Whatever It Takes

                                                                                      

I was thinking of reinventing myself until I realized that I hadn't invented myself in the first place. Like the rest of us, I was a product of (to use the jargon) nature and nurture. My parents and my environment had produced me, and it was some kind of natural process rather than invention.

But that doesn't mean that things are unchangeable. It may be true that you don't have a second chance to make a first impression, but someone who is fixated on his first impression of you, and is unable to see changes, isn't worth worrying about. Everyone wants to change – or at least to appear to have changed.ⁱ To be better. In fact, though it's not always possible, we want to be better than everyone else. Whether it's politics, the Olympics, academics, salary, appearance, romance, or even the price we paid for a new car, we don't want to keep up with the Joneses, we want them to tryⁱⁱ to keep up with us. We want to improve our value to ourselves and to the market

We live in a competitive world because we are competitive. So we want to be the best.ⁱⁱⁱ And it's not just testosterone. We're all pretending to be what we're not – to raise our self-esteem and present to the world a person who is worth knowing and envying. Some^iv may view our ploys as “cheating” or “lying,” but they've become such basic parts of our lives and our society that it's not all that clear that there's anything wrong with them. ^v

What brought this all to mind was Milli Vanilli. Last week I published an essay which included an idea of my son's, and I asked his permission to use his name.^vi He granted it, but a long time earlier I had mentioned Milli Vanilli without citing him even though his Master's thesis dealt with this duo, so he wanted me to include it. It didn't fit with last week's essay but it suggested another subject: self-“improvement.”

In the case of MV, at least until their fall, the improvement was obtained by “lip-syncing” someone else's music. They were taking credit for the work of others. That's not really a unique occurrence in our society, however.^vii Movie dubbing is a very common procedure in musicals, since the star often does not have a satisfactory singing voice.^viii But other examples include a singer's taking credit for a song written by someone else, or a famous personality writing his memoirs “with” the actual writer of the book. Ghostwriting is a major occupation. Most of the speeches of candidates for high political office are written by others, as are the “spontaneous” witty remarks by late show hosts and by many comedians. Is it a surprise that many students writing papers (as well as authors writing articles and books) have no compunctions about plagiarism? Everybody does it. After all, we use recipes from cookbooks and sometimes we even serve “ready-made” foods, passing them off as our own efforts.

And even in the field of science, with its “gods” revered by those who see it as the source of Truth, intellectual theft may be used in the race “to publish first.”^ix Credit for discovering the structure of DNA usually goes to Watson and Crick and to Wilkins, all of whom received Nobel Prizes, rather than to Rosalind Franklin, whose work they secretly appropriated, and on which they based their model. It provided a shortcut for them, an enhancement of their understanding. A long CV, even if retractions contribute to its length, adds to the luster of a scientist or another in academia, and all was (and still is) considered fair in the academic wars.

Additionally, while industrial espionage^x has increased greatly since the introduction of the internet, in the middle of the last century, intellectual theft took – and still takes – other forms.

There are many other examples of “shortcuts” and “enhancements,” usually for personal gain, which some (or many, or almost all – though usually not all) consider to be cheating, but we don't all agree on where to draw the line. I'll list some of them,^xi leaving the judgment to you:

1. Advertising and packaging designed to induce purchases rather than to inform the buyer.
2. The use of cosmetics, toupees, and hair coloring to improve appearance.
3. Use of circumlocutions and euphemisms to demonstrate sensitivity.
4. Use of steroids or other drugs to improve athletic performance.
5. Flavoring food so guests will like it better.
6. Learning from an SAT preparation class how to take tests, even if we don't learn the subject itself from them.
7. “Spinning” an event or statement for political advantage.
8. Wearing clothes considered to be fashionable whether or not you like them.
9. Changing religion to fit in or get ahead, rather than because of conviction.
10. Makeovers of yourself or your home. Cosmetic surgery.
11. An orchestra making a recording of a symphony by piecing together the best performance of different parts from multiple “takes.”
12. Professional wrestling.

“Things are seldom what they seem. Skim milk masquerades as cream.”^xii What you see is what you get, but what you see may not be the thing itself.

In each of these cases – and I'm sure you can think of many others – one thing is presented with the intent of demonstrating (usually to others) a picture of the subject that is superior^xiii to the genuine article.^xiv And each results in benefits that may be economic or may affect reputation, self-image, or academic achievement.^xv Never forget that many people believe that the end justifies the means.

There's always some way in which we want to be better than we are – or, at least to convince others that that's the case. And we want to be better than them. We're all competing. We're all trying to get the upper hand. We all have the attitude that all's fair in love and war. And everything else. But that may not be true. We're quick to condemn in some cases and praise in others.

Perhaps we have to draw the line somewhere. But where?

