Category: Guidance

Find answers to questions you never knew existed.

Menu Mayhem: Part II

Duncan Leave a comment

In part I of our exploration into the subject of restaurant menus, we observed that the way in which we read those menus is both chaotic and thoughtless. But for those who do examine their menus systematically, another problem becomes apparent: inconsistent pricing.

To clarify, we’re not discussing the issue of overpriced food, since all restaurant prices are inevitably excessive, nor are we questioning the difference in price between eateries. We’re talking about the inconsistencies in price within the selection of items on a single menu. To begin, let’s look at an example of a typical menu of an imaginary breakfast diner. We are using a diner menu because their simplicity makes the incongruencies more pronounced.

After a brief scan of the selections, it may appear that the pricing makes sense. However, when we begin to break down the meals into their components and price them, it becomes apparent that individual ingredients are priced differently throughout the menu. The Eggs & Toast, for example, is priced the same as the Bacon & Eggs at $5.99. Let’s use some basic algebra to solve for the price of an egg.

  • Let e = egg, b = bacon, t = toast
  • 2e + 2b + t = 3e + t
  • 2e + 2b = 3e
  • e = 2b

So according to the pricing of these two meals, 1 egg is worth 2 strips of bacon. Now let’s compare the Bacon & Eggs and the Meat Lovers meals to get a better understanding of sausage.

  • Let e = egg, b = bacon, t = toast, s = sausage
  • 2e + 2b + t + 1 = 2e + 2b + 2s + t
  • 1 = 2s
  • s = 0.5

So each sausage is worth $0.50, which seems kind of strange, but let us persist in our efforts. According to the Jump Start meal and Side Orders section, bacon and sausage are of equal value.

  • Let b = bacon, s = sausage
  • b = s
  • s = 0.5
  • b = 0.5

Since we know from our first equation that an egg is worth 2 strips of bacon, we can now determine the exact value of an egg.

  • Let e = egg, b = bacon
  • e = 2b
  • b = 0.5
  • e = 1

So a slice of bacon is worth $0.50, a piece of sausage is also worth $0.50, and an egg is worth $1.00. If we plug these values into the Bacon & Eggs meal, we can find the value of toast.

  • Let e = egg, b = bacon, t = toast
  • 2e + 2b + t = 5.99
  • 2 + 1 + t = 5.99
  • t = 2.99

Restaurant menus are clearly weak against algebra. But apart from being mathematically incoherent, there’s another issue which we have ignored up to this point, which is the fact that the Side Orders section has disagreed with every one of our solutions. This isn’t necessarily proof of an inconsistent pricing system, since all businesses intentionally manipulate their pricing in order to create an incentive for their customers to make larger purchases and also to compensate for the inefficiency in taking small orders. However, if we were to construct the Jump Start meal using the pricing from the Side Orders section, we would arrive at a price of $11.95 with hash browns and toast or $12.95 with pancakes. This is nearly twice the price listed on the meal, which is troubling.

So what’s the solution? If we merely sell the components at Side Order pricing, we would no longer be in business. Alternatively, if we attempt to re-work the meal pricing so that it makes sense mathematically, we may end up with some dangerously inexpensive side orders and unnecessary meal options. For if we were to price our meals based purely on components, then there’s no reason to offer multiple combinations of the same items.

The answer is to create a menu of individual items that provides consistent pricing while still rewarding customers for making larger purchases. This could be done by increasing the serving size of components and offering price reductions for purchasing multiple items. Here’s what this might look like. This revised menu includes all of the options of the original menu, yet takes up only half the space and allows even greater customization. And the best part? It makes sense.

Another option could be implementing a minimum order charge, which would ensure that each customer’s visit is at least marginally profitable. But what’s most important is that any customer spirited enough to analyze our menu is blessed with a consistent, sensible pricing system.

Gradient

Duncan Leave a comment

Whether motivated by a biological imperative or the need to vicariously atone for their own deficiencies, parents pursue the success of their children with fanaticism. And since we all know that education is the foundation for happiness and wealth, it is often the center of parental focus. Even after secondary graduation, the importance of education is stressed by parents as well as left-wing radicals bent on brainwashing young minds.

So how do we know whether or not a student is succeeding in school? The answer is by simply looking at the student’s grades. What isn’t so simple is the method by which those grades are calculated, interpreted and transcribed.

