Learning not to lump people together in belief groups and categories

[Jim]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

Part of what I think needs to happen, for the world to start improving for all people everywhere, is more of the kind of love that I’ve been discussing in another thread. Along with that, I think that people will be learning not to lump people together in groups and categories according to what they believe or don’t believe. I might post examples of that here, and how whatever is being said could be said differently, without lumping people together that way.

 

[Samana Johann]

It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

So householder Jim likes to lump them together? Why?

 

[HonestJoe]

Part of what I think needs to happen, for the world to start improving for all people everywhere, is more of the kind of love that I’ve been discussing in another thread. Along with that, I think that people will be learning not to lump people together in groups and categories according to what they believe or don’t believe. I might post examples of that here, and how whatever is being said could be said differently, without lumping people together that way.

I agree with you in general principle but we need to understand that this is a largely natural instinct, a function of us being fundamentally pack animals no longer living in well defined packs. Some level of grouping and categorisation is inevitable and not always entirely a bad thing but we do need to take more care in how and when we do it and where it is being used and abused for entirely negative purposes.

 

[Samana Johann]

You could found a group on this idea..., agreement and lump others into it.

 

[Jim]

I agree with you in general principle but we need to understand that this is a largely natural instinct, a function of us being fundamentally pack animals no longer living in well defined packs. Some level of grouping and categorisation is inevitable and not always entirely a bad thing but we do need to take more care in how and when we do it and where it is being used and abused for entirely negative purposes.

Thank you. I don’t think that it ever serves any beneficial purpose to lump people together in groups and categories defined by what they believe and don’t believe. I think that the only purpose it ever serves is to excuse and camouflage animosities across lines of prejudice, and that’s what makes it so popular. I agree that it’s part of human nature and that it possibly served some beneficial purpose in the past. I think that all it does now is impede human progress, facilitate cruelty and violence, and threaten to blow up the world. I also think that anyone who wants to can learn to stop doing it, possibly in three weeks or less.

I don’t see that anyone would have anything to lose by trying it. If they don’t like it, they can easily go back to lumping people together that way.

 

[Jim]

... householder Jim ...

I see that I’ve been demoted. Or is that a promotion?

 

[Samana Johann]

I see that I’ve been demoted. Or is that a promotion?

It's a fact. Also called conventional truth. Something communism would not help out either. Conceit is of three kinds: better I am, more worse I am, and the most foolish: equal I am. The first two may kill each other, the third drives toward huge wars.

 

[Jim]

It's a fact. Also called conventional truth. Something communism would not help out either. Conceit is of three kinds: better I am, more worse I am, and the most foolish: equal I am. The first two may kill each other, the third drives toward huge wars.

Maybe I remembered wrong. Maybe you only ever called me “householder.” I was thinking that some time ago you had assigned me to a later stage.

 

[Samana Johann]

Maybe I remembered wrong. Maybe you only ever called me “householder.” I was thinking that some time ago you had assigned me to a later stage.

My person often addressed householder Jim also as Brahman while this also refers to people holding on house, live on trade. Since obiviously more and more straight political and communist propaganda it's not so fit to call him Brahman, one of higher stand, cast. Merely a simple farmer enjoying to gather cattle, better browse cattle of which is not his.

 

[Kenny]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

Part of what I think needs to happen, for the world to start improving for all people everywhere, is more of the kind of love that I’ve been discussing in another thread. Along with that, I think that people will be learning not to lump people together in groups and categories according to what they believe or don’t believe. I might post examples of that here, and how whatever is being said could be said differently, without lumping people together that way.

Jim,

I think you have an excellent point. The list is true in any category.

1) If you are an atheist, you cannot be a good person, - wrong
2) If you are religious, you are self-righteous - wrong
3) If you don't agree with homosexual marriages you are a bigot - wrong
4) If you are a Republican, you don't care about people - wrong
5) If you are a Democrat, you are a socialist and lazy - wrong

And it is a never ending list of grouping to prevent dialogue.

 

[Vinayaka]

Sorting things or ideas into categories is a natural function of the subconscious mind, in order to simplify the process of thinking. If the subconscious suddenly lost that ability, insanity would result.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You could found a group on this idea..., agreement and lump others into it.

They already have a group own - Bahais. Talking about not having groups!
"If you are not a Bahai, then you are not for peace in the world."

 

[Audie]

I see that I’ve been demoted. Or is that a promotion?

Ah, yes, I was called that too. It
was sent to ig city not long after.

 

[LuisDantas]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

Part of what I think needs to happen, for the world to start improving for all people everywhere, is more of the kind of love that I’ve been discussing in another thread. Along with that, I think that people will be learning not to lump people together in groups and categories according to what they believe or don’t believe. I might post examples of that here, and how whatever is being said could be said differently, without lumping people together that way.

If I may, and going to a large extent from my experience with atheist groups, a focus that may be particularly useful is to remind ourselves often and honestly that we must be open to be surprised.

