Brian D. Buckley

A woman looks at her husband and asks something like:

• Where should we go for dinner?
• Do you think we can afford to buy this?
• What kind of tile should we get?
• Should we let our kids go to this party?
• What kind of car should we buy?

The husband smiles and says calmly, “Whatever you want is fine.”

Maybe he wants to be flexible and easygoing, or maybe he has no preference, or both. He may even feel that, by offering her maximum freedom, he has given the best possible answer.

In a few cases, that may be true. But the vast majority of the time, “Whatever you want” is a lame answer, even a terrible one.

Here’s why.

First, it assumes that she has a preference in the first place. But she may have no strong feelings about what to do – she may even feel totally lost. If so, “Whatever you want” signals that she’s going to remain lost, and furthermore, you have no plans to help her with that.

Even if she has a strong preference, the answer is still problematic because it dumps the decision-making responsibility on her. She has to weigh the options and pick the best one. If the decision is wrong, she (and perhaps you) will feel that it was her fault. Rather than offering to share the weight of that responsibility, you have effectively told her to carry it alone.

Furthermore, because she is not completely selfish (we hope!), she would like to take your feelings into account. “Whatever you want” gives her no information about your own preferences, if any. Maybe you’re truly indifferent, or maybe you’re being polite, or maybe you’re sacrificing your wants or needs for hers. She doesn’t know.

Finally, “Whatever you want” is just a big turn-off romantically. Confidence is attractive. A take-charge attitude (not to be confused with a bossy or controlling attitude) is attractive. Shrugging your shoulders is weak sauce.

So what’s a better answer?

For starters, saying “I don’t have a preference at all” – if it’s true – is actually a better answer than “Whatever you want,” because it contains more information. It doesn’t just tell her that she can make the decision – it tells her why. This relieves part of her burden, since she no longer has to worry (as much) about making you unhappy with a bad decision.

Even better is “I don’t have a preference, but how about doing X?” Since you truly don’t care, it should be easy for you to suggest an option. This gives her a starting point, offers an option that you’re definitely okay with, and suggests that you’re willing to help with the decision-making.

What if you feel lost about what to do? Maybe you’re not clear what the options are, or you don’t understand the pros and cons, or it’s all just too complicated to get straight. Again, simply saying that you’re lost is much better and more informative than “Whatever you want.” Even better: Offer a path forward, such as “I could do some research,” or “Let me ask around,” or “Can you explain this for me?” All of these focus on turning words into action, and show that you’re engaged with the problem, although you may not know (yet) how to solve it.

Better still, be proactive rather than reactive. Don’t make her ask the question in the first place. Start a conversation: “Did you hear about that party tonight? The kids want to go, and I think that’s probably okay. What do you think?”

Or, if it’s a relatively small decision, you may not even need a conversation. If she doesn’t usually care where you eat, then rather than asking about dinner, just order takeout from Jumbo Gerald’s Bibimbap Emporium & Delicatessen. She’ll probably be fine with the food, glad to be saved a decision, and pleased that you were thinking about her. And if not? Worst case, you’re out a few bucks, and you’ll know for next time.

Plus, you’ll have bibimbap. And how could that be a bad night?

Note: I used a wife/husband relationship for simplicity, but the concepts apply just as well to husband/wife, or any other gender pairing, or all kinds of relationships.

Cynicism is simply the flip side of naïveté. You’re no more mature, just more burned.
—Karl Marlantes (Vietnam veteran, author of “What It Is Like to Go to War”)

I think a lot of people go through a cynical phase as they’re growing up, and that’s probably normal. The problem comes when you get stuck there, when it becomes your lifelong worldview. This isn’t just a problem because it’s dark. It’s a problem because it’s illogical and inaccurate.

Naïveté means seeing or imagining only the good side of human nature, being blind to humanity’s evil and its base self-interest. Cynicism means the opposite. When you spell it out like that, it’s obvious that both viewpoints are equally skewed. Yet somehow, many of us get the idea that cynicism is wiser, closer to the truth. But is it really?

Let’s think about some examples.

Say a politician is involved in a scandal. When pressed about certain key details, he says he “can’t remember.” A cynic rolls his eyes. Yeah. Can’t remember. Sure.

