~p

As always you leave me with much to mull over. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Samir

We all need to say no often. It’s part of life. I don’t think there are any strict rules here, reality rarely has any, but there are always some helpful guidelines to follow. I just think it’s generally helpful to say no politely rather than in any other way. Best of luck with you own ‘no’ challenges.

Samir

Thank you so much, for yet another thought provoking and insightful article!

However, I’m going to have to politely say “no” to some of the ideas here, although for the most part, I agree wholeheartedly. For some reason, reading this made me think of Hannibal Lector (spell?). I think there was a really important lesson to be learned by the character that Anthony Hopkins created so meticulously and convincingly, and that lesson was simply missed by too many people in the audiences. The lesson is that courtesy and politeness are important, and sometimes even more important than the initial goals, present content, and ultimate end results of any interaction. You may be able to force a person to eat chocolate, recline in a hot tub, take several Prozac pills, or have an orgasm. However, their perception of the event may be negative and outweigh any potential dopamine release. People are indeed eager to “Escape from Freedom” (Erich Fromm). But ungrateful for reprieve from responsibility, prefer seduction (deception), or at least pretense of it (plausible deniability of responsibility).

That is not to say that saying ‘no’ politely, is an acquittal for whatever ulterior motives Prince Machiavelli may have. Whether by lack of action/intention (negative) or inclusion of action/intention (positive), the nutritional value of yet the most beatific bouquet, may be a poison in disguise. And this algorithm is still only applicable to the most general use case. Audible linguistics is so much more than mere syntax and semantics. There are of course rather obvious variables (within loop rules) which require error handling, exceptions such as the Japanese culture, where saying yes, can still mean no under certain circumstances, or in situations where a “polite lie” is considered better form for a gentleman, allows the other party to save face, and may still be understood by both to be a merely polite lie.

Consider one moment this: despite 99% shared genotype with us, chimps express altruistic behavioral phenotypes, which are FAR less complicated than that of humans (grooming others, or doing menial tasks for others in the tribe). Does that make it clear at all WHY they are doing this? Well, it’s polymorphic, with slight diversity in expression, and so we attempt to predict antecedent causes, benefits, and consequences. We know they have similar emotions, but cannot rule out that they are not attempting to gain tribal status (and certainly, this does seem to be one result), rather than merely attribute it to a sense of love, pride for their group (which is part of their identity), or some more noble reason. With such an infantile understanding of ourselves, how shall we ever hope of fertilizing artificial intelligence with introspective honesty, cultural sensitivity, and moral intuition before the singularity?

According to Marino Palleschi, in medieval and Renaissance Europe, it was rude to indicate that a man wearing a mask in public could be recognized. Instead, polite behavior demanded that the masked person be treated as a completely unknown person and that no one ever attribute the masked person’s actions to the individual who performed them. The Lord of the land (rich guy) in fact had a legal right to sleep with your wife (who was presumed a virgin) BEFORE the husband did on their wedding night in parts of feudal Europe. To this very day, there remain social class divisions, in which apparently people expect to have their butts kissed simply because they are rich.

In some cases, it does seem logical that the politeness demanded by the refined and civilized, is actually merely a byproduct of their well-funded education, and insulation from the physical discomforts of poverty, which can challenge even the most self-disciplined saint to reject their own conscience, and play the transparent and soul-less games of sycophancy which are an inevitably essential ingredient from time to time, for upward mobility. One of my favorite all time rebels (more than James Dean and Gandhi) was Huckleberry Finn. One very important part of his story was the assistance he provided to Jim, who was attempting to escape his slave-owner and get to the North. Throughout Huck Finn’s illegal “aiding and abetting” of Jim, his conscience was unrelenting torture. Don’t get me wrong though, because Huck Finn wasn’t afraid of doing jail time for being an accomplice to a serious crime (because slave’s represented very expensive property). His conscience was telling him exactly the same thing as what almost all the protestant Christian preachers of the Deep South were shouting from the pulpit during those days in the United States. The preachers would waive their bibles high, and quote scriptures declaring that god almighty had established “our rulers” and that the social contract of law, sovereignty of the state, and right to property were just and part of god’s plan. It was your duty to give to Cesar what is Cesar’s, to abide by the laws of the land, and to proudly give your life for your country if called to do so in wars that made Cesar rich. I was so very happy that Huck Finn told himself “All right, then, I’ll go to hell!”

Best Regards,
Paul

thank you Samir!

Magali