As others noted, it may well be humanly unavoidable to categorize people into groups, if for no other reason because our neurology has limitations and could not otherwise cope with the variety.

But we may and should stop ourselves from making blanket judgements and holding blanket expectations. That won't always work, but it can make a world of difference when it does. People are not living embodiements of whatever labels we apply to them, or even of whatever labels they claim to themselves, and we should allow for that and, whenever possible, find honest grounds for mutual understanding and acceptance on the reality of facts as opposed to the cliches of labels.

If that means that we will eventually have to reconsider those labels, then so be it. Labels are tools, to be reconsidered and perhaps discarded as facts call for.

 

[Jim]

If I may, and going to a large extent from my experience with atheist groups, a focus that may be particularly useful is to remind ourselves often and honestly that we must be open to be surprised.

As others noted, it may well be humanly unavoidable to categorize people into groups, if for no other reason because our neurology has limitations and could not otherwise cope with the variety.

But we may and should stop ourselves from making blanket judgements and holding blanket expectations. That won't always work, but it can make a world of difference when it does. People are not living embodiements of whatever labels we apply to them, or even of whatever labels they claim to themselves, and we should allow for that and, whenever possible, find honest grounds for mutual understanding and acceptance on the reality of facts as opposed to the cliches of labels.

If that means that we will eventually have to reconsider those labels, then so be it. Labels are tools, to be reconsidered and perhaps discarded as facts call for.

Thank you.

What I’m discussing here is not groups and categories in general. What I’m discussing here is specifically groups and categories defined by what people believe and don’t believe. I don’t think that it ever serves any beneficial purpose to group people in that particular way, according to what they believe and don’t believe. I think that the only purpose that is ever served by grouping people in that particular way is to excuse and camouflage animosities across lines of prejudice, and that’s what makes it so popular. I agree that it’s part of human nature and that it possibly served some beneficial purpose in the past. I think that all it does now, grouping people according to what they believe and don’t believe, is impede human progress, facilitate cruelty and violence, and threaten to blow up the world. I also think that anyone who wants to can learn to stop doing it, possibly in three weeks or less.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just to be clear, I think that making categories of people is still very much useful as well as unavoidable.

But it can definitely be taken too far. For instance, a smoker should not be denied the opportunity to speak his mind on matters of public health. Or denied entry in a non-smokers cabin under any and all conditions.

It seems to me that you are arguing for a complete disregard of beliefs proper when grouping people. I think that going so far may be a bit too far, personally; beliefs inform actions, after all. And there is something to be said about the upsides of being aware of beliefs and attempting not to clash against them if it can be reasonably helped.

You use the word prejudice, which, despite the usual and well deserved negative conotations, literally means only "previous judgement". In that sense prejudice is unavoidable, but should not be taken into very high regard. Whenever possible prejudice must be disregarded in favor of better information... but there is only so much that a person can actually know directly.

 

[Revoltingest]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

Part of what I think needs to happen, for the world to start improving for all people everywhere, is more of the kind of love that I’ve been discussing in another thread. Along with that, I think that people will be learning not to lump people together in groups and categories according to what they believe or don’t believe. I might post examples of that here, and how whatever is being said could be said differently, without lumping people together that way.

Grouping is useful.
But we must remember that even those in groups are still individuals.
Oh, it's also useful to avoid hating based upon belonging to the group.

 

[Jim]

Just to be clear, I think that making categories of people is still very much useful as well as unavoidable.

So do I.

It seems to me that you are arguing for a complete disregard of beliefs proper when grouping people.

Yes. I’ve thought of one exception though. I agree with considering the belief groupings that others have made, to discuss what to do about prejudice and discrimination against them. Even there, it is not that I’m grouping them by beliefs, myself. I’m just using the groupings that are being used to devalue people and discriminate against them, without thinking that I know anything about what they actually believe, or that it tells me anything about their character and capacities.

The point is for people to stop associating stereotypes of people’s character and capacities with what anyone thinks they believe and don’t believe. That’s a deeply engrained unconscious reflex, and it might take years or even generations to free ourselves from those reflexes. One possible way I see to accelerate that process, and reduce and counteract the effects of that stereotyping, is to stop grouping people that way in our minds, other than as targets of stereotyping and discrimination.

 

[Jim]

My person often addressed householder Jim also as Brahman while this also refers to people holding on house, live on trade. Since obiviously more and more straight political and communist propaganda it's not so fit to call him Brahman, one of higher stand, cast. Merely a simple farmer enjoying to gather cattle, better browse cattle of which is not his.

They already have a group own - Bahais. Talking about not having groups!
"If you are not a Bahai, then you are not for peace in the world."

Well ... I did say that I want to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think. Obviously that includes personal attacks.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have not said anything against you. I am saying just that Bahais have a group of their own. How is that a personal attack? And a smiley to boot, here.