The basic concept of grading is that teachers award their students a score for each of their assignments and exams. Then, using the student’s combined scores, a grade is assigned. This grade determines the student’s level of achievement in the class and dictates whether they are passing or failing. Although nearly all institutions assign grades in this way, their interpretation of a student’s performance will vary significantly. In some countries, students are graded on a 1 to 20 scale, some simply use 1 to 5, while others assign letters.

In many parts of the world, most predominantly America and Western Europe, a student’s score is expressed as a percentage representing the ratio of correct answers to problems given. For example, a student who answered 24 questions correctly out of 31 is given a score of 77. Now everything up to this point has made sense, but we’re about to make a bumpy trek into the world of letter grades.

In an attempt to more clearly communicate the level of achievement, many nations have adopted some form of alphabetized ranking derived from the percentage score. In these systems, the letter A indicates the highest grade, while E or F represent the lowest. Here are some different interpretations of the letter grade system:

United States Ireland Singapore Pakistan Jordan
A 90-100 A 85-100 A1 75-100 A1 90-100 A 60-100
B 80-89 B 70-84 A2 70-74 A 70-90 B+ 55-59
C 70-79 C 55-69 B3 65-69 B 60-70 B 50-54
D 60-69 D 40-54 B4 60-64 C 50-60 C+ 43-49
F 0-59 E 25-39 C5 55-59 D 40-50 C 35-42
F 0-24 C6 50-54 E 33-40 F 0-34
NG 0 D7 45-49
E8 40-44
F9 0-40

As we can see, there is great variety even among nations that use letter grades. To complicate things further, many districts consider letter grades too vague, so plus and minus suffixes are used to add complexity to a system designed to be simple. Here’s how it works in most American schools:

United States
A 90-100 A+ 98-100
A 93-97
A- 90-92
B 80-89 B+ 87-89
B 83-86
B- 80-82
C 70-79 C+ 77-79
C 73-76
C- 70-72
D 60-69 D+ 67-69
D 60-66
F 0-59 F 0-59

Now we would expect that such a finely-tuned system would satisfy all concerned parties, but this isn’t the case. Because employers and post-secondary institutions often wish to know the overall average grade of a student during a semester or program, an entirely new system was devised: the grade point average (GPA).

Grade points are awarded based on either the student’s final letter grade or percentage score achieved in a class. Most institutions use a system in which students are awarded between 0 and 4 points per course. Institutions that use use percentages to calculate grade points do is in a number of ways, and the most common is to simply divide the percentage score by 100 and multiply the product by 4.

Institutions that determine grade points using letter grades will simply translate an A as 4 points, B as 3 points, C as 2 points, D as 1 point and an F as 0 points. However, letter grade suffixes allow a student to be awarded more than 4 grade points for a single course. In many schools, the plus or minus suffix simply adds or subtracts 0.3 or 0.33 to the grade point value.

Standard 4 Point System 4 Point System with Suffixes
A 90-100 3.5-4.0 A+ 98-100 4.3
A 93-97 4.0
A- 90-92 3.7
B 80-89 2.5-3.49 B+ 87-89 3.3
B 83-86 3.0
B- 80-82 2.7
C 70-79 1.5-2.49 C+ 77-79 2.3
C 73-76 2.0
C- 70-72 1.7
D 60-69 1.0-1.49 D+ 67-69 1.3
D 60-66 1.0
F 0-59 0.0-0.99 F 0-59 0.0

The grade point average is then calculated by adding together a student’s grade points and dividing by the number of courses taken during that time. Sometimes grade points also incorporate the credit value of courses by multiplying each course GPA by its credit value, then dividing by the total credit value of courses taken.

So to recapitulate, here’s how grades are calculated:

  1. Assignments and exams are graded with a score, usually a ratio of correctness (24/31).
  2. The ratio is expressed as a percentage (77%).
  3. The percentage is converted to a letter grade, sometimes with a suffix (C+).
  4. A combination of percentage, letter grade and course credit value is translated into grade points (2.3).
  5. The grade points are divided by the number and/or value of courses taken, resulting in the grade point average.

Now if you begin to feel an intense and crushing feeling of terror at the concept, don’t be alarmed. That indicates only that you are still sane. For in the same way that the measurement of fuel consumption and time have been corrupted by counterintuitive expressions and unnecessary calculation, grading also suffers from superfluous complexity.

