I woke up some time after four this morning still obsessing about this online incident - which started me on a different track: Just why is this bothering me so much? It didn't take me long to figure it out - once I put the incident itself out of my mind. Quite simply, what really smarts the most is that I'm being bullied by being called a bully! That's the personal smart I'm having trouble getting over. But there's a bigger picture, too. One that's a fairly big Leitmotif in my life: Might always beats Right! Again and again, in so many aspects of my life - from family to work - and throughout my entire life. Looking back at them all, now, I can see the same pattern over and over:
First, I am part of (or join) a group. Then, as I grow in the group, I'm given (or volunteer for) a task or position. At first, I simply do as I'm told - which meets expectations. Once I've mastered the basics, I start investigating, questioning, researching.
In other words, I 'read the manual'. And that's where it starts to go wrong!
And task, or even tool, that has been in use for an extended period of time is naturally changed by each individual performing the task or using the tool. The longer it has been passed on - just from one to the next, with no reference to it's 'manual' the less effective it becomes.
Of course, many times tasks are just taken up by the next person, with no actual hand-over - and tools are obtained without manuals. In both cases, the monkey-see, monkey-do principle of learning tends to be applied - we either saw someone else use the tool or perform the task and imitate what we've seen. Any parts we didn't see, we don't do.
Individuals always apply changes, however small, to suit their own personal preference. If such a change is continued, then the next person adds another change - often intending an improvement, yet ultimately perverting the task or use of the tool.
I suppose that's the evolution of any activity, from function to tradition?
As so many memes depict: Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people :)
Here's my problem: Any change changes the result. And any change applied without consideration for the full and actual effect on the result, can only by the rarest coincidence be an improvement!
The problem is, that negative implications are felt most by the 'light weight' / smallest / lowest participants. The minority. Who often don't understand just why they no longer receive the same results - and being small, they FEEL the difference. Mostly, they don't even know that a change has been applied. So, they either leave, drop out or fall through the cracks.
Now here's where the Leitmotif comes in: I'm one of those people who read the manual. I like to do anything to the best of my ability, especially volunteer service. Part of that also means that I want to read the history - and usually find that, contrary to the current 'spin', it's no longer as effective as it was in the past. So, I want to understand why. The current 'spin' usually involves some self-inflicted reason why minorities no longer participate or dropped out. Research soon reveals the facts, though. And so, I start 'changing back' to the initial methods ...
However, one effect I have found to be common in every single task / activity / use of tool is that some 'objective' decision process has been replaced by 'subjective' personal decision. Usually now made by either one of the 'heavy-weights' or simply by majority vote.
Going back to the objective decision process then leads to an outcry by 'the mighty'. Who don't want explanations. Any mention of minority is always dismissed with the accepted 'spin' the group has already established.
In this latest instance, a 'drop-out' was even held up as proof that I'm a bully! Even though that person left at a time when I had absolutely no involvement with the task in question!
And so, Might shouts down Right.
On a personal level, that is always painful, of course. Especially since 'public humiliation' is always a key element of the denunciation.
On a broader level, however, it is pure perversion.
If you've ever been in any committee meeting, you know that when any one (or group) hears something that is disadvantageous to themselves, they tend to start refuting it while the person is still talking! Emotions immediately dominate over reason.
Nobody ever HEARS the point that person tried to make.
There are some groups who have become aware of this perversion and have implemented a platform giving the minority a real voice. Some business' use the Fishbowl Discussion Method, where everyone gets a fixed time to make their point (with plenty of time to prepare!) and nobody is allowed to interrupt. Most 12-step programs have a Service Concept designed to give the minority the same opportunity to speak without interruption. Sadly, I've seen the latter utterly perverted into 'permission to defend yourself'. I have, however, also experienced just how absolutely powerful this Concept can be, when it is applied correctly!
Rant over :)
Now here's where the Leitmotif comes in: I'm one of those people who read the manual. I like to do anything to the best of my ability, especially volunteer service. Part of that also means that I want to read the history - and usually find that, contrary to the current 'spin', it's no longer as effective as it was in the past. So, I want to understand why. The current 'spin' usually involves some self-inflicted reason why minorities no longer participate or dropped out. Research soon reveals the facts, though. And so, I start 'changing back' to the initial methods ...
However, one effect I have found to be common in every single task / activity / use of tool is that some 'objective' decision process has been replaced by 'subjective' personal decision. Usually now made by either one of the 'heavy-weights' or simply by majority vote.
Going back to the objective decision process then leads to an outcry by 'the mighty'. Who don't want explanations. Any mention of minority is always dismissed with the accepted 'spin' the group has already established.
In this latest instance, a 'drop-out' was even held up as proof that I'm a bully! Even though that person left at a time when I had absolutely no involvement with the task in question!
And so, Might shouts down Right.
On a personal level, that is always painful, of course. Especially since 'public humiliation' is always a key element of the denunciation.
On a broader level, however, it is pure perversion.
If you've ever been in any committee meeting, you know that when any one (or group) hears something that is disadvantageous to themselves, they tend to start refuting it while the person is still talking! Emotions immediately dominate over reason.
Nobody ever HEARS the point that person tried to make.
There are some groups who have become aware of this perversion and have implemented a platform giving the minority a real voice. Some business' use the Fishbowl Discussion Method, where everyone gets a fixed time to make their point (with plenty of time to prepare!) and nobody is allowed to interrupt. Most 12-step programs have a Service Concept designed to give the minority the same opportunity to speak without interruption. Sadly, I've seen the latter utterly perverted into 'permission to defend yourself'. I have, however, also experienced just how absolutely powerful this Concept can be, when it is applied correctly!
Rant over :)
No comments:
Post a Comment