Would you be so kind as to ponder the question: what would your goodness do if there were no evil, and what would the earth look like if shadows disappeared from it?
After all, shadows are cast by objects and people. Here’s the shadow from my sword. But there are also shadows from trees and living beings. Do you really want to strip the entire planet bare, removing all the trees and all living things just so you can indulge in your fantasy of enjoying pure light?
M. Bulgakov. “The Master and Margarita”
Those who remember what they were taught in school surely know that a frog cannot see stationary objects. The results of an experiment are often cited, in which a frog is boiled alive without ever jumping out of the pot if the water is heated very, very slowly. We laugh at the results of this experiment, but in reality, humans are not so far removed from that frog. After all, all the basic systems of perception we possess evolved back when our ancestors could barely walk on the ground. How many of you noticed that in the two sentences above, the word “very” was repeated twice? Without noticing the change, we overlooked the very fact of the word duplication. Even those who did notice the repetition will remember that text editors specifically underline such cases in red to draw attention to the shortcomings of human perception, which simply cannot identify the error.
Just like frogs, we stop noticing the smell in a room if we stay there long enough. We perceive temperature through our skin receptors only in comparison to what we felt before and after. Try placing your left hand in a bowl of ice water and your right hand in a bowl of hot water, wait until your skin adjusts, and then simultaneously put both hands in a bowl of room temperature water. You will experience cognitive dissonance.
Experiments have also been conducted on visual perception. People do not notice very slow changes in the images being shown. They also fail to see differences when presented with two similar images, especially if their display is interrupted by some distraction. Psychologists have conducted experiments where a customer did not notice that the salesperson assisting them had changed while they “bent down behind the counter.” Additionally, people were unable to spot a gorilla walking among individuals tossing a ball to each other. Human perception is not perfect, and we fail to see a great many things and events around us simply because we are not attuned to notice them. They are cut out of our reality. However, for the most part, we stop noticing things that do not change or change very slowly. If political freedoms are gradually “tightened,” society may not even realize how it has slipped into totalitarianism. If the familiar taste of food is slowly altered, no one will notice the changes. Yet, if the difference is demonstrated, it becomes very apparent. Everyone knows that the taste of bread varies from country to country. But no one can pinpoint the exact taste of the familiar, everyday bread. Bread is just bread.
The same goes for communication between people of the opposite sex. It stops being perceived as good or even existing if it doesn’t develop over time. People with whom our communication doesn’t progress cease to serve as external stimuli, no longer prompting us to react. Among our friends or ourselves, there are examples of how long-term relationships between a man and a woman, lacking progress, transition into a state of “friendship.” A couple that has lived together for a long time may find that they have been together “too long,” and their relationship leads to neither marriage nor children, resulting in a breakup. Similarly, spouses who have children can become mired in daily life and routine, causing their relationship to slowly but inevitably cool down to nothing.
But what is progress in communication? Our closest relatives, bonobo chimpanzees, are so similar to us that we could even transfuse their blood. They use sex as a means of communication. We also use sex and sexual actions as tools for communication. We don’t engage in sex solely for reproduction; we use it as a declaration of intimacy and mutual trust. In other words, the development of communication between a man and a woman is, in one way or another, directed towards the bedroom. If this direction is not maintained, if there is no progress in the relationship, then people will part ways.
Even communication between people that clearly does not aim for a sexual relationship is primarily driven by sexual motives. We are so accustomed to sex that we often overlook it. If sex is possible, it happens literally. If it is not possible, it still underlies the interaction. For example, relatives are precisely those people who are connected through chains of sexual interactions. A mother gives birth to a daughter after having sex with the father. The daughter does not engage in sex with the father, and it is not just that she doesn’t; it is explicitly forbidden, it evokes internal repulsion, and this very denial of sex between daughter and father is at the core of their relationship. The daughter and father behave quite differently than a son and father do. It’s worth considering, for instance, why daughters tend to slam doors during arguments with their fathers.