We should not manipulate systems to suite our interpretation but interpret the expressions of the simplest and most efficient system. In this case, a percentage is the simplest and most efficient expression of a grade, since it is nothing but the numerical representation of the correctness of a score. Letter grades, suffixes, grade points and grade point averages are all derived, directly or indirectly, from the percentage, and they necessitate additional levels of interpretation to understand.

Whether expressed as a B, B+, 3.3 or 3.4, everyone understands that 88% is a pretty good score, so let’s just grade in percentages.

Sticks

Duncan Leave a comment

Imagination is a powerful thing, especially in the hands of children. As we have already seen, when children are deprived of entertainment, their minds will bend reality to suit their needs. A wonderful example of this is the use of sticks as medieval weaponry. Here’s a graph which identifies common interpretations of various stick lengths:

But stick aren’t just instruments of brutality. They can also transform into magical devices, with the length of the stick determining the level of magical power contained within.

Some would argue that scepters and canes may also possess magic, but the power of a scepter is merely in its representation of a high position, and canes are mostly used to assist those with a limp.

The Path to Empathy

Duncan Leave a comment

What do the Lance Armstrong, Michael J. Fox and the Christopher Reeve Foundations have in common? Besides being established by and named after a celebrity, these three organizations were all devoted to eradicating the very condition with which their founder struggled.

These men are (or were) hailed for their contributions to these causes, but is it really heroic to try and cure a condition only after you’re diagnosed with it? Surely these men didn’t create a charity organization in an effort to cure themselves, rather for others in the world struggling with the same condition. But if their motivation was the good of others, then why did they only begin their crusades once they were personally affected? Perhaps human empathy is more of an automated response than a noble pursuit.

Before moving forward, let’s be clear about this subject: these are serious issues that cause real and terrible suffering. Our goal here is merely to explore the peculiar ways in which we react to them.

Supporters of foundations like the ones we mentioned believe that empathy can be spread by generating awareness. These concerned folk band together to form special interest groups, which seek to advance only a single, specific cause. Their objective is to use whatever means necessary to make known the extreme importance of their concern. In addition to snatching up nearly every date on the calendar, they have also exploited the light spectrum as an instrument of awareness. Because color is simple and pervasive it makes an ideal canvas on which to paint one’s message.

The use of color as a medium is most commonly advanced through the display of ribbon-shaped bumper stickers and plastic bracelets. Here’s a chart which identifies few colors and the movements they represent:

Melanoma Gang Prevention Death
Diabetes Asthma Brain Cancer
Peace Brain Injury Bone Cancer Terrorism Poverty Adoptees
Tobacco Colorectal Cancer
Arthritis Victim’s Rights Free Speech Water Quality Water Safety
Drunk Driving Child Abuse Colon Cancer Tobacco Dystonia Education
Prostate Cancer Scleroderma Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome
Epilepsy Cancer
Eating Disorders Stomach Cancer Pulmonary Hypertension
Pancreatic Cancer Testicular Cancer Thyroid Cancer Lupus Alzheimer’s ADD and ADHD
Brain Aneurysm Thrombosis Headaches Cesarean Section Adults with Disabilities
AIDS and HIV Drug Abuse Heart Disease Burn Victims Stroke Drunk Driving
Breast Cancer
Leukemia Hunger Cultural Diversity Animal Rights Self-injury
Support for Troops Suicide Prevention Adoptive Parents Bladder Cancer Spinda Bifida Endometriosis
Childhood Cancer Sport Therapy
Parkinson’s Depression Bipolar Disorder Anxiety Disorders Children with Disabilities
Emphysema Lung Cancer Multiple Sclerosis
Ovarian Cancer Cervical Cancer Uteris Cancer Sexual Assault Tsunami Victims
Pedestrian Safety Lyme Disease The Environment Celiac Disease

There are many more patterns than what are represented above, and many more causes associated with each one. The color purple, for example, can be tied to over thirty distinct movements. In their inability comprehend the scope of such behavior, special interest groups have devalued the meaning of color. They fail to realize that if everything is special then nothing is special. But this doesn’t discourage supporters from proudly donning their ribbons and bracelets.

