 |
| Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay (modified) |
Source of Social Division and Dysfunction
People-Appraisal Judgments and the “True Nature” Myth
This
judgmental tendency is a root cause of divisiveness in societies
which manifests in problems at many levels in our lives—fractured families,
personnel problems in organizations, and inequities that create many other
serious issues in across the world today. In this article, I share what I’ve
learned and offer potential solutions. The rising political polarization in the
Western world is a sign that our divisions are deepening. This “canary in the coalmine” ought to be
catalyzing deeper conversations among us all. To that end, this article offers a collaborative approach to addressing
the problem of people-appraisal.
Human Nature and the Stories We’re Told
There
is consensus in the field of psychology and sociology, that almost everyone in
the world wants certain things including to be valued, to feel cared for
(loved), and to matter in the world. Everyone also shares the same planet and
has an imperfect human body, a fallible human nature, and a perplexing human
mind that mystifies science.
Despite
these very important similarities, we’ve been told stories our whole lives
about ways we’re different from each other. We’re told that this knowledge
helps us know the kinds of people to admire and approach, and which ones to
dislike and avoid.
The
things we learn from these stories form our perceptions, thoughts, and feelings
about people. We are taught how to use people-appraisal to judge people by what
they have and what they do. These judgments enable us to define not only who
they are, but also the essence of what they are.
Judgments
like these would be beneficial if they were to promote health, wellbeing, positive
outcomes, and an adaptive path to our species’ future. Unfortunately people-appraisal
and the stories about them far too often promote social division, failures,
harm, and foster unwarranted fears and hostilities. This is a huge problem for individuals,
organizations, and humanity as a whole.
Problems People-Appraisal Causes
Many troubling views in America are tied to the country’s power
in the world and the power within social hierarchies that define our personal
and professional everyday lives. No matter where we look, there is evidence of
inequity and it terrifies all of us in some way. Similar kinds of fears are
evident in other societies.
A primary cause of much human
suffering is people-appraisal. Following are examples of how it fosters societal
divisiveness, organizational dysfunction, psychological disturbances, and worldwide
conflict:
- A person judged to be bad by certain groups tends to expect that the people in those groups will be suspicious and untrusting, uncaring, and punishing. These expectations, however, may be wrong since other groups may judge the person to be a good and valuable person. Who’s right? Since the judgements are subjective, and different criteria can be used to make these appraisals, people can receive the inconsistent appraisal that are good and bad depending on who is asked. Nevertheless, any animosity and fear that emanates from these judgements are destined to divide societies.
- People who appraise someone as being a bad person may seek to imprison or destroy that individual. They may justify their judgments by claiming moral superiority, expressing righteous indignation, and/or experiencing a real or imagined sense of persecution or vulnerability. They may be influenced by racial, ethnic, and religious prejudices, and by political ideologies, none of which may have real merit. Nevertheless, fears and anger the judgments lead to societal division.
- A person judged to be worthless, that they don’t matter, is likely to expect being rejected, ignored, taken advantage of, and treated as inferior and unworthy by certain others, even though some may appraise the person as being good and worthy. People who accept being appraised as worthless may become depressed, despairing, withdraw from society, and perform poorly because they believe they’re incapable of success and undeserving of a good life. Or they may become angry for not being treated fairly and seek revenge. Their vengeance may be aimed at the wealthy and powerful elites who they blame for their plight in life or at others who disparage them. In all these cases, social division is created.
- People who appraise someone as being a worthless person tend to show indifference to the person’s needs and even one’s existence. They consider the person to be unworthy of life pleasures and disregard the individual. This lack of recognition and caring is a form of societal divisiveness because it separates the haves from the have-nots and creates a hierarchical class system. Even worse, it can be a form of terrorism that persuades people—though intimidation, physical and emotional pain, and brain-washing—to accept a life of misery as an acceptable state of affairs. This dictatorial, terroristic, control-resist form of oppression is so divisive that it has, throughout history, led to uprising and revolt against those in power.
The following provides other examples of people-appraisal’s
destructive potential that includes divisive social hierarchies which promote
caste systems, ingroup-outgroup bias, and problems for diversity and inclusion
efforts.
Societal Caste Systems
People-appraisal enables hierarchical social
caste systems to thrive. In these social systems, some groups of people have
higher “rankings” than others. Those who rank highly are rewarded with a wealth
of advantages and privileges that other groups beneath them don’t enjoy. The
rankings are based on people-appraisals of people’s characteristics
(attributes), real or imagined; the most typical of these ranking criteria are
a person’s race, religion, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic class.
