opinion?

I would offer it if asked, but I always add that the final decision is theirs.

I bet they don't like that either.

To me, they are effectively asking me to play God. I refuse to accept the request because I do not believe that there exists an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being. If it did, I am certainly not that being.

How can they ever think that you are?

Some are quite desperate. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that they are so unwilling to think for themselves... The conclusion is that when you are decent enough to refuse to be God, people may resent you for that. They will say you are unsympathetic, cold, aloof, heartless and so on.

It's surely ironic that being respectful comes at a price. But I think the problem is that your definition of respect is different from others'.

Talking about respect, I have discovered lately that my instincts in that department are very much---how should I put it---developed. I always thought I had the tendency to overreact in general, but not so.

Comrade, you must admit that there are benefits to getting older. We become so sly that we find justification for everything we do!

Once in a while, I notice that I am acting angrily or offended, and surprised by my own action.

Slyness comes easily, but not maturity. Is this what you are getting at?

What you said is true, but that's not the point here. In the cases that I just described, I examine the situation later and realize that I was reacting to lack of respect.

If that is not an excuse for being rude, I don't know what to say.

Such a self-effacing and self-doubting person that I am...

An oxymoron, comrade. Would you ever trust someone who describes her/himself as nice?

The paradox is that a nice person ceases to be one by admitting so, but it is not rare that we encounter such declarations.

How easily people say, "I am nice," depends on the culture. Whether your "nice person" label should be confiscated upon reading it out loud yourself is culture dependent, too.

We need to make some kind of judgment, and in my world, uttering that line is an unmistakable proof to the contrary.

I thought you have been watching too many Hollywood movies, but you never get used to that one, eh?

Let's say I am so ruthless in my self-examination that most think I lack self-confidence. What they do not realize is that it is my self-confidence that allows me to disclose the results of those examinations.

I can't tell whether this is better than the earlier assessment of yourself. You are obscuring the true nature with convolutedness, ahem.

During an interaction with a person, I sometimes realize that I am all of the sudden angry for seemingly no reason. I am surprised by my own emotions, and that surprise sometimes shows as well. I am struck by feelings of remorse for exhibiting anger, especially because it does not seem to be justified. After the event, I think about it carefully and cannot but conclude that the person that I was with lacked respect and my behavior was in response to that.

How could anyone agree to that kind of argument?

This is exactly what we talked about last time. The other persons' gesture, eyes, tone, etc. indicate that they have little respect for me. They are certainly not aware what these details reveal. In most instances, they do not even know how little respect they have for me. But my instincts pick up the clues before I can clearly formulate in my mind what the attitude of the other party is.

As I recall our previous conversation, you know that it is almost impossible to convince others of your interpretation.

They'll just say I am paranoid and/or rude. But trust me, because I am loathe to be self-congratulatory, I had thought about this mechanism of mine for the longest time.

And you have come to the conclusion that your actions are provoked by others...

You should be happy; I fully accept that many will not understand the mechanism.

Do not despair, the American Psychiatric Association is to release the new version of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders very soon.

Did you want to talk about the Americanization of the fields of psychology and psychiatry? If you are diagnosed ill according to that manual, it simply means you are not an average American. As we all know, that can be a very good thing. Most likely, you will be making contribution to world peace for being who you are. Or, you may be labeled mentally ill even when you are not. Think about their aversion to unhappiness and pessimism---it's unhealthy!

Now, now, let's just say that psychologists and psychiatrists need to talk more to anthropologists and sociologists, but they have not done so yet. About being average, we are all ambivalent about it. We find both comfort and boredom in being surrounded by people who are more or less like us.

By definition, most of us cannot escape the fate of being average.

It's more precisely called 'mean' for good reason, my dear comrade.

It shows, here and there

Have you ever noticed that we reveal more of our thoughts than we intend to?

Not all of us experience such under-the-influence moments, you know.

I'm not talking about dropping the guard.

Including the occasions when we become too carried away with the subject and blurt out what we tried to bury deep down?

We may become so engrossed in talking about the effects of unhealthy lifestyles on public finance that we forget that a burden case is standing right next to us. Is this the kind of incident that you have in mind?

We may even exclaim, "We have to do something about those people!"

Do you have a nightmare on that theme, once in a while?

I utter the f- or s-word out loud, and everything stops, as if it were a movie and the projector went on strike. It takes a moment to realize that everyone is looking at me with expressions of anger or horror...

Anyway, we don't have to go that far to say that we communicate more than we plan to. As I said in our last meeting, we can't hide our true feelings. It shows through the way we say things. The voice is one obvious factor. The eyes tell an awful lot as well.

It is easy to see excitement, joy, surprise, sadness, boredom, indifference, annoyance, contempt, fear, and so on in them.

What we look at as we talk is another.

The floor/ground, the ceiling/sky, the face of the interlocutor, the object around her/him, her/his body parts or our own, etc.

Our gestures count, too. We can fiddle with the object that we happen to carry. If you have long hair, wearing a ring or mustache, you can play with it. We may cough, we may straighten our clothes when we start or finish talking, and they all say something about our mood, our true feelings behind the words. We usually don't plan those gestures and most of us have little control over what our eyes convey to others. How the talk was initiated and by whom, what was the topic before and after the part in question---these reveal not so much of mood, perhaps, but related thoughts.

And that is why we always reveal more than we intend to?

When we recount the conversations we had with others, we often fail to communicate the full significance of them because we omit the details.

The look in the eyes, gestures, etc., you mean?

Someone may say to me, "You're overly pedantic," but...

You still have hard feelings about that one, eh? I can see it in the movement of your facial muscles.

The problem with people who give me such evaluation is that they don't let me be me.

Are you saying that the negative remark was based on stereotypes?

Not necessarily, considering the fact that it came from my own mother.

Why did she say such a thing?

She meant it as a piece advice for enriching ma vie sentimentale. But what good is it to attract people by pretending to be a person that you are not?

Isn't that a problem that you have with almost anyone? That people do not like you any more if you reveal your true self?

I wouldn't say 'my true' self, because that sounds like I am deceiving others.

Let's say 'your core,' then.

Don't you think it best if we accept that any relationship is community service for each other?

You mean, all of us tolerate each other and nothing more...

Getting back to the topic of factors besides words, we are not so bad at integrating the unspoken elements. That is, we know from them whether the statement is meant as a joke, serious advice or even revenge. The curious thing is that we are hopeless at reproducing them.

That's why actors can keep their jobs, I'd say.

It doesn't have to be reenactment of the scene. We hear the tone, see the gestures and postures. In theory, we should be able to describe them.

We are bad at putting them into words?

What is mind boggling is that we forget the details in most cases. We cannot recall what we noticed and only remember the overall impression that they gave us.

Someone may complain that her/his lover said s/he was too pedantic, but s/he may not get the sympathy that s/he deserves unless s/he can explain how it was said.

I told you, it was my mother! I myself have experienced and also witnessed others go through the same process over and over. We are certain from the non-verbal cues what the true intentions of the interlocutor are, but because of our inability to explain them convincingly, we are told that we are interpreting people in a wrong way.

Isn't it usually the case that if we insist on our take of the event, we are labeled obstinate at best and psychotic at worst?

Or wishful-thinkers, scaremongers... I had been wondering for some time why quite a few people tell us that we should trust our intuitions and gut feelings.

I thought we are not supposed to.

We are taught to avoid emotional and impulsive reactions. These days, I am inclined to give such responses more credit than before.

Are they the same, intuition, gut feelings, hunches, emotions, and impulses?

They are similar in that they are considered irrational and cannot be explained neatly.

You are saying that so-called irrational responses should not be taken lightly, and quite a few people are of the same opinion.

We are very much influenced by what the ideal scientific methods are. That is, if something cannot be proved with evidence and reason, it has very little or no value.

But if we go astray from that principle, we will be allowing witch hunting.

There is that danger, but ignoring circumstantial "evidence" is also dangerous. The huge problem with those fuzzy factors is that they escape communication, and often memory as well. Our interpretation of a specific event is often based on the observation of similar ones over the years. Usually, we cannot remember enough of them to make our case convincing.

Doesn't it depend on how much your interpretations in general are trusted?

It does. In other words, neither credibility of our hunches to ourselves nor that to others can be established in an instant. To complicate matters, nobody has a static set of reactions, so we are never able to deduce with certainty whether interpretations of reactions were reasonable or not.

A bigger problem is that we tend to think that we know ourselves best, but that is not true. We may inquire a person what s/he was thinking, but the answer can be far from what it really was, and that without attempting to lie.

Another danger is that a manipulative person can sell her/his interpretation to a less manipulative one. For example, the former can ingrain in the latter that s/he is useless.

Didn't you imply above that we have the capacity to detect malice in such cases so as not to believe in it?

I guess we differ in that ability. Most of us certainly become more adept at it as we accumulate various experiences in this world. Anyway, we should not underestimate how much people can pick up clues. I can't conceal disgust and contempt when dealing with insincere statements, and that has been a problem.

What about writing, does it come with circumstantial evidence as well?

Writing is a tough one. It is very easy to give an impression that you did not intend to and be totally unaware of it. Writing has a greater variation than the use of voice, I think, and it is much harder to find out the unwritten elements.

Sometimes little correspondence means laziness on one side or both, not necessarily lack of caring feelings.

That can work in the opposite direction as well. As I said before, if we write frequently to each other, that gives an illusion that we care and understand each other well.

Such illusions are backed by solid evidence such as the number of correspondence per month, whereas intuitions and hunches are devoid of proof of that sort...

I find it interesting that incidental details are often more powerful than our summaries of them, such as "He was very angry," "She was clearly shaken," etc.

But we tend not to remember the details that have contributed to those conclusions!

A few more snags to our claim that instincts should not be taken lightly...

I knew it, I knew it. It's your "Snag Time."

One is that deep-rooted prejudice can be misunderstood as legitimate instincts. Examples are ones based on appearance, including race, gender, and so on.

That one...

Another is that one bad incident can form and dominate our instinct.

A severe case of food poisoning would make you physically allergic to what caused it.

That's a good one. The last snag that I can list at this moment is the cultural dependency of incidental proofs. The other night, I was listening to the dialogue between Karen and Denys in the film, "Out of Africa." At that point in the story, they were in love with each other, but did not know whether their feelings were mutual. I felt a bit confused because their conversation did not seem to indicate that one was interested in the other.

If you mean that there were no too obvious, sugary lines, isn't that the only way of declaring love that you approve of?

I have been watching too many of more typical Hollywood movies lately that I didn't even recognize my preferred way of courting.

Mais quelle horreur !

Exactly... It goes to show that cues may not serve their purpose if you are not used to them.

Are you sure that we should trust our instincts after all?

Maturity transcends cultural boundaries, remember?

'Maturity,' our catch-all word are here to save us!

Trust me any day, if you are lazy

Why do we trust others?

Are you saying that we shouldn't?

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

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

Inductive reasoning is weak, we all know that.

How else can we conduct our lives?

The brutal truth is...

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

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

Are you talking about entrusting tasks to others?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You never cut school again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about calling it diplomacy, instead of dishonesty?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I thought that was the whole purpose of trusting!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it necessary to pretend that we trust?

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

What about unconditional mistrust?

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

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

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

It can well happen. You know those vengeful types.

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

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

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

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

You can put it that way.

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

None of us can perfectly conceal what we believe in.

Or, what we want to believe in. Right?

You want to be... you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like a parent toward a child, you mean?

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

What's wrong with that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody is willing to change her/his entire self.

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

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

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

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

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

Now, now...

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

You, unsure of yourself?

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

A wolf in a red riding hood?

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

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

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

Improvement above all else for you?

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

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

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

May I point out that anybody would be shocked?

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

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

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

So much for free counseling!

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

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

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

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

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