Magnification

Magnification: The action or process of magnifying something or being magnified, especially visually. -Google

            Magnification is an emphasis or the enlarging of the worth or value of a particular quality one has or action one performs. The opposite of mitigation, it serves to make the given quality or action the sole source of consideration for the targeted group or individual. In a sense, one can think of magnification as the skewed perspective on a ‘redeeming quality.’

            Magnification comes in two forms- typically it is used to define others by a single quality. Using magnification in this way allows one to limit their observation or understanding of the other to the one quality or practice in order to avoid the difficulties or complications of learning more. Magnification can also be used among one’s own group for similar reasons; on some level it may be a lack of learning(or perhaps more accurately, denial or refusal) , and on another, it can be a form of mitigation; magnifying one quality or trait in order to overlook or excuse others that would tarnish the value of the magnified quality or action.

            The problem with such behavior is that it assigns (often false) value to the given quality, and people perceive this single factor as more important than other traits that make up the person or group, which makes an objective understanding and judgment impossible. Much like mitigation, this allows for a hyper-positive or hyper-negative view of a group when the reality of any group is likely somewhere in between. Magnifying the negative actions of an individual of an ‘other’ group, and then applying those actions or opinions to their entire group makes for a reason(RE:, excuse, ‘justification’) to marginalize or discriminate against them. Conversely, magnifying the positive of an individual in one’s own group allows for the dismissal of the negative, allowing them to continue harmful or discriminatory behavior. In effect, individual, non-universal, non-defining factors become so enlarged that they are then perceived as redeeming or damning qualities(often for the entire group) when they should not be.

            Both Mitigation and Magnification are about avoiding a closer look at humanity- one’s neighbor’s and one’s own. The best thing we can do as individuals is alter our perception.  Seeking information from multiple perspectives, multiple sources, is key. When people behave in questionable ways, we must ask ourselves if those traits are inherently positive or negative, or merely different.  By constantly comparing what we believe(or rather, what we have been told) about others with what we actually see in those others in our daily lives- their actions, their traits, good and bad, we challenge the stereotypes that define and separate us, and we break down the lenses that keep us from seeing who we all are- individuals.

Mitigation

Mitigation, according to Google: "The action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something."

            Mitigation weakens or removes worth from positive qualities, or dilutes the potency of negative qualities or circumstances, depending on who is being judged.

            Typically the clearest case of mitigation at work is the double standard. When a practice or trait is viewed as okay, accepted, or even respected for one group(typically with some mention of special circumstances) and yet seen as abhorrent when found in other groups, there is mitigation involved.

            Mitigation occurs as a result of perception; in this context, it is the influencing of positive and negative factors in favor of one’s one preferences. Mitigation of the harm a member of one’s own has done, for example, or the benefit of the doubt as a mitigating factor in regards to the reasoning for harm. Rather than acknowledge that there is a problem with one’s own pack(and therefore ideology, mannerism, etc) people choose to mitigate, to explain away the issue in such a way that creates a new target, or softens the blow(in name only).

            As mentioned before, change is difficult, and mitigating allows a group to convince themselves that they do not need to change, because “It’s not a big deal.”

            Mitigation is harmful because it overlooks, ignores, or dismisses the very real catalysts behind behavior or circumstance. It allows people to write off targeted malevolence as a fluke, or a random attack. It allows people to label the subconscious and pervasive attitudes toward some groups as isolated sentiments among  ‘lone wolf’ characters. It allows people to justify violence, abandonment, marginalization under the guise of sympathy for the aggressor, as if hurt feelings or desperation were an excuse to cause harm, or more important than the well-being of the harmed.

            Mitigation is also used directly on ‘other’ tribes. In such cases, however, it is not the harm that these others perform that is mitigated. When one group mitigates another, is the good that is downplayed. Just as one makes little of their own faults to avoid critiquing their own way of life, one must eliminate any benefit or positivity from the other’s actions in order to ‘prove’ them inferior. If the other group performs well, how can one denounce their customs and deny their equality?  One must then acknowledge their standing, and therefore no longer do they have an excuse to discriminate or marginalize, and therefore they must change the way they view themselves and the world. As I have said, change is difficult. It is much easier to deny or reduce whatever good comes from the other(particularly when it runs contrary to personal belief disguised as ‘common knowledge’) than to acknowledge it.

            In the effort to understand others, it helps to identify the things we look to first when observing and interacting with other groups. If one finds, for example, that they can only identify negative things about a particular group of people, perhaps those views are unwarranted. This is particularly true if the negative qualities they are quick to point out in others can also be found in their own tribe, yet not without with positive qualities or justification to ‘balance it out’. As human beings, we should strive to see others as they truly are, the good, and the bad, and be able to think critically about what we have seen within others and within our own groups. Doing so will reveal the merits of the other, and more importantly, the common ground. We have more in common than we do differences.

            When one cannot find the good in others because of the bad they see in them, yet are able to identify the good in their own people, despite the presence of the same negative qualities, this is mitigation. This is a view where one is not looking to learn, but to classify. One is not looking to grow or understand, but to label and disregard. 

            In short, mitigation is another tool that we use to avoid reconciling with our morality. We mitigate to avoid finding evil in ourselves or our loved ones, we mitigate to ignore others so we do not feel guilt for their circumstances or for our selfishness. We can overcome this of we look to ourselves, to our loved ones, to those whom we associate with, and those whom we avoid. We can identify qualities as they are—neutral. We can find the good and the bad, and recognize that those traits are not associated with anything other than themselves. People are people.

