When you judge someone, you do it through nameless concepts that rarely coincide with reality. People tend to judge too fast, and full of their own childhood traumatisms and problems, throughout their own frustrations, fears and misunderstandings. There are too many parameters and experiences that make each person something special and unique.
You can’t judge people by their philosophy, but by their deeds, facts, makes… there is nothing truly objective but what you do. You can’t either judge somebody through what he says, writes, and appears to be. You can describe yourself to others, but your description is always small compared to the real thing, and nevertheless, words do not transmit the deepness of a person, only direct contact and presence.
Everybody is a mystery in itself and the only way to get to know this mystery is to know oneself first. The more you know yourself, the more you can know about others and about life. If you don’t know yourself, your judgment about people is nothing but dry pieces of herbs that the wind blows away to get lost in the nothingness of time.
It is so easy judging someone… it is so easy to interpret other people’s lives… nevertheless… it is so very difficult to get to know oneself objectively and without pity even a little bit… having the strength and sincerity to accept your own inner ugliness, defects and mistakes.
Concepts about people, and real people beyond concepts
#1On 2005-04-04 23:30, Nestor wrote:
When you judge someone, you do it through nameless concepts that rarely coincide with reality.
...
nevertheless… it is so very difficult to get to know oneself objectively and without pity even a little bit…
having the strength and sincerity to accept your own inner ugliness, defects and mistakes.
it's amazing how often the opposite is the case (with a good portion of intuition)
my wife didn't even need five minutes to judge our former neighbour 'he's an a**hole, I don't like him' when he moved into the flat next door - and right she was
#2
it's not only difficult, but impossible because the subject can't be objective about itself - in that case it would be called object, but then it couldn't process the idea...
#3
it helps to regard us as what we are, mammals.
it's fun to describe human activities with exactly the same terminology biologists use - a revealing experience
cheers, Tom
I agree with Astroman, I think humans have an incredible ability to somehow make a 'snapshot analysis' of people and situations. So often my first impressions of someone have, in the long run, proved correct.
I believe that's an ability gained through thousands of years of intense social interaction.
But its also important that you *can* make immediate judgments. The ability to quickly categorise and generalise while ignoring the mass of detail, is one of the core abilities of humans.
This is a prized ability, and something which AI programmers just haven't been able to replicate.
I believe that's an ability gained through thousands of years of intense social interaction.
But its also important that you *can* make immediate judgments. The ability to quickly categorise and generalise while ignoring the mass of detail, is one of the core abilities of humans.
This is a prized ability, and something which AI programmers just haven't been able to replicate.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
From what I know, this process of generalization is a form of learning, also a prized ability of the cognitive mind.But its also important that you *can* make immediate judgments. The ability to quickly categorise and generalise while ignoring the mass of detail, is one of the core abilities of humans.
Generalization, and the opposite, which is looking at the details that vary accross different cases, sounds like a great example of the objective reality versus subjective experience topic we are on right now.
This is an interesting contradiction, which can be rephrased as the contradiction between empirical objectivism and social constructivism. (both accepted in science today, thank god) Of couse, the bottom line is that certain things can be generalized easier, and also to greater extent, like physics, while things like anthropology rely more on subjective experiences, focusing on the details that differ accross cases. The important thing is to recognize that while there are incidents that can be generalized, circumstantial variances and context can be accounted for by accepting the subjective experience. They supplement together very nicely I think.
The difference, as it was defined to my by my professor, between objective and subjective reality is this. Objectivism (or empirical science) is concerned with truth, a universal truth. In reality, there is no universal truth, only an "agreed" truth. A truth that relies on consensus. On the other hand, subjectivism (or constructivist, post-modernist theory) is concerned with context, and whether something works within the context or not. I think us, by simply being artists, lend ourselves to a constructivist style of thinking many times... just think of EQ and mastering. Never a universal truth.
And the usual example to finish this off would be, if the world only consisted of empirical truth or objective truth, then the world would still be flat, and everything in the world would be made of 3 or 4 basic elements. (or whatever the greeks thought) Supplement objectivism by subjectivism.
The problem is, it's easy for the subjective reality to be misunderstood because communication is lossy encoding. Which would justify why it was neglected by science until recently. A story called "toolmaker's paradigm" describes the communication problem very accurately. I'll post it if the discussion leans towards communication.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2005-04-06 02:28 ]</font>
a false judgement from individual and isolated viewpoint of the speciesOn 2005-04-06 09:50, stardust wrote:
...