Next episode: “Just Like Us” – No reference to Facebook.

i       Admittedly there are some people who don't want to be noticed at all – in their original state or with any changes – but I don't know who they are.

ii      But fail.

iii     And we want to make our children the best, by cloning ourselves (if, besides others, we've even convinced ourselves of our value) or by getting (pun intended – never believe anyone who says “No pun intended.” It was intended and it was the result of a lot of work. The punster is proud of it and wants to make sure everyone notices.) a designer baby.

iv     Usually people who didn't think of them first.

v      Lying has become an accepted art form, and fiction may become fact. For example, as Winston Churchill is said to have put it, “History is written by the victors.” (He certainly wasn't the first to expound on this theme.) Goebbels was famous for the “Big Lie” which he tried to turn into truth. Historical revisionists flourish, and they always have. It was (is?) common practice for the Russians and the USSR to rewrite history for ideological purpose whenever it was useful; to enhance self-esteem, our country, like all others, has mythologized its heroes; and the Palestinian Arabs have created a history for themselves and denied Israel's history for public relations purposes.

vi      Daniel “Oracle.”

vii     Somehow MV's fans felt betrayed even though many of them were aware of the industry practice.

viii   For example, see “Singin' In The Rain.” Yes. That's what I said. See it. It's a great movie.

ix      Plagiarize, by Tom Lerer.

x       A serious example of the appropriation of the work of others.

xi     Please note that I have taken care not to impose any order that may be understood as my own view of the seriousness – or lack thereof – to be associated with any particular act. And, of course, there are lots more.

xii     H.M.S. Pinafore, 1878, Gilbert and Sullivan.

xiii   “Superior,” unfortunately, is a societal construct. When Adlai Stevenson ran for President, many of the American people viewed his divorce as a flaw. Now it wouldn't be noticed. Terry Sanford and Anthony Wiener are back in politics – “forgiven” by much of the electorate. And who's worse (if either is bad), the husband of CBS's “The Good Wife” for paying a prostitute for sex, or “The Good Wife” herself for having an extra-marital affair with another man she loved? In my youth, both would have been condemned, whatever society's realities actually were, but there have been many soap operas and changes in our outlook since then.

xiv    Sometimes it's even true.

xv     There are times when the enhancement is based on improvement in resources. If my vaulting pole helps me jump higher than the competition, that's my good fortune. It doesn't make sense to tell everyone my secret.

Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire

                                                                                 

You think the press is bad? I mentioned recently that only 25% of the people asked by Gallup in a poll taken in June, 2012,ⁱ placed great confidence in newspapers.ⁱⁱ A more recent Gallup Poll (November, 2012) asked how respondents judged the “honesty and ethical standards” of people in various fields of endeavor, and the outcome is quite revealing (apart from the 24% rating for journalists, whom people don't trust even though we all “consult” them). For example, 70% of the respondents trusted the honesty and ethical standards of medical doctors, while only 62% trusted dentists; 41% trusted psychiatrists, and 38% chiropractors. But the confidence in nurses was at the 85% level. Even college professors, clergy, and bankers were considered more honest and ethical than journalists with ratings of 53%, 52% and 28%. Not very good to be saddled with such low levels of trust,ⁱⁱⁱ but better than the press, to whom we turn every day.

There are those, however, whom we trust even less than “reporters” of the^iv news – as unbelievable as that may sound. For example, although 58% consider policemen to be honest and ethical, we only rate the lawyers who take over from them at 19%.^v And the courts are in between.^vi In the case of the judicial system, however, the problem may be less a perception of dishonesty than the appearance of poor judgment or incorrect political outlook.^vii

In any event, consumers don't trust “car salespeople”^viii (8% confidence) or “advertising practitioners” (11%). It appears that lies are more their stock in trade than are the products they sell. Of course, all “lies” aren't really lies. Advertisers have learned how to play on consumers' hopes and fantasies, so they only need to suggest something, or display an attractive image, in order to seduce a prospect and induce a purchase. They don't have to make any claim. Last year over a thousand new perfumes were introduced. With so many already on the market it's hard to believe that any of them broke new ground, but attractive packaging and the imprimatur of a movie star, clothing designer, or other famous personality – one who probably had nothing to do with the development of the scent – and a customer, longing for love or a new “look,” can be convinced to try whatever is advertised so skillfully. (Hope may spring eternal, but when it is stretched too far it is likely to recoil. So second sales may be harder to get.)

And what applies to cars and perfumes applies to other products as well. Whether it's a skin cream,^ix laundry detergent, electronic device, or telephone plan, the new product is far superior to anything before.^x And the price can't be beaten.^xi So what are you waiting for?^xii

There are many others who mislead us or lie to us on a regular basis, and when they tell the truth we don't believe them. In the poll that determined honesty and ethical standards ratings of various professions, insurance salespeople earned a 15% very high or high score while it was 12% for HMO managers and 11% for stockbrokers.

