Statcounter

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

6 Simple Truths That Will Actually Make You a Better Person

For the most part, I love Cracked.com.  It's a funny, pseudo-informative timewaster that makes my lunch break at work awesome and therefore the rest of my day more awesome.  But occasionally, they post an article by some self-important doucheking who thinks he's discovered the secret of the universe that just makes me wonder how someone can have their head that far up their own ass and not suffocate.

Recently, I rediscovered one of these self-indulgent tubesocks by one David Wong (a repeat offender of a doucheking) called 6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person.  Presumably because "6 Pieces of Terrible Misguided Philosophy That Will Make Assholes Like David Wong Think You're a Better Person" and "I Missed the Entire Point of That Movie I Keep Praising" were too long.

The whole steaming pile of Ayn Rand-inspired nonsense reads like the manifesto of a Reformed Nice Guy who decided that rather than complain about the assholes who get all the hot women and good jobs, he'll just become the asshole he thinks pretty girls date and rich men hire.  That's only "self-improvement" if being a rich sociopath with no real friends and a trophy wife is your ultimate goal in life (and really, what else do you expect from a pasty white dude who pretends to be Chinese-American on the internet?).

If that's not your goal, then every point he makes in that article is shitty advice that's going to leave you even more friendless and miserable with a bunch of meaningless "successes" that will not give you even a stitch of satisfaction in your life.

Instead, here is some actual advice on how to be a better person in the truest sense of the term:

1. Human Nature Is Selfish, But You Can Be Better Than That

We have all heard at some point the adage that "kindness is its own reward."  When we're kids, teenagers, and self-righteous Nice Guys, we tend to interpret that statement as "kindness is its own reward because people will reward you when you're kind."  This mentality is what separates children from adults, and Nice Guys from the women they want to fuck.

Because it misses the entire point.  "Kindness is its own reward" doesn't mean that you will be rewarded for being nice.  At least not by other people.  The true reward for kindness is the feeling you get when something you've done has made another person happy.

There was a doctor in my city who died a few years ago, but while he was alive, every Christmas he transformed the front lawn of his house into a literal winter wonderland of animatronics, fake snow (because Florida), and literally thousands of Christmas lights.  He spent what had to be thousands of dollars and man-hours putting it together.  It was a real treat as a kid to drive past it and try to figure out what he added every year.

He did this for no other reason than to create something beautiful for the neighborhood.  He never expected a thank you.  He never charged admission to make back the cost of putting on the display.  The most he did was stand out there and watch the reactions of people.  The only money he ever asked for was donations from the passersby to the American Heart Association.

On the flip side, in Wong's article, he mentions the "speech that changed his life" as coming from Alec Baldwin's character in Glengarry Glen Ross.  A speech that he keeps referring to throughout the piece by repeating that one line from it: "If you want to work here, close."

Like "kindness is its own reward," Wong also misses the entire point of the film, and why the play won the Pulitzer and Tony Awards.  Glengarry Glen Ross was written in 1984, at the height of the Reaganomics-driven corporate cutthroat economy.  Mamet, when he wrote it, intended it to expose the inherent cruelty of such a system on the people it employs.  Much the same way Wall Street did.

Like Gordon Gekko, Alec Baldwin's character is not the guy you're supposed to emulate or even like.  His infamous speech that "motivators" like Wong keep quoting was meant to showcase the sociopathic nature of corporate philosophy, and the actions of the real estate agents -- everything from lying to bribery -- was meant to illustrate exactly what kind of shit happens when money, success, and power become more important than basic human decency.  And that desperate people can be driven to do terrible things when their livelihoods are at stake, and those in power see them only as "assets," no different from the fax machine or a box of paper clips.

When you use people as tools, when you only do good things for them with the expectation that they will reward you with the very same deeds later, you are not "improving" yourself in any sense.  Because, like Williamson in the play, the people you're using will figure out how much of an asshole you are, and they will not want to work there.

