Ian Weinberg

7 years ago · 1 min. reading time · 0 ·

Blogging
>
Ian blog
>
Prejudice and other violations

Prejudice and other violations

e3068d90.jpg

So prevalent has it become that one can almost conclude that standing in judgement of each other has become our default mode. Closely allied to this latter mode, or in fact as a consequence of it, is prejudice. The prevailing levels of judgement and prejudice are throttling our more noble attributes of sensitivity, understanding and empathy and thereby compromising our inherent creative and evolutionary energies.

There are two archetypal individuals who repeatedly perpetuate prejudicial behavior: These are the aggressive and judgmental narcissist and the hostile, low self-esteem sociopath (usually in a bullying alliance), as well as combinations thereof. They generally do not take responsibility and are non-apologetic for any negative consequences of their words or actions and both contribute dissent to their respective environments. Neither are able to accept criticism, with the narcissist becoming more aggressive in response to the perceived affront and the sociopath becoming more hostile (hostility implying a vengeful component). Compounding the pathology is the fact that the hostile archetype derives gratification from mauling those that engage or confront them.

It should be emphasized however that these traits may well be camouflaged under a thin veneer of respectability. The narcissist for example may portray himself/herself as an expert or authority in a specific field with the ‘appropriate’ degree of arrogance. The sociopath is masterful at working facade and delusion.

Prejudice in thought, communication and action may be minimized by developing an awareness of the three NLP violations of deletion, distortion and generalization.

1. Deletion: Deleting facets of a concept which are inconvenient/contrary to popular held beliefs/reflecting one’s own limiting beliefs. But a half truth is still an untruth!

2. Distortion: Once again, distorting facts to suite one’s own subjective belief system

3. Generalization: Creating generalized traits for a group, believing in it and applying it without exception. In fact those who detract from the generalization are subject to ‘deletion’ and ‘distortion’ so that they ‘fit’ into the scheme of things.

Unfortunately too few transcend their subjectivity, remaining unaware of their unjustified prejudice. And so the fracture lines develop and soon, the divide. Judging from current debate in the extended social media blogs, that divide is widening. Will reason prevail? Will we heal or destroy? Watch this space .....


"
Comments

Ian Weinberg

7 years ago #16

#25
Fair enough

Ian Weinberg

7 years ago #15

#23
Brian McKenzie I respect your perspective as I respect much of the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I also respect your straight, no bullshit approach. But I know (have experienced) that you are a genuine value contributor in the inter-human space. Would you accept that if we modulate our aggression (in all its forms) in engagements with others along our life paths, we enhance our own performance and gratification as well as move the other individual into a more resourceful space? This was in fact my main point of departure in regard to the philosophy of Ayn Rand: I value strength, individualism, self-reliance etc but there is a collective out there and although we're powerless to change it, we can make our micro-environments (the spaces that we inhabit) a better place.

Harvey Lloyd

7 years ago #14

@Brian McKenzie brings up an interesting concept. In the 50's and before there existed a harsh and enforced set of social rules. The 60's saw a break away from these rules. Today we have social rules that seem to be untethered to any standard. With this in mind can we label a persons behavioral patterns without considering the social environment they live. This excludes the extreme cases. Our child narrative brings us into our professional lives with some hardwired understandings. In today's world we speak to tolerance but in reality we sell conformity. But the conformity is based on the social groups child narrative not necessarily in line with our own. Does this not create a cognitive dissonance that must be worked through? But this aligns us differently with close family groups versus social/professional groups. The labels we use describe our reactions, but if we take away one of the competitive groups, would the labeled behaviors become something different? In my leadership of others i have seen this as performance anxiety. The life narrative of an individual meets the goals and performance objectives of their social/professional lives. Bosses, teams, friends and goals need to return a satisfaction to the individual. I see through the life of an objective that it is difficult for members to get satisfaction when they cant apply their personal life narrative. I believe this is what many leaders are discussing as the soft skills deficit. How people react to performance anxiety is what we are labeling, maybe.

Lisa Gallagher

7 years ago #13

Hi Ian Weinberg, I usually share my own life experiences and I hope I am not appearing to pass judgment or give concrete advice to others. If I do give advice, it's based on my own experiences and I can only hope I convey that well and that my advice is from a personal perspective, not Professional. As for reason, I hope it does prevail. I've been a bit weary of reason lately considering the climate in the US as one example of many. If I do present facts, I back them up with sources. I hope I understood your buzz correctly. I think sometimes written words can be misunderstood or misconstrued- I'm speaking on behalf of myself.

Ian Weinberg

7 years ago #12

Brian McKenzie I would contend that the rules of engagement are at least as important as the content of engagement. If disregarded, the 'new' and the 'different' would be rendered irrelevant and so we throw out the baby with the bath water!. Ultimately if the collective is to evolve we will need to promote and maintain mutually respectable connections. Otherwise we will perpetuate a mediocrity of monkeys!

