Provocative Clothes and Rape: A Response

This is in response to the comments and discussions (on this blog, other networks, and offline) that followed previous article: Provocative Clothes and Rape: Are Men Alone Responsible?

In the said article my point is: when a woman wears provocative clothes knowing (and often with intention) that it is going to attract excessive male attention by appealing to sexuality it is irresponsible on her part because she is knowingly running into the risk of being harassed; and if she gets raped, she is partly responsible for the tragedy. By not wearing "provocative" (try to see the literal meaning of the word) women can at least avoid the avoidable trouble. After all, not exposing body parts excessively in a provocative way is not such a discomfort!

What I find interesting is that most people who responded to the article committed strawman fallacy. Stawman fallacy is when your originally expressed point X is misinterpreted in distorted form Y, and then that distorted interpretation Y (called strawman) is attacked, while leaving your original point untouched. If you go through the comments to the article you will see that the most repeated form of strawman is something like this:

Rape doesn't happen only with women wearing provocative clothes. It's mostly decent and weak women who fall prey to rapists. Since decent women are raped too, that means men are perverts. Women are innocent, because those decent women don't do anything to provoke rapists. Apply stricter controls and don't let rapists get away with their crime.

Well, I am all for punishing rapists. (And this was clearly said in the article itself.) But did you notice how the original point is lost? No one, not a single person who argued on the article (online and offline) seemed to understand that the article is only talking about 1) the relationship between provocative clothes and rape, and not about rape in general; and 2) the ridiculous movement for women's right to freely wear whatever men can. That's what the article is about. Since it can't be denied that there is a relationship between provocative clothes and rape, it must be admitted that it is irresponsible on part of women to wear body-exposing clothes where it is risky. As for why can't women wear what men can, the explanation is pretty clearly given. That's all there is to understand in the article.

I don't deny that decent and weak women are raped, and that the rapists must be made to pay for it. But I am not talking about those instances at all. My argument was about the instances of women wearing provocative clothes, thereby being irresponsible, and the fundamentally flawed reason they give for it, that is: if men can wear anything, why can't women. This reasoning is flawed because men and women are different biologically. (For detailed explanation, read this, and this.) Now if we must blame someone for sexism, blame Nature. But ignore the reality and we will pay the cost in varied forms.

If one says that there is zero correlation between provocative clothes and arousal of sexual urges in men, one needs to reconsider it. Provocative clothes produce two effects. 1) Not only do they make the wearer of those more vulnerable to sexual advances from men (at a biology level that's exactly the intention) but 2) once a man is aroused by looking at a women wearing such clothes, he may become more prone to target someone "easy"' to release his sexual energies on. Now of course, one would say it's totally the man's fault. Well, yes. So punish the man all you want. But I am still referring to the full reality. We rational beings can easily say it's the man's fault, but the reality doesn't care what we think and say. Punishing the man (which is only right) isn't going to solve the problem. Because the root of the problem is not purely society. The root of it is in the biology. While catching the criminal is a remedy at a social level, what about what happens at a biology level? How are laws going to change the natural biological processes?

Following part is an extension of the article:

How are laws going to change the natural biological processes? Therefore in a good society we must expect "decent" behavior from everyone. Many of the indecencies are not illegal, but they are still indecent because they are not conducive to good health of a society. Excessively bold sexual behavior, certain bad habits like drug addiction, using swear words etc may not all be illegal in society but these elements do affect people negatively. That's why we call that behavior indecent. Wearing provocative (thus, indecent) clothes for attracting male attention does have its effects. As I mentioned in the previous article, it is a maneuver coming from the animal nature to attract mating partners. In civilized societies now we have better mechanisms in place for that purpose, which suit our human nature. Behaving excessively like animal in any respect is considered indecent. That's why we expect men also to not approach women like an animal, but instead use decent, socially appropriate routes. When a man is desperate for sex his (animal) nature is to exercise bold sexual behavior, and when a woman is desperate her nature is to pull bold attraction maneuvers. So if we take into account differences in biology of man and woman, a woman wearing provocative clothes is essentially doing the same thing that a cleavage-gazing pervert does. Here some people will jump up saying that I can not generalize that every woman wearing provocative clothes is desperate. Well, then not every man who stares at boobs is pervert, too! Get the point? It's naturally fun, healthy in a way, but indecent nonetheless when done excessively.