Caste systems are self-reinforcing. They put
considerable pressure on people in the upper-caste to maintain the rankings,
and they pressure people in lower-castes to comply with social expectations
that keep them oppressed and in servitude (Caste: The Origins of Our
Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson, Springs and Shadows Books).
All this adds to the distrust and disdain
between castes that are expressed as harsher criminal justice against lower
castes, dysfunctional public health and welfare systems, great income
inequality, and political divides.
Ingroups and Outgroups
People identify with different groups. People
in one’s own social group, the “ingroup,” are judged as being better (more
positive, less negative) than those in competing “outgroups.” This common Ingroup-Outgroup
bias relies on people-appraisal to differentiate the groups by the goodness
and worthiness of their members based on nationality, race, gender, age,
religion, etc.
Without strong feelings of connection to everyone in our
communities—which is an impossibility due to the scale of our modern world—we
have come to view the people in outgroups as competitors more readily than as
true collaborators. Our human tendency to cooperate persists, but only among
those we trust enough to look out for our interests which is typically in our
ingroup. When we perceives a threat from an outgroup, we tend to feel insecure
and suspicious, are harshly judgmental, and may respond aggressively https://oscarybarra.psych.lsa.umich.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1Stephan-Ybarra-_RiosMorrisonInPressHandbookCh.pdf.
Diversity and Inclusion
Our culture is one of winners and losers but there’s disagreement
about whether or not the systems we have constructed are fair. The winners tend
to think so, the losers tend to be more skeptical. Winners are more inclined to
argue that America fundamentally operates as a meritocracy and that anyone
willing to work hard can achieve their dreams. The losers are more likely to
see systemic issues contributing to a status quo that keeps white men
predominantly in control and everyone else struggling to achieve what those
with more power seem to sequester without
question. This long-standing debate has manifested in the growth of the diversity
and inclusion (D&I) efforts across the nation as organizations and
engaged citizens who are seen as the winners, have slowly come to understand
the true price of inequity. There are still a considerable number of holdouts.
Despite improved
efforts and intentions of those who hold power, many “losers” are frustrated
with a lack of significant shift in outcomes. One form of evidence is employee
turnover according to an NBC news article: https://www.nbcnews.com/know-your-value/feature/diversity-inclusion-growth-industry-these-experts-explained-why-ncna1076726
A lack of effective D&I in
companies leads to devastating employee turnover. In tech, which is dominated
by white and Asian males, women quit at twice the rate of men, while black and
Latino employees quit 3.5 times more than whites and Asians. The diversity
turnover is directly related to workplace culture, and it costs the industry. $16 billion
per year.
However, industry
leaders can be influential in a market that is extremely competitive for talent
and that gives reason for optimism. In 2019, the tech sector earned a top spot
on HR executive’s “Worlds most admired companies” list. Apple, Inc. was rated
number one with credit going to Tim Cook who took over as CEO from Steve Jobs
in 2011 “Apple’s D&I progress—in
terms of numbers—has been slow and steady. But it’s clear that Cook has
transformed the culture and elevated Apple’s social brand” (https://hrexecutive.com/how-the-worlds-most-admired-companies-drive-diversity-and-inclusion/).
There’s a general
consensus that the success of D&I efforts is tied to the actions of
executive leadership. Clearly, many still struggle to achieve their stated
aims. When Dr. Melissa Thomas-Hunt, Airbnb’s head of global diversity and
belonging, was asked in an interview published by Harvard Business Review (https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-day-to-day-work-of-diversity-and-inclusion), for a single
message to other D&I executives, she simply stated “Moving the needle on
inclusion is hard.” But why is this so?
People-Appraisal and Human Evolution
More equitable social systems, ingroup-outgroup cooperation, and inclusive diversity are difficult because humans live at a scale and in cultures that are vastly different than the environments we adapted to over millions of years. The damaging judgments that have led to unconscious biases and conscious discrimination since the dawn of civilization are the result of healthy feedback mechanisms that became corrupted by hierarchies introduced by agrarian life.
Imagine returning to a
time when behaviors were corrected, or criticisms were issued only in the
context of caring connections to loved ones? Imagine feeling immersed in
unconditional acceptance as an “unrateable” human being who’s protected by an
extended family and empathically attuned to their needs as a result? It is
possible. Modern day hunter gatherers operate in ways that seem strange to us
but are much more natural. So, what is stopping us from making progress to more
egalitarian ideals?
