Today we live in a world where there is too much going on. That means important stuff is getting clouded by keeping up with the Kardashians. Now, that is not a retribution of the latter, but it’s a commentary on how we can do better at the former.
If the goal in life is to find meaning (which I believe it is, in some capacity), then it is only right that we find a way to occasionally leave the peripheral exactly where it is: in the peripheral. Like a well-structured focal point in a master’s painting, all other articles complement the focus. It just seems that culture is losing it’s value from the right places, and often placing too much value in the wrong places.
A subsection of this slowly growing problem is our communication with one another. Meaning being the mind, transmission being the communication of the mind. Now, there is no perfect answer to the question at hand, but like many things: small improvements on the parts that make the whole, improve the whole to some degree.
So, with contextual background, I wish to introduce a definition of Honey Pot Trap Mentalities, but first let’s give a couple examples of Honey Pots that are not traps.
1) You’re at the office and you just did good on a report; your boss comes up to you and says, “Peyton Manning killed it last night in OT, did you see the last quarter leading up to it!?” — This is an example of a side handed complement. Even without structure, your superior feels comfortable mentioning visible, tactile success around you.
2) You live in the Southern part of the United States and you talk about your children with another Mother while out and about. Mother A: My kids are doing great in school. Jimmy just got an A+ in advance mathematics! Mother B: That’s great! My Sarah is doing exploratory studies outside of class with her tutor. Sarah is trying to do her best to impress Jimmy these days, could you tell Jimmy about Sarah’s studies. Mother A: Sure, I would love too, although Jimmy is working so hard at school I don’t know if he’ll have time. I wish Sarah the best! Bless her heart, I wish I had worked that hard when I was a girl. — Perfectly civil, right? Well, yes civil, but in that interaction, there is competition, score keeping, impression management, heavy comparison, and unsympathetic sympathy from Mother A.
Nothing that would stick in front of a jury, but those offer an example of positive, side handed, peripheral commentary and negative, side handed, peripheral commentary. These two have less to do with the Honey Pot Trap Mentality and more to do with supporting the point that in everyday regular conversation — most of the time without premeditation — there is more meaning to words than just their presence.
Now on to the, Honey Pot Trap. A boy and a girl are going into their senior year at college. The girl is an art major who thoroughly enjoying books, music, and the cinema. The girl doesn’t know much about the boy and they had just met in an Art History class. The boy asks the girl out for a drink at one of the college bars (not normally her forte, but she agrees because she’s been single for a while).
[scene] — boy and girl are having drinks at the bar.
[girl] — what kind of music do you like?
[boy] — all kinds, but right now I’m really into some chill indie stuff
[scene] — girl takes interest
[girl] — oh, really? that’s my favorite kind of music. My favorite band is blink-184
[boy] — no way!! I love their stuff; I listen to them all the time!
[girl] — wait what!? I can’t believe that someone likes blink-184 as much as me. Have you listened to the new release: “peanut butter spin table”?
[boy] — just when you thought they couldn’t get any better, they release “peanut butter spin table”. They are amazing… Hey, do you want to go listen to them in my apartment, my roommate is away for the weekend.
[girl] — that’s not the right name of the band and that’s not an album. you’re a jerk and I am leaving!
[scene] — girl leaves bar
Now that is perfectly innocent and overtly obvious. But here are a couple of takeaways.
1) Why did the girl ask a false question? If she had been caught, she could have just gone “oh, silly me, I always mix up 182 with 184, it was my neighbors address!”. On top of this, she’s probably had a relationship with someone deceptive in the past and if this boy shows any initial signs of deception, she will run under the pretense that he is the same guy that hurt her.
2) Why did the girl ask a second false question? This time, it’s to double check.
3) Why did they guy lie? The guy could be trying to show support and willingness to participate in something she is interested in. He might be enamored to the point in which he isn’t thinking straight. Or he is like the last guy that hurt her. All are possible.
Before continuing, that is not a commentary on gender. That kind of discussion could have and easily does switch roles. Now, risk mitigation is good. Honey Pot Traps are good. But when they are used as finalities that establish your whole perspective on another individual, they are damaging for everyone involved.
In the business world, that type discussion happens once a week.
In the government world, that type discussion happens once a week.
In the education world, that type discussion happens once a week.
In the neighborhoods and communities and so on, that type of discussion happens once a week.
The repetition is not to condemn that type of discussion, it’s to reinforce the unspoken existence of that kind of discussion in the world. That type of behavior is not the worst kind. The problem is: when it is relentlessly overused on an individual, the individual gets claustrophobic and will lash out in some manner (unfortunately, reinforcing the original call for the Honey Pot Trap application), but this time it is not indicative of who they are, it is the product of subtle coercion.
You can test relationships with innuendos, but you can’t build them with innuendos. So, the end message is always be cautious and look out for yourself and those your care about, but please be cautious of running others over (and acting like you didn’t) to prove that your rumination is rooted in the truth.
Round up notes: I’m not a believer in Utopia. Philosophers like Aristotle and Plato argue that the very definition of perfection is based on the presence of imperfection. Well imagine life is The Lion King, humans are at the top of the jungle (the lions). Hypothetically, the Lions in that movie should be satisfied with the highest place in the food chain. Among the lions, there should be some sense of Utopia. Yet there is Scar, Mufasa’s brother that deserves more. If you rooted for Simba and Mufasa, find empathy for the “Scars” in the world and check yourself to make sure you are not becoming one.
Thoughts on the golden rule? Check out: https://medium.com/@bowenbrinegar/whats-the-value-of-gold-6f3a3758f07b