As I said above, indecency is any behavior which is not conducive to good health of a society. And indecency of wearing unusually bold, provocative clothes affects normal functioning of society by affecting mental states of men. As much as we like to believe from rational point of view that it is those men's fault for not controlling themselves, we must not ignore the full reality which includes natural processes that cause it all. Expecting everyone to operate rationally is good; punishing those who allow passion to overpower their reason and commit crimes is also right; but assuming that humans are perfectly rational is a grave mistake. That can never be, even!

Therefore, punish rapists; admonish all kinds of indecencies; but at the same time let's not forget that we all must always act responsibly and with decency if we wish to be in a good society. And "we" includes men and women both.

Provocative Clothes and Rape: Are Men Alone Responsible?

Popular view today is that women can wear anything they like just like men do, however exposing the clothes; and if men can't control themselves then it's entirely men's fault. It's become fashionable to fight for this freedom for women. Now this is going to be unpopular, but I strongly disagree.

People who say women can wear anything that men can are ignorant of biological make up of man and woman, or at least don't want to acknowledge it, which is a grave mistake. Agree, that even burqa-clad women are ogled and raped. So I am not saying men are clean and innocent when it comes to indecency and rape. It's just that when one says women can wear anything they like just like men do, that's not wise. And especially the women crusading for this right are not only ignorant of the biological differences in man and woman, but are also hypocrites. This latter point is seldom, if ever, brought up.

Let me ask the women obsessed with provocative clothes the question: What is the need to wear clothes that expose body parts that cause male sexual attraction. E.g. a blouse showing excessive cleavage and the like. (Everybody knows the kind of clothes I am referring to, so not describing them in more detail.) Is it because such clothes are more comfortable? That can't be, and I have got at least two points for this:

• The knowledge that a particular clothing is unusual and is going to attract excessive male attention itself won't allow the comfort in wearing it.
• Secondly, if such short clothes were really comfortable then why only women are more obsessed with wearing them? (Do men wear shirts exposing their waistline, or deep-necks, or sleeve-less as much as women do?)

Although the definition of "unusually bold clothing" differs from culture to culture; but say if a particular culture is relatively more liberal and within it it is common to wear certain clothes that are considered unusual and indecent in other cultures, then those clothes won't be "provocative" in the first place. Because if the culture is really liberal then men as well as women are liberal, and therefore the men won't be "provoked" by those clothes. So that's alright.The hypocrite women I am referring to are those who are fully aware of the boundary of their culture and knowingly wear unusually bold clothes (within their particular culture).

The aim of modern clothing is hardly the comfort of the wearer. The aim is to look attractive. And when it comes to cleavage-showing blouse, or mini skirt or any such provocative clothing, it's about attracting attention by appealing to male sexuality.

Most of the women from this camp, I am sure, would also express problems with men staring at their cleavage and other body parts that are actually made to stand out by wearing designed-for-the-purpose clothes. Simple question then should be, why wear those clothes if you are going to have a problem with people staring? Note that I am not trying to justify the indecency of men, but am just putting the other side through scrutiny. No one can deny that body-exposing clothes for women are for attracting male attention. If they wear such clothes one can fairly assume that they want to be looked at. Upon having a closer look one finds what those women actually have a problem with is the stares of the people who they don't like. When an ugly man stares at a woman, he is pervert; and when a hot man stares at a woman, he is interested! That's what it is.

So, first of all, these women-folks need to give up their hypocrisy if they want to address the problem in a meaningful way.