Ian Weinberg

7 years ago #11

Thanks Phil Friedman for your input. I return to cogitation mode in pursuit of the Holy Grail!

Harvey Lloyd

7 years ago #10

Ian Weinberg this discussion is an important one. Reading the thoughts of both yourself and @Phil Friedman have been challenging. I do believe the discussion embodies the current election craziness we sense at the center. I hold the belief that as humans we must decern our environment and make decisions. Whether it be fatherly, family or professional. From the outside this could appear judgmental, not haveing all of the discerning pieces that went into the choice. I read your post more from a perspective of general attitudes/perceptions. Your post stated many of the things we observe in social behaviours, in our post-election environment. Many of the folks who silently sat in awe of the past 8 years have been awakened and found a voice. Is this good or bad, is for another debate. However, it does exacerbate your thoughts here. Thanks to you and Phil for haveing this enlightening discussion. I would make one further point though, consensus on the debate will have to happen at some point in the future. What we hold to be as close to the truth must be decided. The lines are being drawn and without a clear set of guidelines of "judgement" within our social understanding, it will not end well.

Phil Friedman

7 years ago #9

#13
Sorry, Ian but that is NOT what I am saying, nor is it what I said. What I am saying is: First, I think that some of the inferences being made from your discussion are not validly drawn from what you say, but themselves appear to me to be based on prejudgments. For example, I do not take what you are saying to actually assert or support the view that there is no objective truth. You can correct me if I am wrong about that. Second, what I am asserting is that we must have an intellectual commitment to the existence of objective truth of some kind whether or not we can ultimately know that truth perfectly. If not, then all science and other intellectual pursuits are meaningless. Third, that what is subjective and often relative are our perceptions of truth (or fact), which perceptions may be more or less in alignment with underlying reality. Science and other intellectual pursuits represent for me an ongoing dialogue that seeks to move closer to that reality by exploring and exchanging, examining and discussing ideas and concepts. We don't "make" truth; we seek to discover it, albeit only more or less successfully, and always tentatively. Fourth, the dialogue involved, of needs, requires making judgments all the time. And there is nothing wrong with being "judgmental" in that sense. But being "judgmental" in that sense is often confused with what I term "pre-judgment" -- or in other words prejudice based on irrelevant factors, not in any way related to whether a set of assertions or postulates may be more or less reflective of the underlying reality, the "truth". Fifth, if you insist on conflating being judgmental (which is inevitable) with being prejudiced or pre-judgmental, you are doing a disservice to the cause of intellectual engagement and exploration, as well as opening up the door to the proponents of Universal and Absolute Relativism -- which is nihilistic claptrap. Cheers and thanks for being open to discussion.

Ian Weinberg

7 years ago #8

#12
Phil, please walk me through this: If I assert something to be true and it is true, then it represents the truth. Epistemologically it is the closest to fact. One assumes that my truth is developed from an honest and comprehensive reasoning of all available, relevant substrate. I understand from your response that other asserted truths relating to the same concept provide no further epistemological value if derived in the same manner. And further, if the truth of individual assertions be limited by subjectivity and it is acknowledged to be incomplete truth due to subjectivity, then it is an untruth because even if pooled with other subjectivity-limiting truths, there can be no further evolution towards truth. Concluding then, authentic fact is derived from an honest and comprehensive reasoning of all available relevant substrate which renders redundant the dialoguing of similar concepts derived in the same way.

Phil Friedman

7 years ago #7

#11
and while you're at it, consider if you will, The Liar's Paradox. Which amounts to how one evaluates the assertion by someone that all statements are lies. If the statement is true, then it must be a lie and therefore false. Or if true, then it belies the claim that all statements are lies. And so again it must be false. I believe that the problem with absolute relativism is akin to The Liar's Paradoex. cheers!

Ian Weinberg

7 years ago #6

#9
Ok Phil, I'll need to chew on this a while.

Phil Friedman

7 years ago #5

#8
No , Ian, I am asserting exactly the opposite of what you take me to be saying. Your interpretation is symptomatic of dogmatic relativism, which pretends to celebrate rational discussion, but which actually makes an a priori assumption that precludes consideration of any position other than your own. I did NOT say your assertion are grunts. I only said if your assertion that there are no absolute truths, than all assertions, including yours, are grunts. And so your position is its own reductio ad absurdum. That is a far cry from saying your assertions are grunts.

Ian Weinberg

7 years ago #4

#7
Phil, we are unlikely to arrive at absolute truth, which in itself is probably a relative concept . Our best effort at making sense of our environment is to use objective reasoning in the context of a given subjectivity, in an attempt to transcend the limits of our subjectivity. Additional to this is the engagement with other subjective folk in a constructive way so that more substrate becomes available for reasoning and evaluation and the subjective bias is diluted. The mode of engagement is fundamental because if we retain mutual sensitivity and remain in rapport we achieve, collectively, a more valuable outcome. By referring to my (and presumably other) assertions as just another collection of ‘grunts’ you expose your own modus of engagement in communication. You appear to be at a place where you are judging other points of view as ‘grunts’ and default to accepting your own judgement. It begs the question of what reasoning substrate your bias would allow you to place value upon for personal integration? There is a possibility that at the end of the day your epistemological compass would have shrunk you down to your own turf/comfort zone/world-view after disrespecting a whole host of external ‘grunts’ irrespective of their intrinsic value!

