Stu recently wrote that he thought the tendency to be "judgmental" might be a characteristic of the C-Mind. That's an interesting assertion and worth following up on, in my opinion. First we need to review the rules of the game, at least as far as I've proposed them. The first is that we agree that there is great fallibility in the human mind. The second is that the C-mind's view of the L-Mind and vice-versa are flawed. The third is that characteristics, if they have any hope of being true, need to be non-partisan, non-pejorative and symmetrical.
Although there is something to this "judgmental" appellation, we need to find other words less confrontational and negative. My dictionary defines the word in negative terms: tending to make moral judgments. example; to avoid a judgmental approach when dealing with divorced couples. The word became popular during the 1960's when young people and pop psychologists labeled those who disliked the new morality as being "judgmental." The concept itself is much older, dating at least from the time of Jesus, who admonished "Judge not that ye be not judged."
Let's find an example of this behavior that we can all live with, and then find appropriate labels. Desi and Lucy have been married for many years. Desi starts fooling around with his secretary and decides to leave Lucy and the kids. Fred has habitually gone bowling with Desi on Thursday night. After the divorce Fred makes excuses to avoid Desi. When questioned by Ethel, his C-Mind replies that he can't associate anymore with a person who has revealed himself to be so lacking in moral character. What if everyone behaved that way? Ethel tells him he's being ridiculous. Her L-Mind says that Desi has done nothing to harm Fred and that it's none of Fred's business. He should quit being so judgmental.
If you agree that the above is an example of the thinking so often labeled "judgmental" and "non-judgmental", please see if you can provide adjectives which classify the two kinds of thinking. Make an effort not to bias the labels or use pejorative terms. I have a suspicion that this is actually a sub-set of the proximity factor we have previously discussed. L-Minds tend to value examining a situation on a personal basis, trying to understand motivation as much as possible. C-Minds place more value on examining from a distance on a global basis. Note that both are capable of thinking at either proximity, but they VALUE the approaches very differently. With respect -Joel
6 comments:
Joel, thanks for continuing what has become the longest running Topic sequence on the Blog - the L/C mind now has seven Posts. I've added your latest to the handy L/C box in the right column so newcomers can catch up with earlier posts.
It is an idealistic goal to remove the partisan, perjorative aspects. I don't think it can be done.
Certainly we are being "judgmental" when we rail against racial discrimination, and, in that case, our judgement is totally warranted. (Though the C-mind might phrase it differently, critizing racial preferences while the L-mind favors racial distinctions to rebalance past wrongs.)
Similarly, critics of the Iraq war are "judgmental", whether they attack the decision to invade or, on the other side, critique the decision to invade without sufficient troops to prevent sectarian violence.
I guess I interpret Jesus "Judge not that ye be not judged" differently from most folks. IMHO it is impossible to make no judgments -- the point is, when you make moral judgments of others, you rightly open yourself up to judgments of your own morality.
It seems to me L-minds make as many moral judgments as C-minds. If they seem more understanding on things like personal morality (infidelity and drug use, for example) they are more judgmental on other things (the obligation to share the wealth, for example).
Your "Desi and Lucy and Fred and Ethel" case study is great. However, would Ethel remain non-judgmental if Desi left Lucy penniless with young children? Would Fred change his judgment if Lucy was also fooling around?
Ira Glickstein
Ira said in part,
It seems to me L-minds make as many moral judgments as C-minds. If they seem more understanding on things like personal morality (infidelity and drug use, for example) they are more judgmental on other things (the obligation to share the wealth, for example).
Joel responds:
Thanks for the comment Ira. Hopefully Stu and other L-Minds will tell about what they mean when they say that someone is being judgmental.
Specifically, with respect to your comment above, let me ask this. Is it possible that when using their judgment, L-Minds tend to personalize global problems, while C-Minds tend to globalize personal problems? I like the symmetry of that. In other words, L-Minds imagine themselves personally in a situation (such as poverty) that is global, while C-Minds imagine a personal problem (such as a friend's divorce) in the context of a global problem (the instability of the modern family). Both views are equally valid.
You hit the nail on the head Joel!
"L-Minds tend to
personalize global problems,
"while C-Minds tend to
globalize personal problems?
"I like the symmetry of that."
So do I!
But, perhaps, believing than nice symmetrical explanation is a characteristic of C-minds!
So any L-Minds agree?
Stu, Jurgen, Howard, ... others ???
Ira Glickstein
Ira's labeling me as an L-mind is very judgmental, but I agree that every opinion is judgmental. What is crucial is what enters into making the judgment. If symmetry is a characteristic of objectivity (impersonal detachment)I'm all for it.
Howard
Some further thoughts on objective judgments and symmetry: Symmetry principles are the most fundamental condition for physical laws because they establish the invariance of laws to all individual observers, thus guaranteeing objectivity, which I think is what we are all after in our judgments, or are we? I believe that most physicists who use symmetry principles are L-minds.
To satisfy this symmetry condition in our discussion of L- and C-minds it is not the "symmetry" of the text "personalizing global" and "globalizing personal" that is im portant, but the agreement of BOTH L- and C-minds that this is a valid distinction. I have to think about this. Any examples?
Also, linguists would probably not call the two phrases "symmetric" but a figure of speech called Epanados: The repetition of words in the opposite order. (e.g., Macbeth: "Fair is foul and foul is fair.")
Howard Pattee said...
To satisfy this symmetry condition in our discussion of L- and C-minds it is not the "symmetry" of the text "personalizing global" and "globalizing personal" that is important, but the agreement of BOTH L- and C-minds that this is a valid distinction. I have to think about this. Any examples?
Also, linguists would probably not call the two phrases "symmetric" but a figure of speech called Epanados: The repetition of words in the opposite order. (e.g., Macbeth: "Fair is foul and foul is fair.")
Thanks for your insight Howard. I appreciate it when someone forces me to focus more sharply on something I've been vague about. Symmetry is wrong. According to my Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary, Epanados doesn't quite do the job. It is essentially a restatement in other words. I think that the word "inversion" probably describes the situation more accurately, because the meaning of the phrases are different.
Another example would be when an L-Mind examines the illegal immigrant issue and seeks to understand the situation by "walking in the shoes" of an illegal who has been here many years, worked hard and raised a family of American children. A C-Mind seeks to divorce himself from the emotionally charged situation and look at the illegals as a large group who have broken the law and who cannot be rewarded for their crime. The L-Mind thinks he can better understand the problem by examining the personal details. The C-Mind takes a step backward to see global consequences. This is an inversion I would say. I think that the same may be true in the value of time for each. If a C-Mind sees a solution to a problem that will take a few generations to implement with small course changes along the way, this is acceptable. The L-Mind looks for solutions which may be less controllable, but may accomplish the goal quickly. Here again there is an inversion and most importantly, one can see that there is a trade-off that cannot be predicted or measured. It's a non-optimizable judgment call.
Post a Comment