Sunday, November 27, 2011

A Dented Tin Can -- The Misunderstanding & Abuse Of Aesthetics

Sometimes, human behaviour is incredibly illogical and approaches being inexplicable. Consider the following allegory in a grocery store.

You are there to buy a single can of soup. There are only two cans left on the shelf -- one is dented and one looks pristine. It isn't relevant, but if it helps you understand you can assume that the can is dented because you just dropped it on the floor. With which can do you walk out of the store?

99% of people will take the pristine looking can, even if they themselves were responsible for denting the other can. The other 1% will take the dented can because they feel guilty for having dented it.

Why do we take the dent-free can? Does the dent affect the taste or nutritional value of the soup inside? If both cans had been perfect we might have the presence of mind to check the "Best Before" date on the them to take the fresher of the two. The fact that one in dented makes us forget that this piece of information is even available, let alone worth knowing. The only thing that matters is the overriding fact that one of the cans is visually defective. We won't particularly care if we end up the less fresh of the two cans because how it looks is so important to us. Some might not even care if the pristine can had actually gone past its date because we are so certain we got the 'better' can.

There isn't even the tiniest shred of logical thinking in how a typical human would handle that scenario. Why are we so obsessed with appearance?

In the case of food it may be one of man's few remaining instincts from the time when everything we ate we hunted or gathered ourselves. If one fruit looks less 'healthy' than another fruit of the same kind then the choice is obvious. Sure, the 'imperfection' might only be a fresh bruise which won't affect the taste, texture and nutritional value of the fruit or at least not very much. However, it might be a sign of spoiling -- bruises do become more susceptible to spoiling than unblemished parts of fruits. Similarly, if a meat has an unusual or unexpected colour or smell that could spell disaster if eaten. But none of this is relevant to food stored in a tin can. (Yes, if the can is so badly dented that the seal itself is damaged then it does present a concern, but this phenomenon kicks in with even the most superficial dents.)

In other aspects of life, like socialization, we are equally obsessed with appearance. We become completely convinced of a one-to-one relationship between beauty and inherent value. Most people go to the grave still believing that beautiful women have hearts of gold and ugly women are a cruel (w/b)itches. The most handsome politicians often turn out to have the most ugly, corrupt and hateful hearts and souls, but we keep electing them over the plain-looking but earnest and intelligent candidates, whom we can't bring ourselves to trust.

When we aren't obsessed with sheer beauty we fall back on another completely useless attribute for determining quality -- familiarity. Somehow, we are so convinced at our own righteousness that we think anyone that seems to be like us must be awesome too! It doesn't matter if we are more (supremely godly and moral "The Simpsons" character) 'Ned Flanders' or (executed serial killer) Ted Bundy; whether we have minor skeletons in the closet or bodies packed six deep under the floorboards, we see ourselves as pretty amazing people, just the kind we'd want to know! I figure this is how 'simple folk' like George W. Bush get elected over vastly more qualified people who don't have his benefit of coming across as a familiar, nonthreatening 'every-man'. Ideology helps of course, but there needs to be more than just ideology to amass 'majorities'.

Can we place the blame with the Brothers Grimm? Aesop? Probably not. I'm fairly certain that the phenomenon is as old as humanity itself. You would think that religions would do something to combat this illusion, but they don't. Modern religions are more strongly influenced by men with no claim to divinity than to any divine figure, so are ill-equipped to guide us beyond the pitfall of placing predictor powers on 'pretty'.

For example, modern Christianity owes more to the hundreds of thousands of priests, ministers, monks, saints and popes of the past 2000 years than to the words, teachings or actions of The Father, The Son or The Holy Spirit. 2 millennia of interpretation and reinterpretation during synods, councils, consortia and pilgrimages using contemporary morals and ethics have made an indelible mark. Translation, re-translation, interpretation and reinterpretation of ancient language has had a significant effect on it as well. Even what is considered canon and what is considered apocryphal is the decision of mere men decades to centuries after the authors of the works had passed on. What is and isn't considered 'inspired' was determined by best guesses and isn't even universally uniform. Sure, they are probably very educated guesses, but nonetheless, they are guesses made by mortal and fallible men. Even the formation of Christianity into something completely distinct from Judaism was the decision of just men. (At no point in his life did Jesus preach for the creation of new religion. His teachings were for his people, whom he considered lost, to return to their old ways, the way of God. Unlike previous teachings, he did not limit his teachings to any specific demographic group but preached to any who would listen. With the rapid acceleration of interest in conversion to Jewish Christianity by pagans 'compromises' had to be made to promote and accommodate them, such as disavowing the need for circumcision, and thus the first steps to an independent religion were taken.) People of deep faith will tell you that these were not, in fact, guesses but instead were decisions made by men who were God-inspired and therefore the decisions are guaranteed to be correct. Of course, there can never be even the vaguest kind of proof of this statement of belief. They believe because they want to believe. This choice to believe or not believe is itself a decision made by mere mortal and fallible men, therefore all current beliefs have been tainted at least once along the line by the potential for gross deviation from the intent of God's Word.

