To give you some background before I go into the content here, I had just concluded a successful interview (the first of two) and was stopping by the library on my way home. The trip from there was bizarre – random acts of generosity sprung up, seriously making me wonder whether the world was conspiring to be generous, or whether it was some kind of karma day.

Act I: A mother with a stroller

I held the door open. Seems ordinary enough, right? It all started here.

A mother with three kids, one of which was in a stroller, was trying to get out the front door. Maybe that entrance wasn’t accessible, because the door wasn’t opening for them.

So before I entered, I held the door open for them, allowing her to get her stroller out.

I entered the library no wiser that this was the first act of many.

Act II: Library

I only had to check in two books, and the library has self-serve check-in machines, to which I wandered when I entered.

It’s really an easy process, but the lady overseeing check-in still had to help the patron in front of me, for whom it was probably a first-time experience.

“Yeah, that’s it. You just push here on the screen and put your books on the table.”

My usual experiences with librarians are far worse.

Act III: Viva

Viva bus at a bus terminal; credit IRT.BMT.IND (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0)

I ran across the street to catch the bus that was about to leave.

For those of you unfamiliar with this transit system, an individual with a ticket ‘validates’ the ticket on a machine before boarding the bus. That’s what I attempted to do.

The machine that takes in a ticket and validates it

I became frustrated because the machine wouldn’t take in the ticket – even after 4 or 5 tries, and even more frustrated because I was making the bus wait. I gave up, and boarded anyways through the door beside the driver. I genuinely intended to validate the ticket.

A minute or two into the ride, I asked the driver whether it was okay if I validated the ticket at my destination. His response surprised me.

“Sure… if you want.”

What the heck? Now, Viva is nicknamed “Free-va” because of the honour system on which fares work. Offenders keep their tickets without validating them – avoiding the fare – and are occasionally caught by enforcement officers.

Was this generosity, entrapment, or plain dereliction?

I fully intended to validate my ticket at the destination.

When the bus had taken me as far as it could, I got off and validated my ticket at that terminal. As the bus driver passed by – probably his coffee break – I showed the ticket casually, and he said:

“No problem, my friend.”

Whoa. What the heck.

Act IV: YRT

Staying on the theme of bus drivers, the story follows me as I transfer on to another bus. I recognized the driver when he pulled into the terminal, and he didn’t even bother to check my validated ticket, gesturing as though he knew I would always pay my fare properly.

The bus slipped out of the station and began its journey, only to be interrupted at the next red light, when the driver stopped and opened the door.

He recognized someone who was walking by, and invited her in. Probably friends or something.

They hugged, talked a bit – and though the light had turned green, I wasn’t complaining; it’s not like I had to rush. Then he gave her a transfer and she left.

Wait, what?! Did he just give her a transfer when she didn’t pay a fare?

Shock and realization occurred at the same time, when I discovered another act of generosity… or dereliction.

Epilogue

How does this kind of stuff happen? Do bus drivers decide to be really nice during the summer, and grouchy the rest of the time?

Was it karma? Or, perhaps, was it what happens when one walks out of a successful interview and notices only the good things occurring around oneself?

Deep questions to ponder. What do you think?

I experience stress on a daily basis, and perhaps much more so this month. As for my methods of dealing with stress, I enjoy music, knowledge, and technology.

Music

Classical and soundtrack music are especially enjoyable for me. I find that they contribute to a calmer emotional state, especially with beautiful orchestral pieces. (See what kind of music I like at Music to Hear.) Listening to the Brandenburg Concertos by Bach, for instance, Ennio Morricone film score, Planet Earth incidental music, or Hans Zimmer’s remarkable compositions, or Karajan’s amazing interpretations, probably bring my mood from stressed out at 8/10 to 3/10. This is one of the reasons that I listen to music while I’m doing work.

Take a look at a video of one of my favourite pieces, conducted by the composer Ennio Morricone at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Learning

TED videos are really inspiring to watch. Whether it’s Al Gore or someone talking about the importance of bread, I find TED to be an absolutely amazing source of inspiration.

Developing knowledge helps to take my mind off pressing matters, at least temporarily. And that’s one of the reasons that I like reading news, reading design blogs and so on.

Humour

FAIL Blog, NotAlwaysRight and FMyLife are all amazing sources of humour. Laughing is probably the easiest way to enjoy oneself for a while.

Today, I got a cross-country job promotion. I decided to plan my Going-Away-Forever party, and bought a pack of 100 invitations. After mailing them out to all my friends, I have 92 left. FML (source)

This keeps me amused, but is by no means as effective as music — after all, I can listen to music while working, and this humour stuff takes away from time I could be putting towards resolving causes of stress.

Et vous?

What do you do to keep your stress at an acceptable level? (You can select multiple answers. Choose any item if it has a soothing / stress-relieving effect for you.)