Women, you show cleavage not for that blouse is comfortable for you, but for you want to attract attention of hot and attractive members of male species. But by doing so you attract not-so-desirable gazes too, which makes you feel insecure and threatened. Now you don't want to take accountability for your part, therefore like a narcissist, instead of admitting your own intentions, you give entire male species the label of perverts!

Unregulated sexual behavior is wrong, but then equally wrong is provoking it in public places, now that in a civilized world we have better mechanisms available for finding a partner of the opposite sex. If we take into account differences in biology of man and woman, it should be clear that a woman wearing provocative clothes is essentially doing the same thing that a cleavage-gazing pervert does. But pervert is often the latter! What is needed to be understood is that men are caught "active" because so is their sexual biology. Since male is designed to seduce, and female is designed to be seduced, we won't find an active female. While men have to make bold advances, females just have to pull maneuvers. Indirect. That's the reason why always males are culprits. Women are passive, but in such cases equally culprits. This is nearly impossible to get people to understand because it requires more than ordinary common sense!

Now let's look at some more technicality. Being attracted to female body parts comes from our animal nature, and we call it wrong (even though it is not quite so in natural world) because we are civilized creatures. But the truth is, attracting the members of opposite sex by various maneuvers is also something that we have learned when we were apes, and therefore is the most animalistic trick to find a partner for mating. Today's women wearing provocative clothes may not be looking out for a partner for mating, but their desire to look attractive is their biology doing the job already. It is therefore improper and unwise to allow one gender to pull explicit animalistic maneuvers and blame the other gender of getting affected by it. We haven't outlawed Nature yet.

Coming back to rape. One thing is clear that women wear provocative clothes to attract male attention (mostly consciously, or otherwise at a biological level anyway) and the appeal is to sexuality. The trick is the same that many creatures in natural world employ to attract mating partners. Now take this bitter pill: Rape is likely evolved by natural selection as a secondary mating strategy. Wait, no, I will never advocate rape on this ground. However, this theory is not unfounded, and one would understand it if one understands Nature, biology and evolution mechanism. What I intend to draw attention to is the relation between wearing provocative clothes and rape as the relation between the maneuver and the result it is fundamentally intended for – mating. Since we live in a complex civilized world sometimes the result, mating, is involuntary, but in case where provocative clothes are worn the result is nonetheless invited by the maneuver; because biologically speaking, there's no other reason to expose body parts arousing sexuality.

Rape can never be justified on natural grounds. Since we are civilized we must regulate our behavior; and the breach of it must be adequately punished. But controlling male behavior is addressing only half of the problem. In fact, controlling only male behavior and giving free rein to women to wear whatever they like is not only utterly unwise, but is cruelty to men, and would likely exacerbate the problem. One must understand the powerful laws of Nature. If we need to address the problem of rape meaningfully, we must curtail excessively animalistic behavior in both genders.

Wearing of provocative clothes by women, and bold sexual advances by men are two sides of a coin. Don't make a mistake of curtailing only one. Rapers are perverts, no doubt; but it is also irresponsible on part of women to wear provocative clothes, and therefore they also deserve part of the blame.

Follow discussion on Google+

• Provocative Clothes and Rape: A Response
• Are Men Perverts or Women Irresponsible?

How Evolution Actually Works

This post is an explanation (though non-technical) of how evolution actually works, in contrast to how most people think about it.

Note that I am not aware of how prevalent is the misunderstanding this post attempts to correct. It is possible that fewer people are under the misunderstanding than I think. I decided to write about it because most people around me aren't aware of the actual evolution mechanism. Moreover, I remember how it was taught to me in school, and the way it was taught was misleading. If that's how evolution is still taught then I believe this post will be useful in clarifying the mechanism.

How Evolution Actually Works

Common notion of evolution is that organisms adapt to suit their environment. Wrong!

Organisms don't adapt to suit their environment. Random mutations are always happening in organisms, but only those mutations are successful which produce alterations which are allowed to continue by their current environmental conditions. When the process of certain alteration is complete it appears as if the change of feature in a particular organism happened to suit the environment. But the fact is, mutations for that same change may have happened many times in the past, but only this time the environmental conditions were favorable for the organism with altered feature to survive, and thus for the altered feature to become normal.