This reaction makes no sense.

Even if humans are 100% self-serving habitual liars (which is demonstrably untrue), we still know that people do sometimes forget important things. It’s happened to everyone. It becomes more likely as you get older. Someone could even have early-onset Alzheimer’s – we don’t know. So even in our “all humans suck” alternate reality, there’s still a chance, small but significant, that this person is telling the truth.

The same goes for people who are charged with crimes, but not yet convicted (or acquitted). “I’m innocent!” Cynics hear this and scoff. But again, even if everyone is scum, it may still be entirely reasonable that this particular person didn’t commit this particular crime. If every single person arrested were really guilty, that would imply an astounding degree of competence on the part of law enforcement – a notion that no self-respecting cynic would endorse. Like all logical fallacies, cynicism leads to contradiction.

A 100% guilty rate would also imply that trial by jury is unnecessary and should be abolished. Yet I know almost no one who really believes that.

And that’s just assuming that everybody is self-serving and crooked. In reality, we have good evidence that that isn’t the case. To cite just one example among millions: researchers have found that fewer than a quarter of riflemen in World War II were actually willing to shoot at their enemies. Their aversion to killing was so strong that they would miss on purpose most of the time, often at the expense of their own lives.

Obviously, people commit horrific atrocities and engage in mundane cruelties, too. The dark side is there. Of course it is. But it’s absurd to think that the dark side is the only side.

Cynicism is also linked almost universally to pessimism. There’s no necessary logical link between the two: it’s possible to think that humans are scum, yet life overall is improving; and conversely, it’s possible to think that humans are all wonderful, yet life overall is getting worse. But these pairings of belief rarely happen, in part because cynicism is an emotional reaction, not a logical one.

Cynics – in my experience, at least – are pessimists. They think the world is going to hell, and that we’re already most of the way there.

Again, this makes no sense. By almost any measure, the world is improving. Since World War II, war and murder have declined globally. Homicides in the U.S. have dropped by half over the past 20 years. Infant morality has dropped by half worldwide in the same time period. Literacy is rising. Computing power has grown exponentially, consistently, for 50 years. We’ve had a continuous human presence in space for over a decade. We eradicated malaria, and we’re getting close with polio. If you think I’m cherrypicking facts, by all means, do your own research.

And that’s just the recent stuff. Read about Elizabethan (16th century) England sometime: the horrific and unbelievably common use of torture in punishments; the primitive understanding of medical science; the lack of anesthetic for surgery; the cruelty to animals; the way government and church alike suppressed free speech; the overwhelming and universal prejudice against women, poor people, gays, other races, and other religions; on and on. Some of these problems do still exist, but they’re ghosts of their former selves. Nobody in their right mind would rather live then than now. (I’m not picking on England – the whole world is the same.)

Yes, of course we still have major, serious problems, including discrimination, torture, and suppression of free speech. Yes, they’re being solved far too slowly. But they are being solved. Our species is getting better.

By the way, the kind of human being that cynics evidently believe in – someone completely self-serving, self-interested, devoted to pleasure, with little or no empathy for other people – does actually exist. The clinical term is “psychopath,” and the tools for diagnosing this disorder are well-established. That is, doctors have gotten pretty good at distinguishing these people from everyone else.

Psychopaths are estimated to make up only 1-2% of the population. Even if they’re as high as 5%, that’s still 95% of humanity that is, by definition, at least moderately empathetic and concerned with the needs of others.

See, this is why I love science.

For myself, I find I become less cynical rather than more—remembering my own sins and follies; and realize that men’s hearts are not often as bad as their acts, and very seldom as bad as their words.
—J. R. R. Tolkien

Betsy is making Jell-O pudding pops, carefully pouring the pudding into each square of the tray, then placing the tray in the freezer. I ask why we don’t just eat the pudding, without making popsicles.

Her response, verbatim:

“Did they ask Picasso, ‘Why don’t you just use sidewalk chalk?'”

We both laugh for about a minute after that, and I’m not sure I could explain why. Touché, wife, touché.

Last night I called a local restaurant to order takeout, and a woman who sounded stressed and mildly aggravated answered the phone: “We’re having a great day at [restaurant name], how can I help you?”

