November 30th, 2011 | Specific | 0 Comments
Deception, whether you apply it to yourself or you adopt it in your behaviour towards others, washes through and throughout daily life. It is such a common occurrence that ‘tis nobler wonders whether the deception process requires regulation, perhaps through the issuing of fooling permits. With such a permit, fooling yourself or others would be permitted under certain conditions. Would you queue for a licence to fool?
Of course you wouldn’t – it’s a foolish idea. But there are serious issues involved if you view ‘permits’ in the tile of this post as a verb and not a noun.
What does fooling permit? The short answer is that fooling permits foolishness. A display of ‘fooling’ produces (negative) consequences beyond the display itself – a ‘fooling’ incident’ can degenerate into a foolish game:
Let’s use the evidence from a recent study to illustrate how ‘fooling’ can lead to foolishness. For once, ‘tis nobler doesn’t need to go beyond the report’s heading to make the point (emphasis added):
Ironic Effects of Dietary Supplementation
Illusory Invulnerability Created by Taking Dietary Supplements Licenses Health-Risk Behaviors
People who took what they thought were dietary supplements expressed an intention to do less exercise, a greater intention to pursue pleasurable activities and made poorer food choices than control subjects. The explanatory mechanism was the perceived (but illusory) invulnerability bestowed by the supplements.
Relative to the benefits of a balanced diet, there is always the chance of some ‘fooling’ to support supplements. But the most worrying aspect of this study is that this ‘fooling’ behaviour promoted foolish behaviour; it’s as though supplements can be seen as validating an unbalanced diet and an unbalanced lifestyle.
Within the borders of the ‘fooling’, (self-) deception can be unhelpful through to upsetting and destructive. However, ‘fooling’ need not stay within its borders and this is how the original (self-) deception creates more problems.
The question remains – who are you fooling? Following on from this question, ‘tis nobler can now add – are you being foolish? ‘Fooling’ does not always produce ‘foolish’ but it may be that ‘foolish’ is always preceded by fooling. It would be foolish to ignore the effects of ‘fooling’ and it would be foolish to ignore that ‘fooling’ is a cause of foolishness.
Do foolish games come from ‘fooling’ games?