Comparative Perception, Relativism

In an attempt not to sound too “dry,” allow me to tell you a joke.

A Jewish man had serious problems in life and everyday living. Nothing was going well for him. He lived with his wife and their three children in a single room, which also housed their dog. In the neighboring room lived his wife’s parents, and on the balcony they kept a goat. We can easily imagine how miserable the poor man felt—along with the rest of his family, of course.

One day he finally snapped and went to see the local rabbi. He began to complain, sobbing as he explained his situation. The rabbi listened silently, thought for a while, and then said:

“Bring the goat into the room and come back in a week.”

The man was puzzled, but since he trusted the rabbi, he nodded and left. When he got home, he moved the goat into the room where the whole family lived.

Hell broke loose. The wife and children screamed, the dog barked and howled, the goat knocked everything over—everything became a hundred times more unbearable. But the man had promised the rabbi to follow his instructions, so they all endured it for a week.

The moment the week passed, the man ran to the rabbi. Before the rabbi could even ask how things were going, the man launched into a frantic description of the nightmare of the past seven days.

The rabbi stood there, listening, stroking his beard, and after a short pause said:

“Put the goat back on the balcony and come back in a week.”

The man joyfully followed the instruction, and instantly everyone breathed a sigh of relief. The horror was over. Everyone felt happy and calm and enjoyed… the absence of the goat.

After a week, the man returned to the rabbi, who asked him how he was. Smiling, the man explained how happy he and his family were and how they had no problems at all. Then he thanked the rabbi warmly.

This amusing joke reminds us that “things can always be worse.” This is what governments, extortionists, and people who resign themselves to everything also remind us—explicitly or implicitly. That is because human beings perceive both themselves and everything else on a comparative basis.

Even our senses work this way.

Take a look at the following graphic below:

Can you believe that the gray shade in the central part of both objects is exactly the same? It’s hard to believe, but it’s true. If you still don’t believe me (which is good, and very much in the spirit of the Russian saying “Trust, but verify”), simply place your finger over the horizontal dividing line between the two objects. Once you cover the light and dark edges, compare the central parts again. Or just look at the next image below:

Placed against a darker background, the lower object appears lighter than the upper one, which is placed against a lighter background. We subjectively perceive the same color as two different ones because of the different context in which they are placed. Just like in the joke with the rabbi and the goat, right?

In the same way, an object, a product, or a person appears more impressive when placed next to something less impressive. This principle is well known to advertisers, who often use it in their ads. Look again at the image at the beginning of the article with the two human figures. What do you think about the difference in their sizes? Is there actually any difference at all?

Although relativization seems to have certain limits imposed by human nature, it is an effective method for influencing human judgment and evaluation. People usually assess things against some kind of baseline. If the baseline is influenced, the evaluation is expected to change as well.

In society, this is most clearly expressed when we compare ourselves to our reference group. If we are well positioned relative to it, we also feel good. For example, if you are of average or even slightly below-average height in the Netherlands, you would probably be considered quite tall in Japan or Malaysia. You may also have heard the phrase describing female beauty as follows:

“When she enters the room, all the other women become uglier.”

Social status also depends on the reference environment. A millionaire, for instance, would feel like a king in a regular neighborhood, like an ordinary person in a neighborhood of millionaires, and like a poor man in a neighborhood of multimillionaires and billionaires.

In many cases, when a person wants something, they unconsciously compare it to themselves and ask whether they deserve it. This may concern a job, a desired romantic partner, entry into a club or group, and so on. People often ask themselves whether they are “good enough” for something. It is precisely this psychological mechanism that manipulators target, most often by attempting to lower an individual’s self-esteem in order to sell them something or push them toward a certain way of life.

This is done, for example, in advertising: comparing the viewer to idealized individuals creates negative self-evaluation, which leads to an emotional impulse to buy a product in an attempt to resemble the characters shown in the ad. Thus, through this induced inferiority complex—short-term or long-term—there is an attempt to manage not only consumer behavior, but social behavior as well.

Of course, the opposite influence is also applied—for example, when it is suggested that someone should not settle for an ordinary detergent, car, or phone, but deserves “the best.” When the goal is to detach someone from their environment, it may be suggested that they have become “too good” for it and should move on to a new one that is now “at their level.”

In short, to influence an individual’s self-esteem, they are either flattered or diminished—by highlighting and exaggerating certain qualities or flaws, or by focusing attention on some aspect of their life, their income, and so on. On this basis, suggestions can be made about what the individual deserves in life and what they do not, and how they should live in general. This is also one of the ways double standards are justified.

The phrase “Know your place” is a telling example of an attempt to instill low self-esteem and to call for acceptance of a social role and life goals according to that imposed self-evaluation.

Another similar phrase is “Every frog should know its own pond.”

Or: “The frog saw the ox being shod and lifted its own leg.”

It will hardly surprise anyone if I mention that these are standard lines used by many trolls to pelt their “opponents” in online forums. In most cases, however—both in forums and in advertising and elsewhere—negative influence on self-esteem occurs through hints and insinuations, whether verbal, written, or conveyed through images and videos. The message is directed both at consciousness and at the subconscious, the latter being capable of “imprinting” suggestions even when they are consciously rejected.

The virtual environment offers more opportunities for influence than ordinary face-to-face communication, because within a discussion one can use various materials, images, links, and hidden messages, as well as stage different performances and “theaters,” thanks to anonymity and the ability to create arbitrary identities.