No group is as worthy of discussion, however, as politicians. Although nearly half the population approves of the job he is doing, in a poll taken during the 2012 election campaign, Gallup determined that 5% of voters considered honesty as President Obama's greatest strength.^xiii His oath of office includes a promise to uphold the Constitution, which many consider to be his first lie as our Chief Executive. Before that, however, come his campaign promises (just as they flower for all politicians who are running for office). Fortunately no one really believes them. So after the election, when they are forgotten or violated, no one honestly believes he has been deceived. Anyway, the fault, is that of the previous administration or the opposite party, who created whatever problems exist and who now prevent their solution. Fortunately there are some successes, but they always come despite the opposition of the other party and all the credit belongs to the President and his party.

But the President wasn't listed in the honesty poll so it is hard to compare him to members of Congress. In 2012 they earned nearly a 43% improvement in the perception of their honesty from the year before. Actually they worked their way up from 7 to 10%, so it's a little less impressive than it sounds.^xiv Like those of other politicians, their campaign promises are strictly for their campaigns. So, as is the case with others running for office, they should be judged on the basis of previous performance.

But, of course, it's hard to determine what they've done in before because the past records claimed during an election are unreliable. The usual pattern is that the candidate says wonderful things about himself and his accomplishments while his opponent, in negative ads, defames and accuses him. No. That's wrong. The two defame each other. Claims of your accomplishments are of less interest than what's wrong with your opponent. And the few accomplishments are likely to be bills with attractive titles that mislead the voter about the content and intent. Too often they actually accomplish something other than, or even opposite to, what the title suggests. Caveat emptor. (My favorite – and I've mentioned it before – is the Paperwork Reduction Act which increases governmental paperwork.) But truth in labeling is not required of Congress. And the “transparency” they demand of others certainly doesn't apply to them. It's no wonder that citizens view Congress as a nest of liars.

It should be obvious that a lack of trust is not conclusive proof of someone's deception. Not all politicians are liars. (Whatever the claims they make though, you'd better confirm them yourself.^xv) But after all these years, consistent doubt should make us wary of the bold statements we hear. They want to be elected. They're no different from the rest of us. We want to be liked so we often say things we don't believe in order to please someone else. We don't want to deceive – at least that's not the primary goal – but we want to be liked. Just like the newspapers, the advertisers, and the politicians.

To tell the truth, you shouldn't trust anyone.

Next episode: “If I've Said It Once” -- Words to the wise. Words to the wise.

i      For additional information on the methodology and results of Gallup Polls, see http://www.gallup.com

ii     Although I didn't mention it, the number for television news was only 21%.

iii    Especially the clergy.

iv     “their version of the” news would be a more accurate characterization.

v     It may be unfair to categorize an entire profession this way, but that is the perception of the “street.” It is, perhaps, a cliché, however “perception is reality” and, in fact, it guides our beliefs about the group even if such a characterization is not warranted.

vi     When asked about the Supreme Court in a Gallup Poll taken in June, 2012, 37% of respondents expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in it.

vii    Barry Friedman writes, in an article in the online edition of “The Nation,” which I read on March 11, 2013 – though the date it first appeared is not listed – entitled (Why Are Americans Losing Trust in the Supreme Court?), “The New York Times reports a recent poll showing the Supreme Court’s approval rating at 44 percent. This represents one of the lowest numbers the justices have polled in recent years and is part of a generally downward slide since 2009. ... A plausible answer [to the question posed by the article] is: partisanship. Polls show a widespread disgust with partisanship in Washington; Congress’s approval rating was at an all time low in May. Although the justices often are divided into left-right ideological blocs, those blocs have recently become identified in the public mind with the Democratic and Republican parties.”

Some citizens also take issue with the Court's occasionally finding in the Constitution what they feel ought to be there, even if there is no evidence that it is. See Lochner v New York and Roe v Wade.

viii   Big talk and small print bring high profits even when performance is low. Those believing the claims are all too often disappointed.

ix     Is pomegranate really better for your skin than cucumber? It seems that in every ad there is a new ingredient which is the answer to all your problems. Except gullibility. We keep hoping and we keep buying.

x      And it will remain so until the next version – even better – is introduced soon.

xi     Often the price can't even be found. That particular bargain no longer exists or the product is sold out. But wait. There's something even better (and more expensive). “Bait and switch” is an advertising device often used to maximize revenues. It's used because it works. “Never give a sucker an even break.”

xii    Don't waste your time thinking or comparing.

xiii   Interestingly, 3% considered his greatest strength to be the ability to lie with a straight face.

xiv   In 2011, when they received a 7% rating, they tied with lobbyists and car salespeople. By comparison, journalists got 26% and funeral directors 44%.

xv   As John Locke said, “The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it.”