People don't want to merely "close."  That is, work and take home a paycheck.  They want to do what they love doing already and get paid for it.  One of the biggest reasons customers stop dealing with a company is "perceived indifference."  That is, the customer's perception that the company sees them only as a source of revenue and doesn't care about their needs.  The same largely holds true for employees.  The biggest reason employees leave a company is much the same; they feel their employer doesn't care about their needs as a worker, and sees them only as a warm body in the cubicle.

This doesn't just apply to the workplace, either.  If you wouldn't want to be friends with a guy who sees you as nothing but a source of beer money and bad jokes, then don't be the guy who is friends with other people solely for their beer money and bad jokes.

If you want to be a better person, the truth is surprisingly simple: treat kindness as its own reward.  Make other people happy whenever you can.

Why?  Because.

2. You Can't Fake Empathy, So Don't Try

It's butt o'clock in the morning.  You have to be awake in two hours to get ready for work.  Your cellphone blares to life.  The display says the name of one of your good-but-not-really-close friends.  This friend never calls you at this hour, so you know it's gotta be important.  But you're also half asleep and you really want to finish those last two hours before your alarm goes off doing literally anything but comforting someone else.

But you pick up the phone anyway, because friend.

Stop.  For godsakes, stop.

Do not pick up the phone.  Do not answer that call.  You will be doing nobody any favors.  Not your friend.  Not yourself.

The reason is because what you're about to do is the same thing every customer service agent is trained to do: use fake empathy.  Your friend could have called customer care for their cellphone company and gotten the same quality of emotional support you're about to provide.

You cannot fake empathy.  Customers can usually tell when you don't really give a shit about their problems.  Friends, no matter how not-close, are even better at picking that up.  Do not answer the phone for anybody before dawn unless you really care what they're about to say.

In the same vein, never ask your friends "how are you?" or "how was your day?" if you're not prepared to hear something other than a reflexive "I'm fine, thanks."  It will make shit awkward in a hurry when it becomes clear that you don't actually care about their answer; you just suck at social interaction and are parroting what you see everyone else do.

Only offer to be a shoulder to cry on if you like getting snot on your shirt collar.  Doing otherwise does nothing but undermine people's trust in you (because they know you're bullshitting), and make the person who asked you for help in the first place feel guilty for doing so.

Stop pretending to care.  Only say you care and you want to listen if you actually do.  Be honest about yourself and your feelings.

3. Assholes Are Made, Not Born

In Wong's article, he called Blake's speech in Glengarry Glen Ross the "greatest scene in the history of movies."  As evidence of this, he cites that Baldwin was nominated for an Oscar for that role, and it's the only scene he's in.  This is patently false, by the way; Al Pacino was actually nominated for the award from that film.  But this is Cracked.  Not exactly known for journalistic integrity, and nobody ever said a New York Times bestselling author had to be factually accurate (just look at Dan Brown).

But let's indulge David Wong's delusion for a moment and pretend he's right.  By similar logic, Anthony Hopkins was only on screen for 16 minutes in The Silence of the Lambs and he actually won Best Actor for it.  That doesn't mean Hannibal Lecter belongs on a motivational poster.  This is why when choosing fictional role models, you need to show a little more discretion than who won an Academy Award (and, you know, not make shit up).

If I had to pick that one scene in media that changed my life, it would without a doubt be the scene in Les Misérables when the Bishop of Digne tells the police that he gave Valjean the silverware (which Valjean stole from him) to spare him a trip back to prison, and throws in two very expensive candlesticks because why the fuck not:



I'm only using the 2012 movie version because the internet wasn't a thing yet when I saw the musical back in 1991.  Like Alec Baldwin's character, the Bishop is in exactly one scene.  Like Alec Baldwin's character, he motivates Valjean to become the hero of the story.  Unlike Alec Baldwin's character, he does it through compassion, kindness, and mercy rather than verbal abuse.

