The Hidden Mechanism that Fuels a Personal Judgement
The judgements we reach are an automatic output of our FOEs
We judge people and are judged in return.
The holly book remind us “Judge not lest ye be judged.”
But it’s impossible not to judge others. In the end, we all judge. It’s all too human a failing.
My Problem
My problem is not judging or not judging per se, but the VARIETY of judgements I CAN pass on the SAME person.
A judgement is not an objective piece of construct but an automatic outcome of (what I call) the “Frame of Evaluation” (FOE) with which we approach the act of judgement.
You tell me your FOE, and I can pretty much guess correctly what your judgement will be.
No Failproof Selection Criteria
I’ll shortly explain what an FOE can be in detail.
But let me first stress the important fact that there are no failproof criteria to select one FOE over the other a priori, that is, before we reveal our FOEs and discuss them with the other person.
We are burdened by the existential freedom to select a FOE since there is always a good reason to favor this FOE instead of the other.
When there is no absolute method to show us which FOE is the most appropriate, the weight of our judgement sits squarely on our own shoulders. It’s always on us.
If there were external factors that tied our hands and left us with no alternative but select a particular FOE, then we could shirk personal responsibility and say that we base our judgment on incontrovertible reasons.
But there are no such inevitable reasons. There is always a way to own up to one judgment rather than the other since there are multiple FOEs, all equally available to us at a moment of crisis.
Examples
For example, let’s say that someone you have known for thirty years one day calls you and starts to insult you and dumps on your shoulders the responsibility of a vile act that you had not committed.
You are flushed with adrenaline and shaking in your socks with this unexpected attack from the least expected person in your life.
What are you going to do?
In order to decide, you first need to pass a judgement as to what had just happened.
ASSUMPTION 1:
Is he still a good friend who is delivering you a bitter medicine to swallow and improve yourself, despite the pain of truth? Is it time you shut up and just listen to him and take notes while listening?
ASSUMPTION 2:
Or did he go schizo on you since the last time you saw him? Is he a mentally disturbed person who needs clinical attention and immediate professional help, instead of an off-the-cuff reaction?
ASSUMPTION 3:
Or a third possibility: Is he a power-hungry person trying to dominate you? Is he testing your strength in an in-your-face confrontation to see if you would crumble at the first attack? Is he ready to accept and love you as his equal only if you respond in kind, with guns blazing and missiles flying?
Those are three totally different Frames of Evaluation (FOE).
Which one should we choose to judge him?
The Burden of Enough Reasons
The problem is, usually there are enough (i.e., sufficient but not necessary) reasons to select one FOE over the other. Human intelligence is malleable enough to weave a seamless basket of meaning out of the strands and fibers of any evidence fed to it.
For example, if you want to believe that your friend has gone mad, you can focus on certain words he uttered during your conversation. You can decide that “no sane person would say that.”
Once you take that fork in the road, you can’t talk to him anymore as your equal since we never believe that WE are the ones who need professional attention.
Or, your disappointment might be so sudden and so deep that you might decide the person you called your “friend” for all your life was in reality a lowly lifeform who never deserved your friendship to start with.
You all of a sudden remember the astonished expression of another friend of yours who questioned your friendship with the person on the phone. All of a sudden you might decide that the third friend was apparently right all along and you just missed the signs on the road that telegraphed you were driving towards a mile-high waterfall ahead.
If that is your FOE, you might decide to cut off your ties to that person, slam the phone down and never talk to him again.
But, again, if your FOE suggests that your friend might have some serious mental issues, you might decide to be extra gentle with him because he is still a friend, you love him, and you want to help him. Friends don’t leave their friends stranded on the middle of life’s highway.
In that case, you pretend to accept all his charges while thinking of a plan to help cure your friend in a manner that would protect his dignity and be acceptable to him as well.
Twice as Complicated
If you think the issue is complicated, it’s actually twice as so. Because the other person also has available to him the same (or more) number of FOEs.
To wit, he has already chosen an FOE when he picked up the phone to go nuclear on you. Reaction is inescapable. If you don’t say anything over the phone and keep your silence, that’s a response too.
If you think your friend has gone mad, he can also turn around and accuse you with gaslighting. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.
But he could’ve chosen another FOE as well, whether he is aware of it or not, since we are condemned to the freedom of our thoughts.
That’s why a lot of disagreements, misunderstandings, and bruised emotions are never resolved because of these different, hidden, and never-expressed FOEs on BOTH sides.
Since the parties are not aware of the FOEs that feed their judgments, they can never step back from the crushing gears of this mechanism and resolve their issues.
That’s why we have such a high rate of divorce in the United States. And that’s why, according several studies, 25% of Americans are estranged from their parents or children today.
Step Back, Jack, and Reveal
The only way out that I can see is to step back and examine these FOEs by revealing them.
When you reveal your FOE, you gain the right to inquire about the FOE of the other person as well.
When you do that and become vulnerable by revealing your FOE, you may of course be hit twice as hard by the other party — but then you’re back to square one and what have you got to lose?
But in some cases, your goodwill may reach the other side. In an unsuspected moment of truce, the other side may also start to reveal her FOE that gave birth to that judgement.
If and when that happens, the judgments will suddenly start to look less absolute and more relative — relative to the FOE that supports it.
The Moment of Illumination
The FOE is the ladder on which a person climbs up to a personal judgement. Take the ladder away, and the judgment will fall.
The moment when mutual FOEs are revealed is a true moment of blessing and light. That’s the only way we’ll back out of our hard judgements and see the malleability of our thinking. We will also realize the sad predicament of the human condition that creates all this suffering out of unexamined assumptions.
Those are the rare moments of growth, atonement, and illumination. May we all be so lucky so often in the future.
Ugur, Your insights into FOE are appreciated. I am in alignment, replacing FOE with perspective. D