Although the motives may be genuine, this method of expression does raise questions about the narrow focus of concern. For example, someone wearing a pink bracelet is not only declaring their support for breast cancer victims and research, but their support only for breast cancer victims and research. Are these individuals not also concerned about lung cancer, suicide, sexual assault and child abuse? If someone considered themselves a supportive and caring person, we should expect their arms to project a prismatic array of plastic.

The reason we rarely observe anyone displaying more than one bracelet or ribbon is that humans can only experience legitimate empathy through suffering, either their own or that of someone they love, and chances are that each person is acquainted with only a small number of conditions.

The passion of Armstong, Fox and Reeve is inspiring, but we should remember that their zeal was forged by tragedy and hardship, not a bumper sticker.

Cerumen

Duncan Leave a comment

Like any excreted bodily substance, earwax (also called cerumen) is regarded as unclean and must be purged from our anatomy. It is also frequently and wrongly accused of causing hearing difficulties and ear infections. In our quest to rid ourselves of this naturally occurring lubricant, sealant and cleanser, we turn to the most notorious and dangerous available instrument: the cotton swab.

The general purpose cotton swab was invented in the 1920s and has been widely used as an ear cleaning tool. While the device does serve countless household and commercial purposes, physicians around the globe concur that aural hygiene is not one of them. In fact, the use of cotton swabs is known to cause infections, push wax deeper into the ear and sometimes irritate or even puncture the eardrum. There is even a warning label on cotton swab packaging that warns consumers not to insert the instrument into the ear canal, but this does little to deter us from probing deep in search of sludge. So why do we continue to risk our health and hearing for the sake of hygiene?

Part of the answer is likely that the cotton swab was originally marketed, in part, as an ear cleaning device. It’s long, narrow shaft and absorbent tip make it seem like the perfect tool for cleaning our inner ears, and its effectiveness is clearly visible after use. Basically, even if we know that it shouldn’t be used this way, the cotton swab appears to be the perfect ear cleaning apparatus.

Another factor could be the mere mild acknowledgment by cotton swab manufacturers that inner ear cleaning is not a viable use for their product. These organizations know that their product is dangerous, and they know that people continue to hurt themselves, yet they hide behind a warning label. This argument is not meant to excuse us of responsibility for what we do to our bodies; it’s meant to incriminate organizations that distribute a product with the knowledge, and even expectation, of its misuse. Cotton swab manufacturers could help to end this misuse by using ads to educate the public on the correct uses of their product, but this could hurt their sales, so they do nothing. Tobacco companies are the most infamous culprits of hiding behind warning labels, but there are many more advocacy groups educating consumers about death sticks than deaf sticks.

Much like the Sauron’s One Ring, cotton swabs were forged with an evil purpose – a purpose served by men too frail to resist its power. In our weakness, we lust after sparkling clean ear canals, accepting aid from even our enemies. Let’s do ourselves a favor and cast these vile things back from whence they came.

Hygienesis

Duncan Leave a comment

Since the discovery that many diseases are caused by microscopic organisms called germs, we have developed complex habits and strategies for avoiding these invisible, infectious cretins. Such strategies include avoiding insects, wild animals and corpses, habitually cleaning our bodies, clothing and dwellings, as well as amassing large varieties of soap. When we are confronted with something unclean, like a rotting animal carcass, a response is stimulated and we are compelled to cringe and pull away. What’s fascinating about this behavior is attempting to determine whether the stimulus is conditioned or unconditioned.

The terms unconditioned and conditioned stimulus were coined by a Russian physiologist named Ivan Pavlov, who fed bells to his dogs until they began to salivate. We can think of an unconditioned stimulus as anything that causes a basic physiological reaction. In other words, something that triggers an instinct such as hunger, fear or pain. A conditioned stimulus is something that may trigger a similar response, but only because an association has been made between that stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus.

For example, someone who falls ill after venturing outdoors without wearing shoes might make an association between shoelessness and illness. From there, the sensation of stepping out of their house barefoot may actually disgust them. Another common example would be the fear of insects. Many people despise insects, especially spiders, and believe that these creatures are unclean. But is this fear an innate response intended to protect us from potentially poisonous pests, or is it an acquired response from a past experience?

What’s even more interesting is that these conditioned stimulus can be transmitted, either consciously or unconsciously, to other individuals. One who is fearful to step outside without footwear may teach this practice to others, perhaps without even explaining its origin. The result of the spreading of unexplained conditioned stimulus is a society that strictly adheres to customs and procedures that may have no known or legitimate purpose. To be clear, germs are real and they can cause serious health issues, but our sense of cleanliness may have less to do with the realities of the microscopic world than with these transmitted stimuli.

