I'm going to write it all down.
An Introduction to Testing Behavior
That Thing Elementary School Teachers Do
Perhaps the easiest example of 'testing behavior' in this world is that thing elementary school teachers do. Didn't you have one at your school? The weird teacher who says, 'I'm not teaching anymore!' and shuts themselves in the staff room, only to come back a while later asking, 'Why didn't anyone come to apologize?'
What was that all about? It was so nonsensical it was actually terrifying. It's the definitive version of testing behavior that leaves most people cold. It should be banned by law. It's the kind of tradition that shouldn't be preserved. I hated it so much.
That teacher was truly strange, scary, and honestly, pathetic. Even as a child, I was totally put off. Why do you leave on your own and then come back looking for us?
If Suneo said, 'Sorry Nobita, this toy is for four people,' and then immediately asked, 'Nobita, why aren't you playing with me?' it would be creepy, right? If Anpanman said, 'Eat my face,' and then immediately said, 'You shouldn't eat it,' it would be scary. That's exactly what that teacher was doing. Contradicting yourself immediately is terrifying.
It's not a matter of 'Why didn't anyone come to apologize?' It's that no one knows what to do. No one knows who should apologize, for what, why, or with how much sincerity. No one knows the 'correct' answer, so they don't apologize. They can't.
Once you show such an incomprehensible side of yourself, the perceptive kids will start to lose all respect for you. They probably did it without imagining that consequence. It's really not good. To any school teachers reading this, please, just don't do that.
There's No Benefit Even for the One Doing It
The worst thing about testing behaviorโand this is importantโis that there's no benefit for the person doing it. That's a fatal flaw. If you're going to trouble someone, at least get something out of it.
For example, embezzlement or fraud. They are terrible, absolutely terrible, but you can at least understand the motive or the goal. I don't do them because of my ethical brakes, but I can comprehend them.
If a homeroom teacher was embezzling from the school budget, it's terrible, but you could explain it: 'Maybe they wanted something,' 'Maybe they needed emergency funds,' or 'Maybe they had a spending habit.' Depending on the reason, you might even reach a point of 'It's bad, but I get it' or 'It's bad, but there's room for sympathy.'
However, testing behavior doesn't work like that. To begin with, there's no gain. You lose people's trust and they distance themselves from you. It's not just ethically bad; it's futile from the perspective of rational goals. You're better off not doing it.
Yet, Quite a Lot of People Do It
Still, there's no end to people who put testing behavior into practice. Quite a lot of people do it. Why? Well, maybe it can't be helped. The world is full of people who lack planning, objectivity, or who are just strange, scary, or pathetic. Actually, everyone cycles through being one of those things depending on the situation.
You and I are also occasionally strange, scary, or pathetic. In those moments, we might 'glitch' and resort to testing behavior.
That's why this article exists. It's a warning. In this article, I will write about why testing behavior is bad and how foolish the people who do it are. I've written some already, but I'll go into more detail from here on. My goal is to make you and me decide, 'No, let's not use testing behavior,' when that day eventually comes. This article is an external brake for your heart.
Testing behavior is bad in two specific ways: โ The relationship becomes unfair, and โก You can't actually 'test' properly anyway. The first is an ethical dimension, and the second is a functional dimension.
The First Problem: Unfairness in Relationships
One Side Becomes Superficially Superior
The first problem with 'testing behavior' is that the relationship ceases to be fair. When one person tests another, one side becomes superficially superior.
As the word 'test' implies, testing behavior involves a 'correct answer' and an 'evaluation.' In the elementary school example, 'going to apologize to the teacher' is the correct answer. Based on whether the other person does it or not, the tester hands down an 'evaluation.'
This structure is far removed from a real, equal human relationship. The person testing is just too superficially 'great.' Situations where humans are clearly divided into 'tester' and 'tested' are limited to things like job interviews or speech contests.
Furthermore, those are conducted under extremely clear procedures and roles; they don't just start vaguely and suddenly in daily life without consent. Testing behavior is completely unfair in its execution and its beginning.
The Goal Might Be the Superiority Itself
To be blunt, some people who engage in testing behavior probably want to recognize themselves as 'superior and the one in control' through the act. The side that can impose unfair rules is, after all, the superior one.
But wanting to stand above others, or thinking that the way to do so is by becoming the 'judge,' is a really poor approach. Is there a single baseball fan who thinks the umpire is superior to Shohei Ohtani? It's better to engage in human relationships as a player.