The current domination of human race relies much on its ability to organize in communities that overcome environmental limitations easier than the individuum would do...
A species which assumes to be able to build 'sophisticated' high tech communication systems, but cannot even explain unquestionably present 'wireless' communication abilities of other lifeforms.
Did you know that highly industrial environments offer a lot more room for animals than agriculturally polluted woods and acres ?
cheers, Tom
Judging others can happen in various ways.
It is amazing what difference clothes and hair-styling and make-up can do to people's impression of you (man or woman).
I believe many factors come into play here:
You show your desire to abide or not to abide to social consepts of, what is beautifull and what is accepted. If you cross the rules, people with a strong need for everybody fitting the rules will be turned of by you. On the other hand some other people may be atracted to you, because you fit into their expectations (stereo-type) of a good friend, idol, whatever. I strongly believe, that some people are atracted to @ssholes, who will treat them the way they are used to be treated - and thereby help them keep their world in it's usual order, which, violent as it may be, is still "safe" because it is known - nothing very new and "world view disturbing" will happen.
Other factors like bodylanguage and behavior will also have a role here, but it strikes me, how much looks have to say. After I cut my long hair, it took a good deal of time for me to adjust to the reactions I would get from strangers. Somehow, there was a mismatch between their reactions toward me and my habitual expectations about the way strangers would react toward me. It took time to learn to expect a more positive attitude from others. There are a lot of uncontroled factors in this "case" about myself, so I can only guess, wether looks had a major contribution. However anecdotal I do however believe it. An old friend of mine told me about a similar experience.
Turning the looking glass and looking out, I have often experienced a difference in my perception of women depending on their make-up and clothing. Then again, our choice of such parameters are in my opinion far from random (unconcious as they may be). With many people, clothing does not only show style but also mood. On several ocasions have I been able to tell some near friends mood by looking at their clothes.
I study music therapy and I have heard therapists say "don't make judgements about people". I disagree. I do however find it important to be concious about one's judgements - and at best know on which parameters the specific judgement is based. Also I think it is important to be as aware as posible to what feelings my judgements make me feel myself - about the other person and about/inside myself. Multiple keys to learning about one self and one's relations are to be found in this way.
In my opinion judgements are our only possibility to "know" things about other people. When I think of Nestor, I think of a person who very much wants people to be good to eachother. I also think of a person who works hard to practice this way of living. If I didn't make this (and other) judgements about Nestor, I wouldn't see him as anything. Thus, his person(ality) would disapear to me. And I would no longer feel, that I know him at all.
Sure, sometimes we "know" wrong about others - and sometimes we find out, that we where wrong about being wrong - that we actually where right. But this is in my opinion a price well worth paying for the great gift to be able to see personalities in other people. I find that making judgements about other people is one of the core elements in creating friendships - as is making judgements about suspected interpersonal features between me and the person in front of me.
It is amazing what difference clothes and hair-styling and make-up can do to people's impression of you (man or woman).
I believe many factors come into play here:
You show your desire to abide or not to abide to social consepts of, what is beautifull and what is accepted. If you cross the rules, people with a strong need for everybody fitting the rules will be turned of by you. On the other hand some other people may be atracted to you, because you fit into their expectations (stereo-type) of a good friend, idol, whatever. I strongly believe, that some people are atracted to @ssholes, who will treat them the way they are used to be treated - and thereby help them keep their world in it's usual order, which, violent as it may be, is still "safe" because it is known - nothing very new and "world view disturbing" will happen.
Other factors like bodylanguage and behavior will also have a role here, but it strikes me, how much looks have to say. After I cut my long hair, it took a good deal of time for me to adjust to the reactions I would get from strangers. Somehow, there was a mismatch between their reactions toward me and my habitual expectations about the way strangers would react toward me. It took time to learn to expect a more positive attitude from others. There are a lot of uncontroled factors in this "case" about myself, so I can only guess, wether looks had a major contribution. However anecdotal I do however believe it. An old friend of mine told me about a similar experience.
Turning the looking glass and looking out, I have often experienced a difference in my perception of women depending on their make-up and clothing. Then again, our choice of such parameters are in my opinion far from random (unconcious as they may be). With many people, clothing does not only show style but also mood. On several ocasions have I been able to tell some near friends mood by looking at their clothes.
I study music therapy and I have heard therapists say "don't make judgements about people". I disagree. I do however find it important to be concious about one's judgements - and at best know on which parameters the specific judgement is based. Also I think it is important to be as aware as posible to what feelings my judgements make me feel myself - about the other person and about/inside myself. Multiple keys to learning about one self and one's relations are to be found in this way.