Confused? Take the example of giraffe's neck. It is mostly taught in schools (at least in my school it was taught so) that giraffe's neck became long because they moved from savannah (grassland) to the areas with tall trees in times of food scarcity. A long neck was required for them to reach the leaves high up the trees. Hence, over many generations through evolution their neck became long! This is an oversimplification of the process of natural selection. It gives an impression that environmental changes precede alterations in organism's features. In reality it is not quite so.

Let's see what's happened in case of giraffe's neck. Long neck resulted in giraffes through many mutations over time. The contribution of each single mutation is understandably only slight. And such mutations take place from time to time "randomly" regardless of environmental conditions, not only for neck but for all sorts of alterations in an organism. With respect to the above hypothesis, here's what must have happened considering how evolution actually works: When giraffes were living in savannah they did not require long neck. Rather, long necks might have posed danger to their survival by making them noticeable to predators from a distance. So, whenever the random mutation for long neck happened, the giraffe with newly acquired slightly longer neck would be hunted down by the predator (owing to its long neck) and the mutation thus would go unsuccessful since the animal wouldn't pass on its genes for long neck! Now, say, the giraffes have shifted from grasslands to the forests with tall trees. Random mutation for long neck happens again. (Mutations always keep happening randomly!) This time the giraffe with slightly long neck survives, and reproduces! Because in their new environment, long neck doesn't attract predators' notice. And with further random mutations for long neck, over many generations, the neck goes on increasing as long as the environmental conditions don't restrict it by putting the giraffe at a disadvantage for survival and/or reproduction. Moreover, in the areas with tall trees those giraffes with short necks become disadvantaged because they can't get food easily. The disadvantaged giraffes wouldn't be able to pass on their genes (of short neck) because they would starve and die before reproducing. It is thus said that giraffes with long necks are selected by natural selection. Of course, this process happens over long time period. (Note that this is the simplest of the hypotheses about giraffe's neck. Even if it may not be quite true in giraffe's case, it's nonetheless valid as to the point being explained.)

Let's have a look at another example. You must have seen albino people. Albinism also has emerged by random mutation, without the environment demanding it. But albinos are not common in population precisely because they are at a disadvantage in survival and reproduction. Albinos being vulnerable to harmful ultraviolet rays, and thereby skin cancer, and faring poor at finding a mate to reproduce with, restricts the genes of albinism to spread. If in the future, say, Earth's environment so changes that we no more face ultraviolet rays then randomly born albinos will have better chances of survival, and it is possible that in the long term albinism will spread enough to become a normal feature of human species! Likewise, we have every reason to think that many other alterations in human species are happening from time to time by way of random mutations, without the environment requiring it. But only those changes which don't put the bearer of the change at a disadvantage in his/her environment pass further on and become a normal feature after many generations of evolution.

The important, and often misunderstood, point about the process is this: Changes in environmental conditions don't precede alterations of features in organisms. Random mutations are always happening, and environment only allows or disallows the genes of altered features to go further. When the alteration is allowed by the environment the newly evolved feature is spread further through reproduction in the organism. When the alteration puts the organism to disadvantage in its current environment, the organism wouldn't survive and the altered feature would therefore never become normal.

In short, environment doesn't bring about the change in features. It only approves or disapproves the changes that happen on their on randomly!

Comment Policy

All comments are moderated.

Comment only if you have further thoughts to share on the topic of the post that might add more value to the article.

Criticisms are welcome, but mere criticisms are unlikely to be published. A criticism must be accompanied by a detailed alternative point of view and/or explanation of your own.

Don't comment only to express appreciation and/or agreement.

Don't use Anonymous mode of commenting unless it is absolutely necessary. The option is only kept available for special cases where the comment author might not want to make his/her identity public on the Internet. However, anonymous comments are less likely to be accepted.