Saliva, for example, is generally considered an unclean substance, for most of us would be hesitant to share can of soda with another person. However, there are several encouraged activities which promote the exchange of saliva, such as kissing. We view saliva differently depending on how it is transmitted, since we know that saliva transmitted by a lick is more volatile than that by kiss. Some will argue that the saliva of those we most often kiss, such as friends and family members, is less hazardous, but that belief only reveals the unsubstantiated stereotype that strangers possess more dangerous germs than the people we know. By refusing to ingest someone’s saliva we’re insulting them, as if saying, “I think you’re a diseased liar who is trying to trick me into getting sick.”

Another case of inconsistency is our understanding of the relationship between cleanliness and time. Some things, like food and garbage, become less clean over time, while others, such as toilet seats and beds, become more clean. In the case of toilet seats, warmth can even be considered unclean, since it indicates recent contact with another human being. We aren’t so much disgusted by the idea of sharing a toilet seat, as long as there isn’t any observable evidence of prior use.

Touch is another thing that disgusts us only in certain situations. We feel unclean when interacting with animals and washroom gadgetry, yet we erroneously assume that most mundane objects we encounter are benign. Simulations using substances visible only under black light to represent germs have shown that nothing is safe from touch. We are constantly making contact with our hair, face, clothing, phone, keys, keyboard and food, but we are sure to wash our hands after using the restroom so that we remain sterile. The actual cleanliness of many objects and surfaces with which we regularly interact may come as a shock to us. Let’s look at a few examples, as it appears we are mistaken about a great many things.

Things that are actually dirty: desks, money, doorknobs, railings, dishcloths, light switches and shopping carts.

Things that are actually clean: dirt, insects, lake and river water, mustaches and fresh meat.

There is much obscurity about germs in the minds of commoners. We know that germs can cause illness, but we aren’t always sure which germs we’re avoiding. What illness, exactly, do we think we will contract by drinking from a river, touching an insect or sitting on a warm toilet seat? Many of us believe that we must sanitize our surroundings to neutralize the unseen threat of germs and bacteria, yet few could identify the pathogens we’re bent are eradicating. There are legitimate culprits, like E. coli, but we don’t really think our homes are breeding grounds for fecal contamination. We’re afraid of germs – ambiguous, invisible, malevolent germs.

In summary, the motivation for our hygienic practices is more social and emotional than factual, and we shouldn’t let society pressure us into believing that something is or isn’t clean; we should make informed decisions. In many ways this may liberate us from the bondage of a false sense of filth. Of course, we may also be crippled by an overwhelming concern for the contamination of our environment, but mysophobia is a problem only afforded to those whose lives are devoid of legitimate threats.

The next time someone offers to share their soda with you, drink it.

Tickle

Duncan Leave a comment

Imagine that a bomb’s been planted somewhere in a major metropolis and the only person who knows the location is the one who put it there. If the bomb isn’t disarmed the explosion’s effects will be catastrophic. There isn’t enough time to search for the device, but the suspect was apprehended shortly after he armed it. Unfortunately, the interrogation of the suspect has proven fruitless, and our time is running out. As the person in charge of the situation, what do you do?

  1. Continue to interrogate the prisoner and hope for a change of heart.
  2. Torture the prisoner and almost certainly acquire the necessary information.

The second option is much more effective than the first, but everyone knows that torture is wrong because it undermines the presumption of innocence – the foundation for the western judicial system. But what is torture, exactly, and how can we be certain that we aren’t already torturing our prisoner through confinement and interrogation?

The definition of torture is the act of inflicting pain, either physical or mental, often for the purpose of punishment or retrieving information. Conventional torture methods include beating, lashing, shunning, rape, confinement, deprivation of sleep or nourishment and joint manipulation. Most of us would never condone these barbaric tactics, but there are many other techniques that are more subtle and ambiguous.

Aggressive interrogation, or enhanced interrogation, is a term used to describe methods that more closely tread the line of legality, such as waterboarding. Most consider aggressive interrogation to be disguised torture, but how do these techniques differ from those of conventional interrogation? Suspects are regularly isolated, accused, mocked and berated by their captors in order to encourage a confession, and by its very nature, incarceration is a violation of fundamental a human right. In another common example of sanctioned torture, parents will often confine their children or restrict their diet in order to encourage or discourage certain behavior.