In my opinion judgements are our only possibility to "know" things about other people. When I think of Nestor, I think of a person who very much wants people to be good to eachother. I also think of a person who works hard to practice this way of living. If I didn't make this (and other) judgements about Nestor, I wouldn't see him as anything. Thus, his person(ality) would disapear to me. And I would no longer feel, that I know him at all.
Sure, sometimes we "know" wrong about others - and sometimes we find out, that we where wrong about being wrong - that we actually where right. But this is in my opinion a price well worth paying for the great gift to be able to see personalities in other people. I find that making judgements about other people is one of the core elements in creating friendships - as is making judgements about suspected interpersonal features between me and the person in front of me.
-
Nestor
- Posts: 6688
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!
Your words really make sense to me Immanuel.
Perhaps, I have given to the word “judging” an implicit but not obvious meaning. I would like now to explain to what kind of “judgment” in particular I am referring to, not with a word, but with a full explanation:
When I say “judging” somebody, I refer to put yourself on top of the scale as if you were better than him, or different from the rest of mankind in a relevant way. I am referring to the fact that people usually put their concepts as being MORE important, MORE relevant and MORE intelligent than the rest of mankind, this is so very common that I don’t think anybody will disagree about.
As you well explain, you cannot live without judging things, as judgment is a basic tool for our daily lives, very understandable of course. For instance, we all have judged that Planet Z is great, and here we are, participating. But we have judged that Planet Z is great perhaps after a few months, when we started realizing how nice it was to be here, the kind of people that were gathering then, their interest, etc. So in a sense, I can say Planet Z is great, because I have experienced it and can by this direct experience, judge it as positive.
What I find terrible is to prejudge people, move forwards onto others before you know them quite well, basing yourself in your religion, o luck of it; basing yourself in hatred to politics and incoherent information, basing yourself in half way knowledge; basing yourself in possibilities that you “think” may have been, but not facts that you can prove exist. Basing yourself in “envy” in “remorse”, in “thirst for vengeance”, in “jealousy”, “covetousness”, etc.
Of course you nee to judge things to know what to do, where to go and with whom to share your a life; but I would like, for the seek of understanding each other, call it “discernment”. And let me call the word judgement, as I used it at the beginning “prejudgement”.
To all the other comments, I would like to say that I firmly believe in the possibility of being more or less objective, and that there is of course, more objective and less objective people depending on their level of awareness and consciousness. As a result of it, I think there are also more or less objective judgements. I am sure there are very deep, mature people out there, able to judge quite objectively who the rest of people are and do, but this is a whole another story.
Perhaps, I have given to the word “judging” an implicit but not obvious meaning. I would like now to explain to what kind of “judgment” in particular I am referring to, not with a word, but with a full explanation:
When I say “judging” somebody, I refer to put yourself on top of the scale as if you were better than him, or different from the rest of mankind in a relevant way. I am referring to the fact that people usually put their concepts as being MORE important, MORE relevant and MORE intelligent than the rest of mankind, this is so very common that I don’t think anybody will disagree about.
As you well explain, you cannot live without judging things, as judgment is a basic tool for our daily lives, very understandable of course. For instance, we all have judged that Planet Z is great, and here we are, participating. But we have judged that Planet Z is great perhaps after a few months, when we started realizing how nice it was to be here, the kind of people that were gathering then, their interest, etc. So in a sense, I can say Planet Z is great, because I have experienced it and can by this direct experience, judge it as positive.
What I find terrible is to prejudge people, move forwards onto others before you know them quite well, basing yourself in your religion, o luck of it; basing yourself in hatred to politics and incoherent information, basing yourself in half way knowledge; basing yourself in possibilities that you “think” may have been, but not facts that you can prove exist. Basing yourself in “envy” in “remorse”, in “thirst for vengeance”, in “jealousy”, “covetousness”, etc.
Of course you nee to judge things to know what to do, where to go and with whom to share your a life; but I would like, for the seek of understanding each other, call it “discernment”. And let me call the word judgement, as I used it at the beginning “prejudgement”.
To all the other comments, I would like to say that I firmly believe in the possibility of being more or less objective, and that there is of course, more objective and less objective people depending on their level of awareness and consciousness. As a result of it, I think there are also more or less objective judgements. I am sure there are very deep, mature people out there, able to judge quite objectively who the rest of people are and do, but this is a whole another story.