Comments containing abuse, swear words, harsh and insulting language will be rejected.

If you remove your comment after it has been replied to by the blog author, or anyone else, you will be permanently banned  from commenting on this website.

If you have anything to say that doesn't meet the criteria of the comment policy, do not use the comment option. Use instead the contact form.

My Answer to "Do You Believe In Love?"

Randomly reading my views on love in different posts on this blog one understandably gets confused as to what I actually stand for with regards to love. I am often faced with the question, "Do you believe in love?" to which most of the times I have to respond with just a smile. Next time I will instead give the link of this post!

To answer this question 500 Days of Summer style (My rating of the film: 6/10, Not recommended): It's love. It's not Santa Claus! You can't believe or not believe in love. It is certainly not a fantasy. Superman is a fantasy, but love actually makes you fly. It isn't just one's imagination. Imagination isn't that powerful.

Does that mean love exists for real? Well, let's not get carried away. The answer is not so simple, because this is actually a disguised query. In a disguised query one isn't really asking what the question appears to be about. Say, person A defines love as a combination of respect-empathy-compassion (which for me is "true love"), and for person B love is the classic symptoms of "romantic love", i.e. obsession-attachment-euphoria. Now when they ask "Do you believe in love?" they are not really asking the same thing. It's a disguised query in that person A actually wants to know whether you believe that sharing of respect-empathy-compassion between two persons is possible for life, while person B's query is about the obsession-attachment-euphoria kind of romantic love.

For the moment let's focus on person B's query. It can be further looked into to see whether he is asking if romantic love (obsession-attachment-euphoria) exists at all, or he is asking if it lasts for life. If the query is the former then as I said above, love certainly exists. (Who denies that those feelings exist?!) If the query is the latter, i.e. whether romantic love lasts for life, then the answer is negative. And if one believes that it lasts for life then that's a fantasy! That's the reason why I often speak against mass media (TV, Hollywood, fiction books) feeding people with "fantasy ideals" of love and thereby raising their expectations from life to unrealistic level which makes them end up in misery.

Mostly I see two types of people when it comes to love. Those who don't believe in love and therefore advocate only casual relationships. (Enjoy till it lasts, they would say.) And those who totally believe in fantasy ideals of love. In my opinion both are misguided. Now you must wonder why I am calling enjoy-till-lasts a misguided approach, for I just said that romantic love doesn't last for life. Well, that's true, but romantic love (or romance) is not all there is to love. In fact, true love isn't romantic. THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT. True love consists of respect-empathy-compassion. Similar to what best friends share, only much more in degree. That's the love our "human nature" craves. Romantic love (obsession-attachment-euphoria) pertains to our "animal nature", and it's there for the purpose of enabling "mating". (More on romantic love.) We don't have full control on our animal nature. That's the reason we are pretty much powerless when romantic love is on.

Autonomy is the hallmark of being human. That part of one's behavior on which one doesn't have autonomous control pertains to one's animal nature. Since we are fundamentally animals we can't disown our animal nature which serves biological goals (or natural goals). Therefore, we can't not develop romantic love, by choice, and be in a relationship. But importantly, when romantic love wanes (and it does), that's not the end of a relationship. If one believes that romantic love is the thing then one is utterly misguided. For, such life would never be fulfilling. It would, if we were just animals; but as more-than-animals we have more sophisticated needs from a relationship. Trust, sincerity, devotion, solidity, consistency, cooperation... These are essentially human qualities on which our social world is founded. Striped of these qualities we would be living in a jungle! Enjoy-till-it-lasts is a denial of these human qualities! That's what is wrong with this mindset. A human being can never have fulfilling life with this mindset.

Enjoy-till-it-lasts mindset is animalistic and out-and-out narcissistic. Who would decide if it's still enjoyable? There are two parties in a relationship. What if one person stops enjoying it while the other still wants to enjoy it? (And that's the case most of the times!) See? That's why it's narcissistic. To say enjoy-till-it-lasts is to say: I am in only till I enjoy it.