• inconsistent usage of Canadian/American/British spelling; for instance, writing ‘favour’ throughout but slipping in something like ‘neighborhood’
• bad marking schemes
  • taking questions off after the evaluation is written; for instance, an exam out of 119 becoming out of 100 — in that case, every loss of a mark is much greater in terms of percentage
  • an evaluation with required questions that become optional; for instance, questions 101–119 becoming ‘bonus’ questions when nothing specifically makes them harder or more suitable as bonuses
• mentions of topics that pique one’s curiosity, followed by a denial of that curiosity in the form of a “never mind”; for instance, mentioning a piece of highly interesting gossip and then refusing to speak about it
• mainstream media
  • constant bombardment of viewers with biased reports; for instance, Lou Dobbs
  • mentions of online or Web 2.0 communities specifically with the intention to appear ‘cool’ or ‘hip’ or ‘up-to-date’; for instance, CNN’s unnatural use of Twitter
• Windows Live Messenger’s ads at the bottom of the contact list
  EDIT: I’ve removed them by using A-Patch, but A-Patch doesn’t change the fact that I’m annoyed with those ads.
• Safari 4′s unreadable tabs on Windows Vista+
• music without verifiable ‘artistry’ to which fanboys and fangirls listen repeatedly or habitually
• books and movies with fans who are attracted by mere plot or appearance or celebrities
• “buggy software”
• EDIT: also, it is hugely distressing for me to hear intelligent people degrade themselves… I understand that not everyone has good self-confidence, but come on… you guys are smart and have amazing potential. Don’t discourage yourself from achievement.

I think it is time for me to post another something to my blog. I have been pleased to observe a strong support for the experiment, particularly the part where I will expose myself to new kinds of music.

First, a comical quote:

A client called in inquiring about a package to Hawaii. After going over all the cost info, she asked, “Would it be cheaper to fly to California and then take the train to Hawaii?”

Wow. You should start using StumbleUpon. It’s great for times like this boring weekend when surfing random sites on the Web becomes a fun activity. (also, see the things I liked from stumbling)

Anyhow, back to the less fun things. There’s more after the jump.

Music

I haven’t yet had a chance to listen to all of the music that people have sent to me by means of drop.io. However, here are a few pieces of music that I currently can appreciate, thanks to the input from everybody.

Preferably, you should add comments to this post with the title of the song and the artist, because I use imeem as the legal means of discovering new music. (A note about imeem: I like using this site to discover new music, particularly to follow up on recommendations, given that this company has signed licensing deals with Warner Music, Sony/BMG, EMI, and Vivendi Universal, and can offer a legal means of listening to full-length content.)

Click here to view the embedded video.

My appreciation of Viva la Vida reflects my musical education and the fact that I am still clinging on to the dignity of classical music. Though the lyrics are great, and I appreciate the vocals, it remains true that the harmonic progression and (generally classical) instrumentation appeal to me most.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Note: for some songs, imeem will only stream full-length tracks to registered and logged-in users to comply with licensing terms.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Of all of the music I have heard up to now, hip-hop is just too strange for me. Even metal, which is, indeed, loud and harsh (in timbre), at least appeals to me. For both of the pieces immediately above, I would appreciate them much more without the screaming vocals, since the instrumental parts are amazing… and once again, I have to refer to the similarities between the harmonic devices used in metal/rock and classical.

Click here to view the embedded video.

For this song (I Don’t Wanna Miss a Thing), my first impression of it was the unsightly singer on the music video on YouTube, which I watched because Matthew Wu posted a link to it. However, it is a nice song, one with a great singer whose voice is acceptable — in harsh contrast to the vocal ‘talent’ from the heavy metal — and it is from Armageddon, a film that I liked. (Have my musical tastes been shaped already?)

And, of course, I have to take this opportunity to share some of the classical pieces that I have recently discovered and liked:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I think what the pieces above show is that my musical tastes have shifted from primarily Bach to primarily 19th-century (and a bit of early 20th-century) music. Hmm. A few more months and it’ll probably move to 20th- and 21st-century stuff. What genres I adopt will remain to be seen… though, if anything is to be indicated by the music I have liked thus far, I am unlikely to appreciate hip-hop.

Play a role. Comment here.

This social experiment involves two parts:

• A part in which I am the experimenter; in this, I will attempt to modify the behaviour of others
• A part in which I am the subject; in this, I will allow others to influence my behaviour and actions

See more after the jump.

Now you must be wondering what this experiment is all about.

Part I — Intolerance

This is the less dangerous part of the experiment in which I attempt to engineer the influences impacting those around me in order to direct people away from intolerance, to being more accepting characters.

Under normal circumstances, I would immediately reject such action as being immoral — certainly, trying to preach one’s morals to another is unfair to their beliefs. I would also ordinarily say that I am able and willing to deal with friends who have radically different views from me, but these are not normal circumstances.

