![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerRespect, like everything else, means different things to different people. To me, it's what enables people who don't know each other very well to communicate. As any schoolchild knows, the Snafu Principle states that communication is only possible between equals. Therefore, if people involved in a communication do not proceed from an assumption of equality, the communication will fail in some way, perhaps not in an obvious way, and information will not be conveyed completely or free from errors. Nobody wants to waste time and effort on an impaired communication, no matter what is being communicated or which way, so the best way to ensure the smooth flow of information at all times is to assume a ground state of respect.
That's a pragmatic view (if I understand the word correctly). I believe respect has other things to recommend it, but this one will hopefully make sense to people who don't necessarily think the way I do.
It can be seen from this that people who start from the assumption that their respect has to be "earned" before they will give it are doomed. In order for the other person to "earn" their respect, there has to be clear communication, but clear communication is only possible when respect already exists. Absent respect, X will not listen attentively to what Y is saying, because there is no underlying assumption that it is worth hearing. Absent respect, X will not talk to Y in a way that will incline Y to listen, because there is no underlying assumption that Y is worth talking to. In short order, Y will abandon respect for X, and from that point on, there is no purpose in any interaction between them at all. Since interaction is one of the key elements of what makes us human, I can't help seeing this as a bad thing.
It is, of course, possible to divide humanity at large into two categories, those "deserving" of respect and those not. Many criteria have been used for this division, including skin colour, gender, age (all both ways), religion, body shape and, most recently, intelligence. By the terms of the Snafu Principle, of course, the people who make this division are cutting themselves off from clear communication with a sizeable chunk of the human race, but this often seems to strike them as a positive advantage. I don't agree, and I do not see any distinction of kind between the criteria listed above, or indeed any others that may occur: they are all equally false. There is no reason to suppose that a person whom one might regard as less "intelligent" than oneself might not be worth communicating with. An important item may just as well be found in a small box as in a big one: by the same token, useful information may just as well be obtained from a "stupid" person as from a "clever" one, if the stupid person possesses it and the clever one does not.
(Sidebar: the Countess is listening to Laurens van der Post's "Venture Into The Interior" at the moment, which is apparently replete with incidents of colonial types thinking that because they have had an education and are "clever" they know better than the differently coloured people who have been living in the country all their lives. "Intelligence" means different things to different people as well.)
From the above, I conclude that the only way to avoid wasting time and energy on flawed communications, short of becoming a member of a silent order of religious persons, is to start from, as I said, a ground state of respect, and to be very sure indeed before abandoning that ground state in any specific case. (There are a number of people for whom I have, reluctantly, abandoned respect. Despite my certainty, based on observation, that they were never going to respond to it, I still feel it as a failing in myself, and to an extent that is true.)
Respect your elders, and your juniors. Respect women and men. Respect people who have managed to survive while not being as clever as you, and people who have managed to survive despite being cleverer than you. Respect everyone. It works. And it gives you the widest possible variety of people with whom you can move on to the next stage, which is friendship.
That's a pragmatic view (if I understand the word correctly). I believe respect has other things to recommend it, but this one will hopefully make sense to people who don't necessarily think the way I do.
It can be seen from this that people who start from the assumption that their respect has to be "earned" before they will give it are doomed. In order for the other person to "earn" their respect, there has to be clear communication, but clear communication is only possible when respect already exists. Absent respect, X will not listen attentively to what Y is saying, because there is no underlying assumption that it is worth hearing. Absent respect, X will not talk to Y in a way that will incline Y to listen, because there is no underlying assumption that Y is worth talking to. In short order, Y will abandon respect for X, and from that point on, there is no purpose in any interaction between them at all. Since interaction is one of the key elements of what makes us human, I can't help seeing this as a bad thing.