Talking about love and not acknowledging the impermanence of romantic love isn't going to lead to a meaningful conclusion. Because then believing in love would be to believe that romantic love lasts "forever" (meant-to-be, soul mates etc) – which is not true and will only bring misery if earnestly expected; and to not believe in love is to carry enjoy-till-it-lasts mindset (or to completely keep away from a relationship) which isn't conducive to fulfillment in human life.


Do I believe in love?

If given only two choices, I would live with a suited person for life without romantic love, sharing only true love (respect-empathy-compassion); but would be wary of making a decision to be with someone carrying the enjoy-till-it-lasts mindset. Fortunately, in a serious lifelong relationship one can maintain some romance (not extreme passion and euphoria) throughout life of a relationship by conscious measures. One must only give up the fantasy ideals of romantic love and learn the importance of true love, and live like a mature human being rather than taking to infantile rambling for romance and passion.

All that said, I am aware that sometimes the natural forces take the better of us. Agree that seduction is really a fun game whether it's boldly played with sexual intent or by subtle way of romantic love; but that's not the best way for humans to be in love. In any case, a clear understanding is important so that there's no disconnect between what you were looking for and what you ended up with.

For me love is more than romance. As much as I am vulnerable to romantic love, I know what romantic feelings are for; and as much as I am open to enjoying the magic of romantic love, I value true love (which emerges when romance subsides) more than romantic love. I can't conceive a serious committed relationship with a woman who doesn't have this understanding.

Determinism, Free Will and Moral Responsibility

Determinism has no bearing on moral responsibility.

Determinism is linked to moral responsibility by some people in a sense that if determinism is true then we don't have free will, and if we don't have free will then how can we hold someone responsible for what he does?

To begin with, I will declare my position on both determinism and free will. I do believe determinism is true. As for free will, I think determinism doesn't necessarily preclude free will. However, the answer to the question of free will isn't so simple in that it depends on the level from where we are looking at life. (Read my case for free will for detailed account of my view.) If we look at life from the point outside of (or prior to) our consciousness then we are but passive atoms and molecules in motion subject to the laws of physics, and hence we can't be said to have free will. But I believe that since we don't exist (as an autonomous ego-entity, with the ability to see itself as distinct from the universe) outside of our consciousness, this question is only relevant after the point where we came to exist, because it's about "us" having or not having the will. We exist only through our consciousness, and therein we do have free will. (That's why I can even think about it now!) Saying that free will is an illusion would be to say that we too are illusions; and if everything is illusion then we must accept that that's the only way things are, and that automatically renders everything real. Therefore, I lean towards the position that we do have free will.

[Comments on my stance on free will must go to this post and not on the current one, as the main topic here is different.]

Are you thinking that this is the argument I am going to use for unlinking determinism from moral responsibility? Well, No! Rather, I am going to concede for this post that we don't have free will. And still I have a case for moral responsibility! Not that I am afraid that the people linking determinism and moral responsibility are going to be taken seriously, but still just for the sake of discussion, here I present my case for moral responsibility in absence of free will.

A Case for Moral Responsibility in Absence of Free Will

We don't have free will. That means whatever action one takes is caused by myriad other factors, not by one's own will, thus making the agent free of responsibility of that action. According to these people, if someone commits a crime, we can't hold him morally responsible. It follows that there's no question of punishment. Appalling that would be! Right?

Well, hold on, says I. Okay, we don't have free will. Now say, Mr. X has raped a woman, and you are saying that he is not responsible for it on account of lack of free will. But when you tell me to not punish him, aren't you assuming that I have free will to take the decision whether to punish him or not? If there's no free will, no one has free will. So, you can't blame me for punishing Mr. X, the rapist, any more than you can blame him for his crime! You can't even ask me to consider it because I don't have free will to consider it with, man! I will punish him, and that punishment might well be "caused" by his criminal action quite in accord with determinism! See the point?