That Superiority is Only Superficial Anyway
What's important here is that even if you can become superficially superior by testing someone, you don't actually become superior.
You don't gain a position of strength by using 'testing behavior.' If anything, testing behavior is an act of 'begging the other person to provide the correct answer.' In that sense, testing behavior is a form of dependency and even an abandonment of independence.
That's why that teacher ended up saying, 'Why didn't anyone come to apologize?' Saying 'Why didn't you come to apologize?' (meaning 'Come apologize') is practically not a test at all. It's just a request. They haven't even managed to 'test' anything.
The side making the request isn't the superior side. If anything, they might even fall below the other person. If that's the case, it's much better to just ask honestly from the start instead of putting on a roundabout 'testing' face. That's much easier for people to accept. A person who asks is far more charming, lovable, and approachable.
The Second Problem: Testing People is Hard to Begin with
Testing Humans is Too Difficult
The second problem with testing behavior is that 'it is difficult to test humans accurately.' Even with entrance exams or certification exams, problems constantly arise regarding errors in questions, mysterious grading criteria, or the fairness of the test. This happens even with exams that experts spend a year preparing. And those are for subjects like 'English,' 'Math,' or 'Traffic Laws'โthings with clear scopes where you can actually create answers.
For an individual to accurately test a human being is impossible!!! Humans cannot accurately carry out testing behavior. You can't accurately test vague things like 'whether the other person values me,' 'whether they are loyal,' or 'whether they are serious.'
Besides, a person creating and issuing a 'test' is usually in a state where they've become strange or scary. Their accuracy drops even further. That's why it always falls apart.
Failure Example โ : The 'Correct Answer' is Weird
Let's list a few patterns where testing behavior fails.
First, there's the pattern where the 'correct answer' you're imagining is so far out there that a normal person would never think of it. Someone doing a 'test' usually lacks objectivity at that moment. Errors in placing the answer in a weird spot are expected.
You wouldn't think the correct answer for a teacher who said 'I'm going back to the staff room!' and left would be 'I'm sorry, please teach us again.' You'd think, 'Oh, I made them mad, I should leave them alone.' If the answer is in a weird place, the respondent can't follow the message.
Failure Example โก: The 'Question' is Weird
The reason it becomes like โ is that, fundamentally, the 'question' designed to lead to the 'correct answer' isn't functioning. Exam questions are created by carefully guiding the respondent, narrowing down conditions, and eliminating alternative answers as much as possible so they can reach the correct one. Doing that requires an objective perspective and considering the respondent's position.
However, if you were in a state where you could be objective or consider someone else's position, you wouldn't be doing 'testing behavior' in the first place, so the 'question' is inevitably weird.
For example, in the teacher's case, there's a premise like 'School is a place for lessons, and a teacher must not abandon lessons, so the teacher wants to and must teach.' From the teacher's perspective, this is a major premise of the question.
The students couldn't care less about that. But to the teacher, this is 'written in the question.' Because that's what school is. They think the students should be able to answer. Of course, it's a completely bizarre story.
Failure Example โข: The 'Grading' is Weird
Finally, there's the pattern where you can't correctly recognize the behavior the other person took as an answer, and the 'grading' becomes a mess. Even if the other person gives an answer close to the 'correct' one, or acts with all their might in their own way, it means nothing if the eyes looking at that answer are distorted.
In the elementary school example, suppose the kids thought, 'Let's study quietly and reflect until the teacher comes back.' That should be quite close to a correct reaction to the situation, but the teacher gets furious because it's not the answer they imagined or what they wanted. Everything about it is bad.
Conclusion
Don't Do Testing Behavior
In short, testing behavior is a super-advanced technique that can only be pulled off by someone with deep thoughtfulness, imagination, and linguistic skill, on a day when they are in perfect physical and mental health. You can't use it, and you don't need to. You'll get burned if you try. If you're skilled enough to do testing behavior well, you can choose a method other than testing behavior. Therefore, no one needs to do it.
Now that you've read this far, please live your life without using testing behavior. Also, when someone else subjects you to testing behavior, remember the contents of this article and think, 'Oh, they're having some trouble right now.'
We already live in a society where judgmental eyes are everywhere. Let's survive while keeping our distance from stressful testing behavior!
Here are my live performance schedules. I don't usually talk about such depressing things. I want to live happily. Reservations and details are in the pinned post.