Indeed, I have discovered that intolerance is one of those things that severely limits my willingness to deal with a person. This is rather unfortunate, as some of the best people are, themselves, ignorant and intolerant; intolerant of those with differences, not accepting of those who are in the minorities for which many unjustly blame social problems, and, at other times, entirely ignorant of the precious differentiations that keep us so wonderfully diverse.

It is ironic that, in attempting to address this intolerant attitude, I am, myself, acting intolerantly toward them; I am not accepting their views as one ought to. And here I fall into the dangerous pit of self-justification. “Is this not truly better for the world? Does it not benefit those oppressed minorities to attack the behaviour that is harming them?” Unfortunately, this route of using moral excuses has been abused far too often. I am placing myself in danger of losing sight of some of the values for which I have always stood: acceptance, tolerance, and diversity.

You may be wondering what actions there are that I could possibly undertake to reverse the actions of bigots.

Yes, I use that provocative term of bigotry. My friends are not bigots; they are not entirely unaware of the radicalism of their views, nor would any of them believe that their views are any more right than those of others. Am I a bigot, or ignorant? for believing that my views of acceptance, tolerance and diversity are superior to the harmful actions of intolerance? for taking action to change the views of others? the views of those with whom I associate most closely?

Anyhow, to return to the subject and to answer, “what actions there are that I could possibly undertake?”, remember my previous writings. I have previously written how a shift in the interpersonal and environmental influences can collaboratively result in a certain result. Could I apply this theory to life? Could I apply it to subjects who are entirely aware of the actions I am taking against them? More importantly, could I live with myself if my theory proves realistic?

All these questions must be addressed by you, the people who will be impacted. You alone have the capability to determine whether or not I give up on this experiment, and if I decide to go forth with the plans, you will likely be changed. Do you wish that to happen? Would you give me the chance to tweak with your mind?

The comments section is the only place where you can share your answers to those questions.

Part II — Music

Anyone who knows me also knows my love for classical music and film soundtracks that are orchestral. For years, I dedicated myself to the study of an instrument, and the musical theory that is needed to best appreciate and operate the instrument. (I have since concluded those studies.) Yet these studies have shown me that there is a quality to classical music that is unmatched by anything of the modern or contemporary eras. Until this year, I have never seriously given legitimacy to the possibility of listening to contemporary music.

This shows several things about me, the subject:

• I do not often like to ‘fit in’
• My musical tastes are long pre-established
• “until this year” — there is a chance in reforming my views on music, as the influences of friends and acquaintances have already shown
• I am now more open-minded toward current music
• Any music that relates, even if insignificantly, to my established tastes will appeal to me

In this section of the ongoing experiment, I invite every friend and acquaintance with whom I deal on a near-daily basis to attempt and shape my musical tastes. This is no joke, and I will offer passive resistance to a change in my musical tastes only if the music is clearly distasteful (for instance, profanity, sex, drugs, violence… are themes that I cannot accept in music to which I listen frequently).

Please try.

The success of this part of the experiment will be defined by two things:

1. I accept and listen to styles/genres of music which are (a) not classical; (b) performed and recorded within the last five decades; and (c) also accepted and listened to by others who have played a role in shaping such musical tastes.
2. You have found a friend in me, whether as a result of my willingness to change, to adapt, and to adopt your preferences, or as a result of the changes themselves.

If I may satisfy these two goals of this part of the experiment, I will be content.

On a side note… subscribe by e-mail to get updates in the future!

ADDENDUM: Part III — Harry Potter

In the days following the initial publication of this post, I have realized that I have neglected another important part of my life that is already being heavily influenced: literary taste.

I have, of course, previously argued against Harry Potter, in Why Friends Suck, but now I will consider it — and if my friends are successful in influencing me in this part of the experiment, I will like Harry Potter by the end of the year.

This part of the social experiment calls on my friends, or at least the ones who are obsessed with Harry Potter, to make me a Harry Potter fan. If they are successful in doing so, it will demonstrate the power that friends have over each other. (Despite the fact that this sounds incredibly ‘corny’, it is true and has already been discussed in my previous writings.) At the same time, those who do not like Harry Potter are encouraged to present me with opinions to the contrary… so in the end, whether I like Harry Potter or not will reflect the success of one group over the other.

The Call to Action

You must comment, in support of, or in opposition to, my social experiment.

If I can gather the support for such an ambitious endeavour, I will launch into the project for the remainder of the year, and will publish notes detailing how this experiment could be improved upon to form a sound, scientific trial, as well as how any results from the experiment can be analyzed.

Please, I ask for your support in this matter. Tell me that my idea isn’t stupid. Tell me that you support my desire for sociological advancement. Most importantly, tell me that you will take part in the subtle social experiment.

Thank you.

• technology
• food
• warmth

Perhaps I am feeling happier. The National Seminar hasn’t even started yet… meeting other delegates is an interesting experience.