To consider whether we should hold someone morally responsible for his bad actions, referring to the lack of free will, is itself an act that requires free will, whether real or illusory. Since I have already agreed for this post that we don't have free will it must be illusory. So, let's say using an illusory free will, you decide that the rapist should not be punished because he doesn't have free will; but still the decision to not hold him accountable or punish him is itself arrived at using free will (however illusory)! And if you think we could use our illusory free will to consider whether or not to hold him accountable then why except him from the use of the same illusory free will? Do you see the implication such thinking will have on the society? Disastrous! So, why not instead by using the illusory free will take the decision of punishing him and thereby save the society of the doom!

Actually, there's no need of free will to punish an action which is detrimental to one's survival. Our instincts are enough to make us take the counter actions. For those people, to act otherwise, i.e. to defend someone because there's no free will, is to use one's (illusory, yeah?) free will in taking the decision, and thereby acting against their own position; or otherwise, insane – for choosing to run into disaster when the better decision could be taken just as well!

Hence, to those intellectual perverts (yes, that's what I call them who "seriously" live with such absurd views – and there are quite a few around me, if you're wondering!): As long as the humanity hasn't totally lost sanity whether we believe we have free will or not, people will still be held morally responsible and accordingly be punished as well.

How Non-Critical Thinkers Create Problems

It's a sad truth that most people in the world are non-critical thinkers. By non-critical thinkers here I mean non-philosopher type; those who aren't interested in understanding about life, the human nature, etc.

Something happened at my home this morning that I thought I could use as an example of how non-critical thinkers are good at creating problems in their (and other people's) lives without having the ability to realize that they are doing so. By the way, the non-critical thinker in this case is my mom!

So yes, in our residential society there's this garbage man who cleans the building premises, staircases, etc, and collects garbage from every house every morning. He collects garbage simultaneously while cleaning the stairs and the floor around the doors. To optimize his time, what he does is ring a doorbell and goes back to the cleaning job; because obviously no one opens the door right at the moment the doorbell rings. And if he waited at each door, say, on average 30 seconds, then for collecting waste from four doors he would, on average, be wasting two minutes (30 seconds X 4 homes). Two minutes, by the way, is also the average time he takes to clean the entire area of one particular floor. (Time figures are taken for the example such that it makes the explanation simple.) Yes, so what he does is this. He would ring a doorbell and get back to continue his work. And when the door opens he would take the waste bin and empty in into the big waste bucket he slides along with him.

Now looking closer into his working. Since it's his every day job, after many days of experience he would get used to the whole timing thing. For example, he knows that on average it takes 30 seconds for our door to open; also, it is best for him if our door opens when he has cleaned a certain area of the floor, after which he has to change the direction and angle from which he sweeps his broom. (It's like his task is divided into parts, and it's better if the task is interrupted after the completion of parts than at any random moment.)  So, he would ring a bell at the time such that till the door opens he has completed that part of the task which I mentioned. For that's optimizing his time and efforts and gives him highest efficiency. (Of course, since there are four doors the actual efficiency management job is more complex, but it is achieved by this very process which I stated in a simplified form.)

Continuing the scenario, since he has to (or he is determined to) maintain his efficiency thus achieved, if my mom takes less than average time to open the door, she won't find him at the door when she opens it, and therefore will have to wait a few seconds till he completes the part (that I stated above) of the task and comes to collect waste. If, on the other hand, on some day my mom takes a few seconds more than the average time to open the door then he would have had to wait a few seconds, causing him a loss of efficiency. If this "deviation" from the average time to open the door is little (and of course, little deviations naturally happen everyday but that's fine), there isn't a problem. But if the deviations are large, i.e., the amount of time taken to open the door increases far more than the average time it takes, and if that is repeated day after day then it is understandable that the garbage man isn't going to like it; and he would have to work out his "most efficient strategy" of time management all anew!