It’s clear that our concept of torture may be disturbingly inclusive, but what if there was a way to avoid all these moral predicaments? There is a technique which causes no pain or discomfort, yet it’s powerful enough to cause family members to turn on each other. We’re speaking, of course, about tickling.

Tickling makes the passive flail and claw, the reserved scream profanities and the reasonable abandon their sensibilities. We don’t really consider tickling a serious thing, yet we’ll resort to extreme measures to escape it, often threatening, insulting or injuring those we care about. If tickling can make friends and family commit acts of violence against each other, it must certainly be strong enough to elicit a confession from our bomb-planting prisoner. Even if tickling wasn’t effective in this case, torture methods have been honed for thousands of years, while our understanding of tickling is still quite elementary. It’s likely that, with adequate research, new techniques and devices would be created that would take tickling to a degree we could never imagine.

Terrorists should be tickled.

Pillars

Duncan Leave a comment

Engaging in an argument with a colleague, friend or stranger can be a fruitful or frustrating endeavor. Because the subject of such discussions often centers around an issue about which we feel very strongly, our conviction can easily escalate a cordial debate into a futile shouting contest. In our earnest desire prove that our view is superior and shame our opponent, we can resort to poor debating techniques, mockery or outright deception.

Most arguments begin with two well-intentioned individuals politely discussing a subject of interest, but they can quickly deteriorate into a heated quarrel over the definition of a simple term, with neither party able to recall the original point of contention. This needn’t be the case, however. Our discussions would be more tranquil and productive if we were all experienced in formal debate, but since that isn’t likely to happen, let’s identify a few stumbling blocks that disrupt our deliberations:

  1. An unclear definition of ideas, terminology or the positions of either party.
  2. The refusal by one or both parties to admit the weaknesses in their position.
  3. The lack of a moderator or governing system to ensure the discussion remains respectful and relevant.

These obstacles can be avoided fairly easily by taking a few moments to draft an outline of our position. By documenting our argument, we are cementing our thoughts into the physical world. This forces us to condense our complicated, abstract ideas into definite statements, making it much easier both parties to understand one another. It also offers a reference point for the discussion, ensuring that both parties are in agreement over the subject of their debate.

In addition to recording the crux of the argument, it’s also useful to include presuppositions, the unseen pillars on which our thesis rests, which offer both parties a clear avenue for dismantling their opponent’s position. By simply asking, “why?” we can unearth these subterranean pillars. Let’s look at an example:

The image above shows two arguments which support the claim that aliens exist. To defend this claim, we could elect to use either or both pillars, since both of them could independently prove the existence of aliens. If we wanted to assault this position, we must simply show that the reports of alien encounters are unreliable and that the Drake Equation doesn’t prove anything. There are, however, additional pillars beneath the supporting arguments in this example. Here’s an illustration which shows another tier of presupposition:

As we can see, the arguments which support the idea that the speed limits should be reduced are dependent on the belief that people being hurt or killed is bad. Without acknowledging that people being hurt or killed is undesirable, the argument for reduced speed limits collapses. Here’s an example of a more complex argument structure with many supporting pillars already identified. This is just one way that the argument structure could be illustrated, since there’s a multitude of pillars from which to choose.

In addition to dismantling the pillars supporting a position, arguments may be proven inadequate by showing additional ideas that a structure may support. For example, the argument for homosexual marriage is often oversimplified as a case for the right of a person to marry whoever they choose. Without considering what other pillars may be supported by an argument structure, we may end up constructing a framework that supports beliefs that we do not agree with.

If flow charts depict thoughts as a stream, then pillars portray them as a structure. Although each thought is related to its neighbors, there is no direction or flow between them. While flow charts may be used to guide from condition to conclusion, pillars are merely a framework that illustrates the relationship between different ideas and beliefs.

The number of pillars beneath an argument is not infinite, for if, like children, we were to continuously ask “why?” we would eventually reach the foundational pillar, which is the basis for our concept of reality. This often invokes an emotional, incoherent defense, since none of us are comfortable having our core beliefs called into question. It is most often unnecessary to probe such depths unless the subject of the debate is one which undermines an understanding of the universe.