Here is a man of the Church who gave some stranger off the street a warm bed to sleep in and food and wine, and his hospitality gets repaid by the stranger then robbing his ass blind.  He could have easily sought -- and would have been well within his right -- to teach Valjean a lesson and turn him in and get his silver back.  After all, "thou shalt not steal" is totally one of the Commandments, right?  But he doesn't.  The Bishop instead lies to the police (also against the Commandment about not bearing false witness), and then makes good on it by actually giving him the silver and candlesticks.  And the only thing the Bishop asks in return is for Valjean to use the money to turn his life around.

To little ten-year-old me sitting in that theatre watching, that was the most powerful thing I had ever seen in fiction, before or since.

Because what the Bishop knew is that people are not born assholes.  They are made into assholes by the fucked up shit they have to learn in order to survive.  And by not learning good and healthy ways of dealing with the world.

Having grown up in 19th century France, Valjean would have learned early that when you're broke, sometimes stealing is a necessity.  That's what he went to jail for in the first place: stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving child.  All the law had taught him was that no good deed goes unpunished, which was why he kept trying to escape and why years kept getting added onto his sentence.  Then when he was finally paroled, his status as an ex-con made him such a social outcast that the Bishop was literally the first person in the film to not treat him like a goddamned leper.  So it was small wonder that his first instinct was to take advantage and grab what he could.

But again, the Bishop realized this.  Which was why he did what he did, figuring that a little compassion and empathy would go a lot farther than another turn on the chain gang.

And guess what?  He was right.

Because just as assholes are made, so can they be unmade.

And no, this doesn't only happen in fiction.  In October of 2013, a similar thing happened to a real person.  Policewoman gets called to a grocery store because of a woman shoplifting.  After questioning, the woman reveals she was shoplifting because she had no food for her children.  Because the amount is so little -- under $300 -- the cop can choose whether to arrest her or not.  Rather than have her taken into custody, the cop instead buys her a week's worth of food and helps her get it back to her house, and only elects to issue her a court summons and a misdemeanor charge (which won't hinder her getting employment).  And the only thing she asks is for the woman to help someone else out.

And then there's this one from 2008.  Kid tries to rob you at knifepoint?  Give him your wallet.  Then offer your coat.  Then offer to get him dinner and talk to him.  Find out that he's really not a bad kid; he just never learned how to be a good one.  You get your wallet back.  Ask for nothing but his knife in return so that he can't hurt someone else with it.  He gives it to you, and you hand him $20.  While you may not ever see him again so you don't know if he took it to heart like Valjean, you've certainly done more to set him on the right path than prison ever would have.

So the lesson here?  Use your discretion, of course, but do nice shit for people whenever you can.  Because if assholes learned how to be assholes by watching assholes, they can also learn how to be good people by watching good people.  Be the good person for them to watch.

4. Love Is Not a Checklist

Ever wonder why movie stars spend such ridiculous sums of money on clothes?  Like if they make more cash than your annual salary in the minute it takes you to use the bathroom in the morning, why are they going to blow it all on obscenely expensive clothes?  I mean, they're spending $5,000 on a dress when they could literally get 250 dresses at Target for the same price.

The reason they spend that kind of money on clothes is because yo, when was the last time you went clothes-shopping at Target? How long did it take you to find an outfit that didn't cling to everything you wanted to hide about yourself?

The reason they spend that kind of money on clothes is the same reason tailoring is a specialized art that takes years to learn while the clothes on the rack at Target and K-Mart are made by machines.  Mass-produced clothes may fit, but they won't fit well.  If you want clothes specifically to make your very unique body look as good as possible?  You need someone to design them for you and no one else.

Dating advice is like the dress rack at Wal-Mart: it tries to fit everybody at once by treating them all the same, and in the process just makes everybody look and feel terrible.  And the sizes always lie.

Further on in the article, Wong tries to tie his Alec Baldwin nonsense to dating.  While he does raise one good point -- if "nice" is the only way you can describe yourself, that's why you're single -- he misses the boat entirely with this little piece of fool's gold:

"So, what, you're saying that I should pick up a book on how to get girls?"
Only if step one in the book is "Start making yourself into the type of person girls want to be around."
Because that's the step that gets skipped -- it's always "How can I get a job?" and not "How can I become the type of person employers want?"  It's "How can I get pretty girls to like me?" instead of "How can I become the type of person that pretty girls like?"