Modern Islam is even more heavily influenced by the hundreds of thousands of fallible men that have followed Muhammad than is Christianity by its 'experts'. This is perhaps more true today than at any point in the history of Islam. An objective analysis of some of the teachings in Madrasahs around the world would find so many filled with hate-inspired rhetoric that it becomes next to impossible to believe that one of the definitions of the word 'Islam' is 'peace'.

So, here we are, in the present day. Human culture is enormous. Human knowledge is so vast that it is impossible for any one person to master even a small portion of it. And in spite of all of these accomplishments we are still tripped up by the most fundamental, basic and obvious of truths, that an object's appearance is of extremely limited value (and in some cases no value at all) in determining anything beyond its appearance! So, why are we still hung up on appearance in virtually all aspects of life? And is it more universally abused anywhere more than in dating/courting? Western divorce rates are near 50%. The more times you've already been married, the higher that rate goes, so it's no wonder there are the Liz Taylors, Zsa Zsa Gabors and Lana Turners of the world marrying eight or more times and yet often dying alone. (Of the 3, only Zsa Zsa may pass while still married -- she's now 94 and has been married to the same man for 25 years!)

Even when relationships last they are often rife with cheating and/or abuse of various kinds. We're getting it wrong far more often than we're getting it right, but will we change? Yeah, right. Some chalk it up to learning experiences or personal growth. I say that is the position of an apologist. Experience and growth do not necessitate the kinds of callousness and cruelty so common in relationships.

Ask anyone with any political or religious clout and they'll tell you that marriage is as healthy as it has ever been. In my opinion, that is an historical indictment of marriage! Ask someone right of centre and they will tell you that marriage has been irrevocably harmed by immoral depictions of sex (and/or abuse) in the media and by same-sex marriage, or homosexuality in general. These are people profoundly in denial. Human relationships have been in trouble for as long as there have been human relationships.

More often than not we get into them for the wrong reasons and the ones we value most are often the ones are most harmful to us. Political alliances, sociopolitical acceptance/viability, family arrangements, financial security/wealth, great sex, physical attractiveness, size (in all its various meanings), increased status, social climbing, access to different/'better' social networks...could there be any more pointless and doomed reasons for relationships?

What happened to love, friendship, emotional support, respect, compatibility of personalities and partnership?

Physical attraction is great for 'catching someone's eye' in the first place, but it's got to be replaced (or ideally, augmented) by something more meaningful. Great sex is a really nice perk. Sex doesn't get great or stay great unless there's something behind it. For most people it's something that has to be continually worked on, which is a truism for relationships in general.

As far as size goes, the rule appears to be bigger is better for anything and everything, with the possible exception of noses. It is true that some men like exceptionally tiny women, though the reasons are generally not good. Even the smallest women seem to go nuts for the most enormous men. A two-foot height difference is perceived as no issue at all. These women often say that being in these men's arms makes them feel safe. The feeling of safety is just that, a feeling. An illusion. Given that the vast majority of violent crime is committed by the ones we know and love all that extra size really means is how much more effective he'll be at beating the crap out of her when he sets his mind to it. Who is protecting her from him? (Compare and contrast to the opposite situation when she is even so much as a half-an inch taller than he! No one will give that couple even odds at lasting as long as 5 days, or are puzzled or even vexed by the question "what do they in each other?"!)

All the other reasons cited above are forms of use. Either the relationship is a pretense for one person to use the other for advantages outside the relationship or for third parties to use both members of the couple for their own needs. There have been 44 Presidents of the United States. Guess how many have been unmarried. One. If you have political aspirations you MUST marry! It is so vitally important for politicians to be married that they, who have more to gain or lose from their public image than just about anybody else, will marry any one and sort out such trivialities as compatibility after the wedding, or better yet, after the election. And this is how so many morally bankrupt politicians find women -- whose only relationship concerns are status, wealth and power -- ready to stand by them after their legal and/or marital transgressions are exposed. That support can translate into weathering the storm and achieving re-election, or in the worst case scenario, works to her financial advantage during the divorce proceedings after he fails to be re-elected.

So, when will we learn? A tiny minority already have. Some of them actually achieve true happiness! Others don't 'fit' into (or capitulate to) the accepted (failed) politics of courting and are therefore eternally single. That's a real shame because they are the real 'keepers'. Unfortunately, our biases for stupid and horrible predictors of relationship success keep us from so much as noticing these diamonds in the rough. Not only do we suffer for overlooking them, they suffer from being overlooked time and again. Being continually overlooked does not preclude falling in love and being rejected. Try to maintain self-esteem when your very culture trains its members to not appreciate you.

And the rest of us, those who have been failing at love, when will we learn? I'm torn over which is the best, most honest or accurate answer, so I'll let you decide.

1) Never, AKA when Hell freezes over. Why? You have to admit that there is a problem in order to be able to fix it.

2) When we pass into the next life, assuming you believe in such things.

Granted, neither is particularly optimistic, but we've had the entirety of human existence to get it right and we haven't yet, so what cause is there for optimism?

Whatever group you've fallen into historically, I wish you the best of luck in finding the perfect relationship that may have been eluding you. Or, if you prefer, I'll wish you the best of luck that the relationship you are currently in becomes more perfect. Anything that helps love, kindness and acceptance win over the alternatives.

No comments:

Post a Comment