• food
• stress management
• light!

Am I feeling happier yet? Not really. In fact, I’ve been feeling more and more stressed out lately. In any case, that’ll be fixed by Tuesday of next week.

My Twitter updates are still not being synchronized to my blog, but hopefully that’ll be fixed with the next update of Twitter Tools.

NEXT: list for November 20.

I also realize that, perhaps you aren’t particularly interested in my personal life (although I’d point out that that is what many blogs focus on). I will return to posting other interesting things since I have nearly exhausted this topic.

It wouldn’t be too convenient to make a new blog post every day or even every week for this topic, so I’m going to place some of them on Twitter. Follow me on Twitter (http://twitter.com/frederickding) or check this blog (since my Twitter updates are automatically re-posted here daily).

My three-item list for today (November 14, 2008):

• a warm, safe, and hospitable home
• an intelligent and thoughtful mind
• friends who care

I really wouldn’t mind if you decided to share a few of the things for which you are grateful, either by commenting here or by signing up for Twitter and letting me know about you.

ADDENDUM: of course some things will need to be kept private. But even the private things will be posted, except under lock and key.

ADDENDUM 2: here are my lists for November 15 and 16:

• life
• liberty
• health

• friends who are smart
• a Macbook Pro
• friends who care too much

“Man has an eternal longing for companionship.”

With that line I begin my analysis of friendship. Indeed, my views are not entirely common, and it is my disagreement with the views of others that motivates me to write this philosophical examination of close relationships. In the following text, I will cover at least these topics:

• What is friendship?
• Motivations
• Influences
• Characteristics vs. causes vs. effects

Let’s get started. Visit page 2 to continue reading. EDIT: paging removed.

What is friendship?

I am neither seeking nor providing the absolute definition of friendship. Instead, I am offering my own, open definition. Friendship is a close relationship between persons.

Now, we could leave it at that, but of course the answer is far more complex. Friendship involves a number of people who (at least partially) trust each other, who are comfortable with each other, and who act in the collective interests or with the interests of the other(s) in mind.

Let’s pause there. What I have described so far is not friendship, but details of friendship and friends. But does it truly matter whether I can provide a clear-cut definition of friendship? My purpose here is to analyze friendships, not define them.

Yet for the purposes of my analyses, let us understand that I refer, not to the general persons that are on friendly terms, but to one’s closest and most dependable friends. I talk not of the people to whom I am merely nice, but those I trust with my private affairs and those to whom I feel an emotional connection.

“Every decent person has quite an accumulation of them.” I say this, but it is not true. Every decent person — one who has not experienced any tragedy to discourage him from socializing — has only a small number of truly trustworthy, dependable friends. These are the friends who can’t be let go; there are connections too deep to be severed easily.

On page 3 Next, I discuss motivations.

Motivations

I am quite certain that you and I could not live without love and acceptance. Friends offer these two ‘breaths of life’. I guess I am arguing that friendship is a basic need.

I wrote previously that having friends, and friends, are bad. (Actually, I was harsher than that.) I argued that friendship leads to a loss of individualism (a matter that I’ll address later in this analysis). However, we need to consider that this may be the very reason that friendships exist.

Many children and young adults are seeking an identity… trying to figure out who they are. Friends help shape a person’s identity, and friendships provide acceptance for such an identity. Everybody wants to be a somebody. This is one reason, one motivation, for people to form friendships.

Another is the need for a ‘receptacle’. No one can live an entire sane life without venting one’s emotions, thoughts, and needs. Friends offer a shoulder on which to lean.

In times of happiness, success, and well-being, every normal person wants to share those feelings. Everybody (at least, every sane person) likes to share those feelings because of something akin to the ‘network effect’ — the more people that are happy, the more happiness there is for everyone. Thus, in times of joy, people turn to those that will listen to them: their friends.

In times of sorrow, or disappointment, or bitterness, friends offer the support that a person needs to keep going. The great friends will do whatever possible to aid the person in need, because that is in the nature of friendship. They offer the understanding and love to keep someone in synch with the world, and in a sane state of mind.

And what about all those other times when a guy just wants to talk to someone? Well, he has the option of being cruel and mean in irritating someone, and he has the option of having a casual, friendly conversation with a friend. His friends are there for him. Friends are there for us.

Let me use a little example from an acquaintance, who offered an interesting illustration. When I’m bored and there is little to do, and my friends are available to talk (or logged on to Windows Live Messenger), what do I (a good and nice person) do? I talk to my friends.

And what if I had some burning secrets to reveal, to discuss? I don’t think, “let’s tell N.P., a person with whom I’m polite and nice”, because he isn’t the person I value as a close friend. Instead, I think, “let’s talk to K.P.,” — or indeed another friend — “a person who is kind and a close friend”, because I generally feel comfortable talking to people in this category, because I treat friends differently (and they treat me differently) than acquaintances or strangers. Friends are there for a reason, and I’m far more comfortable with them than anyone else.