Yeah, let me put this to rest right now.  The reason all the dating advice you have ever heard and ever will hear on How To Get the Girl/Guy is bullshit is because it's all making one fatal assumption: that there is a universal "type" that pretty girls/hot guys want.

There is good news and bad news here, so I'll go with the bad news first: there is absolutely nothing you can do to make yourself attractive to the person you like.  You can be the funniest, sweetest, most interesting person they have ever met.  But if there is no spark there, there will be no relationship.  And that spark is completely up to chance.  You can't create it out of nowhere.  It's either there or it isn't.

The most you can do is eliminate things about yourself which are pretty universally unattractive.  Nobody wants to date someone who doesn't bathe and can't hold a conversation without groping them.  But "giving up your favorite hobbies" will not make you a catch.  The sexist assumption that pretty girls don't have "guy hobbies" and hot guys don't have "girl hobbies" is a rant for another day.  And even if it did, there is no partner on earth worth giving up everything that makes you happy.  In fact?  Asking you to give up your hobbies and favorite activities is an indicator of domestic abuse.

The good news is that your chances of finding a mate increase exponentially when you figure out what exactly you want in one.  Because then you can start going to places where you're more likely to meet that person. You want someone who plays video games?  Awesome.  Keep hanging out at GameStop or your local indie shop.  If you're a straight male, take extra care to not be a sexist douchecanoe to the women you're trying to talk to.  Strike up conversation and talk about video games.  You want someone you can watch the Lord of the Rings extended editions with or marathon Attack on Titan?  You should know or be able to figure out exactly where to look for them.

Of course, common interests are just the start.  To truly figure out what you want in a mate, you need some alone time to figure out who you are first, and what you need.  And no, you don't even have to stop playing Call of Duty to do that.  We all have emotional baggage regardless of gender, and when you're single is the perfect time to start sorting that shit out.  Because as previously mentioned, unless you've lived in a real-life mock-up of Pleasantville all your life, you've probably had to learn some messed up lessons of your own to make it through your life so far, and retraining yourself to deal with the world in a healthy manner will go a long way to making you a happier, more desirable person.

There is no secret to being attractive, and that is the secret that nobody wants to tell you because they don't want to admit it themselves.  But if there is one proactive thing you can do, it's this: stop looking.

You may have heard it before, but probably never heard why.  The reason why is that when you're looking for a mate, your brain automatically starts playing a game of Bang or Pass with everyone of your preferred gender(s), and it uses a really shitty sorting algorithm of first impressions and current mood.  When you're pissed off about shit, your brain will be the pettiest little pet and pick out every single flaw it sees in the person.  Purely because you're annoyed at something completely unrelated.  Likewise, when you're stoked about the new comic book movie coming out next week, your brain will overstate everyone's desirability and see a potential dinner-and-said-comic-book-movie lurking at every corner.  Purely because you're excited about something unrelated.

Basically, you start to view people through the filter of "potential mate," and you will end up getting tunnel vision in the same way you shop for clothes and exclude everything that isn't in your size.

And like the dress rack at Wal-Mart, you may be missing something that would be perfect for you just because the number wasn't what usually fit you, or walking away with something that makes you look and feel terrible because it was the best of your narrowed choices, but not what you really wanted.

5. "Kill 'Em With Kindness" Really Does Work

You remember hearing this advice in dealing with bullies, right?  And you remember as a kid thinking it was such utter bullshit because the only thing your bully understood was a good kick in the glove box?  Yeah, me too.  But while this is really awful advice when you're a kid, when you're an adult, things are different.  And applying the honey is far more effective than reaching for the meat cleaver.

Except for the truly sociopathic among us, most people will feel at least some sense of shame when someone they've been a real shit to responds with courtesy and respect.  This is something everyone who has ever worked customer service figures out quickly enough.  You let them rage at you, you apologize for the mistake, you explain the situation, and you tell them very clearly how you're going to fix it.  And you apologize again and you thank them for bringing the matter to your attention.  I cannot tell you how many times I've had a complete stranger go from cursing me out to sheepishly apologizing for doing so.