That's what happened today. Actually, since last two days I have changed my morning routine somewhat and so the time of my having lunch has shifted. Consequently, the time of mom's cooking has shifted, to coincide with when the garbage man usually comes. A day before yesterday when the doorbell rang, my mom was cooking and so it took her far more than average time to open the door. About 1 minute, which is double of the average time. I was eating my lunch (Yes, I already start eating while the food is cooking, and it arrives into my plate in installments!) and getting restless while mom was stuck with the chapati she had to finish before rushing for the door. When the door opened, the man, as expected, was waiting at the door. Again yesterday the same thing happened. This time around the man grumbled something at mom out of displeasure. Seeing it, this thought flashed through my mind: "From tomorrow this poor man should ring the doorbell a minute in advance so that he doesn't have to wait long like this." Ringing the doorbell by taking the average time as 1 minute (instead of 30 seconds) he could make the completion of his that part of the task and the opening of our door coincide again.

This morning, surprisingly, I think, that's what he did. But sadly, when the doorbell rang, mom was free and she took hardly 5 seconds to open the door carrying a waste bag. And then – and this is the proof that he had recalculated the time – she had to wait for about 55 seconds till he came to the door. (If he hadn't recalculated the time, mom would have had to wait only 25 seconds.) At this, mom got real angry at him for keeping her waiting at the door for almost a minute while she had other things to do! This time around he was prepared with a verbal attack of his own. And you imagined right what happened. A squabble followed. Not going into the immaterial details, but at the end of the fight none of the parties, obviously, were pleased. (I hope there's no after-effects of this event to be faced in the future.)

What I gathered from this? I think it was unreasonable of my mom to get angry at him. Here's why: Since for past two days she (or I should say "we") had been spoiling the poor man's time management, today he came with a correction in his time management strategy, which was only right and rational on his part; but because of our varying deviations from the average time to open the door, things didn't go as they should have and mom got "punished". If we look at it justly, she got punished for what she did in the past two days. She deviated from the usual pattern, for two days in a row, which forced the man to reformulate his plans, and she deviates again today and gets punished. Twice the man got punished (about 30 seconds each time), and once mom did (55 seconds). On the whole it had got automatically even.

If mom was a critical thinker she would have seen this whole thing through and applied the necessary corrections in the following days instead of getting unnecessarily angry at the man. If I was in my mom's place, I would, in the following days, simply open the door taking less then average time and the man would automatically adapt his plans to match both our time. After that all I had to do is avoid large deviations from the average time, and in any case not repeat it, which is only fair. I think this understanding is necessary.

One has to know the human nature, and understand and respect everybody's desire and tendency to act for one's wellbeing, which in this case was the efficiency the man got through his time management. As long as possible, we should try to cooperate with each other in achieving that state which is most advantageous for everyone.

But ah, who thinks so much! Aren't you also wondering why I am making such big deal out of an incidence which no one looks into this closely? (Well, I just thought there was some lesson in it.) What mom thinks is that it's alright to make him wait at the door, after all it's his job; but how could he ring the doorbell and then not be there when the door is opened! Yes, she's got a point. But look what happened when she acted on that point.

In the world there arise myriad types of problems where critical thinking can be used to the common advantage. This example was far from excellent or comprehensive, I know. (Rather a clumsy one.)  The incidence, however, shows an important point: There are so many cases happening in life where problems and miseries are caused because people don't understand life well. Humans don't understand other humans. Neither do I understand everything perfectly, but perfection is never the point. The more we understand life and the human nature, the smoother our transactions get.

Philosophers and critical-thinkers see life much more closely than ordinary people do. They see things not seen by others. And so their actions are often likely to be more efficient and yielding in terms of human well being. I am not saying that all philosophers and critical thinkers use their best judgement in every situation; but they certainly have the ability to act in a much more amicable way than the ordinary people who don't understand life. This is true especially of the thinkers who have well developed ethical and moral sense, which by the way is a function of critical thinking. Hence, we need more people to be interested in philosophy and critical thinking and, in general, understanding life.