Our Little Secrets

I believe that despite of our negative self-image, almost all of us perceive ourselves as good, unique, smart, cool, popular, open-minded, noble, modest, or/ and other positive attributes anyone may think of.

The thing is that, unconsciously, we all want this good self-image of ours to be reflected on the eyes of others. We want others to validate the self-image we have been tirelessly building and polishing in our entire life. That is why we depend too much on others. We are all too busy searching for validation and approval from others that we are the noble/ smart/ calm/ open-minded/ modest/ popular person after all. 

We all want to be great.

We want to be perceived as popular person. At times, we forget that we are too busy uploading stuffs—either true or fictitious—to uphold our popularity. We are so excited when we get the ‘likes’ and positive comments. In fact, that is what we are looking for. We are crazy about it. The affirmation that we are the popular person after all.

We want to be perceived as classy person. When we go to some places, we are so neurotic to share that we go to some classy places that only classy people can go. Sometimes, we even fake the hotel or restaurant we go in (in social media) simply to ‘wow’ people. While at the same time, we are losing the essence of the moment.

We want to be perceived as creative person. We like to see what others may comment positively on what we create. When they give positive comment, that is when we come at the realization that we are the creative and unique person after all. 

We want to be perceived as calm person. In the evening before final test, sometimes, we are so proud to announce that we are not going to study. Also, two hours before the deadline of research submission, we are so proud to announce that we have not done anything. We want to be different, cool, and calm in facing things that scary most of our friends. We get more excitement when others comment on how calm we are, and how smart we are that we require no time to do all those things we are about to face.

We want to be perceived as open-minded and smart person. Sometimes, we post or boast something we actually do not understand. Some other time, we are trying so hard to be the Humanist, Liberalist,  and open-minded person whose thought is so deep and profound so that no religions and tradition can outsmart us. We secretly browse the topic—sometimes plagiarize the whole idea—we are about to post or boast to ‘wow’ everybody, even any professors in the field we are engaging on. 

We want to be perceived as good and kind-hearted person. That is when we fake everything and agree on things that we basically do not agree on. We are too busy being the fairy and good person to avoid tension; and by that, we forget that tension only comes when the interacting people are being authentic; and authentic tension is the one that enlightens situation and tightens up relationship.

The idea is quite ridiculous, sometimes, when we even want the validation from some random strangers on the street. We are all very curious, thinking what is going on in every mind of those strangers, what they think about our looks, our speaking pattern, the way we walk, etc. We expect them to think positively about us by doing anything required to be perceived as good person.

We are ave very caring creature. We care too much.

Indeed, sometimes, we just want a feedback from others. We want to know what they think of our creation, our trip, our profound thoughts, etc; but, at the same time, we also do not want any criticism. We hate it!

We want as much as confirming evidences of our greatness rather than the disconfirming ones.

Those are some of our secrets. There are still so many more secrets, but they are too secret[ous] to be told.

Rasional dan Irasional

Sebagai lulusan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris, kerap kali teman-temanku meminta bantuanku untuk menyunting atau mengoreksi artikel, esai, dan bahkan skripsi (dalam Bahasa Inggris) mereka secara cuma-cuma. Bila aku sedang tidak banyak pekerjaan, biasanya dengan senang hati aku melakukannya. 

Aku terkadang bingung ketika mereka memaksa untuk membayar, aku bukanlah seorang penyunting—berbeda cerita bila mereka memintaku menerjemahkan teks. Alhasil, suasana hangat pertemananpun terlelan oleh kecanggungan. Hal yang menurutku paling aneh adalah aku bisa menerima jika temanku membayar dengan sesuatu yang bukan uang (makan siang, minuman, dsb) atau bahkan cuma-cuma, namun ketika mereka membayar dengan uang senilai Rp. 20.000 (seharga makan siang) atau lebih, aku mulai berpikir mengenai standar acuan upah penyuntingan, dan akhirnya menolak.

Aku suka menulis dan menyunting teks berbahasa Inggris; namun, ketika aku dibayar untuk itu, entah mengapa aku kehilangan ketertarikanku.

Di SMA, aku pernah belajar ilmu Ekonomi, dan aku tahu hal ini jelas-jelas bertentangan dengan prinsip dasar Ekonomi bahwa manusia adalah mahluk yang rasional dan selalu berpedoman  pada cost and benefit. 