If you have ever been unfortunate enough to drive a taxi,which I was for a couple of years,the only long term benefit you are likely to get from the experience is a better social awareness cos if you dont get it you might end up dead . You quickly learn the truth of 'what goes around comes around'and,'cant judge a book by it's cover'. I'm as complex as you are complicated ,you know ?
As far as I can see nobody really knows themselves or alternatively if they do they keep real quiet about who they are .The guards and clerical staff at auschwitz were just people...the guards at abu graib['sthat how its spelt] were just ordinary people .The carer who becomes cruel... well you know what I mean .
I agree discrimination is hard wired for instant response , like a dsp card ,and I reckon that there are a million interactions a day at least where that hard wiring lets its owner down .and finally there is No such thing as objectivity . I 've never been objective about anything . If you are there it aint objective and if you aren't there then its just hearsay and I think that gets filed under bullshit doesn't it?
As far as I can see nobody really knows themselves or alternatively if they do they keep real quiet about who they are .The guards and clerical staff at auschwitz were just people...the guards at abu graib['sthat how its spelt] were just ordinary people .The carer who becomes cruel... well you know what I mean .
I agree discrimination is hard wired for instant response , like a dsp card ,and I reckon that there are a million interactions a day at least where that hard wiring lets its owner down .and finally there is No such thing as objectivity . I 've never been objective about anything . If you are there it aint objective and if you aren't there then its just hearsay and I think that gets filed under bullshit doesn't it?
-
hubird
it's a well known fact, from the fundamental particles science, that so called objectivity is not possible.
You're just part of the reseach process, and the scientific answers are dependant of the qualifications of the one who puts the questions.
Still this is an 'objective' and scientific statement, meaning, you can check the truth of it by repeated experiment.
So, from philosophical as well as empirical /scientific point of view, you can be positive about principal subjectivisme
Objectivism is only 'possible', better said acceptable, in sciences which concerns only more 'rough' types of data, but the phylosophical principle is a fact since more than 80 years
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2005-04-06 22:08 ]</font>
You're just part of the reseach process, and the scientific answers are dependant of the qualifications of the one who puts the questions.
Still this is an 'objective' and scientific statement, meaning, you can check the truth of it by repeated experiment.
So, from philosophical as well as empirical /scientific point of view, you can be positive about principal subjectivisme
Objectivism is only 'possible', better said acceptable, in sciences which concerns only more 'rough' types of data, but the phylosophical principle is a fact since more than 80 years
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2005-04-06 22:08 ]</font>
objectivity is an imaginary and (by definition) non-existing state.
it's more rare than rare and that makes it precious.
hence it's a metaphoric term used to characterize (and praise) something else.
In your case, Nestor, it's the expression of your awareness and attempts to overcome prejudice - which is certainly not the easy way.
As written above one cannot be objective if involved in a certain case - and if there's distance, one is too far away to be a reliable witness.
The very smart ones will answer: well, it just depends on the proper distance... then who's to define ?
cheers, Tom
it's more rare than rare and that makes it precious.
hence it's a metaphoric term used to characterize (and praise) something else.
In your case, Nestor, it's the expression of your awareness and attempts to overcome prejudice - which is certainly not the easy way.
As written above one cannot be objective if involved in a certain case - and if there's distance, one is too far away to be a reliable witness.
The very smart ones will answer: well, it just depends on the proper distance... then who's to define ?
cheers, Tom
-
Nestor
- Posts: 6688
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!
Very interesting... very interesting... Now, please, I would like to ask you what do you think brings objectivity, even if you denay the satate in itself. What would it be the "thing" that can give somebody the capacity of being "objective"? And, how do you describe to be objective, what does it mean for you to be there. Cheers
*MUSIC* The most Powerful Language in the world! *INDEED*
yes, you really never know people and it's foolish to think you do. and science is a funny joke. what's the scientific method? form a theory and then prove or disprove it. hah! make a guess and then guess about the meaning of the results. well, astrology and witchcraft work according to similar principles and can achieve results too. that doesn't make them any less silly. what problems of existance have been solved by such "knowledge"? if we do not know what we are, how can we know anything about the universe we live in, save some obvious descriptions masquerading as understanding? naturally, this take-way-knowledgey has brought the earth ever closer to disaster, with each promise bringing a new problem....
just a little truth, but don't get the idea i'm some anti. i'm sticking around to see what happens next! fascinating! (to steal an old line)
just a little truth, but don't get the idea i'm some anti. i'm sticking around to see what happens next! fascinating! (to steal an old line)