Simply put,
people-appraisal.
People-Appraisal Concepts
People-appraisal is a process that is used to judge people as good, bad, worthwhile, or useless and unworthy. We use information about what a person has and what a person does, and with it we mistakenly infer something about who a person is at their core—their true self. From this conclusion about a person’s true nature we feel entitled to make decisions about whether or not someone is deserving of fair treatment and respect.True Self
The
term “true self” is an abstract concept (social construct) that defines who
and what a person is.
Who Someone Is
Concept
map 1 explains that labels describe who a person is by indicating a person’s self-identity
(e.g., one’s name) and group identities (e.g., nationality, race, social
relationships, class/rank). An example of how someone might describe who he is:
“I am John Smith; I’m a white Christian and husband of Jane Smith.”
Describing
what someone is requires more elaborate explanation.
What Someone Is
The
simplest explanation of what someone is would be: A person is a Human Being.
Things get more complex when explaining what that means; consider the following
which are depicted in the concept map 1:
- A human being is a sentient (thinking, feeling) form of life on planet Earth that has both physical (material, tangible) and nonphysical (nonmaterial, intangible) aspects (components, parts).
- The physical aspects of a human being include everything that makes up our bodies.
- The nonphysical aspects of a human being are inconceivable and incomprehensible (cannot be perceived and understood); they include the things our minds (consciousness) do.
- We are able to do other things when our physical and nonphysical aspects interact (mind-body interactions) and are influenced by our environment (everything not part of us).
- These interactions produce the physical things we do and experience—such as our behaviors, mental activities, bodily sensations, and emotional feelings—that are the physical and mental functions of our body-brain interactions.
- These interactions also produce the nonphysical things we do and experience—such as our subjective (uniquely personal) experiences based on our awareness of reality—which are mind functions of consciousness. This refers to metaphysical, philosophical, and theological beliefs and understanding which are beyond the scope of this paper.
- The True Self is defined as a combination of the previous two items. It includes the notion of a person’s True Nature, discussed next, which is one’s inborn ability to have focused attention, intention, imagination, creativity, insights, memory, thoughts/cognitions self-awareness, sensory perceptions, skills, knowledge, adaptive and maladaptive behaviors, and beliefs emotions, etc.
The
concept map concludes that although it’s possible to objectively judge a
person’s individual and group identities (who the person is) and the
person’s physical/bodily form and functions (the observable parts of what
a person is), it’s impossible to judge the inherent/intrinsic
goodness and worthwhileness/worthiness of a person—i.e., one’s true
nature. Believing in such judgements are possible is delusional!
 |
| Concept Map 1 (click to enlarge) |
There are physical aspects of what people Do and Have that are typically used as criteria for occasionally observing and objectively measuring (judging, appraising) a person’s inherent/intrinsic value (worthwhileness) and virtue (goodness). They include one’s material wealth/possessions; social connections and status; physical appearance; and expressed skills/abilities, beliefs, actions, emotions, knowledge, etc. There are also mind-body interaction aspects that are typically used as criteria for the same kinds of measurements. They include one’s behaviors (physical actions/activities), mental activities (thoughts, perceptions), bodily sensations, and emotions; but they do not include the mind functions of consciousness (unique subjective experience and awareness of reality).
The Effect of Believing in the Myth of True Nature
The stories we’re told as children tell us which people have a good and worthy true nature, and why they deserve the best things in life, such as living the American Dream. Many of us make them our heroes; we respect them and want to be like them. They are smart and successful (meritorious), they share our core values and beliefs, and they have a similar appearance to us. It’s their admirable and praiseworthy true nature that makes them what they are—good, valuable people. When people come to believe they are wonderful and deserving, they may become egotistical (self-centered, feeling superior) which may lead them to look down upon others and treat them with contempt.
The stories also tell us which people have a bad true nature and why they deserve to be punished. Many of us are suspicious, anxious, and fearful of them because they want to harm us by preventing us from getting what we want or by taking away what we have. We make these people our enemies; we despise them and want to get rid them. We know we’re better than they are, but they think they’re better than us, so they look down on us and disregard us. It is their wicked, evil true nature that makes them what they are—bad people. When people are continually reminded that have no virtue (no goodness), they learn that others are likely to reject and punish them. As a result, they’re unlikely to feel empathy and learn to act without respect for rules and regard for the feelings of others.