Women are able to participate in society without being constantly pursued by males, simply because, unlike many other animal species, they have learned to conceal ovulation and thus remain attractive to males all the time, rather than just once a year. In our interactions, we are always figuring out who is more beautiful, who is stronger, who is in charge, how people look, and what they are wearing. We buy 90% of our belongings solely for social interaction, which is essentially sexual interaction. When we buy a car or a dress, choose an apartment, or go to a restaurant, the built-in computer within us, primarily aimed at effective reproduction, constantly guides us on what to do and how to do it.
When a girl is looking for a representative of the opposite sex “for communication” rather than for sex, she is primarily deceiving herself. Communication stops feeling like a stimulus if it lacks progress. Dates, second dates, third dates, dinners, kisses, cuddles, petting, sex, varied and frequent sex, cohabitation, travel, children, more children, new homes and other valuable acquisitions, children’s education, children’s marriages, grandchildren, retirement, travel, great-grandchildren. This is the route or path that those who want “just communication” are seeking. It is a journey where each step differs from the previous one and represents progress compared to the prior state. It is a path that, when the rhythm of change is properly maintained, fills life with meaning and happiness. It is a path that we enjoy. Just as a squirrel enjoys gathering nuts. These are our instincts.
Similarly, when a young man starts or maintains communication with a girl, he is aiming for something more. He is always aiming for something more. And if a girl starts to think “to give or not to give,” she is actually contemplating whether to continue the relationship or not. On one hand, her concerns that “he only wants one thing from me” are quite valid, and perhaps the guy will seduce her and then leave. But on the other hand, if she doesn’t allow the relationship to develop, then a breakup is not just “possible,” but inevitable. The question of “to give or not to give” really makes no sense. Do what feels good to you, not what is advantageous or disadvantageous for your partner. If you want to sleep with him, then go ahead. Will he leave? Well, he might. It’s better to understand that right away than to try to cultivate a “clinginess” in your partner while getting “attached” yourself. However, the very framing of the question “to give or not to give” indicates that it primarily concerns the level of trust in the partner. Are the guy and girl close enough to use sex, as a ritual, to solidify their mutual closeness and trust in each other? And if such a question arises, the answer is likely: “no, not enough.” This doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t enter into intimate relationships. It means that one shouldn’t assume that the current state of the relationship allows for 100% trust in the partner.
The blindness of people to things that are either unchanging or change too slowly is, on the one hand, not only a reason for separations but also the only real opportunity for people to come closer to one another. The fact is that humans belong to social animals that form hierarchical communities, and this, surprisingly, hinders reproduction, which in turn necessitates the development of specific behavioral mechanisms designed to navigate these remarkable obstacles.
Amazing obstacles arise in the very place where hierarchical communities emerge. Unlike bees, ants, or antelopes, people care about who they interact with. They distinguish individuals and shape their behavior towards their peers based on their reputation—the history of that peer’s interactions with other group members. While an ant behaves the same way towards all other ants and does not recognize its fellow ants “by face,” only acknowledging their general belonging to the same colony, a wolf, a goose, or a human remembers. A wolf knows that it’s best to avoid a certain wolf, while another one is cowardly and can be chased off without a fight. In such conditions, a leader does not need to compete with every member of the pack. They only need to argue with two or three rivals for the other wolves to understand that they are dealing with the strongest.
The second condition for the formation of hierarchical relationships within a community, besides the ability to remember the reputation of fellow tribe members, is the general desire to establish relationships with one another. A school of mackerel does not engage in fights with each other or determine which mackerel has thicker gills. In other words, species that form hierarchical communities exhibit intraspecific aggression. This aggression is not directed at members of other species but rather at their own kind. The presence of intraspecific aggression is an evolutionary adaptation that allows members of a group to optimally distribute themselves across a feeding territory. This is a beneficial behavioral trait that enables members of a species to compete less for food. The degree of aggressiveness within a species depends on the ability of group members to inflict harm on one another. The more heavily armed a predator is, the less likely it is to use its fangs and claws to harm a member of its own species. Aggression is one thing, but evolution does not support killing. In humans, “something went wrong,” and scientific and technological progress has provided people with weapons that are not commensurate with the instinctual limitations that humans possess. A person is unlikely to kill or seriously injure another person with bare hands without special training. Therefore, instinctual regulation of aggression seems to be “unaware” that lethal weapons are used instead of teeth and nails. Evolution will not soon learn to regulate aggression in humans, taking into account the presence of constructed weapons.