On page 4 Next, I discuss influences.

Influences

‘Influences’ has been a major theme in my recent articles. My analyses have discussed the types of influences that shape one’s behaviour, the possibilities involving engineered influences, and then the unconscious influences of friends on other friends. I will now contradict my previous examination (Why Friends Suck) to say that the influences of friends are positive — almost without exception. (This is yet another controversial viewpoint, simply due to its extremism.)

Before I even begin to discuss why they are positive, I will refute the claim that bad friends are bad influences on kids, leading to sins like gang crime / organized crime, narcotics use, sexual misconduct, and so on. To refute such a claim, I must reference my previous analysis of human behaviour and the variables that determine it, in which I noted that the three types of influences — environmental, intrapersonal, and interpersonal — can be combined to engineer a certain result. By extension, I was also noting that no single type of influence can completely change a person. In other words, bad friends cannot be the only cause of bad behaviour; the kid must have an intrapersonal tendency to such behaviour, emotional problems, other personal issues, or may live/learn in a negative environment. Although ‘gangster’ friends would have an impact, they are not the bad influences. In reality, it could depend more on intrapersonal or environmental influences, or a careful balance of the three types.

Ah, but I digress, gentlemen… the issue here is the positive influences of friends. (Generally, we will proceed on the assumption that those who read this article are wise enough to have good friends.) By now I have shown that friends are at least a factor that influences the shaping of a person’s personality. Why is that good? Let’s look at it this way. Every person’s life will no doubt involve relations with other people. In order for strangers to ‘connect’ — to feel comfortable in the presence of others — there has to be common ground. If you (or I) are an unordinary character with strange behaviour, you will benefit from having good friends that make you more ‘normal’, because normalcy will improve your chances of succeeding in the future — as a student or teacher, employee or employer. Yet this is only one reason.

Have we yet considered the possibility that a more common personality will lead to a more emotionally-fulfilling life? This is what I see: a personality that others shape is usually a personality that others can accept, and the more that others accept you (or the more people that accept you), the better (or more numerous) your associations will be. As I’ve described in the Motivations section, close associations have benefits. Good friendships make good friends make happy people.

Basically, the crux of my argument is this: ‘normal’ is good. If you feel that I haven’t sufficiently proven that, just leave a comment and move on. I believe that my arguments clearly show how friends lead to common, normal interests/values and that those normal interests/values help a person reach out to a larger population of people (that is, those who are also ‘normal’).

On the next page Next, I will distinguish between causes and effects of friendships.

Characteristics vs. causes vs. effects

What do I mean by this? Well, I wanted to make the point that the characteristics of friendship aren’t always easy to distinguish from the causes and the effects of friendships. In the cases above, we have items that appear in more than one column.

Let’s start with the first, which matches with the last. M.W. says that a friendship has to involve similar interests, because otherwise there is no social reward. He says that, for instance, two people who both love football are more likely to get along that two people that have strong, different favourite sports. (It’s a good point; what would friends do if they disagreed all the time?) However, I see this as a reversal of the causal relationship. I argue that friends lead to similar interests and matching personalities, not the other way around.

Why? Simple.

1. I have always believed that friendships based upon and depending upon shared interests are unstable and temporary. Influences are always changing us; what happens when, a few months down the road, you just don’t share those same interests anymore?
2. I have already proven that friends have an influence on one another. Is it not probably that the similar interests are products of that influence? I believe that good, strong friendships (and many of them do involve similar interests) really lead to the persons gravitating toward commonness as a result of that bonding, and that both sides lose a little of their own personality to incorporate elements of the other’s; in short, that the friends are creating a shared personality, not deriving friendship from an existing shared personality. If this conjecture is true, then it will also explain the purpose of the subtle influences of friends, the reality that complete strangers or completely different people can still become friends, and why so many friends are so similar.

My second conjecture is the more significant. It shows that A and Z, people with different interests, preferences, and varying values, can indeed become friends, as in reality. All that it takes is a small bit of common ground, whether it’s as insignificant as physical contact (co-workers or classmates), or something personal such as a mutual friend, or something as significant as parallel academic achievement. (I have many personal examples of friendships that started off meeting only a few of these criteria.) As that common ground is discovered and expanded, these acquaintances could ‘click’, leading to further endearing relations, or could completely not ‘click’, resulting in a strictly impersonal relationship. Then, if it does ‘click’, then over time both A and Z will be more comfortable making their interests and values known. Given sufficient rapport, there is bound to be a considerable deal of ‘rubbing off’ on each other, and that is how we arrive at A and Z, no longer dissimilar but now matching.