The stories also tell us which people have a worthless true nature and how those people are undeserving because, e.g., lack the knowledge, skills, qualities, status, and prosperity which only smart, dedicated, hardworking people have. We tend to disregard these people because they have an inferior way of life; they’re stupid, dirty, smelly people who spread disease; they lower property values in our neighborhoods; and they just take-take-take from us while giving nothing in return. It’s their good-for-nothing true nature that makes them what they are—worthless people. When people are continually told that they have little or no value, it’s easy to convince them that the rules of society are against them. They learn to hate themselves in the name of others gaining power and control over them.
These people-appraisal myths are promoted by different cultures and told to us by our families, friends, the media, institutions (schools, governments, religious organizations, etc.), and all types of media beginning in childhood. The power of these appraisals is based on the presumption that there are meaningful differences between types of people; differences in what they are.
Concept map 2 describes people-appraisal related to a person’s true nature.
 |
| Concept Map 2 (click to enlarge) |
- The judgment rating scales are subjective, thus there is no universal agreement about what a rating score means, so a bad behavior on one scale might be good behavior on another
- No one can continuously observe a person all day every day, collect all the data necessary to rate (judge) the person's goodness and worthwhileness. That means variations in a person's ratings over time cannot be known.
So,
it is impossible to realistically determine whose true nature good, bad,
worthwhile, worthless, etc. It's delusional to do so and believe it's reasonable.
People-Appraisal Process Explained
The people-appraisal
process involves judging the inherent/intrinsic value and the virtue of people’s
true nature.
There’s a critical
distinction between making people-appraisal judgments and making other types of
judgments:
- People-appraisal requires judgmental thoughts such as “They are bad people” or “They are good-for-nothing.”
- There is no people-appraisal, however, if the judgements refer to only what the people have or what they do, which includes thoughts such as “They do bad things,” “They have worthless ideas,” or “They have great wealth and high status.”
We can’t observe and
evaluate (assess, measure) people’s true nature since it’s not a thing, it’s
just an abstract concept (unreal, imaginary idea). All we can evaluate is what
we can observe, that is, things people have and do.
We then use a
subjective rating scale that has personal meaning to us to ascribe value to the
things we observe. Since there’s no universally valid rating scale, and since
no one has an actual true nature, people appraisal is meaningless even though people
believe it has meaning.
Not only are the judgmental
rating scales grossly inadequate, there’s no agreement on how to interpret the
measurements. For example:
- We can measure the money and possessions people have to determine their wealth, but how much they must have to be considered “rich” is subjective (arbitrary, a personal choice).
- We can evaluate people’s social status by, e.g., counting how many fans/followers they have on social media, but how many they need to be “famous” is subjective.
- We can assess people’s actions by observing and counting their good deeds and bad ones. For an accurate count, we must do the impossible, i.e., observe and record what they do all day and every day. We can, however, make a rough estimate by observing them occasionally. In any case, how we determine the number of good deeds needed to judge someone as a “good person,” how many bad acts are needed to change that judgement to “bad person,” and how many more good behaviors are needed to revert the person back to “being good,” etc.—all that is subjective.
All of this means
that people-appraisal judgments—which logically can only be made by evaluating
observable things believed to reflect one’s true nature—are not only a waste of
time, but it’s damaging and dangerous.
People-Appraisal versus Judgement Without People-Appraisal: An Example
To clarify the difference between judgements that are People-Appraisal delusions and those that are not, let's examine the material wealth judgement criteria in the what people have category in Map 2.
Our tendency to judge people based on what they have consists of a wide variety of things which includes material wealth; physical/mental/emotional characteristics, qualities, traits, and tendencies; social status and relationships; knowledge, skills, beliefs; and usefulness, i.e., a one's production value. For this example, let's examine material wealth.
If people with great material (financial) wealth are judged by someone (the "judger") to be "rich" people that's not delusional because the judger's assessment is based on the worth of those people's possessions. The judger uses some subjective mental criteria (probably subconscious) by which the judger defines their "great wealth."
If, however, the judgment is that the true nature of those people is intrinsically "bad" or "evil" because they have "great wealth," then the judger is People-Appraising which is delusional since it's an irrational act to judge anyone's true nature for reasons I discuss in this article.