Next time you sense a debate approaching, take a moment to sketch your pillars before continuing.

Human Value: Part I

Duncan Leave a comment

“Hey, what’s up?”

“I’m not feeling very good.”

“Oh, how come?”

“I just feel ugly.”

“You’re not ugly, you’re beautiful!

“But what if I was ugly?”

Nearly everyone has struggled with low self-esteem, for we cannot help but evaluate our own worth. There are times when each of us will contemplate the purpose and significance of our existence, weigh ourselves and be found wanting. Fortunately, when we sink into the mire of self-loathing, friends, family and television ads are always there to remind us that we are talented, successful and beautiful. But what if it isn’t true? What if we’re actually mundane, pitiful and hideous? And should we really derive value from such properties?

First of all, the idea of assigning value to life forms may seem cruel and unnecessary, but as we’ve already discussed, this is something we do to animals all the time. The difference between how we determine animal value and human value is that animals are judged collectively, as a species, while humans are judged as individuals. When we say that dogs have a high animal value, we are referring to the intrinsic value of all dogs everywhere, regardless of their individual qualities. However, when we console a friend by reminding them of their worth, we are referring to the acquired value of that particular person. It’s true that animals are sometimes valued as individuals, as was the case with Hachiko, the loyal Japanese Akita, but these exceptions are rare, scarce and extraordinary.

Since humans ascribe worth to themselves and others on an individual basis, the criteria for such appraisals pertains to our personal attributes. We derive value from our skills, accomplishments and appearance, but there are inherent dangers in this strategy.

First, the subjectivity of these qualities is obvious, since each culture prioritizes traits differently, defining success and beauty in a unique way. Accomplished chess players are rarely swarmed by fans or idolized by children these days. Wealthy individuals can enjoy admiration in some circles but also incite contempt in others. Beauty is an extremely difficult concept to define, as it is merely an interpretation of shape, proportion and color, having no foundation in reality.

Second, we tend to compare ourselves to those around us, which skews our perception. For example, after a notable achievement, such as completing a work of art or advancing in our profession, we may experience satisfaction, but this quickly evaporates when we encounter someone who is more accomplished. Similarly, we might be feeling quite content with our figure until we take a trip to the beach and see fit, toned figures frolicking in the sand. We are extremely susceptible to feelings of inferiority, which likely explains the reason we tend to associate with those who share a similar level of talent, success and beauty.

Finally, when the potency and blatancy of our shortcomings is so overwhelming that we cannot extract worth from our qualities, the hollow nature of such appraisals becomes undeniable. It’s true that everyone has feelings of inadequacy from time to time, but what about those who have no basis to deny that inadequacy? What about the destitute man sleeping under the overpass? What about the woman whose face is gruesomely disfigured? We cannot tell these people that they are successful or beautiful because the truth is nothing of the sort.

Regardless of its subjective nature, this system of individual valuation fails to offer relief to the the poor and unsightly, and in doing so, exposes the cruelty behind encouraging one another with the fleeting physical. When we console someone by describing properties that others do not have, we covertly devalue those who do not have them, for this implies that our value comes from a source that is not universally possessed. In order to avoid these difficulties, we must change the way that we value ourselves and others.

Earlier we made the distinction between collective (or intrinsic) value and individual (or acquired) value, and it was an important one. Although we are primarily concerned with our acquired value, it is actually our intrinsic value that secures our most basic and important rights and freedoms. In the eyes of the law, we are all given equal weight based solely on our membership in the human race. To endow or retract privileges because of physical criteria such as wealth and beauty would seem unjust, yet we continue to value ourselves in this way. It may be difficult to abandon a focus on our individual qualities, but it’s the only way to ensure that everyone is able to build self-esteem from an equal footing.

There is a problem with this approach as well, a question that has gone unanswered since the dawn of civilization: how do we determine the intrinsic value of humans?

As humans, we assign value to animals based on attributes that we determine to be significant. We do this because we are attempting to determine the value of the animal to humanity. It is from our perspective as the superior creature that we bestow fish, birds and insects with worth. Without the ability to communicate or process complex thought, animals are unable to protest our authority, but humans are a different story. If we are indeed valuable, then by whose authority and to what degree are we endowed with intrinsic value? How can a creature determine its own worth?