“We’re having a great day”?

What kind of twisted, sadistic manager makes their employees say something like this every time they pick up a telephone? You’re literally forcing them to lie – over and over. It can’t be good for morale. And, I mean, do we seriously think that any customers believe this?

Oh wow, they’re having a great day! I should call them more often!

With that in mind – managers, if you’re hellbent on forcing employees to say something at the start of phone calls, here are some alternative suggestions:

• We were having a great day until you called, how can I help you?
• War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. We are having a great day.
• Who waits on the waiters?
• I’m momentarily overcome with spasms of ecstatic, transcendental awe because you have selected our restaurant. Please hold.
• How you doin’?
• Would you classify this request as a need or a want?
• Every day draws us ineluctably nearer to the heat death of the universe, would you like to try our specials?
• [starts singing theme song to Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt]
• I’ll be happy to take your order…if you can answer me these riddles three.
• [sobbing uncontrollably] We’re…having a…[blowing nose]…a great…oh God, I can’t do this anymore…
• ‘Sup, bitches?

Recently, I got this letter in the mail:

“Return these coins and feed a child.” The coins enclosed, a penny and a nickel, are real money. The charity is sending me some of their money – and asking that I send it right back.

This particular letter came from a group called Food for the Poor, Inc. Putting aside the seemingly exploitative image on the back, let’s talk about the money-sending tactic.

I’ve seen this lots of times, from lots of different groups. Sometimes it’s a dime, sometimes it’s a postage stamp, but the idea is always the same. Here’s a little bit of money, so please send us back more of it.

Does anyone understand this? I’m really curious. It doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

Because let me tell you – and I’m speaking as a bona fide bleeding-heart liberal, here – I drop the coins in my coin jar, throw the letter away, and never feel the least twinge of guilt.

I’m a big believer in supporting charities, if they can reach their goals efficiently and effectively. I’m not one of those people who thinks that advertising, management, and other overhead expenses are “fluff” that should be as close to zero as possible. Just like for-profit businesses, nonprofits have a job to do, and they can’t afford to have any tool plucked from their toolkit.

But the tool has to make sense. And I haven’t yet found any sense in a charity sending money to me. Even at a superficial, emotional-appeal level, it doesn’t resonate. “These kids are desperate for food. Here we have the cost of a meal, and instead of buying food with it, we’ve sent it to you.” It isn’t just that I disagree with their argument – I don’t understand what it’s supposed to be in the first place.

Maybe I’m supposed to feel that they’re investing in me somehow, taking a risk on me, and I shouldn’t let them down. Is that it?

But an investment means that the recipient uses the money in some way. There’s a reason to send it. Here, they’re literally telling me to send it right back – at which point they will then take the money I sent back, and send it out to yet other potential donors, for reasons that are still not clear.

The thing is, this tactic is presumably working (or some marketing person is very misinformed), because I’ve been getting letters like this for years. So there must be people who do send the coins back. And, hey, it’s your money, do what you want.

I just don’t quite understand.

Last night, Paul and I were watching Sharknado for the first time. Partway through, I came up with an idea that became a running joke thoughtful analysis. I said, look, clearly the film is an allegory for FDR’s presidency and World War II. The sharks are the Axis Powers, right? It’s a commentary on post-Depression America.

The one guy’s legs getting attacked? Well, FDR was in a wheelchair. The huge flood? Americans felt they were “drowning” in the Depression. The flight at the end to drop a bomb that they hoped would solve everything? I don’t have to spell that one out.

Of course, you can make anything an allegory for anything if you’re creative enough. It’s kind of fun. We were getting a lot of mileage out of our ridiculous metaphor.

And then this happened:

Paul and I were laughing so hard we couldn’t even take a breath to tell his wife why we were laughing.

As with the movie list, the criteria here are not so much about “objective” quality (as far as that even exists), and more about what I’ve come to love deeply over the years.

• Adventure Time
• Avatar: The Last Airbender
• Azumanga Daioh
• Babylon 5
• Bob’s Burgers
• Buffy the Vampire Slayer
• The Daily Show
• Freaks and Geeks
• Friends
• Jessica Jones
• Seinfeld
• Star Trek: The Next Generation
• Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
• Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt