Judgmental views over trivial things. Is it usually traced back to childhood?

[mythness]

Using one too many tissues. Choosing a plastic bag over a paper bag at the grocery store. Showering for a few minutes too long. Choosing generic products over "FairTrade" products. Throwing something in the trash instead of the recycle bin.

 

You get the idea.

 

I find many people will judge others over trivial things, without much of a coherent explanation (other than bumper-sticker responses). Fine. I get they are being irrational, since if they did the math or started from first principles they would realize their beliefs are either contradictory or even harmful. That's not my issue, nor is it where my confusion lies.

 

My question is, why do people become so judgmental over trivial things? Why would they value these over their own friends or family? If you explain it to them logically, they will either cut you off or become defensive. Is it likely they were raised in a household in which they were always judged for every little thing they did? Every little mistake? Every little detail? Sometimes they will dedicate their life (or at least where they have the most control in their life) to the one single most important issue: recycling, only buying FairTrade, using as little water as possible, et al.

 

I have read some Alice Miller, and she writes that children who do not acknowledge the harm done to them by their caregivers will, as adults, continue to view their parents in a good light; however, they will then find "substitutes" to direct their anger and frustrations towards. Such substitutes (just my guess) would be the government, a corporation, an industry, an ethnic group, an influential individual, and so on.

 

This doesn't make sense in the context of judgmental people who will look down on you for not recycling or saving water, since you, as a peer, cannot really fit the role of the "substitute" parent. To drive the point even further, they will support government initiatives that force everyone to participate in what they deem to be of great value.

 

I'm sick of being judged for such minor things, while bombs and drone strikes continue to kill people overseas. While people are forced to pay taxes under the threat of imprisonment. While consumers suffer because of government regulations against businesses. While parents still treat children with the same level of respect they would treat a dog.

 

Why do these people hold such judgmental views? Is there any way I can respond to them with tact that will not develop into an argument or debate? Perhaps I can somehow figure out what's really going on in their minds?

[MrCapitalism]

I see people snap at their children over inconsequential crap all the time.

[nathanm]

Getting  invested in trivial matters gives you an emotional reward without the risk.  It's like an illusion of being effective, a bit of a game.  And anyone can be guilty of this.  The libertarian cares about, but has little control over important issues which really matter.  The socialist cares about, and has control over trivial issues which don't really matter.  So I look like a useless dope if I declare that taxation is force and that the IRS should be abolished, whereas the dirty hippie looks like a dope for thinking that his choice of organic groceries is saving the planet.  Neither one of us is necessarily getting much done.

[STer]

It's important to understand that one of the mind's main languages is symbolism. So while the particular examples may seem trivial, they are symbolic of larger issues. Sometimes the person may not even be conscious of what the particular example is symbolic of. But if there is a large reaction to a small event, it's pretty likely that they perceive it as a microcosm of a larger scale issue.

While you seem annoyed that people who focus on left wing issues get caught up in these symbolic examples, it happens with all ideologies I think. For example, on this site, you will see lots of examples pointing out small symbolic examples of government waste or abuse that really aren't very impacting in and of themselves, but that people see as representing a larger pattern.

So my advice would be that when you see someone overreacting to a small event, you try to consider what larger issue it is symbolic of and treat it as a proxy for that because that's what is most likely happening in their mind, whether consciously or unconsciously.

[Stefan Molyneux]

beautifully put!

[mythness]

So my advice would be that when you see someone overreacting to a small event, you try to consider what larger issue it is symbolic of and treat it as a proxy for that because that's what is most likely happening in their mind, whether consciously or unconsciously.

 

Sometimes the "larger issue" is said outright, such as supporting slavery if you buy certain foods of a non-FairTrade brand. As an example, if I ask "What if these 'slaves' who are 'exploited' have their source of income taken away, what will become of them?", I am met with suspicion or a generic response like "let's agree to disagree". Or that they will find better jobs. Or that their children will get an education. Meanwhile, I am left with the impression that I support slavery.

