Correlation between self worth and the inability to show Human Decency

SubtleHush​(sub female) • May 12, 2021

OraclePollon​ I find your initial post confusing. Could be that 3 cups of coffee is just not enough for me when I wake at 4 am against my will. But it seems to me that you are drawing lines in your questions that presume exclusive concepts. Not all things are mutually exclusive. At least to me. I would say reposit the question as if you were asking children. (not a slap at anyone at all) I think when we get too broad or explain in too many directions we leave so much to the reader that we don't get the answers we expect.
..................

Here is my general answer relating to what we choose for ourselves or how we see the impact of those choices. (That is my moral and ethical responsibility to myself and my moral and ethical responsibility as a good citizen.)

All of life is a consumer issue for me. In the role of consumer, my concern is what I invest my time, energy, and equity in. At this stage of life, I am a seasoned consumer. I've bought cheap and often. I've spent a lot and got good value or ripped off. I've gone "all-in" and lost in the end. So my choices are based on experience, need, and a personal valuation. No different than you earning the money you spend at the store. It's all about ROI = return on investment.

So my bad investments make me shy away from new bad investments in situations or people.
My good investments make me look closer at other like-type investments.

We all choose who we interact with. If you go to NYC you have chosen to be mixed in with lots of people. A choice. If you get lost (i sure do) your willingness to get lost means you know you will have to choose to ask someone for directions.

I am asthmatic and a cancer survivor. Thus I have chosen not to date or get involved with smokers. If I wasn't a cancer survivor or asthmatic it is STILL my prerogative to avoid smokers.

Do I get to go slap cigarettes out of a stranger's hand when I encounter a smoker? Of course not that is about being respectful of that person's right to choose. But in no way am I obligated to endorse his/her smoking.

I've had a lot of loss in my life. Between family members and two Dominant partners whom I loved dearly. In each case, there were choices and circumstances made by those people that became factors in their passing. It is my prerogative to not date or get involved with people who also make those same choices.

I had a brief dating period with an incredibly obnoxious salesman. He accused me of being "afraid to fall in love". I'm good with love, I'm not good with people who bully and pressure you into giving them what they want. I explained that, but it was easier for him to make it my problem rather than own his obnoxiousness.

Am I obligated to stay in the relationship until he is ok with my leaving? No, I am not and there are reasons for that.
I am not here to endorse obnoxious behavior.
I am allowed to be happy and safe when in the company of others.
Once I've given a polite "no thank you" I owe you no other explanation.

My life model includes some rules.
I don't try to explain the truth to a liar.
I don't offer logic to irrational people.
I don't preach safety to dangerous folks.

I don't subjugate my rights for the wants of others. Radical stuff for a submissive to say? Maybe. But not if you grasp the real heartbeat of submission.

All of these examples in my world are consumer issues. You want my time, money, emotions, or ahem... the cookie- you have to be what I want. Just as I have to be what you want.
..................
Moral decency is a different thing and a much longer post.

It's too subjective an area to get agreement. Religious people see that differently. Hellz bellz, religious wars were all seen as moral and decent depending on how the people justified themselves. And while some will say there is no one definition, there are to a point. Everything in life has a baseline even subjective things. Those who rebuke that, would probably not grasp my answer anyway.

H*

SageFlame​(sub female) • May 18, 2021

There is a lot to unbox here. My response is based on my perception of your inquiry.

Preface:
Perception - Firstly, the basis of the discussion is based on perception ( the perception that something is lacking). Human perception is formulated by experiences which form neuropathways creating memory. Memory is stored using the hippocampus, amygdala, cerebellum, ( little brain), and pre-frontal cortex. This is the mechanism of how we relate to the world around us. Associating new stimuli in relation to past experiences. . .** How we perceive.**

Self-Worth - This isn't a choice until we recognize it as such. A 4 year old can have self worth without making a choice. An 80 year old might not realize her own self worth. It is a learned attitude that is developed by how others mirror back to us when we are very young.

Human Decency - what I hear you speak of in this respect is empathy. This also is developed when young by no conscious endeavor. As adults we give what we know.

Basic Human Needs (Unconscious) - I'd like to mention that survival is the most basic human need. This isn't just food and shelter but acceptance and love.

You:
1. Is there a correlation to self-worth and the inability to show human decency?

2. You also mentioned productive socialization.

My response:

1. Self-worth or lack of self-worth reflects in everything we do ( or don't do). It is directly correlated to how we live , choices we make. So I will say yes.

2. Who decides what is productive in any situation? Producing what? Socialization in and of itself doesn't create human decency. A wide range of socialization isn't better than a smaller scope. It is what the socialization is communicating and offering in the way of development that matters. Secondly, for our own sense of wellness it is important to have boundaries. Keeping close those who help us grow. Keeping at a distance those who hinder. No one can choose for us as we have our own direction and journey.

With respect to empathy, as human beings we cannot offer empathy ( human decency) to another unless we first have accepted ourselves. Turning the empathy toward ourselves so as not to project our inner suffering onto others in judgement or action.

Compassion is not empathy. Good manners are socially acceptable but in no way proof of empathy which is heart felt.

Ending note - Self-Acceptance is the doorway to productive social interaction. If we accept ourselves we don't need anyone else's approval.

OraclePollon​(sub female){NotYours} • May 19, 2021

Thank you @H

I am indeed assuming two exclusive concepts that may or may not be mutually exclusive. If they were exclusive that would be a causation. Which we can't determine with a small inquiry like this. So they could absolutely be unrelated. Which is the questions asked.

As for agreement. I agree (go figure) that there doesn't need to be agreement. The original question, of course if it was interpreted the way I meant, is answered in your statement "Do I get to slap cigarettes out of a strangers hand"? To which you answered no. Which is the foundation of the original question. If I restated it specifically for that instance, it would be:

"Does avoiding smokers have an effect on you feeling like you get to slap smokes out of someone's hand" ? now, you wouldn't, you have stated. But do you think others might feel they are entitled to purely because they have locked themselves in their own world where smoking is bad and they hate it. And if they keep telling themselves that and never go around smokers by choice, do you not think they could develop habits of sneering at smokers when they are obligated to be around them?

I was once with a smoker at a public park and he was scolded for smoking. And he actually told me later, that smoking is the one addiction people are encouraged to condemn you for. Just a little example, but I think it asks the correlation potential from the OP, well.

OraclePollon​(sub female){NotYours} • May 19, 2021

Thank you @SageFlame,

You tend toward "No" to the original question.

So my follow up, based on what you said and the OP would be:

Do you think you can have compassion or learn compassion if you never experience things outside your choices?

I think of smaller communities. (Sorry I have no sources on this) and being more standoffish, for lack of a better term, in embracing new concepts. It could be because they have no exposure to it, and by choice, actively avoid or condemn it. In this example, that would be the correlation I am wondering if exists.

So in this case as well. The members of this community value their self worth and it affects their ability to show decency to different viewpoints.

This is not an example I want to use for this analysis, because it is fallible and there are absolutely small communities that are very open and embrace people, so it would likely not be a causation that "small towns mean indecent people".

So I bring this back to the very specific case of person by person: does the more self worth you have, cause you to not show decency (or condemn) because you choose to not engage with a range of people, and thus have (by choice) less exposure and opportunity to engage with it.

Reply #2

SageFlame​(sub female) • May 20, 2021

I'm going to try and gather all the various sprinkles of this discussion and offer my perspective. My perspective being the frame of my response.


The original definition given for self - worth doesn't jive with psychology, sociology or general terms. It points to self importance which is not the same thing. I'm gonna pull out a few more boxes and line them up for clarity sake.

Self -worth - thinking well of one's self or valuing yourself ( healthy)

Self - importance - more like egotism or an exaggerated (inflated) sense of self. ( problematic)



Mono-socialization ( if you will) is a bogus theory. When you say some are choosing to only socialize with those they agree with I simply don't see evidence for that accusation. In everyday life, we encounter people with various backgrounds. We also meet people virtually through the digital web. Setting boundaries doesn't mean we live in a bubble. Furthermore, if socialization were the only way we could develop a sense of self , those who spend most of their time alone would not be such amazing contributors to society. ( but I'm going a bit off topic)

Creating boundaries ( who you let in your personal space whether physical, emotional, social or other) in society has varied effects. Upon experience and belief I'd say many of societies, communities and families problems stem from NOT having boundaries. Enforcing boundaries protects ( physically, emotionally, other) the individual from others invading their space when they are not welcome. Freedom of choice is a human right. Without choosing for ourselves we fall short of authenticity. In my opinion, being authentic is of more value than being agreeable. Referencing the perspective that some are isolating their socialization.

But to speak to the issue of compassion:

Compassion moves us into action. Empathy allows us to see from another persons perspective. They are not the same but both cultivated by experiences. This would be family of origin, interaction with others in our circles and strangers; can't leave out literature, musical lyrics and movies!! Stories are the number one communicators throughout history. Stories provide insight and challenge our perception while often speaking to our heart. The spoken word rings throughout the ages and reaches those who we might say are socially isolated.

Additionally, we are all changing whether intentional or not. Finding a correlation of mono-socialization and lack of compassionate behavior is trying to determine if a river is behaving in an acceptable manner. We can't be judged by our behavior in one moment of time.

************************************************************************************************************************
Wrapping up:

YES, lack of self worth can cause problematic behavior. NO, it is not the singular determining factor in understanding lack of empathy or even decent manners.

YES, self - importance causes problematic behavior; often an over compensation for little self worth. A coping mechanism formed by being mistreated and adopting negative beliefs about one's self.


And to your last question. The more self worth you have the less you need others to agree with you. If you take a shovel and dig underneath lack of self-worth you might find self hatred. Which in my opinion is a much bigger problem.

To be able to feel offended but not let it take mental real estate in your head takes awareness and consistent effort.

Refocusing on the goal of the community would help bring this home and cultivate unity.

That is the goal isn't it? Unity not conformity?

OraclePollon​(sub female){NotYours} • May 21, 2021

That is lovely.

So you think perhaps instead the connection is that it is not isolation or choosing one's circle that causes indecency, but the fact that it is people who have self-hatred then project that onto others in the form of degradation, even if on the surface it looks like they are making their choices (in this study case - the choice is only letting like minded people in their circle) because of self-worth.

WhatamIfightingfor​(dom male) • May 21, 2021

i will try and answer this with what i have observed. Probably not going to be as well structured as it should be. This is a reply to the initial posting.

Self worth is hard to quantify. In how it pertains to how we dedicate our external social time and energy this can be tricky. Even introverts will dedicate more of their time than they should to others, while extroverts will dedicate little, their socializing, not even small talk deep. The choice to share time can from a sense of duty, how this expression of duty is expressed comes down to the interaction of the personality of the individual and the culture they perceive they have grown up in. This is complicated by ones sense of what they have to lose. Can one emotionally afford to invest the time? The over extended introvert my for example be searching for a deep connection, and even with their limited social circle know they have a social/emotional need to fill.

Ones ability to be empathetic, ability to sympathize, and in turn be able to understand how their actions have impacts on others is a mix of biology and culture, mixed with how one was brought up. Today with our more isolated, and at times over strict anti-emotional growth, pro-knowledge growth culture, ones ability to understand how their actions have a positive and negative impact is greatly impaired. It has been known for some time that long term prisoners do not emotional age, they go into emotional stasis for long terms, this leads to some cases of 45 year olds still having the mentality of a 17 year old. (I would find an article, but the best sources i know of and the case names elude me at this moment. Given the struggle for many to understand this things is not like the others, a children's game, an example being a selection of four items, three pairs of shoes and a box of crayons, a game that used to play on the children's show Seaseme Street for years, and how many now in their late twenties are still struggling with this, a skill on average picked up by a child of around the age of 4 to 6 says something in our raising of children has gone horribly wrong. This is because this skill is just a tool, it cane be used for both good an evil. Examples in order it can be used to say I am allergic to that please keep it away from me, an example being bee stings, or for negative, I don't like noodle dish because it smells funny. This skill lose, and it application which is quantifiable in an at least vaguely scientific way is evidence that something has innately gone wrong with our culture. The push for extremes is also a sign that our emotional stimulation requirement has gone up. For example one may have got a thrill from a few strokes of a flogger in time they habituate to ever more and heavier blows as their body adapts to the impact. The can with out being careful lead to a run away search for ever heavier and more dangerous activities as nerves increasingly become dulled to the sensation. Same for emotions with the ever greater penetration of media the need to feel something becomes stronger even as we becoming ever more accustomed to the emotional and information overload, makes every day relationships which used to be the main source of stimulation have to become even more intense to get past the noise. Like two dueling bands, each one getting louder and louder till everyone is deaf to both from how high they have turned up their amplifiers.

As for ability to productive socialize this is a tricky question. Given how many take things too personal when talking to strangers, and have some how in this culture accustomed to having everything tuned for their needs, it creates a trap that a belief much like everyone is physic to one needs and this in turns sets up barriers of initial conflict and disappointment, mixed with internal dismay. The digital devices that graph (not learn, graph, example Johnny Five is a puppet run by a master marionette team, not a real machine) out our lives and match our lives and set up echo chamber. While this echo chamber is needed at times to rest and recharge and even heal, it has the down side of leaving us isolated from much of the wider world. This also has the knock back effect of by being in an echo chamber any challenge to it is met like any infection, it must be contained, controlled and in the end rejected. This confusion of infection with normal difference in human point of view, experience has made socializing a hazard outside of the echo chambers. When it is more like one person likes blue cars and anther red, they have a different opinion but in the end it has no real negative impact on others. This changes when forcibly goes out and paints the other party's car to their chosen color, this is where the violation of boundaries occurs and the misdirection of the defense mechanism is rightly is deployed.

The not understanding of which of these things is not like the others, also means one is impaired in understanding boundaries. A ven diagram shows the overlaps, but if one takes an overly simplistic way of categorizing things trouble happens as each of the categorized items loses it distinction and definition, leading to confusion. For example, a wheel barrow needs a wheel to work. A 12 inch for one, a 14 inch for anther, a 16 inch for yet anther wheel barrow. All three are correctly in the wheel category, while also in the 12, 14 and 16 inch diameter categories. Ignoring the wheel diameter categories and putting a 16 inch wheel in a 12 in wheel barrow will be a very bad fit. This is by no means a perfect and fully leak proof example, and there are bound to be counter arguments and it also can be misused, it is only for a vague insight into a looming issue.

As for my ability to show compassion and human decency, I have found it a rather binary choice, show it to all or to none. For i have found being rude to one creates the habit and it spreads from their like a toxic cloud, in the end it envelopes all.

i hope this provides some insight into an answer for your questions.

SageFlame​(sub female) • May 21, 2021

No, that's lumping things together in a way that looks like it fits on the surface.

There would need to be a consistant pattern of the same behavior to have evidence for this accusation. If your aware of such an extensive study that supports this theory I'd be interested in taking a look.