Purging People-Appraisal
One thing that would help humanity evolve adaptively is to purge people-appraisal and replace it with a shared common purpose. One such unifying purpose could be to eliminate people-appraising! To achieve this goal requires that we raise awareness about it and teach people not to do it. Children are easier to influence but adult behavior must also change.
Teach Our Children Not to People-Appraise
The most powerful
way to crush people-appraisal is to teach our children about it. That is,
change the stories we tell them about the fallacy of appraising the worth and
goodness of any person. These new stories would dispute the notion that a
person’s true nature is able to be measured because “true nature” is only an
imaginary idea, not an observable thing.
The power of storytelling transcends
culture and time. There is ample evidence that stories are processed by the
human brain more effectively than other forms of informational input. We have
been described as “primates who tell stories”, and that they are “primates
whose cognitive capacity shuts down in the absence of a story.” Stories are
essential in the early education and development of young children; parents and
teacher have used stories and metaphors for centuries. (Reference: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/06/13/481827994/are-stories-a-key-to-human-intelligence#:~:text=In%20a%20talk%20in%20Pittsburgh%20in%201997%2C%20the,To%20be%20sure%2C%20we%20love%20a%20good%20story.
When these
people-appraisal stories interact with social media—such as Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram—the outcomes can be devastating for youth, as revealed in Jeff
Orlowski 2020 documentary “The Social Dilemma.” It describes how social media
provides a money-making platform that children and teenagers are able to
conveniently use to express harsh judgments of another (such as one’s
appearance), who then feels worthless, unlovable, ashamed, and depressed (even
suicidal). Resilient youth, however, can avoid this emotional distress if they
are told stories that helped them learn how senseless and absurd such
people-appraisal truly is.
The proposed new stories would refute people-appraisal by raising children’s awareness and understanding that sensible and reasonable judgments of people can only be made about the things we can observe-what people have and what people do. The children would also be taught that the ratings used to make those assessment are subjective, so everyone will measure things differently. The ensuing disagreements are thus evidence that there is no universal truth about a person. The stories must be written and presented in ways children can understand and question.
Teach Adults Not to People-Appraise
There would be great benefit in helping adults realize
the destructive effects of people-appraisal.
Ideally it would motivate them to stop doing it. Adults who grew up in
environments where stories supporting people-appraisal were prevalent—and now
believe it’s there’s nothing wrong with it—will likely continue doing it. It’s
even difficult for those who want to stop people-appraising because it’s an
automatic, unconscious, emotionally-driven activity that they do without
realizing it; and when they do it, they probably don’t recognize its damaging
impact. So, one of the first is to increase awareness by recognizing when
people-appraisal is occurring. One method to help people recognize when
people-appraisal occurs is by explaining the following:
- Every time we think or say phrases similar to (a) “He/She is a ___ person” or (b) “They/We are ___ people” or (c) I am a ___ person” and fill in the blank with a judgmental term, it’s people-appraising.
- By changing those phrases to (a) “He/She is a person who [has or does] ___” or (b) They/We are people who [have or do] ___” or (c) I am a person who [has or does] ___” then it’s not people-appraising, even if you fill in the blank with a judgmental phrase.
The point is that we
are not or “human-havings” or “human-doings;” we are just imperfect,
fallible human beings without a true nature who have things and do things, as
depicted in the concept maps.
Next, the adults, if
willing, would be helped to become aware of experiences in their youth that
promoted their people-appraising beliefs, and how it became so deeply ingrained
in them that it occurs without conscious thought or intention.
They would also learn
about people-appraisal’s powerful destructive force in fostering societal
divisiveness, as well as in diminishing people’s sense of psychological
wellbeing and physical wellness. In addition, they would come to realize that
it’s irrational to even try to judge anyone’s true nature; any judgments must
be limited only to subjective assessments of what people have and do.
This narrow focus would
also reduce Ingroup-Outgroup bias because people’s race, ethnicity, gender,
religion, political party, etc. would be irrelevant in knowing what a person is.
It would then become clear that what does matter are the reasons for people’s
feelings and actions, and those things can be understood by learning about each
other’s values, beliefs, experiences, and world views through respectful and
humble discourse.
When discussions are
heated and civility is in short supply, there are ways to structure
conversations that can make things more productive. They include reframing
situations and people in a different way by changing the meaning of certain
things so the issues can be reconsidered. An example is rather then demeaning
people for opposing environmentalism, define climate change as a threat to the
American way of life which is patriotic, and it is a moral act to be a good
steward of the earth. Also, rather than just arguing one’s own point of view, express
the desire to want to have a better understanding of the other person’s
position and ask how the person’s strategy would work, and how the proposed
solution could be implemented successfully.