Aku lebih suka menggunakan istilah dalam versi Bahasa Inggisnya karena istilah versi Bahasa Indonesianya, ‘biaya dan manfaat’ menurutku kurang pas. Istilah ‘cost’ yang diartikan sebagai ‘biaya’, memiliki makna yang relatif lebih sempit karena istilah ini sangat erat kolokasinya dengan uang, padahal istilah ‘cost’ mengemban makna yang sangat luas. 

Dalam studi Ekonomi, hampir segala hal bisa dianalisis menggunakan kacamata ‘cost and benefit’ ini. Contohnya, menyikapi kebijakan Kemenkominfo baru-baru ini untuk memblokir Tumblr yang dituding banyak menyebarkan konten pornografi. Kebijakan Kemenkominfo ini menuai banyak kritik pedas karena cost-nya—memblokir Tumblr—dinilai tidak sebanding dengan benefit-nya—berkurangnya penyebaran konten pornografi. Bahkan, banyak yang berpendapat bahwa benefit yang diharapkan Kemenkominfo, tidak akan terasa karena banyak media lain selain Tumblr yang dapat digunakan untuk menyebarluaskan konten pornografi tersebut, sehingga, yang terasa hanyalah cost-nya. 

Contoh lainnya adalah kebijakan  pejabat Disbudpar Kabupaten Bandung Barat mengenai kemacetan di Bandung pada Desember 2015 lalu. Saat itu, aku yang terjebak macet ketika sedang melakukan kegiatan pemanduan turis di Bandung, menyalakan radio untuk mendengarkan pantauan lalu-lintas. Pejabat dari Disbudpar, yang ketika itu diwawancara oleh radio Pikiran Rakyat, mengatakan bahwa cara agar Bandung tidak macet ketika musim liburan adalah dengan cara tidak pergi liburan ketika musim liburan. Beliau menambahkan bahwa jika ingin berlibur, sebaiknya ambil cuti kerja saja. Komentar ini, tentu saja terdengar sangat konyol karena cost-nya—menghimbau agar wisatawan tidak berlibur di saat liburan—sangat timpang dengan benefit-nya—tidak macet; terlebih, yang mengungkapkannya adalah seorang pejabat Disbudpar yang seharusnya mempromosikan pariwisata di Kota Bandung dan sekitarnya.

Sepertinya aku terlalu jauh ngelantur mengenai topik ini. 

Kembali pada bahasan mengenai mahluk Ekonomi yang seharusnya bertindak dan berpemikiran rasional.

Lantas, apakah tindakanku itu tidak rasional? 

Apakah tindakanku merupakan sebuah deviasi dari prinsip manusia yang merupakan mahluk ekonomi?

Perilakuku diatas tadi dapat dianalisis melalui kacamata Behavior Economics, atau Ekonomi Berbasis Perilaku.

Mazhab Ekonomi ini berbeda dengan aliran Ekonomi Konvensional yang telah aku jelaskan di atas. Berdasarkan dari apa yang aku baca, Behavioral Economics (aku memilih versi Bahasa Inggrisnya karena istilah Ekonomi Berbasis Perilaku sering tertukar dengan teori Perilaku Konsumen pada Ekonomi Konvensional) mengikutsertakan studi Psikologi dan Sosiologi ke dalam studi Ekonomi konvensional untuk menjelaskan alasan mengapa manusia membuat keputusan yang tidak rasional.

Oleh karena itu, tindakan tidak rasional yang aku jelaskan di awal tulisan ini jelas dapat dianalisis dengan menggunakan lensa Behavioral Economics.

Mengutip dari buku ‘Predictably Irrational’ yang ditulis oleh Dan Ariely, dalam satu waktu yang sama, kita hidup di dua ranah yang berbeda. Di ranah yang pertama, berlaku norma-norma sosial yang penuh dengan kehangatan dan persahabatan, serta kebutuhan sosial manusia untuk berkomunitas dan saling membantu. Seperti ketika kita meminta orang lain untuk membantu mengangkat sofa ketika pindah rumah, atau membantu orang yang mobilnya mogok di tengah jalan. Timbal-balik tidak diharapkan disini. Sesaat setelah aku membantu seseorang mendorong mobilnya yang mogok. Orang tersebut tidak semerta-merta harus mendorong mobilku—yang 1. tidak mogok, dan 2. Tidak ada (hehe)

Di ranah yang kedua, norma-norma pasar dan marketing yang berlaku. Di ranah ini, semuanya berlandaskan cost and benefit, seperti, upah, gaji, keuntungan, bunga, dsb. Contoh yang paling mudah adalah ketika kita bekerja, pasti kita mengharapkan upah. 

