Equalizer

An advanced stereo system deploys a component called graphic equalizer, or equalizer for short. Here is what it looks like.




It is a neat device which allows you to manually slide little buttons up and down, shaping the spectrum of the sound that comes out of speakers.

These sliders are a great representation of our attitudes on different things in life. This could be attitude on parenting, wealth, clothes, hedonism---almost anything. The only requirement is that the attitude being selected has distinct extreme positions one can take.

Take for example parenting. One can be a very strict parent, keeping a child under tight control, or very liberal, allowing the child to do whatever he/she likes to do. We can select our position---slide our button—between these extreme positions. Similarly, on the slider resenting hedonism, we can be very ascetic, not able to enjoy any physical pleasure in life, or a complete hedonist, who would put having fun as the number one priority.

How do we decide which position to slide the button to? I suppose, depending on the specific attitude under consideration, all of the usual factors come into play---our own upbringing, the norms of the society we live in, our life’s experiences, and perhaps some genetic reasons thrown in for good measure. I am reasonably certain that once we form the attitude, it is not easy to make it move. The button, once slid into position, gets stuck.

Taken in total, we can use a graphic equalizer---albeit a large one--- to provide a complete picture of our attitudes, with each of the hundreds of little buttons placed in a selected position.

The equalizer also helps represent how we form our opinions of others. A person whose button on a specific attitude is at a different location from ours is liable to face criticism from us. “He is just so strict with his child,” or “I can’t believe how they allow their son to get away with murder!”

Finally---one more point---our level of tolerance determines how far away the other person’s button needs to be before we get agitated. Some people are very tolerant (or at least show that they are), and have a wide band of tolerance around their equalizer settings, while other are not. For them, unless the settings of the other person are the same as theirs, there are grounds for scorn.

A graphic equalizer---a great representation of the lens through which we view the world and how we react to it.

Glass House

“Those living in a glass house should not throw stones at others.”

I get it.

Given the incompatibility of stone and glass, you may want to minimize the likelihood of someone throwing a stone at your house. The best way to do so is not to throw stones at others.

So, I ask myself two questions. First, why do we throw stones, irrespective of whether we live in a glass house or that made out of brick? What purpose does that serves?

The second, at what point does our house become a “glass house,” figuratively?

The first question is perhaps simpler to answer. We throw stones because it is fun to do so. It stokes our ego…”Look at that fat guy…he is just being a burden on the society, unlike me, who is so thin. ” “look at that huge house…what do you think is their footprint on earth?”

Sometimes, but not always, the throwing, if openly done, may even result in the change of behavior of the person at the receiving end. In which case, there is some real value to throwing stones.

The second question, that dealing with our house being built of glass, is a bit tricky to answer, because our common sense says that everything is relative. Who am I to laugh at a guy, who I think is fat, if someone skinnier than me would consider me to be fat? How can I criticize someone living in an obscenely large mansion when for a guy in a hut, I live in an obscenely large mansion myself.

What moral authority do I have?

I claim that even in the midst of everything being relative, one can find absolute measures for what is “reasonable” and “acceptable,” and accordingly, I do have the moral authority to throw stones at someone violating those standards of reasonableness.

Take again the example of obesity. Although I am 50% heavier than a 100 pound person of my height, I would not be accused of being obese (and a burden on society) based on quite clear guidelines set by the medical profession. By that definition a person of 200 pounds would be overweight, and more than 300, obese. A 300 pound person can not claim that it is all relative and that compared to a 400 pound person he is thin. No, he is not. He is fat!

When the guidelines are not provided by science, there are other ways of judging what is reasonable. It is tougher, but can be done.

For example, how does one establish a guideline for what size of house is “reasonable” and what is obscenely large?

One can attempt that based on the size of human being and thus the area required for a family of four to comfortably sleep, cook, sit, etc. I think that a 500-sq feet (just to throw a number) house would be considered just enough for that family. 10 times more than that may be considered large (and beyond what is needed) and 100 times that would be considered obscene.

Thus I, living in a house of 2500 sq feet would have moral authority to throw stones at someone living in a 25,000 sq-feet house, even though I live in an opulent house for someone living in a 500 sq-ft house, because my house is “reasonable” by the standards of this society.

However, if I live in a house that is 10,000 square feet, I would start losing that moral authority and my house will suddenly become a glass house.