My conclusion follows next on the next page.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a miraculous wonder in everyday life. Indeed, it is so common that most of us take it for granted, and fail to understand it. Friendship is normal, as I have shown, because it is in human nature to form such bonds. We all have a need for these relationships, and each and every one of us benefits from this sort of trusting bond.

I have argued — hopefully, successfully — that though friendship is common, close friendships are few. I have argued that friends are important in times of joy and in times of sorrow. I have argued that the influences of friends are a positive, not a negative effect (in contrast to previous writings), and I have also distinguished between friendships based on shared interests and shared interests formed out of friendships.

What can we see? I see place for improvement. We could all be friends… just not all close friends. ###

If you liked this article, you might like to subscribe using e-mail:

Anyhow… previously:

Additionally, some examples show that religious/ideological/theological values are often applied to other aspects of life:

• Use of time — I have rarely encountered a person devoted to their faith who does not spend considerable time developing or spreading their faith; however, if one’s values are much less religious in nature, and more ideological — for instance, if one is supports abortion on scientific grounds — it is nevertheless possible that one does not devote much of one’s time to promoting one’s cause

It should be irrefutable by now that these variables are demonstrated visibly in every person’s external behaviour. Now let’s analyze how these variables gain their values, and what impacts those variables.

Three Main Types of Influences

I believe that every person’s personality is developed with these three influences:

1. Environmental — the circumstances in which a person develops is a crucial influence on the shaping of one’s values and one’s personality.
2. Intrapersonal — one’s values are all interlinked, and strong values (like religion) can shape the development of other variables (like music preferences).
3. Interpersonal — it is evident that one’s close friends and family all play roles in the development of one’s character.

Let’s take the example of musical preference and see how these three types of influences affect one’s musical tastes:

• Environmental: suppose a child grows up in a Chinese ethnic enclave. The result is inevitably that the child becomes accustomed to various aspects of Chinese culture, including music. Now, suppose another child grows up in a higher-class family in a mostly Caucasian neighbourhood and goes to a school that is not racially diverse. This child is not likely to appreciate world music, or specifically appreciate Chinese music.
• Intrapersonal: many devout Christians listen to music with lyrics that reinforce and resonate with their beliefs. Those with substantial musical education are also more likely to develop a special appreciation for professional musicians; those that study classical music are also more likely to develop a classical taste.
• Interpersonal: teens that spend a significant amount of time together experience the curious phenomena of ‘bonding’, ‘persuasion’, and ‘conversion’. Bonding establishes the rapport that is needed for someone’s persuasion to be taken seriously, leading to the conversion. For instance, a teenager whose best friend is a fanatical listener of heavy metal may learn to accept, if not like (over time), similar genres.

What is immediately evident is that there must be a fine balance of these three types to lead to a certain result in the variable. It is impossible to predict which type takes precedence if two or three clash, but it is possible to ‘engineer’ (as it were) the influences to generate a certain desired variable. (One blog reader and commentator correctly predicted this.)

It is sometimes easier to generate certain variable values than others, and it is often easier to influence someone at an early age.

Let’s see what it would take for deeply devout, Christian parents to influence a child’s religious values:

• Environmental: require weekly church attendance, require frequent prayer, decorate house with religious ornaments, observe religious holidays, send to Catholic educational institutions, etc…
• Intrapersonal: [it is typically not possible to shape a person using their own values]
• Interpersonal: frequent regulation of activities, encourage friends of the same beliefs, and disapprove of friends who have opposing views

Indeed, if the above influences are present over a period of more than a decade, the result will be a young adult of similar religious values.

I will have you understand that it is not my intention to ever use these conjectures in real life; in other words, I would never think of consciously abusing trust and influence to shape another person. Actually, a ‘social’ experiment in the next little while will put these things to the test.

However, as I am being subject to shifting environmental and interpersonal influences, there is the possibility that I will be shaped by my peers.

• Why does having friends suck? and
• How do friends suck?

Let’s find the answers to these questions.

Why

As a person who has gone through a period in which all friends were ‘acquaintances’, when I rejected uncontrolled emotion and emotional relationships, I have experienced both the situation of distancing oneself from friends, and — in the recovery after that period — bonding emotionally. I have experienced first-hand, as many of you surely have, the joys of being alone and the joys of having friends. I have also experienced the downsides.

Having friends forces a person to socialize (this is a good thing), to help one another (good), to share information (sometimes good), to adapt, and to be influenced. It’s the adaptation and influence that worries me.

Simply put, adapting in order to integrate or ‘fit in’ and being subject to friends’ influences are actions that destroy individualism. It prevents a person from expressing one’s true identity, one’s true interests, and one’s true thoughts, for fear of insulting one’s friends or alienating oneself. It moulds a person into the person with the qualities that one’s friends desire, not with the qualities that naturally develop for that person. And all of this can happen without any malice or malintent or even conscious thinking.

Have you ever felt uncomfortable with your beliefs or views for no reason other than that they differ from those of your friends?