Deal with People-Appraisal in Companies and Other Organizations
Numerical rankings
and rating scales of personnel performance are counter-productive because they lead
to high frustration levels, excessive caution, and colleagues who work against each
other. Research on the human brain has states that the reason for this is it
triggers the fight-or-flight response that is meant to occurs only when
preparing to face a real physical threat.
It also reinforces
an invalid widespread view that human growth and learning depends on one’s permanent
inborn abilities. That means personnel with low scores are likely to have an
incompetent true nature based on the observation of their performance, which is
a people-appraisal judgement. This results in the development of a fixed
mindset of incompetence, a perception that they are worthless in their job due
to their low production value which cannot improve. Managers are likely to have
the view that that they will always be a difficult challenge and not worth the
effort to help them improve because, by their very nature, they will always
fail.
One solution is to
eliminate people-appraisal by reframing evaluations using a highly structured
or open-ended conversation approach that makes no assumption about one’s true
nature. Managers are given recommendations about how to discuss topics with
employees in an annual review such as career growth, contribution, collaboration,
innovation, and employees’ goals. Both employees and managers must be trained to “recognize that anyone can learn and improve thanks to the brain's
capacity for change when primed by a workplace that recognizes the impact of
human effort this growth mindset encourages people to listen to feedback set
goals and put in the extra effort needed to succeed.” How Your Brain Responds to Performance Rankings - YouTube
Deal with People-Appraisal Divisiveness
When people disagree
about each other’s assessments, judgments and world-views, people-appraisal
makes it very difficult to examine and discuss their respective beliefs and
understandings. If done respectfully and with a sincere desire to learn from
one another, the insights about these differences can help opposing sides
understand and appreciate each other. This civil discourse and search for
mutual awareness and understanding can help reveal details about key aspects of
social divisiveness for exploration.
Then people can
examine the problematic issues that divide them with the goal of:
- Understanding how all sides view the problems through shared insights into what people value, want, need, fear, and angers them.
- Using that understanding and insights to focus collectively and cooperatively on finding solutions to those problems.
They could then envision
how achieving those goals would make our social groups, organizations, and the world
a better place. To do this people must decide what to focus on that would
enable them to achieve their goals.
One way to decide where
to focus is by examining the underlying reasons for divided societies. To
exemplify how to do this, I compared disputes reported in the media about different
beliefs systems, philosophies, and actions of conservatives vs. liberals, the
far right vs. far left, democracy vs. communism vs. authoritarianism and
oligarchies, etc. I analyzed the information and identified two key causes of
social division today. My findings are discussed below along with and some
potential benefits that can be achieved by removing the influence of
people-appraisal.
Cause 1: Anxiety and fear about the safety and wellbeing of self, family, ingroup, and country.
People who are worried
about safety and wellbeing may be concerned that:
- Social groups and societies designed hierarchically—with people at the top levels having greater status, power, rights, and opportunities than the people below them—will be unfair to them.
- People from outgroups will persecute (harm, victimize, threaten) them.
- The moral superiority, purity of belief, and righteous political ideology of their ingroup will be tarnished.
- Their ingroup will not be able to maintain its ethnic, racial, and religious heritage.
- Human-made damage to earth and climate will not be taken seriously.
The following lists some of the likely beneficial changes if people-appraisal had no influence:
- More people would accept groups and societies that are more egalitarian, in which everyone’s social status, power, etc. are based more on people’s needs and contributions.
- The disparities between the haves and have-nots would shrink.
- Societal caste systems would be eliminated and replaced with increased cooperation, mutuality (mutual dependence, benefit, and reciprocity), and caring.
- There would then be less ingroup-outgroup conflict, fear, and grievances. That means mistreatment, intimidation, oppression, deprivation, persecution, injustice, and assaults would diminish.
- Everyone would be free to practice their own religions, skin color, country of origin, native language, and political identity would not be elevated nor denigrated. Different views on values and morality would be tolerated as long as they are not meant to promote peace and unity.
- There would be little reason to believe that one’s ingroup has moral superiority, purity, and righteousness since there would be greater mutual understanding and trust.
- A meaningful sense of purpose can be developed that includes promoting the long-term survival and enlightenment of humanity would be a primary goal, which includes protecting the planet.
