Ojuice5001

Okay, now I'm ready to treat hygiene in a less personal way than I did before. Any personal comments about me should be placed in this other thread; that's why I started it.

Now, hygiene is a sacred cow, so what better way to point this out than to compare it to the textbook examples of sacred cows: popular religions and superstitions? I'm not, of course, referring to the valid religious and superstitious beliefs that I hold, but to the other kind, the kind that aren't true. Also, my comments will not be directed against the kind of medicine that consists of actual science; after all, I don't feel up to the challenge of attacking two sacred cows at once. My point is that the layman's understanding of hygiene, the popular views that underpin our everyday life, resemble actual science about as much as the religious views of the Christian on the street resemble those of most theology professors. And of course, it's a naturalistic fallacy to claim that any kind of value judgment is based on science alone. Science tells us that smoking causes lung cancer, but that fact alone doesn't mean that anyone is obliged to refrain from taking the risk anyway.

Comparisons between religion and medicine, superstition and hygiene:

* Religion is in the business of providing guidance for psychological health (ministers, devotional writers, etc.), and in the past it was the same way with physical health (there are actual medicine men; I don't just mean frauds like Peter Popoff). The priests of organized religion are highly trained professionals, recognized by an institution that grants them legitimacy. Because of this, the layman is expected not to question them, and or to heed the ideas of those who do.

Medicine is in the business of providing guidance for psychological health (psychiatrists) and physical health (physicians). The doctors are highly trained professionals, recognized by an institution that grants them legitimacy. Because of this, the layman is expected not to question them, or to heed the ideas of those who do.

* When a religionist prays, and the thing he prays for happens, it's due to the influence of the gods. The fact that other people get the same blessing without praying for them is irrelevant. When the thing he prays for doesn't happen, how to explain it? The religionist prefers to look at his own spiritual failings before examining the influence of the larger world, and will blame the influence of the larger world much more readily than he blames God or the priest.

When a patient takes a treatment, and his problem goes away, he always gives credit to the treatment. Even if the problem goes away on its own for other people, that fact is irrelevant. When the treatment doesn't work, how to explain it? The patient prefers to look at his own hygenic failings before examining the influence of the larger world, and will blame the influence of the larger world much more readily than he blames Western medicine or the doctor.

(Bear in mind my disclaimer, we're talking about the attitudes of laymen, not about rational foundations. Also bear in mind that I say this as a theist who believes in the power of prayer, and I also accept that plenty of times the medical treatment really did cause the cure.)

*When an object, say a bedsheet, is contaminated by unclean materials, say menstrual blood, it has to be purified before it's fit to be used once more. Since the purification process was effective, this means it's good as new, right? No, it's permanently tainted.

I don't even have to change any terminology in this case; that paragraph could be talking about pagan Polynesia or modern America, either one. :devil3:

*Religions expect you to overlook contradictions. So what if the guy preaching about virtuous poverty has twice as much wealth as you do?

Hygiene expects you to overlook contradictions. Cleaning chemicals often smell just as bad as the organic smells they cover up or remove, but when you clean the bathroom, you've still changed it from a place that smells to a place that doesn't.

*Religionists work hard to drill their beliefs into their kids. They stop their kids from doing things that the kid sees nothing wrong with. Some of these things really are unacceptable, such as breaking into the neighbor's house, but are all of them? The kid is not encouraged to think about that question. The religionist is told that he was born with original sin, which needs to be washed away with water. And someone who just uses regular water doesn't even come close to understanding the concept, it has to be baptismal water.

Hygenic parents work hard to drill their hang-ups into their kids. They stop their kids from doing things that the kid sees nothing wrong with. Some of these things really are unacceptable, such as bedwetting, but are all of them? The kid is not encouraged to think about that question. He is told that all fluids that come out of his body are dirty, and need to be washed away with water. And someone who showers once every two or three days doesn't even come close to understanding the concept, it has to be every day.

*In a religious community, social pressure is a major reason for each individual's "choice" to be religious, often the only reason. When you want to speak intolerantly about other cultural groups, their false religion is often a good talking point.