How

Friends often use pressure and subtle (or sometimes obvious) persuasion methods to shape who people are. (I should know; I have both delivered and been subject to such pressure.) Certainly they mean no harm, but this acts contrary to the ‘true’ friendship, which should not be based upon or depend upon shared values.

Allow me to use a vivid and real example. I am at heart not a fantasy genre fan, and am most definitely not — at this moment — a Harry Potter fan. Yet some of the people around me are. People who are fully intelligent and rational in every other way have an affinity for — no, a fanatical obsession with — Harry Potter. These people, whom I had previously thought to be good and ‘noble’ friends, attempted to pressure me to continue reading Harry Potter (which I had abandoned three years ago) and seem to wish to convert me into a Harry Potter fan.

My views of Harry Potter do not influence my analysis here. I have always accepted — and sometimes debated — peers who have different interests and beliefs, so long as they could justify their reasoning. In the present matter, I offered that I would be more than willing to read further Harry Potter fiction if they could explain why they like the series. I expected logical arguments, or at worst, rationalizations. Instead, these sane, intelligent (very much so, I might add), and rational people could say no more than

Everybody likes it, so it must be good.

Not only is this jumping on the bandwagon — mob psychology, as it were — it shows a fanatical and unreasonable dedication to a cause to which they would convert me.

What is evident here is that a group of friends is consciously attempting to shape a person (me). I argue that abusing trust to spread one’s beliefs and teaming up to add pressure are not logical or moral courses of action. I would argue the same whether someone was preaching evangelism to me or altering my musical tastes.

I am at fault, too, for I have also attempted to influence the views of others. In recognizing this faulty purpose, however, I should also note that I typically use factual, moral, and/or logical arguments to support my views, hoping that others will see things in a similar way. I can justify my previous rejection of modern music, and I can justify being atheist (and I’d be proud to debate either). I do not jump on the bandwagon.

Or is that my fault… that I do not conform?

Anatomy of a Secret

Secrets are pieces of information known only to an elite — that is, confined to the knowledge of a (usually small) group. A secret is divulged willingly when the following conditions are met:

• Person A trusts person B to exercise “good judgement” in the application of the information
• A trusts B to keep the secret “secret”, known only to a small group
• A is the source of the secret OR A is not under obligation to keep it entirely secret to the existing elite

Additionally, secrets are willingly divulged with the following restrictions:

• B will not reveal the information to anyone unless A approves
• B will not harm or attempt to harm A directly or indirectly

(On a side note, it is entirely illogical and unreasonable for B to impose restrictions on A with regards to the secret, since the propagation of the secret will not harm B, who is not the source of the secret.)

At first glance, secrets appear to be good because they require trust (already proven to be a good concept) and establish a purpose-driven relationship. However, the reality is that secrets are built on the basis of a lack of trust.

By definition, secrets are known only to a small group, of which the members are ‘trustworthy’ according to the judgement of the source. This implies:

• The knowledge is NOT known to a much larger group

The primary reason that secrets are kept is that the information could be misused in some way to harm the source of the secret. This implies that those who know will NOT misuse the information, having gained trust. This also implies that those who are denied knowledge could misuse the information — this suspicion is termed ‘mistrust’.

‘Mistrust’ is the belief that those who may be trustworthy have an ulterior motive or intend malice. The application of this hostility takes place in the divulging of secrets.

Much more insight follows the jump.

Inclusive Secrets

The term ‘inclusive’ here refers to the secret ONLY being known to the persons who are ‘included’ in the elite. The selection of the elite thus follows a policy of inclusion: ONLY allowing — for instance, B and C — to know the details, because B and C meet the criteria and can accept the restrictions; in short, because A trusts B and C.

The problem here is that inclusion of a small group means exclusion of a much larger group, and those who are not included are not included because they are implicitly untrusted. This demonstrates hostility.

Exclusive Secrets

However, I would argue that secrets — sometimes necessary but often eliminable — are best kept in the ‘exclusive’ manner. The term ‘exclusion’ is often used in reference to bad behaviour, but you will shortly see that a policy of exclusion is preferable to inclusion.

Exclusion depends on keeping a group outside the loop. (Therefore, the secret is no longer known to an elite but to all BUT an elite; in many senses, we are escaping the sense of a ‘secret’.) It depends on a preestablished trust of ALL humans and the optimistic initial premise that no one intends malice. If there is evidence to support the belief that persons X, Y and Z would not use sound judgement in applying the information, then there must be the explicit understanding among A–W that X, Y and Z cannot be trusted for those reasons. As long as A–W do not share anything with the untrusted X–Z, then no harm will come to A.

Why does this work? It works because it is actually based on trust as a precondition; in other words, it establishes a good relationship with B–Z until that trust is broken. It appeals to the moral centres in all humans to never abuse trust. Furthermore, it establishes the willingness to not abuse the information because any misuse will lead to the realization of the disincentive — future exclusion.