Phil Friedman

7 years ago #3

#4
Sorry Ian, without validi judgement -- whether or not we can ultimately determine which judgments are valid -- there is no truth. Without truth -- whether or not we can ultimately determine what is true and what is not -- there is only subjective grunting. And that includes your assertions here. So if I accept your assertions, then ipso facto they become meaningless, with no basis for accepting them over any contrary assertions. And, therefore, you will pardon me for choosing to ignore your grunts and choosing instead to stick with mine. No, your position, like all attempts to assert absolute relativism, is self-nullifying as worthy of consideration. For such arguments are always their own reductios as absurdum. Cheers.

Ian Weinberg

7 years ago #2

#3
Phil Friedman In a bigger context there is no real differentiation between 'pre-judge' and judge'. Both reflect the intrinsic biases of subjective belief. However it is the mode of communication which becomes the issue. In collective discussion, a non-judgemental sensitivity to where the opposing view originates can be termed 'dialogue'. All lesser levels of respect based on a challenge to an opposing view without regard for the context of the individual and sensitivity to their subjective space, will invariably result in a subjective-based challenge or response. This invariably incorporates elements of judgement/pre-judgement. In regard to daily choices, that is exactly what it is, choices. These should not be termed 'judgements'. They are preferences based on our subjective evaluations.

Phil Friedman

7 years ago #1

Ian, with all due respect, it appears to me that you here (although, perhaps, not in your own mind) conflate "judging" with "pre-judging". The fact is, we of needs judge others every day, including 1) their ideas (whom should we listen to and believe, who shall influence us and our view?), 2) their social mores (whom shall we befriend, trust, establish relationships with?), 3) their rhetoric (for whom shall we vote, 4) their actions (with whom shall we associate, who is dangerous and who is not, to whom shall we entrust our money, our children's care and education?), 5) and their abilities (whom shall we hire and for whom shall we work?) That is, however, far different from pre-judging people before we know of their ideas, social mores, rhetoric, actions, or abilities -- based solely on traits such as skin color or religion or nationality or ethnic origin, which are completely irrelevant to any of the matters that we do have to make judgements about. Social media is a place where, as a community, we are in constant danger of being over-run by those who believe they can create their own reality, complete with self-ascribed personas, and live out a life that they create on their laptops or mobile devices, something like The Sims on steroids. While they gain succor from the concept that there are no truths, and that all is relative. And that, consequently, nobody is in a position to "judge" their ideas or what they say -- not judge what they do, because they do nothing other than live on social media. To my mind, everyone has a right to speak. But not everyone has a right to be listened to or taken seriously. And nobody has a right to be free of being judged by others. The most we can expect is not to be pre-judged on irrelevancies. Cheers!

Articles from Ian Weinberg

View blog
3 years ago · 6 min. reading time

The ‘experts’ are in a modelling muddle. My response to this is one of empathy. You see, the ‘expert ...

5 years ago · 1 min. reading time

Under a November Full Moon · It happened upon us, a design bereft of our choice. · Thence have we tr ...

4 years ago · 2 min. reading time

The post-dearth re-birth of mirth · As the sun rose it dawned upon me. When it set, I had no recolle ...

Related professionals

You may be interested in these jobs

  • ZEISS Group

    Account Manager

    Found in: Talent ZA C2 - 1 day ago


    ZEISS Group Randburg, South Africa Full time

    Description · Summary A regional sales manager is responsible for overseeing sales activities within a specific geographic area. Your primary goal is to achieve sales targets, increase revenue, and expand the customer base. · Your required to possess a high level of technical kn ...

  • Career-seekers Recruitment Solutions

    Big Data Engineering Lead

    Found in: Executive Placements ZA C2 - 9 hours ago


    Career-seekers Recruitment Solutions Cape Town, South Africa

    Our client. a renowned organization in the Information Technology sector is seeking to URGENTLY appoint a dynamic Big Data Engineering Lead to be based in Johannesburg, South Africa. · MAIN PURPOSE FOR THE ROLE: · To lead the technical delivery team, using experience to deliver r ...

  • Helderberg Personnel cc

    Administrative Assistant

    Found in: beBee S2 ZA - 2 days ago


    Helderberg Personnel cc Helderberg, South Africa Full time

    Somerset West, Western Cape: An established manufacturer and distributer of products in the South African Agri and Horticultural industries is seeking to appoint an Administrative Assistant to join their team. ...