 

The theme is usually "convenience over suffering." I, and others like myself, should feel bad that we would value convenience over someone else's suffering or preserving the planet.

 

Unless I am not understanding a deeper symbolism? (E.g, "exploited slaves" may represent their child-self being taken advantage of by their parents; endless chores, no compensation, only allowed to participate in the adult's activities, forced to play sports, et al.) But I could just be fishing as this point...

 

This is why I'm curious if such views, sometimes outright invoking guilt, can be traced to childhood. It would make more sense in that context. After all, I agree that people around the world shouldn't suffer. I can truly sympathize. I just figure that buying Brand A instead of Brand B doesn't make a difference, and may even be counterproductive. I have come to accept that only through freedom can people experience better living and work conditions. This type of reasoning doesn't phase them. They've dug their boots in the ground. I rarely even get that far with anyone, since it only gets ugly should the conversation get to that point. I would never dare ask them about their childhood, because that is one of the most taboo subjects to bring up.

[LovePrevails]

stef and I had a conversation about this very matter, it starts

 

58.40 in to this sunday show

[RestoringGuy]

 

Why do these people hold such judgmental views? Is there any way I can respond to them with tact that will not develop into an argument or debate? Perhaps I can somehow figure out what's really going on in their minds?

 

If they give me a hassle about recycling or trade symbolism, I will change the subject to a new efficient toilet valve I installed, or some renewable energy project I am working on.  Makes them feel like a bigger ass.  Then I say "if we weren't taxed and handcuffed by the system, we could all do more of this kind of stuff".

[STer]

 

So my advice would be that when you see someone overreacting to a small event, you try to consider what larger issue it is symbolic of and treat it as a proxy for that because that's what is most likely happening in their mind, whether consciously or unconsciously.

 

Sometimes the "larger issue" is said outright, such as supporting slavery if you buy certain foods of a non-FairTrade brand. As an example, if I ask "What if these 'slaves' who are 'exploited' have their source of income taken away, what will become of them?", I am met with suspicion or a generic response like "let's agree to disagree". Or that they will find better jobs. Or that their children will get an education. Meanwhile, I am left with the impression that I support slavery.

The theme is usually "convenience over suffering." I, and others like myself, should feel bad that we would value convenience over someone else's suffering or preserving the planet.

Unless I am not understanding a deeper symbolism? (E.g, "exploited slaves" may represent their child-self being taken advantage of by their parents; endless chores, no compensation, only allowed to participate in the adult's activities, forced to play sports, et al.) But I could just be fishing as this point...

This is why I'm curious if such views, sometimes outright invoking guilt, can be traced to childhood. It would make more sense in that context. After all, I agree that people around the world shouldn't suffer. I can truly sympathize. I just figure that buying Brand A instead of Brand B doesn't make a difference, and may even be counterproductive. I have come to accept that only through freedom can people experience better living and work conditions. This type of reasoning doesn't phase them. They've dug their boots in the ground. I rarely even get that far with anyone, since it only gets ugly should the conversation get to that point. I would never dare ask them about their childhood, because that is one of the most taboo subjects to bring up.

 

I would suggest that you're right to look for the even deeper, more general theme first. They may focus on a specific issue like human rights or exploitation, but on a more general level it has to do with a concern for the underdog or those who are suffering. And as you say this is a valid concern.

Where you differ with them seems to be on your ideas about strategy or that you're even at a point of really thinking strategically. I think some people can't really get to a point of thinking strategically until the related woundings have been addressed. And if they are going to get to a point of strategizing they would probably only want to do that with someone they trust actually does care about the issue.

So you probably are better off first assessing "Is this person at a point where they are able or ready to put their emotions into context and start strategizing or not?" If they aren't, you probably won't get anywhere until you show them sincerely that you care about the issue, care about their feelings and their experiences related to it and only slowly, perhaps over time, bring up strategic issues, not in a preaching manner, but in a real dialogue.

And you should probably go into it admitting there is an honest debate to be had over strategy. But you really can't have an open discussion of strategy until the emotions are explored first in a lot of cases.