Bukanlah karena kebaikan hati seorang petani, kita dapat makan; dan bukanlah karena kebaikan hati seorang tukang GoJek, kita bisa sampai ke tujuan; melainkan karena prinsip pasar dan interdependensi.

Pada kedua ranah ini, tidak ada hal yang lebih baik atau buruk. Kita menentukan ranah mana yang akan kita jadikan sebagai pedoman berpikir dan berperilaku, dan kemudian perlu kita sesuaikan dengan konteks.

Di bukunya, Ariely memberi contoh ‘seks’ sebagai ilustrasi. Seks dapat berada di ranah manapun sesuai dengan konteks, dan sangat tidak dianjurkan untuk mencampuradukan kedua ranah ini. Kita dapat mendapatkan seks secara gratis di ranah sosial dimana kita mengharapkan hubungan emosional. Namun, ada juga seks di ranah dimana norma-norma pasar berlaku; seks yang harus dibayar. 

Singkatnya, tidak ada suami atau istri yang meminta bayaran kepada pasangannya; dan tidak ada juga PSK yang mengharapkan hubungan percintaan serius dan berkepanjangan dengan kliennya.

Pelanggaran terhadap kedua ranah ini acapkali terjadi, dan menimbulkan berbagai macam masalah. Bila ingin membuktikan, Anda bisa mengambil sejumlah uang, kemudian datangilah pacar Anda, setelah itu, keluarkan semua uang Anda sambil memintanya apakah ia mau melakukan hubungan seks dengan Anda bila anda bayar dengan sejumlah uang itu (sebaiknya Anda laki-laki dan pacar Anda perempuan, karena jika pacar Anda laki-laki, Anda tidak perlu mengiming-iminginya dengan uang (?) ). Contoh lain, cobalah Anda pergi ke lokalisasi dan setelah melakukan hubungan seks, katakanlah bahwa Anda tidak akan membayarnya karena Anda mencintainya, lihatlah reaksinya. 

Woody Allen, menjelaskan permasalahan ini dengan tepat “The most expensive sex is free sex” 

(sebenarnya aku ingin menerjemahkan kata-kata ini, namun cukup sulit untuk menimbulkan efek yang sama, karena kata 'free' dalam Bahasa Inggris dapat berarti 'bebas' dan 'gratis' secara bersamaan, jadi tidak jadi).

Kembali ke topik awal. Lantas mengapa aku lebih bersedia melakukan penyuntingan dengan hanya diberi jus seharga Rp. 6000 atau bahkan tidak diberi apa-apa, daripada dibayar dengan jumlah uang seharga jus itu? Atau mengapa aku lebih memilih melakukan sesuatu secara cuma-cuma?

Anda sudah tahu jawabannya.

Semicolon and Anti-Suicide Movement

It happened around three years ago; I was in a Grammar course when this lecturer taught us Complex Clause—clause that has a main clause and more than one subordinate clauses. This lecturer, then, asked us to compose as long as sentence as possible. That was when I started to like making long sentences; and by the way, at that time, I made a sentence that exceeded a full-page.

My habit—which can either be good or bad; I don’t know—continued for a few semesters. I got excited even more when I met and befriended Semicolon (;), this punctuation that helps me lengthen my sentence. 

I don’t know; I just like to write a long sentence—it is not OCD for sure.

It was until a lecturer came, reproved me and said that it is bad; he explained to me that it is as if we spoke without stopping. It hurts the listener or the reader. 

That was when I realized that that writing style of mine sucks.

I tried to shortened my sentence ever since.

A few years later—because I was too busy; or too lazy; I don’t know—I googled the use of semicolon and found some unique articles about semicolon.

It says that there is this Semicolon Project, a worldwide project where people got a tattoo of Semicolon on their wrist dedicated to those who suffer from depression and suicidal behavior. It is an anti-suicide movement enforcing the idea that we should choose to continue, instead of stopping; because we can.