Should Secrets Exist?

My arguments for exclusionary practices may indeed be interpreted as arguments against secrets altogether. I argue that all persons are inherently good, and that the practice of trusting everyone encourages appropriate behaviour.

Unfortunately, my arguments depend on the unspoken presumptions that:

• All persons follow rational courses of action
• Mutual trust is valued by the majority

(Fortunately, these presumptions may be proven to be ALWAYS correct, although in a document far more complex than this one.)

To better understand whether or not secrets should exist, we must ask and answer the question: what does someone have to gain from misusing the information? Well, the answer is quite simply a strange form of amusement. Interestingly, causing harm (through misuse of information) for the purpose of amusement is clearly not a moral or rational action, therefore those who are irrational do not satisfy the presumptions above; perhaps this indicates to us that our initial blanket trust should extend to all rational beings. In such a case, things do work out.

Conclusion

It must always be true that no one knows everything about another person. So, in a sense, there will always be secrets. However, it is not necessary to limit knowledge to a small group for the purpose of self-protection; rather, exclusive practices will reduce mistrust and distrust among the members of a community and should theoretically boost trust, improve relationships, and reduce harm.

If you liked this post, you may wish to subscribe by e-mail:

This is supposed to be a private journal entry for a small audience, but since it doesn’t contain too many personal details, I suppose it can be declassified.

Variables in Personality

I suppose it should seem obvious that everyone changes. Every person does change over time, influenced by many factors in their environment, the people with which they frequently interact, the shifts in society, and undoubtedly countless other factors.

For the sake of argument (or, rather, for the sake of this journal), let’s call each personality trait, or characteristic, a variable in personality. For instance, we could then label “music preferences”, “religious/ideological views”, and “political views” as three of the many variables in personality. (Actually, let the term variable take the place of variable in personality, just for the ease of typing this.)

Once we see that these things are indeed variable — in the true sense of the word — we can then understand how one’s behaviour depends on those variables. Perhaps we can even analyze the things upon which those variables depend…

Variables’ Effects

Let’s take the three examples above, of music preferences, religious/ideological/theological views, and political views as the three variables in the personality of person A.

The first observation may be that the second variable, religious/ideological/theological views, can influence both of the other variables. Since this ties into what affects variables, I’ll leave this for the next section.

All right. Music preferences are sure to influence these things in one’s behaviour:

• Use of time — those who are dedicated to their music are likely to listen to it in multiple occasions (while working, in spare time, etc), and;
• Use of money — many who are loyal to certain artists or groups end up purchasing multiple works from those artists or groups.

Additionally, some generalizations (with exceptions) may show that musical preferences also influence:

• Physical appearance & fashion — in some cases, not all, and not most, musical preferences can lead to adaptations in fashion, such as with die-hard fanatics of certain sub-cultures. In other cases, physical appearance & fashion may reflect the same cause as one’s choice of music, such as in the case of “refined” or “cultured” individuals.
• Thoughts and ideas — once again, this intrudes into the next section about “what influences the variables?”, but it is nevertheless often true that the ideas from a musical piece — such as hip hop, or rap if you consider that to be music — permeate into one’s psyche over time; prolonged exposure to such ideas has a definite impact, unless the person is totally incapable of comprehending the lyrics (if they were in a different language);
• Actions — in some cases, musical preferences will influence physical actions. For instance, a person who deeply appreciates the saxophone from an early age may grow up to play the instrument. Likewise, a person who deeply appreciates dance music is likely to devote some attention to “dance”. In other cases, it is possible that lyrics of an angry nature can provoke: a) a similar emotion in the listener, or possibly; b) an emotion of the positive nature, where the angry lyrics are a vent for pent-up emotions.

When something as seemingly insignificant as music preferences can influence so many aspects of a person’s life, just imagine what religion does.

Religious/ideological/theological values are sure to influence:

• Thoughts and ideas — actually, this is a bit of a misleading effect, since those values are thoughts and ideas. In any case, one’s other thoughts and ideas are sure to derive some logic from their beliefs;
• Actions — if one’s values include non-aggression, surely one’s actions will be controlled by those thoughts; if one’s values consist of the propagation of their values, it is likewise likely that one will attempt to convince others of their beliefs; if one is a devout evangelical Christian, it is very likely that they will lead lives as dictated by the Bible (or those who interpret it)

Additionally, some examples show that religious/ideological/theological values are often applied to other aspects of life:

• Use of time — I have rarely encountered a person devoted to their faith who does not spend considerable time developing or spreading their faith; however, if one’s values are much less religious in nature, and more ideological — for instance, if one is supports abortion on scientific grounds — it is nevertheless possible that one does not devote much of one’s time to promoting one’s cause

EDIT: Visit the Part II article to read more.