Our insufficient abilities

Feeling short on ideas, I decided to ask my friend for an inspiration of what I should write about. He merely replied, "I don't know, I'm bad at these things." Whether he meant coming up with ideas for others or things to write about, I do not know. However, his response made me think: Why is it we hear people say that they're not good at something so often?

One possibility is that they do not wish to take part in the matter at hand and come up with a quick explanation of their inadequacy relating to the matter, effectively making the other person dismiss him. I find myself unwilling to believe this, since it would effectively mean that the person is understating his abilities just to get away from something that is probably highly meaningless to him anyways. Perhaps if the person has a low self-esteem or doesn't really care what the other person thinks about him, presenting one's abilities in this way would be understandable. Still, that's only a minor part of people.

The second, most obvious reason would be that the person simply isn't good with whatever it is you asked him. But is that a reason to refrain from trying? Normally, no. While it is perfectly understandable for a person to work his way out of a situation where actual losses are possible by stating his limited ability as something could be permanently damaged, this is rarely the the case. Oftentimes the only loss anyone could suffer is the person's self-esteem as the response he'd give would not satisfy the questioner, and even in these cases any actual loss is highly questionable, as by escaping a matter by saying "I'm not that good with it." would just lead to the same loss. Is the false protection of one's self-esteem truly a reason enough not to take the chance of producing something that'd be useful? For me, it's a reason but not a good one.

This submissive way of performing tells to us that people are so instinctively afraid of failure that when presented with a low-gain situation where they think they can lose something, they refuse to take part it. One can easily see where this approach leads when applied to other decision-maked processes, and through that see the how it's inherently flawed. Next time you face a similar situation, think "What can I really lose by trying?" In most cases it's nothing, so go ahead and give what you can even though you may not think it's sufficient.

Our lives in their hands

When is the last time you trusted someone with something that is truly important to you? Wether it is information or an object you value, I am sure you put a great deal of throught into the matter. Trusting someone with something important is like taking a part of your life, loaning it away, and hoping it returns in one piece. If it does, we oftentimes get something additional in return in form of an important insight or comforting words. If, however, your trust is misplaced, the consequences may be dire.

Trust is, in a way, a gamble. What's so special about it, however, is that the value of bets is not universal, but it alters between players. Take, for example, a teenage girl who is infatuated with some boy and decides to take a chance and tell him how she feels. Or in other words, trust him with personal information she holds in value. Now, depending on the boy's preposition towards the girl, he can view the girl's advances in low or high value and respond by giving back something he considers to be of an equal value. If the boy likes the girl, he could suggest a date, returning the girl's trust with his time and intimacy. On the other hand, if the boy despises the girl, and thereby holds the trust she placed on him in a lower value, he could ridicule her for her feelings or look for personal gain.

This is why people build their trust on anothers, instead of trusting them right away. Because people and their values and prepositions towards eachothers are different, at first it is better to trust others with things you don't hold in a great value and thereby don't fear losing so greatly. If the person responds with near-equal trust, you can feel more comfortable to trust him with something greater the next time. As this cycle continues, the level of trust will set in an equilibrium where both subjects feel they don't want to share more valued things with eachothers.

The system also has an interesting flaw in the existence of a possibility for a scenario where a person trusts another with something that he holds in a low value and the another in a high value. This will create a massive bias that has the potential to be extremely uncomfortable for the first person and extremely confusing for the another, and even prevent further interaction between these two persons, preventing the correction of their trust-levels.

On an unrelated note, if there is some matter that you would like to have me think about, feel free to suggest it in the comment section of this post. If I find it interesting, there's a good chance I'll write about it.

The vibrations within our heads

A man can derive his pleasure from a multitude of subjects. Each of these may be very important to the person in question, even though someone else can't see any sense with his fondness of whatever he finds pleasing. One could say this lack of global fondness of similar things is a fundamental flaw in all human interactions.

Take music for an example. Even though the physical structure of our ear canals is, neglible differences and major deformities aside, almost exactly the same, we perceive music in different ways. I can say for sure that amongst you readers there isn't a single person whose taste for soundwaves would be equal to that of an another. For this we can thank the most beloved mystery of science, the inner workings of our brain.

In fact it is our brain, or more precisely our ability to think, that is responsible for all the major problems that we now perceive. If you compare the workings of a human civilization to that of an insect colony, this difference can be capitalized. In the insect colony, each member has an assigned function to which they suit the best. In human civilization however, though striving to perfect it's efficiency, nothing really fits in it's place as it should. This is the byproduct of our mental independence - the final independence we're allowed to have.

So when people want you to become more efficient, to perform mindlessly like an insect following the will of the hive, keep in mind that in the end you're an individual thinker, one that can't ever be fully submerged into an external system. Learn to question the will of the hive, for through that you can find true meanings in your life. True freedom cannot exist without freedom of thought.