Humans seem to be relatively peaceful creatures. We don’t bite each other on the street and manage to stand in line quite calmly. Of course, in the crush of public transport or in the same queue, the level of aggression caused by a lack of space increases, but it rarely escalates into actual confrontations. The thing is, we live in communities that are much larger than our brains can handle. Real aggression tends to manifest within our “own circle,” rather than towards strangers and unfamiliar people. The apparent paradox of this statement quickly dissipates when we recall how “friendly” relationships can become among close relatives when it comes to dividing an inheritance. We can also remember that forty-five percent of those who died a violent death, including victims of wars and terrorist attacks, were acquainted with their killers. So, the fewer people you know, the greater your chances of living a long and happy life.
However, the presence of intraspecies aggression is precisely the surprising barrier that hinders two individuals from coming closer, not only for reproduction but even for communication. On one hand, relationships can be built with those you truly know, but on the other hand, any attempt at closeness instinctively triggers aggression. Any attempt, if it happens quickly enough to be noticed. These are the specific behavioral mechanisms that still allow people to connect.
The entire process of bringing people closer together is a complex dance, where each party signals to the other that they are open to another small step of intimacy. They are open because they have already become accustomed to the previous state, and the next step is small enough not to provoke an aggressive reaction. If one person suddenly finds another attractive, simply approaching them and suggesting sex or marriage is unlikely to work. The response will often be aggression. Of course, this isn’t always the case. There are unexpected or paradoxical reactions to such proposals, but they are extremely rare. According to “pick-up artists”—young men who practice these direct approaches—on average, they manage to get a girl’s phone number only with every tenth attempt.
To achieve mutual feelings, it’s important to “acclimate” the other person to yourself. They need to get used to you while also experiencing a level of relationship progress that goes unnoticed by the system responsible for intraspecies aggression. According to K. Lorenz’s observations, a wild goose achieves mutual feelings with the gander she loves, who initially ignores her, by simply staying close until he becomes accustomed to her and starts showing signs of reciprocal interest. If there is no acclimatization, the instinctive urge to get closer to the opposite sex will be overridden by a stronger instinctive urge of aggression towards them. Besides wild geese, all other animals that exhibit intraspecies aggression use a strategy of gradual closeness. In this context, the display of aggression as a first reaction is not dependent on gender. Despite the common stereotype that all men are dogs, very few men on the street would agree to sleep with a stranger who offers them sex.
Aggression is not something bad or something that hinders our lives. Without aggression, people would never know love or friendship. Closeness, mutual trust, and cooperation can only be effective and enjoyable in a community where one expects competition and aggression from their peers. A pair of friends will always be stronger and better than solitary individuals. Love as a feeling is the flip side of aggression and hatred. It’s hard to imagine a lovesick herring or an ant—its fellow creatures are indifferent to them. They don’t single anyone out from their surroundings. We recognize mutual attraction only because, normally, we repel each other and keep others out of our personal space. The distance from love to hatred is not far. They are essentially the same thing.
In essence:
- Any relationship is only what it is when there is progress in it. Very few successful married couples come from romances that last for years.
- A person uses sex as a form of social interaction, as a ritual of closeness. It is natural for individuals of the opposite sex to seek out sex, even if they do not intend to start a family.
- Any closeness between people is successful only when it develops gradually. Signs of attention and expressions of affection should be mutual, and it’s important not to rush things. If you like someone, the best approach is to start your journey toward a relationship with innocent communication, gradually taking up more space in that person’s life. At the same time, it’s essential to always think about progress.
[1] Pringle, H.L. et al. 2001. The role of attentional breadth in perceptual change detection. Psvchonomic Bulletin & Review 8: 89–95(7). Simons. D.J., and Chabris, C.F. 1999. Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28: 1059–1074.
By exploiting the imperfections of human perception, Peter Watts wrote the science fiction novel “Blindsight.”
K. Lorenz. “Aggression or the So-Called Evil.”