It is, of course, possible to divide humanity at large into two categories, those "deserving" of respect and those not. Many criteria have been used for this division, including skin colour, gender, age (all both ways), religion, body shape and, most recently, intelligence. By the terms of the Snafu Principle, of course, the people who make this division are cutting themselves off from clear communication with a sizeable chunk of the human race, but this often seems to strike them as a positive advantage. I don't agree, and I do not see any distinction of kind between the criteria listed above, or indeed any others that may occur: they are all equally false. There is no reason to suppose that a person whom one might regard as less "intelligent" than oneself might not be worth communicating with. An important item may just as well be found in a small box as in a big one: by the same token, useful information may just as well be obtained from a "stupid" person as from a "clever" one, if the stupid person possesses it and the clever one does not.
(Sidebar: the Countess is listening to Laurens van der Post's "Venture Into The Interior" at the moment, which is apparently replete with incidents of colonial types thinking that because they have had an education and are "clever" they know better than the differently coloured people who have been living in the country all their lives. "Intelligence" means different things to different people as well.)
From the above, I conclude that the only way to avoid wasting time and energy on flawed communications, short of becoming a member of a silent order of religious persons, is to start from, as I said, a ground state of respect, and to be very sure indeed before abandoning that ground state in any specific case. (There are a number of people for whom I have, reluctantly, abandoned respect. Despite my certainty, based on observation, that they were never going to respond to it, I still feel it as a failing in myself, and to an extent that is true.)
Respect your elders, and your juniors. Respect women and men. Respect people who have managed to survive while not being as clever as you, and people who have managed to survive despite being cleverer than you. Respect everyone. It works. And it gives you the widest possible variety of people with whom you can move on to the next stage, which is friendship.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 11:33 am (UTC)...and *hugs* :)
no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 12:29 pm (UTC)There have been times when people have lost my respect, and you're right - communication promptly became impossible. Unfortunately some of these folks were bosses. :(
no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 03:18 pm (UTC)By default, I'd say that an individual is entitled to a certain "ground state" level of respect. As I come to know more about them, that level of respect is not only going to change (positively or negatively), but is going to vary depending on the particular subject of discussion.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 10:44 pm (UTC)Well, I also either don't understand that or don't agree with it. Would you mind elaborating? I think that embodies some assumptions or references that we don't share.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-28 11:59 pm (UTC)Anatomy of a snafu in communication
Date: 2009-03-29 01:59 am (UTC)The Discordian quote uses "equal" in terms of rank: For me, speaking of people as "equals" usually refers to equal rights, equal personhood; and everything you wrote in the post, except for "what every schoolchild knows", supported that reading. In this I may be strongly influenced by a use that every American schoolchild knows, in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
There's also another common meaning, which
But neither of these involves rank. Neither does "snafu", AFAIK, outside of the Discordian Principle, which was indeed the
smoking gununshared reference. Here's the word as I've always known it, summarized by Merriam-Webster:The OED, expectably, is a bit more thorough:
And that is where this communication went wrong.
Re: Anatomy of a snafu in communication
Date: 2009-03-29 10:05 am (UTC)Except that it's a term of military origin, coined specifically to describe the problems that arise from a hierarchy of ranks. See the OED's meaning A.
There's also another common meaning, which [info]howeird seems to have taken and which also makes sense to me: people who are of equal ability, standing, etc. (in this case, education).
But neither of these involves rank...
In civilian terms, I would equate "standing" with "rank," and there is certainly a hierarchy of ranks, or "standings," in civilian life just as in the army. In particular I would equate the artificial assumption that being more expensively educated improves your "standing" with the artificial assumption that having a bit of bird doings on your shoulder makes you capable of commanding other men.
"Ability" is a far fuzzier concept, and does mean different things to different people. The inarticulate homeless man who's lived under a bridge for three years on dustbin scavengings can do more than I can do (quite apart from the fact that he might be a brilliant oboist), and his abilities are relevant to his situation. My abilities, considerable though they might be, are not even relevant to my current situation, let alone what will happen if I don't find a job in fairly short order. At that point my education will become completely irrelevant and my "standing" will change drastically, and people who judge respectability by such criteria will cease to respect me even as much as they do now. Not that that will be among my chief concerns...
What I'm saying, and I don't think I'm disagreeing with either