Why?  Because people are socialized to respond to emotions the way homeopathy tries to treat whooping cough.  Anger is met with anger.  Sadness is met with sadness.  Joy is met with joy.  Except emotions aren't caused by bacteria, so homeopathic principles work pretty well on it.  Basically, the easiest way to de-escalate a situation is to calm your own tits first.

I feel the need to make this point because the original article is so cartoonishly over-the-top buttmad that there are people out there annoyed at this cynical notion that you have to have some kind of use in the world in order to be considered worthy of the oxygen you're taking in.  This is evident in the very first comparison Wong makes: the world is somebody whose loved one is dying of a gunshot wound, and you are the unfortunate person wandering around with a screwdriver.

It's ridiculous because there is only one circumstance in the world that is that dire, and that is "somebody actually bleeding to death from a gunshot wound."  People may need things, but for the most part, nobody is going to die if you personally can't perform trauma surgery.  Needs can be prioritized.  So it does everybody a world of good to realize that even if you are wandering around an accident scene with naught but a screwdriver, that doesn't make you completely useless and unworthy of being cared about.  All it means is that you lack the skillset or the tools to help this specific person (that's what we have 9-1-1 for).  Eventually that screwdriver will be useful.  Just not right now.

And that's really the entire problem with the worldview in Wong's article.  Besides this absolutely cruel, borderline eugenics idea that you are only as worthy as you are useful -- don't even get me started on how this comes from a place of able-bodied and able-minded privilege -- it also fights self improvement because...

6. The World Is Only As Terrible Or Wonderful a Place As You Make It

This is the Holy Grail of all self-help advice.  Right here.  Because it says everything you will ever need to remember for the rest of your life.  How you see the world affects literally everything you do in it.  The mountain spring from which all unmotivated apathy flows is the cynicism that the world is a shitty place, so it's not worth being a good person.  It's the basis for every Crapsack World and Bad Future in every story ever.  You play the game or die in the gutter because life is cheap and no one gives a shit.

First, if you haven't seen the final episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion, you really need to.  Go watch it.  Now. There will be a quiz later.

See, the assumption that the world is a shitty place and that all people are selfish and use you for however you benefit them by default is Wong's first mistake, and it's what leads to all the others.  If you believe that nobody cares about you as a person and only about what you can do for them, then it's natural that you will feel unmotivated if you don't think you have anything to offer.

David Wong's solution is to come up with literally anything to offer the world in exchange for a job and a girlfriend.  But the reality is that if everyone is that much of an asshole, then what exactly is the point of meeting their needs when they don't care about you?

That should be the first crack in the mirror.  Your first clue that maybe Wong's advice isn't really about self-improvement at all, and more about airing his own insecurities by tearing down other people (kinda like Asuka).

Because if the world is full of such terrible, uncaring people, then how exactly is "improvement" even defined?  By being that one turd in the bowl that refuses to flush?

Yeah, I realize that episode of Evangelion is a mindscrew on acid.  But once you're done cleaning your brain off the wall, the most important point it makes is this: when you only see people as useful skillsets and erase all other value that they have, you make the world that much shittier a place for yourself and others.

Because skillsets are not forever.  You can lose them.  They can become obsolete.  And if your entire identity and self-worth is based upon That Thing You Do -- which is what Wong's article advocates -- then your identity will crumble the minute That Thing You Do is no longer relevant or you stop being able/willing to do it.

Because see, you don't hate yourself because "you don't do anything."  You hate yourself because you see people as inherently selfish and horrible and "people" includes "you."  If you start with changing your thinking in that regard, everything else falls into place, for one very simple reason: your view of the world is really your view of yourself projected onto everyone else.

You are not truly capable of being a good person if you don't think people can be good in the first place.  You hate yourself because you assume everyone else does because you don't do anything useful.  In reality, it's the reverse: you think people who don't do anything useful are worthless, so you assume others do as well because you can only see the world from the one vantage point you choose.