The message is that “[a] semicolon represents a sentence the author could have ended, but chose not to. That author is you and the sentence is your life”.

That sentence struck me for a moment. 

I did not know that a punctuation can matter this much. It perpetuates some existentialist idea, though, that we are the master of our own fate, instead of thinking that we are the puppet played by the unseen hands that we have no control over.

Suicide, I think, is a permanent action for a temporal problem. We are all going to die someday, just be patient, please. 

There have been too many great people died by committing suicide and every time it happens, the world cries. 

I am not exaggerating.

I have been missing the literary works I could have read if the author did not commit suicide. 

There are some more things we could have had, though.

When rules and grammar compel a sentence to stop, an author can always decide to put semicolon and continue writing;…

Are Human Evil?

After bombarded constantly by news about corruption, murder, tyranny, brutality, cruelty, and some other unspeakably immoral evil-attributes. I feel that I start losing my faith in humanity. I am neither an angel nor saint, yet, I am disappointed because we could have been better than this. I am disappointed by the corrupted politicians, drug dealers, extremists, thieves, pick-pockets, terrorists, plagiarizers, and all those cheaters.

Well, I am—and you are—actually not in the position to judge others since I am not experiencing what they are experiencing; and there is always a possibility that I may do what they do if I were on their shoes.

I remember reading a philosophy book—which I forget what the title is. There is this chapter—which I even forget—that discuses human nature. There, Thomas Hobbes claims that human are inherently evil. He supports his claim by explaining ancient pictorial symbols on a cave walls depicting people killing each other—which is supported by some anthropologists. Also, he corroborates his notion by mentioning wars. War is indeed a big theme that shapes human civilization, political stance, relations. It also creates states and their ideology. In some literary works that I encountered, I find that (some) people who go to war perceive it as a sort of transcendence and opium that keeps their adrenalin pumping; not to mention that there are also people who go to war because they intended to do legitimate killings. Hobbes concludes that human are inherently evil because there is this ancient savagery running in our blood.

On the other side, Rousseau (you may have heard his name in Civic Education course) theorizes otherwise. He claims that human are naturally peaceful until civilization comes along.

From the perspective of Social Psychology, however, it is quite complicated. In fact, we need to differentiate behavior between Dispositional (by nature/ personality) or Situational (determined by situation). For instance, when we saw Asep was a bully at school while also a loving brother at home; we cannot judge that he has personality disorder, multiple personality, or even as a psycho. As a matter of fact, we need to know whether his behavior is dispositional or situational.

I read a research on Social Psychology conducted by Zimbardo. Around 50 years ago, he conducted an experiment in Stanford Prison. There are 24 participants who are, by flipping a coin, divided into two groups: 12 prisoners and 12 guards (which they did not know of, and did not know each other). Few days later, the prisoners were arrested by real cops (Zimbardo wanted to create a very realistic setting for his experiment) under charges of robbery and then turned in to prison to the fake guards. The guards were told that it is the prisoner that is being experimented, while the prisoners did not know anything. The role play went really real when the guards—who can do anything they want except hurting the prisoners—turn cruel and hostile. The supposedly-fourteen-day experiment was stopped at the sixth day when the prisoners start breaking down, others rebel, and some others become passively resigned as if they deserved to be treated so badly. The prisoners were relieved when they were set free while, interestingly, leaving the fake guards feeling angry. A few weeks after the experiment, Zimbardo finds out that both the prisoners and the guards come back to their normal life.

The conclusion is that the aggressive behavior and hostility are situational—mostly, perhaps.

When a person was granted a certain power at a certain situation, therefore, his/ her personality is prone to be clouded and overridden.

Maybe, if I were a member of the house of representative, I would corrupt too; if I were given the opportunity, I would steal too; if I were a distressed Jedi, I would turn into Darth Vader too. 

I may say, ”I am not inherently evil. It is just the situation that forces me to.”

Still, I do not justify corruption, murder, thievery, terrorism, and all of those misconducts. 

We still have choices. What matters is the choice we make.

I do not believe in the assumption/ theory/ hypothesis that human are inherently evil—deceitful, bad, corrupted. I still can find some who stop under a red traffic light at 4 in the morning; or those who return a wallet when they could have taken it.