When you listen, what do you Honor?

I’m trying to tell her but she just doesn’t get it.  She brushes me off. I explain again. I try to make her see how crucial this is to me.  I become more emphatic.  She ducks and dodges and weaves from my finest arguments.  Finally, I really am arguing and she is too.  Our voices get louder and more and more sarcasm enters the picture. Finally we both are in full-fledged battle.   We break apart……and lick our wounds. 

 

It’s taken me a long time to understand how most of us have learned to communicate with one another.  We learn from our parents. We learn from TV and the movies. But most of those experiences don’t really reinforce positive communication.  From the media, movies, and TV world, positive communication is not good drama or entertainment. A most striking example is the English Parliament where insults and embarrassment appear to be the standard fare. The resolutions appear disappointing if people resolve things without acrimony.

 

Frequently when people discuss things, their focus can be on winning, scoring points, laying down the gauntlet, embarrassing their opponent. Sometimes it can manifest as absolute and total denial.  People want to preserve their identity and their illusions, particularly about their own image. Especially in America where we definitely have a whole sports culture that says that winning is everything. Every issue is engagement.

 

In marriage, relationships, and sometimes the work world this doesn’t work well.  We can’t run over our spouse, dominate our kids, and do whatever we want. 

 

One way to have a more adult relationship is to be “continually & willfully mindful” of what we are saying and what we are doing. I call this CWM.   When I fix this thought with a little axiom I can then fix it in my mind.  This CWM can be hard to do since our upbringing has indoctrinated us by TV and Movies to act less than our best.

 

Recently(the past two years), I’ve been trying to not honor power, force, sarcasm, winning and self-righteous behavior. Not that I consciously honored them, that’s my point, but that I have been taught to honor them.  I’ve been trying to pay attention to how I talk, how I sound, what I mean when I say certain things. 

 

I’ve made a list of conflict resolution arguments that I stay away from. Most of this list if from TV, Movies and personal experience. It’s a lengthy list of “don’t do’s” for avoiding arguments and staying on track, getting what you want without resorting to boorish behavior. It’s difficult to do.

 

 

It’s important to not:  use sarcasm

It’s important to not: use knee jerk reactions,  in responses or baiting.

It’s important to not: change the venue, “Another thing you did…”          

It’s important to not: use name calling, “Doodlehead, Crazyman,…”

It’s important to not: use Demonizing or Polarization, “You did..,” Us vs Them

 

It’s important to not: use one-upmanship behaviour, “At least I am…….”

It’s important to not: use a negative tone, another form of sarcasm or disdain

 

It’s important to not: use a cavalier manner or attitude 

It’s important to not: use impunity, “That’s too small to even worry about!!”

It’s important to not: Gesticulate, arm waving, finger-pointing, giving the finger…

 

It’s important to not: use tagging, “Yea, Jim is that way.”  indirect positioning

 

It’s important to not: use inverse tagging, “I’m the good one.”

It’s important to not: use Short Shrifting to undermine others 

It’s important to not: use  Buckshot Charges, “You did A, B, C, D, & E.”

It’s important to not: use Blanket Denial, “It’s ALL WRONG, the WHOLE PACKAGE”

 

It’s important to not: use Stonewalling, (defensiveness) 

It’s important to not: use Stiff-Arming

It’s important to not: use “So What” Answers, People’s feelings, ideas & opinions count

 

It’s important to not: use Brush-Off Answers

It’s important to not: use Plausible Deniability

It’s important to not: use Punt, Fumble, Out oF Bounds Answers

or Arguments

It’s important to not:…………..

 

There are an endless supply of bad arguments and answers.

 

I’ve been trying to shift to good responses, earnest responses, and real answers to real questions.  I found that it wasn’t enough  to just agree with GOOD ANSWERS.  It wasn’t enough to just try to work with people.   I had to HONOR the sensible way out.  I have to lift that good measure up as an ideal and make it and keep it real.  

 

I realized from my list of conflict resolution arguments that it’s real easy to mess up and it’s extremely difficult to stay on track and resolve things honorably. 

 

The things that I HONOR now are civility, kindness, dialogue, others input, truth no matter the source.  It’s important to value the merit of ideas regardless of another’s high or low status.

I’m willing to take the short disappointments because now I’m playing the long game.  Not as a game but as a way to treat others and myself honorably and respectfully. 

 

P.S. This is a work in progress for me.

 

Civility costs nothing, and buys everything.
                                         -Mary Wortley Montagu

 

 

The shortest and surest way to live with honor in the world is to be in reality what we would appear to be; all human virtues increase and strengthen themselves by the practice and experience of them.”

 

        -Socrates

Moral Theory Part 2 (What Liberals Need To Know)

I’m trying to cover all facets of Spirituality so that includes the practical.  My Spirituality posts includes prayers, dreams, relationships, people, history, & how things work. Morals would certainly fall under that category so lets look at Moral Theory. Moral Theory is sometimes hard to understand. The reason it’s important is because we are no longer children.   As adults we can see that things are no longer wrong or right, black or white.  In trying to make moral decisions we have entered the realm of Abstract Thinking, trying to balance multiples of concerns to find right answers.  Take your time to assimilate Moral Theory research. It can be examined at the websites as shown at the bottom of the post.

When I became aware of Jon Haidt’s(and his colleagues) research of new Moral Theory concepts it totally amazed me.  Most of my life I’ve been a bleeding heart liberal.   Mr. Haidt and his colleagues have pursued research beyond some of the Original Moral Theories.     In essence there are more deciding issues of  moral decision-making then if things only fall into the 1) Harm/Care and  2)Fair/Reciprocity categories.   He(and his colleagues) have  investigated an ongoing realization that  3)Authority, 4)Ingroup/Loyalty, &  5)Purity/Sanctity were concepts that many people use in the moral decision process. 

Liberals make decisions  principally with:

       1) Harm/Care

       2)Fair/Reciprocity

                 Or put another way : Does it Harm anyone and is it Fair?

Conservatives also take into account the issues of:

      3)Authority

      4)Ingroup/Loyalty

       5)Purity/Sanctity

               So Conservatives also add in :  What Authority does it have to make it right, is it in the group and are they loyal, &  does it uphold sacred values and purity.

 These precepts are important reasons why Liberals and Conservatives are different.   While liberals are deciding if the issues are doing harm or if they are fair, conservatives are also asking What does the Boss think, does it fit the group and loyalty model, & does it uphold sacredness and purity.

Mr. Haidt(and his colleagues) realized the Psychology/Sociology/Moral Theory Community was mostly liberal and so in some ways couldn’t really support their theses and Scientific Papers on their selective and subjective research methods.  In essence, they suffered themselves from confirmation bias(the idea that they favored their own position).  The Psychology/Sociology/Moral Theory community was about 80 – 90 % Liberals and so they could not even judge real Moral Theory because they only listened to their own voice. 

At this point in time Mr. Haidt(& his colleagues) also realized that History & Anthropology showed a preponderance of evidence that people have mostly used the added Conservative Values of 3)Authority, 4)Ingroup/Loyalty, & 5)Purity/sanctity.  Our county, America, is one of the first nations that ensured Liberty, Freedom, and Independence. Because of that we have a very modern Liberal constituency that could argue with Authority, deny Groupthink, and to even  question and oppose Sacred Issues.   Most countries and societies are still Authority, InGroup/Loyalty, and Purity/Sanctity oriented. In essence the Psychology/Sociology/Moral Theory Community was wrong(or at least very slanted) and they should have at least considered these values in their research, papers and books.

NOW WE COME TO THE REAL POINT OF THIS EXACT POST

It appears the Mr. Haidt considers his position now, not as a liberal, but a centrist liberal(he used the words liberal Democrat and centrist Democrat).   I THINK THAT I DO TO.

As a former bleeding heart liberal I NEVER CARED WHAT THE AUTHORITIES THOUGHT,  I DIDN’T CARE WHAT THE GROUP THOUGHT, AND I DIDN’T CARE ABOUT FALSE SANCTAMONIOUS ISSUES.  I now realize that I may have been at least partly wrong(…a little crow,….slice of humble pie,…gulp).

The quick and dirty way that I can finish this is to give those examples of the other three Moral Theory choices that I know now have enriched my life.

Together we are greater than the sum of our parts(Authority, Ingroup).

Without my family I would be a mess(Ingroup, sanctity)

Without these things the center will not hold(Authority, Ingroup).

Mob rule needs direction and cohesion(Authority, Ingroup)

Preservation of society is important(Authority, Ingroup, Sanctity)

Children deserve to mature to adulthood(Ingroup, Sanctity)

Authority  & Society can sometimes provide role models, leadership, & direction(Authority, Ingroup, Sanctity).  

More sometime later on “Why I was only liberal.”

The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot.”

             – Mark Twain

 These are the big ideas that take some time to wrap our heads around, the full meaning can’t be understood until we digest it slowly and completely. Because of that I highly recommend that you, the reader of this post, examine it at length on you own.

Here is The MoralFoundations.org Site: 

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php

John Haidt’s Morals lesson in video.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

New York Times article         

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html

Take a test to find out your “Morals position” 

http://www.yourmorals.org/explore.php

An Investagation of Moral Theory

Recently I came across an NPR news item of Moral Theory by John Haidt.   It’s very interesting as it talks about how people make moral choices and decisions. It’s a groundbreaking masterpiece.   It explains a lot about liberals and conservatives and is very helpful in helping people understand other people’s outlooks.    There is also a website at Moralfoundations.org  http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php?t=home that is very helpful.  Basically liberals believe in two guiding principles of  Harm/Care and Justice/Reciprocity.   Conservatives believe in Harm/Care, Justice/Reciprocity but they also believe equally in other things.    Conservatives also believe that Authority, InGroup/Loyalty, & Purity/Sanctity are important considerations for moral choices.  This creates a large gap in the two groups of liberals and conservatives understanding one another.   Which are you? Can you see the other side?

 Another good quote:

The Great events of world history are, at bottom, profoundly unimportant. In the last analysis, the essential thing is the life of the individual.

This alone makes history, here alone do the great transformations first take place, and the whole future, the whole history of the world, ultimately spring as a gigantic summation from these hidden sources in individuals.

In our most private and most subjective lives we are not only the passive witnesses of our age, and it’s sufferers, but also its makers. We make our own epoch.

C. G. Jung 1934