The biggest motivator you will ever have is changing your vantage point.  Seeing things from another angle.  Flipping the chessboard.

The ultimate secret to being a better person is believing that the world is worth improving because there are good people in it.  As long as you believe that, there is no force on earth that can stop you from being the best you can possibly be.

If you want to work here?  Don't close the sale.

Open the fucking door.

Monday, August 4, 2014

Why "Mary Sue" is Not Literary Criticism

So, we have a character.

She is considered the greatest spy in the department.  Has whatever gadget she needs to get out of the death trap of the day.  Causes millions of dollars worth of collateral damage but never has to pay any of it back or worry about losing her job as a result.  Manages to bed every attractive member of the opposite sex she comes across, and even gets a few of them to defect after falling in love with her.  Can handle any firearm with instant expertise, and can operate any vehicle she happens to find herself in well enough to avoid getting her butt shot off.  Oh yes, and she's still considered the world's greatest secret agent despite not being able to go five minutes without being identified (and subsequently setting off a chase and explosions).  Has fiercely loyal companions no matter how much of an egotist she is.  Has a trail of men willing to die for her despite knowing they're little more than a notch in her headboard.

Sound like the worst Mary Sue ever written?  Who the hell could sell a story that bad?  Who the hell could read something that bad without going all MST3K on it?

...Guess what, guys?

I just described James Bond.  Only, you know, if he was female.

This is why "Mary Sue" is at best a useless critical catchphrase, and at worst a symptom of the misogyny inherent in our culture.

There is no denying that there are badly-written wish fulfillment characters out there, and one trip through the first two pages of Fanfiction.net in virtually any category will turn up pleny of them.  But here's the thing: if you are legit criticizing the writing, a badly-written wish fulfillment character being female and fan-created should not make the writing so much worse so as to deserve its own gendered insult.  Especially when we have just as many cheesy wish fulfillment characters in published fiction who are lauded and loved while doing everything the Mary Sue is demonized for.  They just happen to be male.

When you throw around the term Mary Sue as a pejorative, what you're effectively saying is that women's wish fulfillment is inferior solely because it comes from women.  Especially when male characters who are obviously the same kind of wish fulfillment power fantasy -- Superman, Conan the Barbarian, James T. Kirk, Tommy Vercetti, Simon Templar, and yes, James Bond, just to name a few -- are given not just a free pass, but national and/or worldwide acclaim for being such flawless badasses.

This begs the question of why the vast majority of bad original fanfiction characters are female, while the vast majority of just-as-bad published characters happen to be male.  And there's a very simple answer, there.

The fiction market, from books to video games, is driven primarily by men.  Most writers in the industry are male, and they cater to male audiences.  They are men writing stuff for other men.  And not even all men at that.  They write for a specific subset of men: straight, white, insecure, and with disposable income.

And thus, they either ignore the interests of women and girls wholesale, or superficially pay lipservice to them.  So as women, we go on and do what we do best: tell them 'screw you' and we write the stuff we want to see.  That's really what fanfiction is.  It's women filling in the blanks of published media for other women.

This is why men have no need for fanfiction at best, and find it silly, stupid, weird, and even threatening at worst.  Because women exercising agency and doing things entirely for ourselves and making our wants public without caring what men think has always been the subject of ridicule.  But that's another rant entirely.

So with most fanfic writers being girls, it's only natural that most characters created by those fanfic writers are also going to be girls.  Girls who get to do all the cool shit they see boys do in media.  Girls who get to be flawless badasses and steal the show the way the boys do.  Girls, like the boys they watch, whom everyone wants to do or be, and the only people who hate them are just jealous.

And they're doing it for free.

So if you want to keep feeding the patriarchal system and dismissing women's wish fulfillment fantasies as Mary Sue drivel?  Fine.  Just remember that your fantasies are just as shallow, just as stupid, just as ridiculous, and just as badly written.

But unlike Mary Sue? You're paying money for them.