Cause 2: Low tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty
When tolerance for
ambiguity and uncertainty is low:
- There’s a tendency to have a thinking style that views things through a simple, fixed mindset which requires very little contemplation (deep thought about complex issues) and reduces the likelihood someone will adequately examine contradictory evidence the refutes conspiracy theories.
- There’s a tendency to rely on mindsets (ways of thinking) through which people perceive things and situations as “black-and-white,” all-or-nothing,” right-or-wrong” (dichotomous or binary thinking).
- It cancels out the understanding of complexity, nuance, and the need for reasoned analysis of alternative views.
- People tend to expose themselves to information that only supports their own beliefs (confirmation bias).
Without people-appraisal,
ambiguity and uncertainty would diminish since people become more willing to use
reasoned analysis to examine alternative views and consider the nuances of
complex issues, which could counter reliance on conspiracy theories, black-and-white
thinking, and excessive simplicity. In addition, they would be more open-minded
to considering information that does not confirm the existing beliefs and thus
possibly reduce confirmation bias. Their willingness would be increased because
they would not be concerned about being harshly judged and being harmed by its
consequences.
Unity Consciousness Approach
Unity Consciousness is defined as a process
by which people’s experiences are shared in a way that can instantly re-educate
them through access to a level of collective awareness few have probably ever
experienced. It’s an atypical approach that focuses on the attention to
awareness itself.
The Human Connections Institute (HCI (connectioninstitute.org)) is an organization that has
been researching the feasibility of sharing a commonly sensed consciousness
among people. It contends that through its Human Connection Project—an
interdisciplinary collaboration organized by the Human Connection Institute—millions
of people will be able to share a greater sense of belonging together after
watching extensive media announcements and presentations. Research components
consist of a series of laboratory experiments exploring psychological and
physiological “interconnectedness” among human beings.
It’s predicted that a heightened sense of
connection to a larger whole will foster a new level of shared intelligence,
compassion, and creativity among the people involved. It asserts that this
might help untangle the divisive characteristics of personal, familial,
cultural, national, and economic boundaries, bringing humanity a step closer to
a peaceful and balanced planetary civilization.
Related techniques (including the Group
Insight Game) are claimed to be useful for consensual decision-making which
enables organizations to by-pass hours of meeting time. By effortlessly
producing and attracting beneficial behavior patterns, these methods are meant
to strengthen originality, authenticity, and creativity. Individual
participants in a group learn to be led by a collective intelligence that is
greater than any one of its members. Making businesses more competitive through
spirited cooperation could change the way we do business. Corporate consultants
and experts in leadership have so far responded enthusiastically.
Conclusion
A person’s self is a
concept (social construct) that defines a human being as someone with an
identity and with physical and nonphysical aspects (components, parts). Some of
the physical aspects refer to what someone does, and others to what someone
has.
While it’s possible
to occasionally measure (evaluate, assess) some of these aspects using
subjective rating scales, people often mistakenly use these measurements for people-appraisals.
The reason is that we’ve been told nonsensical stories since childhood about
false differences in the true nature of people (intrinsic differences in our
true selves).
Unfortunately, we
grew up believing the stories even though a logical examination of reality
makes it clear that the stories are foolish, absurd, senseless, irrational,
ludicrous, and destructive. Many of us, nevertheless, continue to erroneously
believe that it’s reasonable to judge the inherent/intrinsic goodness and worthwhileness
of people’s true nature, instead of realizing that these judgments not only delusional, but also cause great harm to our species wellness, wellbeing,
and our ability to adapt and survive.
It would be much to
our advantage if we become aware of the falsehoods these stories perpetuate,
how they adversely affect us, and how much better life would be if we reject
them and stop people-appraising. We would then begin to realize beneficial
reductions in social division, psychological distress, and physical illness
that such judgments foster. This mindset shift would
likely lead to a unifying path toward greater peace, health, and sense of
wellbeing for people at home and around the world. It would enable us to
achieve “inclusive diversity.”
Despite the challenges we face, greater equity is within
our grasp. What sometimes appears so
complex, is often rooted in a simple truth.
This quote succinctly describes how people-appraisal
affects us and how a simple change in focus could benefit us all.
It's easy to judge. It's more difficult to understand.
Understanding requires compassion, patience, and a willingness to believe that
good hearts sometimes choose poor methods. Through judging, we separate.
Through understanding, we grow. - Doe Zantamata
