Chipped Nail Polish Theory

Chipped Nail Polish Theory.

We can all agree that a fresh manicure looks good.

We can also all agree that chipped nail polish looks gross.

Bare nails, meanwhile, look unremarkable. They might not look as good as a manicure, but they certainly don’t read as careless or unprofessional as chipped nail polish. 

But why shouldn’t we prize chipped nail polish (a little bit of a good thing) above no nail polish (no good thing at all)? That is, why is a chipped good treated as worse than no good at all?

One explanation goes like this: manicured nails say, I care and I maintain.
Chipped nails say, I failed at upkeep, and I didn’t bother to fix it.
Bare nails say nothing.

That sounds right, but I don’t like it.

Imagine I get my nails done one day. That day, I care a lot about my nails. In fact, I love them. You can expect excessive hand gestures from me on this day.

After three days, I get used to them.

I stop noticing them.

I stop caring.

Three days later, the polish chips.

I still don’t care.

Now I have chipped nail polish, no concern about how my nails look, and—let’s say—no remover on hand.

What is the correct move?
Scrape it off?

Run an errand to erase evidence of a commitment I no longer feel? Why should I perform extra labor to conceal a preference I no longer have?

Bare nails and chipped nail polish result from the same mental state. They should, theoretically, express the same thing: indifference. My chipped nail polish unforgivably records my change of mind. Until I remove it.