The Anti-Soapbox: Collected Essays Read online

appearances is perceived as not acting upon appearances? Then, we can judge books by their covers while fully believing we aren’t doing so, with complete confidence in this flawed perception. It’s something along the lines of a mirror reflecting itself.

  This scenario presents quite a problem, for so long as we remain trapped in the echo chamber of our subjective thoughts and perceptions, how could we ever realize our error? It’s by token of this almost inescapable flaw that we can engage in appearance-based thinking without realizing we’re doing so, made possible by the self-referencing nature of perception and the mind.

  Yet, as easy and natural as such thinking is, it presents real-world consequences.

  Operating on appearances can affect us daily, in ways one might not expect, right down to our most mundane affairs and choices. For instance: the conman who appears legitimate; the oncoming car that appears to be moving slower than it actually is; the deal that’s too good to be true, but appears true. These examples are easy enough to understand—the appearance is misleading, and conceals danger or shortcoming—but such transparency is not always present. Sometimes, an appearance may be far more difficult to penetrate, even with effort. Consider, for example, a predatory company that deceives even its own employees, so that all but the topmost partners are sincere in promoting its spurious products, creating onion-like layers that all appear legitimate until the corrupt core is reached. Or, how about an appearance that accords with common sense, reinforcing its sensibility? If everyone around you is behaving the same way, it can result in an appearance of legitimacy, even if that behavior is anything but legitimate (a phenomenon known as “social proof”).

  Also, there are even slipperier appearances, which can trip up even the wary.

  One of these is the primacy of logic—that is, the appearance that the logical thing is always the right thing. As attractive as this idea is, it’s just not true, for there are times when perfectly logical appearances can be just as misleading as “fishy” ones. Take, for instance, past precedent. The sun has always come up in the morning, therefore the sun will come up tomorrow—a logical assumption, and one that will probably prove true. However, the same cannot be said of all things, even those which have recurred enough to be taken for granted. Consider the world’s biggest corporations, those labeled as “too big to fail,” due to their being central to whole industries and economies. Some of these companies have existed longer than their employees have been alive, if not longer than those employees’ parents and grandparents—how eternal might such a corporation appear to the general public, having existed for generations? One is tempted to think that such a cornerstone will always be there, which makes it a logical investment—yet that’s a mere appearance, for no institution is forever, however constant it might appear. As we have witnessed time and again, an appearance of “too big to fail” is no guarantee against failure, as the many billions in recent government bailouts go to show. Such is one danger of subscribing to the appearances created by past precedent.

  Similarly, we can fall prey to the unknown.

  The unknown is man’s greatest, and oldest, enemy. Since the dawn of civilization, we have always been at the mercy of our available knowledge. However, limited knowledge is, in itself, not an undermining problem—so long as one knows their knowledge is limited, and acts accordingly. The true problems only arise when one believes that the presently known is all there is to know—that there is no unknown to speak of and, thus, the known should be taken as gospel and then acted upon. Then, the problem is less the unknown, than succumbing to the appearance that there is no unknown. Once upon a time, we thought the sun orbited the Earth, because of the sun’s appearing to “orbit” from horizon to horizon—and, because we assumed there were no astronomical unknowns, we accepted this appearance and its illusion of orbit. Once upon a time, we thought the world was flat, also due to an appearance (of a “flat” horizon) and an assumption (that there were no unknown factors at play, such as the Earth’s broad curvature creating an illusion of “flatness”). Once upon a time, not only were these ideas so widely accepted as to be unquestionable, they were acted upon, as to form the foundation of popular thought at the time—a foundation which would eventually prove wrong, pulling the rug out from under entire worldviews and scientific doctrines. And it all hinged on a mix of appearance-centered thinking and plain old arrogance. Only when appearances were scrutinized, and the possibility of the unknown allowed into our reasoning, were these illusions destroyed.

  However, we are far from being past dismissing the unknown in favor of superficial explanations of the world, and this practice remains a present-day danger, right down to the individual level. How might a business perform, were it founded on the assumption of a flat earth? Or, in modern terms, what if a business was founded on the premise that it was “too big to fail,” due to the assumption that all was known? Today, to act against appearances, assumptions of the known, and past precedent is often mistaken as being “illogical” (or “crazy”); and though “illogical” might be technically true, in its literal sense, this does not make it automatically wrong. If one, say, possesses a deeper knowledge of the situation—a knowledge which, though it defies the obvious, is accurate—then that changes things a bit. Might somebody acting against appearances and “common sense” just be operating on that deeper, privileged knowledge? Really, such a person would be wholly logical, just with a broader logic that might not be apparent to the outside observer. If someone offered you a million dollars to point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger, all appearances might compel you to refuse—but what if you knew for a fact that the gun wasn’t loaded (that is, you possessed deeper, privileged information of the situation)?

  It sheds some light on the concept of faith, I think.

  Here, another appearance-related pitfall must be noted: complexity.

  As tempting as it may be to take a situation at face value, most of us know to look beyond surface appearances. However, what if a situation is so complex that even its deeper appearances are misleading? Occasionally, something can be so complicated, one might investigate it thoroughly without penetrating its appearances. For instance, chemotherapy. Imagine for a moment that you are an alien, entirely unmet by the concepts of cancer and chemotherapy treatment. Upon visiting Earth for the first time, you stumble upon some sick humans, only to find that other humans are making them sicker, voluntarily. What could be the meaning of this? Sure, we might understand chemotherapy perfectly, having grown up with the idea of poisoning cancerous tumors as a means of destroying them. But for the alien, ignorant of the many complex factors behind this practice, much education would be required to understand what is, to a native earthling, a commonly understood concept. The same could be said about visiting a foreign country and witnessing its customs and practices, which might appear bizarre but are wholly logical when placed in their cultural context. In this way, complexity can pose a true hindrance to seeing through a surface appearance.

  As it were, the appearances posed by complexity obscure much in life, more than we might like to think about.

  Generally, we’re drawn to simplicity for the same reason we’re drawn toward appearances: because they are easy to accept. There is not only the convenience factor, but that of comfort—of all things being right, in order, and understood. As a result, we will, if not careful, gravitate toward a simplistic view of reality, where deeper, actual causes are omitted or ignored in favor of the comfort offered by surface appearances. Think of this condensed reality as the “five-minute news spot” version of things, compared to the “book-length” version—how many people would rather hear something settled and concluded upon in five minutes, instead of having to read a whole book on it? Yet, to truly get the full story on something (and see through its appearances), the “book” must be read, for there are very few subjects which can be adequately and realistically described in a five-minute blurb. The element of broadness is important, for if we ignore actual reality in favor of
the condensed version, it can distort our very perceptions, as to “edit out” anything which doesn’t conform to narrow appearances—that deadly phenomenon known as “selective perception.”

  I’ve saved the most dangerous (and alluring) of appearances for last: immediate consequences.

  Push a button and visibly electrocute a man in a cage, and one might be deterred from pressing that button. Push a button and electrocute a man at the other end of the building, out of sight, and one might not be so disinclined—because there appears to be no consequence. In fact, even if it’s known that there’s a man somewhere, getting electrical shocks, the button-pusher might still be tempted, because appearances are just that powerful (enough to affect one’s subconscious, involuntary thoughts, in a way they might not even be aware of). It might be reassuring to think you would never push such a long-distance-shock button if you knew what it did, but do not underestimate those subconscious effects of a benign, inconsequential appearance, for these can influence one in profound ways (especially if pressing that button, say, spared you from