Online now
Online now

Correlation between self worth and the inability to show Human Decency

OraclePollon​(sub female){NotYours}
2 years ago • May 10, 2021

Correlation between self worth and the inability to show Hum

I am curious what people think, or have sources, on a potential correlation in today's society between people with the perception that they can decide who they interact with or who gets their time, and the recent inflation of lack of human decency and ignorance that has been a common topic of late?

Let me define a few meanings:

Self worth: Personal decision that you do not have to share your time or kindness with anyone you do not choose to.

Human Decency: The insight of trying to understand how your actions affect others around you through engagement or announcement (in other words, whether you are directly talking tocthdm or blogging)

Support:

If you believe you only need to engage with those that you choose, whatever the reason, does this affect your ability to socialize productively? To make arguments and to perhaps see intention of both your and other people's actions?

Do you get the exposure you need to be able to function in a society that is also allowed to have opinions that will not match yours, if you only surround yourself with people.who support your self worth.

There has been a lot of request for change as of late. I think this is a great thing. It is being brought to light that there is insensitivity abound and more often than not the forums dissolve into arguments and a back and forth on unrelated tangents further alienating people. This results in blocking, private messages, angry statements. So I wonder if perhaps they aren't related?

Is there a relation between choosing who gets to come in and out of your life on your clock, and your ability to show human decency, or at least develop that skill?

Finally, this is not a 1 to 1 comparison. Like most correlations, it does not encompass certain things that will exist in their own. Some that come to mind are: Triggers, Discrimination, there are likely others.

In favor of discussion, please do not get hung up on terminology. If you feel something should be defined in a different way, I welcome your explanation.

Thank you for participating.


**Disclaimer. No need to comment if you have concluded that this is my personal opinion on this subject. It is merely the research stage(as most of my blogs or posts are) before any hypothesus can even be fathomed.**

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method
shahh
2 years ago • May 10, 2021
shahh • May 10, 2021
Hmm... If you're questioning in relation to this space (online), isn't every interaction a choice? Wether it be reading, responding to or posting something? So I think regardless of your self worth, interaction here is a choice so the question becomes 'moo' (ala Joey from Friends)

If you're talking about the real world walking around, work, family, etc... I think it gets a lot more complicated as we cannot always control who and what enters our world.

Hmmm... and sometimes I do think those willing to engage in (wether it be defending or attempting to educate others on flat out ignorance, bigotry, etc ) have an extremely high self worth. almost like they have enough to share and are trying to help those who don't have the confidence or the language skills perhaps to stand up for themselves. This is obviously an extremely simplistic poke at an idea.

Apologies if this was a 'hung up on terminology' thing. (I blame autism!!! *Chuckles)

Interesting question... Cheers.
OraclePollon​(sub female){NotYours}
2 years ago • May 10, 2021
That is a very definitive line, I think that is important to distinguish, the online vrs in person, just like you said, there could be less opportunity to remove yourself from a situation. Though with the pandemic and bigger houses and more ability to socially distance, maybe that gap is closing.

Thank you. (I hear that!)
acquiesced​(sub male)
2 years ago • May 10, 2021
acquiesced​(sub male) • May 10, 2021
I'm having trouble getting past "the perception that they can decide who they interact with". Please elaborate. How can personal choice be a perception? Under what scenario can one not decide who they interact with?
OraclePollon​(sub female){NotYours}
2 years ago • May 10, 2021
You're right. It wouldn't be a perception. They do get to choose who they interact with. More so, I suppose it could be re-phrased that: if that does more damage than positivity. I guess the perception would be that when you choose an action, you can't necessarily be sure it is in your best interest, isn't that what choice is? Potentially choosing something you think is "helping" but if it is creating a negative correlation to being able to socialize in a non hostile way.

Could it then be an example of that?
acquiesced​(sub male)
2 years ago • May 10, 2021
acquiesced​(sub male) • May 10, 2021
OP, I'm sorry but the whole statement doesn't compute with my literal/logical brain.

"Self worth: Personal decision that you do not have to share your time or kindness with anyone you do not choose to."

Self worth I believe is defined by the self. So one person's self worth may be based on an entirely different set of rules. I can value myself based on NOT sharing my time or kindness (and thus focusing on my own needs), or I can value myself based solely on what I do for others. The subjective part of these statements is how OTHER people value my time or kindness.

And kindness itself is subjective. I can be kind by NOT helping someone to some degree. For example, give a hungry man a fish or teach him to fish. Which is the more kind action?
acquiesced​(sub male)
2 years ago • May 10, 2021
acquiesced​(sub male) • May 10, 2021
"human decency and ignorance" is a very tricky one, because those are very subjective. Does ignorance define Trumpers? Does human decency define violent protests? There are users (even here) that are very smart, articulate, engaged, and.... bullies. To me, that is indecent. Your opinion may be different.

I'm going to take a very wild-assed shot at what I think you're trying to convey, here goes.

Technology has increased our interaction with others x fold (pick a number). Tech allows us to quietly lurk, debate, argue, block, etc. anonymously or not, without having to be 'there' as with face-to-face, person-to-person interaction. So the question is:

Is there a social responsibility to engage others online?

I think a popular perception is that you're either with us or against us, based on your social interaction. For example, if you don't support BLM on your social media page, you must be against it. Debate cannot happen one forum post at a time, where participants may come into and out of the thread at will. We sign up for the social part of the message (I want to interject my opinion) and bail when it turns to debate. So who wins? No one.

Another thing related to this whole premise is that we are being further polarized based on who we choose to interact with online. Liberals and conservatives, for example. As a software developer, I know that the social media giants actually promote polarization through their algorithms, in the form of suggestions (friends, video feeds, etc) because that know that the more polarized we are, the more we will engage in their platform. And more engagement means more advertising revenue.

Just my 2 cents
OraclePollon​(sub female){NotYours}
2 years ago • May 10, 2021
You almost have it exactly.

If the correlation was:

Being kind to a man means he will have a lifetime of fish - then the argument of just giving him a fish would be, by correlation, less so, than teaching him to fish. And thus, less kind in the context of the hypothesis.

In this same way (but not really at all):

Choosing to not let people talk to you, or choosing only people to talk to that you decide, could (not does, that is what we are researching) make it that you are incapable of dealing with people, because you are limiting your scope. Thus, making you less adapted at human decency or recognizing how to consider many perspectives when confronted with them.
acquiesced​(sub male)
2 years ago • May 10, 2021
acquiesced​(sub male) • May 10, 2021
Well, I know someone who decides to talk to everyone possible, but they are still incapable of dealing with people, IMO because they only have one (their original) opinion of everything. Think Jehovah Witness. Are they practicing human decency?

Could we define human decency not by your expected outcome, or by volume of interaction, but how you treat the people that you do come in contact with, no matter how many or few, or how different our opinions are to theirs.
    The most loved post in topic
FullCanadian​(switch male){MissB}
2 years ago • May 10, 2021
OraclePollon wrote:
Choosing to not let people talk to you, or choosing only people to talk to that you decide, could (not does, that is what we are researching) make it that you are incapable of dealing with people, because you are limiting your scope. Thus, making you less adapted at human decency or recognizing how to consider many perspectives when confronted with them.


Isn't this a chicken and egg question? Does limiting social interaction make one less adapt at human decency, or is it that the ones who lack human decency limit the scope of their interactions accordingly?

Either way, my time and capacity for stupid remains limited. My interactions there are not indicative of my larger social interactions. If I choose to limit the amount of time and effort I spend countering ignorance, I submit that's simply good time management and doesn't reflect poorly on my decency.