Regardless of the outcome of the 2020 elections, the US has developed problems that must be solved if we are ever to come together as a prosperous and healthy country. Hopefully that’s everyone’s end goal.
Labels are a fundamental part of our belief system. We make decisions based on our life experience and what we think we know. After reviewing an issue or event through our unique filters, we will often attach a tag that could describe how we assessed that person, event, or circumstance. Something is “good” or “bad”. A person is honest and upright, or deceptive and crooked, etc.
While categorizing the things we encounter according to life experiences is a normal human response to stimuli, most of us resent the labels applied to us or our actions that we disagree with. Our resentment then becomes part of how we interpret the person or persons who applied the label. In other words, we find our own labels for those who have negatively labeled us.
In a conversation with someone about a performance review, I was informed that tagging a person in the review process is completely inappropriate. For example, a person should never be labeled lazy, incompetent, irresponsible, etc., during performance reviews. The problem is that tagging occurs whether it is communicated or not. Perhaps labeling is less of an issue than our lack of strategy and ability to share our thoughts. That attempt to share our labels with others is probably a good thing, as it rarely turns out well when we say it out loud.
Start with the premise that it’s not the label telling what’s wrong, or even the label training in the first place. The negative impact of sharing a tag has much more to do with how it is said. This distinction is important.
Imagine that you are in the position of having to give feedback to someone. You have decided that this person’s constant lateness, frequent personal phone calls during work hours, and the fact that the person leaves exactly at quitting time every day are all signs that the person is lazy. During a review with this person, you focus on being on time, without personal calls, and showing an approach other than the clock. You think you’ve done a great job fixing the issue by being specific with your comments. Now the person is on time, stays five minutes past the end time, and stopped taking personal calls.
Unfortunately, this person’s breaks are longer, discussions about the water cooler are more frequent, and other leaks from focused work are evident. Apparently, you were correct in your assumptions and that person is now discovering different ways to avoid work. You are starting over. If you had declared the person lazy at the beginning, he would have better understood what problem he had to solve in order to please him.
The difficulty is that most of us do not know how to communicate our labels, even though they are an important part of our evaluation. There are simple rules that must be followed to do this effectively.
One should always start with the assumption that he may be wrong. Yes, he formed his conclusions based on everything he has learned about human behavior. Certain behaviors are indicators of a person’s nature. Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, you will be correct, but those behaviors can mean something else entirely. If you’ve ever called a person lazy, for example, you may have been inundated with all the reasons why what you saw doesn’t mean what you thought it did. That could have just been an excuse and you’re still right, but pretend you don’t know everything.
If you presented your comments with the idea that you might be wrong in your conclusions, you keep the other person’s attention and increase the chances of solving the real problem. So instead of identifying and resolving each work ethic offense, share those offenses as probative to your conclusion. “I have noticed that you are often late, get a lot of personal calls, and leave as soon as you can every day. Unfortunately, from where I sit, that can sound a lot like a pattern, and I could wrongly conclude that you are on the lazy side of the game. spectrum “. And then you shut up.
It doesn’t really matter if he or she tells you that you are completely wrong and then gives you a multitude of excuses for the behaviors. This person now knows that he must change his mind about the reasons. The person is now solving the problem that you think you are lazy.
Labels may be a mixed pickle, but they are important pieces of the puzzle.
And now we return to focus on our country.
The good (and bad) news is that in the political arena of our time, no one is holding back on labels. Everyone is pretty free with tags like Racist, Liar, Cheater, Crook, Socialist, etc. Unfortunately, these labels are being applied to entire groups of people with little discrimination. They are being applied in a way that makes their goal go completely off to anything that follows labeling.
So we start by understanding that labels probably need to be heard to know what problems we are solving. If you know that being conservative labels you as racist in the other person’s mind and you care what that person thinks, you may want to identify why you came to that conclusion. If you are the person applying the label, assume you are wrong and remain open to the possibility that you are applying the label to someone you really know. not racist. It does so because the person belongs to a group that has determined (rightly or wrongly) that they are racist. What is the point? Quality of life is always the point. Labels are good and bad, but broad label application is generally a mistake with great consequences.
Apply the concept to people who consider themselves liberal. There are many labels that are thrown on liberals that do not apply to all individuals in the group. If you assume that someone who belongs to the group is therefore a cheater or a socialist, you may be making a serious mistake, and it may be in a relationship that matters to you. None of us want to live in a divided country. We need to understand why others are so committed to one side or the other so that we can begin to meet somewhere in between.
It is time for all of us to grow up. We are allowing people with personal agendas beyond our comprehension to divide us at the most essential levels. If, in fact, we were wrong to trust them and we have not been diligent in our data verification, we deserve the consequences. Fact-checking does not mean going to fact-checking sites on the Internet. Most of them are very unreliable. Checking fact checkers is part of due diligence.
The fact check brings us to one more element that should be added to this understanding of the problem. That element is the importance of critical thinking. It fits perfectly with being humble when assigning tags that have not been confirmed.
We must accept the fact that we are often influenced by people who assume we must trust without really knowing if they are trustworthy. They shape and manipulate our understanding and beliefs of what is really happening and often have an agenda that is all about themselves. And yet we cite them and destroy personal and public relations for what they say.
How do we know the difference? How do we determine the truth? Always start with the assumption that you are wrong. Look for factual information to support both sides of an issue. You may still be misled, but the likelihood of being wrong decreases the more diligently you search for information. And remember, humility is good. It could save you great embarrassment when and if you find out you’ve supported the wrong horse.
We currently have so many people trying to influence our collective consciousness that not trusting anyone should be the starting point. And then do your homework. Don’t just absorb the opinions of others. Read the books, listen to the people closest to the people you are trying to analyze. Do not stay away from sources of information because you do not believe in them. No one is perfect, so watch what they do and what they accomplish for clues. In general, you will find that each person brings both good and bad baggage into the mix. Try to determine a means to weigh the luggage for what it actually delivered. Do they keep their promises? Are they sincere about what they are trying? Would you volunteer to do something dangerous with that person and just know that you will follow through?
As a personal opinion, I would never consider the media as a reliable source of information. They also seem to be operating from an agenda that is beyond objectivity.
The stakes are high and the lack of critical thinking is overwhelming. Too many of us have had our beliefs shaped by those who have personal agendas. Shake it off and stay open. Anything less is ignorant.