seven years ago

when i was fifteen my english teacher randomly asked me, "gregory, what are you thinking about?" naturally, i responded with a shrug, coupled with a smile to discourage any troublesome follow-up questions. she replied anyway, "i find it quite peculiar: you look like you're always far away, thinking about something deep and interesting...," and it struck me at that point that this woman could actually be on to something--its possible she could be smarter than she looks. but then she quickly negated that by continuing "but it turns thats not the case. apparently you were just daydreaming..."

whats the difference? wow, i mean, that actually hurt real bad. sadfase.

months later she asked me about a good friend of mine, a friend who was known in school for many reasons of notoriety, albeit through little fault of his own. im sure most would disagree with my perception of little, but whatever. the fact that i was his only friend quickly served to pique her interest again: "gregory, actually why are you his friend? i dont mean this in a negative way--im just interested...what do you see in him?" i did not realise i was expected to have a reason. rather than admit i didnt know the answer i instead gave her an expression that implied i didnt understand her question. and i succeeded in brushing her off with a confused look.

but i could not shake off the question, which in comparison to the questioner, i honestly had more respect for. i tried going back to it, though, several times, and i kept coming to the conclusion that it could have been due my having a good heart that i liked someone who was generally unlikeable. i could not accept this conclusion and i stopped trying to find an answer, an effort i bolstered with the remembrance of the annoying person who actually put this question on my plate.

seven years later i am thinking about the one quality in people that truly moves me the most. easily, things like physical appearance, money and power fall off the table. my recent interest in personality study directed my attention towards competence and kind-heartedness, two qualities that to me have zero correlation--possibly due to mutual exclusivity--but alarmingly strong weight on my scales. i had terrible difficulty answering the question "which do you value more in a person?" on one hand i considered competence: the mental, emotional and physical capacity to meet or exceed expectations in the professional and intellectual fields. this can be expected to be the sole deciding factor employed by some people like myself. and being the person that i am, i could never respect someone who was less competent than i was. never. on the other hand, complete incompetence can be completely countermeasured by benevolence; i could never disrespect a kind-hearted person either. never. because no matter how competent i am, no matter how efficient i am, no matter how good i am at making things run better, or how far i can see into the future, i see my lack of benevolence as an indicator of my imperfection, ie, i can never be completely competent while being so clearly lacking in a similarly important area. there is no way i can choose competence over benevolence, and vice versa. 

and because good things always come in threes, i searched for a third and it quickly came to my mind that i value honesty--not merely virtuousness to others, but also truthfulness to self, which on a side note, i feel to be paramount. this webpage is an homage to selftruth after all. one cannot be honest to others while being dishonest to oneself. honesty is thus one of the three Great qualities.

and upon this awesome discovery i was disappointed to realise that i could not apply all of them to my good friend. this conclusion, though amazing, could not answer that seven year old question, and soon i was no longer amazed.

i found that these three qualities, though very strong, are actually anchor points of a person's reliability. i would not have come to this conclusion had i not written that post days ago. few people on this earth are simultaneously competent, benevolent and honest, but this just means few people are perfect. but if you can somehow appraise (consciously or subconsciously) each and every one of the three regarding a certain someone and sum them up, you would still end up with a reasonable valuation of his or her reliability.

eureka moment: RELIABILITY = TRUSTWORTHINESS.

in the world of finance, trust has no meaning. a bank would never lend a bankrupt money. a bank would never issue you a loan if you do not first put up collateral. a bank would never collect that loan without interest. a bank would never care if your mother told them you are competent, benevolent and honest. thankfully people arent banks. people would care. i would.

i realised that eight years ago when i first met him that i had already evaluated him and found him to be extremely distrustful of people. this fact eluded me for seven years because this evaluation, i only today realise, was a subconscious effort. his misanthropy was and still is one-of-a-kind. i must have seen it as a challenge, that if i could gain his trust, i would have proven to my self what my subconscious was desperate to experience: that i am trustworthy--that i am of those three things.

and i did gain his trust. we did become bestest friends. and though he trusts me to this day, though i probably might be a trustworthy person, i do not feel like a trustworthy person.

because the only reason i trust him today, is because he trusted me first, seven years ago, when he shouldnt have.