A few days ago, I was at a friend’s house where we just had casual conversation and relaxed, doing little of significance. At one point, while she was outside, I decided to take out my wallet from my pocket — I’m more comfortable with empty pockets –, but then I paused, realizing that I might forget about it, and that if I did, she might think that I had intentionally left it there (something that would, interestingly, never cross my mind were she a man). But, I thought: “I won’t forget about it and it’s unhealthy to worry about others assigning motives to our every action”. I did forget it and the next day she called me, briefly stopped by on her way to work and gave it to me. I still don’t know if she assigned a purpose to my action (that I put the wallet on the table so as to have an excuse to meet her again), or if she assumed that I had just left it there by accident (that I put it on the table because I was more comfortable that way). Probably not, since we’ve been friends for a long time, but with new encounters this is a indeed something that can lead to misinterpretations.

This may perhaps seem insignificant, but this pattern where our actions may be fueled by distinct desires to either serve a certain social purpose or satisfy a personal pleasure, and where we worry about being misinterpreted, seems to represent a significant part of our most petty social dilemmas. There is sometimes a lack of fluidity in our actions, where we have to worry about following invisible rules and being interpreted. I suspect that, on the whole, this is something that is unwanted in the ideal society, though it may be something that is just part of our nature.

Consider, for example, how Saint Thomas Aquinas saw sex as something to be done for a purpose — reproduction — and that to have sex for the sake of pleasure was immoral, hence the moral ban on actions that people could not even pretend were for a “purpose”, such as oral, anal and homosexual sex. This was an example of people doing something for pleasure (having sex), while wanting others to believe that they were doing this for a purpose (for children).

Or we can consider something petty, where the opposite is true. I enjoy riding my bicycle without my hands. However, some might see this as an attempt to impress strangers, which is something that would seem rather petty, and I do not want to seem so petty as to do such things. Thus, I am pressured to keep his hands on my bike when I pass in front of others, so as to not appear to be trying to impress them, so as that no false purpose is assigned to my actions. In this case, I do not want to be misinterpreted as doing a certain action for a purpose, when I am simply doing it for pleasure.

This leaves us with cases where we want to be seen as pursuing pleasure and cases where we want to be seen as pursuing a purpose. In both cases, it is possible that we want to be seen as seeking pleasure or purpose regardless of whether or not this is actually what motivates us.

I suspect that, in reality, this is often more complex, but even with the simplification I have made here (by dividing the motivations for pleasure and purpose, when they probably coexist in one way or another), I believe that I have made note of a significant aspect of how we interact with each other. In my daily life I find myself in situations where I risk being misinterpreted and this is something that I have to think about so as to maintain an accurate image of myself.

Ideally, I believe that — like when we are with close friends — there should never be such worries and people should not try to find motives behind our every action. But I believe that this is part of our flawed nature and I fear that there is not much we can do to alleviate this issue except on the individual scale, where it is possible to be ourselves to a certain extent (and only to a certain extent!) and not worry about having to change our actions based on the perspective of others. This is achieved by recognizing the petty nature of human behavior and refusing to fall into certain psychological pressures we often perceive, be those perceptions accurate or not.

-Dussault

2 Comments »

1. The issue at hand is mostly related to communication. One cannot know for sure what another really is thinking (or isn’t).

   For the example at hand, riding a bicycle without touching the handles. The spectator is left to his self-interpretation of the scene, he decides whether or not he cares and whether or not he finds it pretentious. To decide, he can only rely on the image you project : your expressions, where you look, how well you’re doing the action, whether you give attention to people around you, etc, and all of those things can be very subjectively interpreted.

   With friends, the basis of interpretation is much more detailed, they can relate your present actions to your past actions, to how they perceive the way you think about those things, etc + all of the things related to the image you project at the moment.

   With lovers, the basis is even more detailed, since honesty is much more present (in general). For instance, I might tell things which aren’t 100% true to my friends, to either protect myself, or just save time or any other reason. But those little lies or omissions should, in an ideal relationship, not be there. My conception of an ideal relationship is one of pure honesty, unbridled communication. Something hard to attain because it leaves each person very vulnerable to the other.

   To get back to the point, we may represent this situation in a very practical and simple analogy.

   To determine what someone is thinking, we need an exchange of information. Suppose two persons are placed in two separate rooms, the rooms are linked with a corridor blocked by a significant number of windows. One person (Actor) is doing an action and the other (Spectator) has to determine what the action is. Now if we relate to the bicycle situation, you are the actor, the person seeing you is the spectator (obviously ..) and what you are thinking is the action the actor is committing.

   -If the person seeing you on your bicycle is a stranger, the windows in the corridor are dirty and sometimes deforming glasses, very little information gets by, so it’s hard to see what the actor is really doing.

   -If the person is a friend, the windows are much cleaner and you can approximately see what the actor is doing. So the spectator can pose a mildly accurate judgment of what the actor is doing. Like your friends can pose a mildly accurate judgment of what you are thinking while riding your bicycle.

   - If the person is your lover, the windows are very clean and it’s pretty obvious what the actor is doing. The spectator can then pose an accurate judgment. Akin to the judgment a lover might pose on your thoughts.

   - In an ideal situation, with ideal lovers, then the corridor might as well be completely empty, without any windows to block out the information.

   The percentage of chance to have an accurate judgment is directly related to the quantity and quality of the information we receive.

   In a public situation, one way to project a more accurate image of yourself is to maximize the information you send, if people sending suggestive stares, tell them you’re not doing that to impress them … and/or be expressively clear in your attitude that it is not your objective.
   Another pertinent question is to ask yourself whether you care or not what strangers might think of you. If you don’t care, no need to bother monitoring the information you send out.

   It seems logical to say that transparency is the best way to ensure people don’t misinterpret you. If everyone could be sure what another one is thinking, many of the worlds problems would go away. In our society, a large part of our energy is sunk in ensuring everyone is honest, that no one tries . The justice system, government, locks or barriers of all kind, paperwork, MONEY, bureaucracy in general, etc etc. All are forms of communications or way to make this communication clear and unambiguous.

   But in our society, with the way things work, with the fact that we know we can do things and get away with them without anyone knowing the what or the why, we will of course be pushed to hides our motives at some point or another, for sometimes very valid reasons, even sometimes just for fun, being mysterious can be a major character trait.

   Just for fun, ask yourself this, what would you do, if you were sure everyone was going to know the what and the why of your action, as you were doing it. Privacy is one of the petty things we cling to in our petty human condition.

   Rawr_Inc

   Comment by Rawr_Inc — April 25, 2009 @ 4:23 PM

2. “I still don’t know if she assigned a purpose to my action (that I put the wallet on the table so as to have an excuse to meet her again), or if she assumed that I had just left it there by accident (that I put it on the table because I was more comfortable that way).”

   I worked for Burroughs Corporation in the 1970s. It was founded by William S Burroughs (not the “Naked Lunch” one, but his grandfather), who invented a major improvement to mechanical adding machines. It went on to manufacture and sell cash registers, mechanical ledger accounting machines and electronic calculators. (It accidentally strayed into the computer manufacturing market – which is why I was there – without conspicuous success, and later became part of Unisys.)

   Anyway, one of the old-guard salesmen told me that when he first joined, it was compulsory for salesmen (there were no saleswomen) to wear a hat (a real hat of the sort that went with a suit in the 1950s and 60s and that you tipped to a lady and took off indoors, not some crap LA backward-worn baseball cap).

   In calling on a prospect in an effort to sell a machine, if unsuccessful the salesman was supposed to leave his hat behind so that he could make an appointment to collect it and try his sales pitch again.

   Since the price and functional difference between Burroughs, NCR and what other brands of accounting machines that existed were minor, persistence probably paid off.

   If the only girl in her early 20s I know is any guide, with her, it certainly wouldn’t.

   Comment by MikeM — April 29, 2009 @ 8:14 AM

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website