In a hygenic community, social pressure is a major reason for each individual's "choice" to have good hygiene, often the only reason. When you want to speak intolerantly about other cultural groups, their smell is often a good talking point.

*In religion, you have saints, examples of perfection. No one expects you to be a saint, but you're still judged by how close you come to that standard.

In hygiene, you have media images, examples of perfection. No one expects you to look like them, but you're still judged by how close you come to that standard.

---Note: This kind of idealized image is often criticized, and often the critics make it a point to say that you shouldn't go to the other extreme, and let your fingernails get dirty. But it's just a matter of where you draw the line, how important they are. They and I agree that a certain amount of dirt, even if it's insignificant in terms of health danger, can be aesthetically unappealing. And we all agree (or we should, some of those people are reluctant to admit this) that a six-pack abdomen is more attractive than a keg (Simpsons reference ). The only question is how important these aesthetic preferences should be. So a clear thinker will see that both are aesthetic issues, and as such they should be thought of in shades of gray rather than black and white.

Well, that's a wrap, I'm done attacking the average person's conception of personal hygiene. This was something I had to get out of my system, and we all know that sometimes when a guy has to get something out of his system, he commits a social blunder. Hope that didn't happen here.

Imaginary Mark

Surely you've been around someone that had strong BO or really bad breath? It's not pleasant. So in many cases the concerns about hygiene are justified.

three4jump

It seems like more than a few cab drivers come from cultures that have different standards of hygiene. More than once I've had to roll down the back window. It seems like people who depend on tips for a living might get a clue. Philosophically, I support their right to smell any way they want--I just can't hold my breath forever. If someone wants to appear unattractive (to my subjective taste), I don't have to look. Perhaps transhumans of the future will have nose filters that they can turn on and off at will.

Ojuice5001

Yes, I suppose that to prove that there are smells intolerable to everyone, we just need to look at a real example of universal consensus: all creatures that have been foolish enough to mess with a skunk will back you up on that.

The problem is that the contemporary situation is a Red Queen phenomenon, brought on by technology. Before deodorant was invented, everyone went without it...but did average people smell bad to each other? Of course not; they were used to it. While today, people do tend to fall below the baseline, and run the risk of smelling objectionable, just by giving up deodorant.

I'm not sure it's progress when a whole society uses synthetic chemicals to keep itself from falling below normal; to banish the same conditions that have never bothered the people who were used to them. Just think of it as one of the costs of civilization, and bear in mind that some people resent these costs more than others.

Let's hope. :thumbs:

I think part of the problem is that our sense of smell is so weak to begin with. There are deep-sea fish that are almost blind, but not quite. Some of their prey has evolved the ability to flash a little light in their face, and this causes the predator fish enough pain to allow the prey fish to escape. This tactic, which would never work on the predators that live up here on the land, is successful because the deep-sea fish seldom encounter light, and so their brains can't deal with too much of it.

In the same way, we humans have a weak sense of smell; especially, of course, humans who live a civilized, postagricultural lifestyle. And the result is that the smelling part of our brains is easily overloaded. A dog can smell practically everything, and is bothered by very little of it. (Except, of course, that skunk I mentioned way up there at the top.) I don't think that's a coincidence.

fairyhedgehog

I think that different smells bother different people. I think it was in a novel "The Speed of Dark" by Elizabeth Moon that I read the suggestion that autistic people might find chemical smells more unpleasant than organic ones. For me, the reverse is true and I find the smell of chlorine less unpleasant than the smell of mould and the smell of antiperspirant less unpleasant than the smell of sweat.

But I agree that there is a social/cultural aspect - isn't that true of most things? A lot of human behaviour is pretty weird if you ask me, and excessive care about hygiene is just one small part of it. In fact, when I was a kid I believed that all grown ups were weird, and I have seen nothing to make me change that opinion

But for me, maybe I've bought into a cultural norm, but I do like the effect that all the washing and cleaning has on body and organic smells. Now if you were complaining about the norms for clean and tidy houses ... well, I would be much more vocal in speaking out for minority views