Plus One

I'd like to share a little game I've recently begun playing.

For lack of a better name, I am calling it 'Plus One'. It's very similar to the idea of 'Paying it Forward.' The rules are quite simple:
Every day, perform one act of kindness for another person.  The person in question must not be a friend or family member; it must be a complete stranger or someone with whom there is no significant relationship, IE an acquaintance or friend of a friend at most.

Invalid recipients: Friends, spouses, children, parents, significant others/family of friends.(The idea here is that there is no personal benefit to be gained.)

The act of kindness must clearly demonstrate some assistance or benefit for the person receiving it.
Invalid move: Offering someone assistance. The act of offering help is not enough on its own; an action of helping must accompany it.

The act of kindness may not be an act arguably expected of members of society.
Invalid move: Holding a door open for someone.(In polite society, holding a door for strangers entering/exiting a building around the same time as oneself is considered etiquette, and therefore does not qualify for the purpose of this exercise.)

The act of kindness may not be part of or associated with an exchange in which the giver receives something as 'payment' for kindness.

Invalid move: asking for favors in return for kind deed. If one is asking for payment, that defeats the purpose of performing kind deeds.
Exception: Asking the favor of 'paying it forward', IE, performing an act of kindness for another individual(again, with whom one is not associated.)

On subsequent days, the receiver of help cannot be the same individual(find others to help) unless the acts of kindness increase in number or magnitude.

The act of kindness may not be part of one's ordinary routine or responsibility.
Invalid move: Providing extra napkins or sauces to customers as a food service worker
Exception: Performing acts of one's traditional routine or responsibility in situations where one is not obligated to do so.
Valid move: As a food service worker, delaying breaks or staying after shift to provide services to customers.

Penalties:
The object of the exercise is to put positive thoughts and feelings into the world in order to change perceptions and encourage selflessness. Actions that inhibit this process are frowned upon.

A person may not perform an act that harms or provides a reasonably high chance of causing harm to another person. Hurting others adds negativity, and that negativity must then be rectified. For 'scoring' purposes, such acts cancel out one act of kindness.

A person may not ask for favors. To ask for favors is to draw upon the positive thoughts or actions of others for personal gain. Doing so may not be selfish in intent, but still counts against the contribution of positive feelings to the world. As such, receiving an act of kindness mandates that one must then perform another act of kindness(not necessarily to the giver) in order to qualify their 'Plus One' for the day.

A person may not receive favors without following suit. As with the above limitation, even unasked for favors represent one's own benefit without any cost of self or contribution to the common goal. As such, a person who receives kindness, especially when they did not ask for it, must provide additional acts of kindness to others(spread the wealth) at a 2:1 ratio, or performing two acts of kindness for every one act of kindness received.

At the end of the day, the objective is to end with a positive score, the minimum of which is '1'. However, it is encouraged to go further, than 'Plus One', perhaps challenging two acts of kindness, or a gradually increasing number.

Just another thought toward tolerance and acceptance, changing hearts, changing minds.

Pressure, as it Relates to Perception.

             In the previous entry, I spoke briefly on the matter of pressure.

             Pressure is a constant in life, much like change, and the two are quite thoroughly connected. Pressure is capable of driving change, good or bad. People face pressure every day- from advertisements, social situations, work and recreation. Additionally, while these pressures may, for better or worse, encourage a person to change, they may also do the opposite— mandating that one must remain as they are and do things as they have always done.
            Therefore, societal pressures may stand in the way of Acceptance Theory- think of children in school subjected to peer pressure, making fun of less popular children in order to avoid being bullied themselves. Ignorance or limited information may be causes of such pressure. As I’ve mentioned before, differences are neutral things, and more often than not, the fear, disdain, or hatred that arises toward a group of people is rooted in some misinterpreted practice, or  an incorrectly assigned value on their customs or cultures.
            The pressure that arises from ignorance can be interpreted(perception), or perhaps more accurately ‘implemented’ in a number of ways, again, good or bad. There are those who are pressured by their ignorance to learn more- we typically call this curiosity. However, there are others who prefer to use ignorance as an excuse to marginalize the unknown, people who resist the opportunity for change because of the difficulty associated with it. Comments like “Who knows why they do what they do?” come to mind, where a person suggests that further understanding is impossible, or comments like “Well, they’re all just *insert (often derogatory)term here*” suggest a complete understanding is already present.
            Even pressure made with positive intent can have negative effects. If a message is perceived as hostile, it cannot be received by the listener, regardless of what content is to be conveyed. The best intentions may cause conflict, insult or slight, exacerbating the condition, rather than soothing it. Put simply, the ends do not justify the means. In our interactions with one another, it is easy to forget the effect our words and actions have on others, especially if we are focused on how we feel as a result of someone else’s words or actions.Bear in mind that if we hurt others with our words carelessly, or even intentionally because we have been hurt, there can be no healing, nor improvement of conditions. We must be careful with our words and actions in order to minimize misunderstandings. Failure to do so may cause others to assume things that are not true about us, and therefore perpetuate the cycles of intolerance and separation.
            In this way, perception and pressure are intertwined. We pressure because we perceive(a need for change, perhaps), and on the receiving end, our understanding of our own (subconscious)perceptions places us under pressure to alter not the way we see things, visions of the self included(as we should), but the way others see us. The best way to alter perception involves clarification and elaboration, but not necessarily the changing of the self(except perhaps, to a more discerning individual). We must explain and be explained to. We must understand(acknowledge) and be understood(acknowledged). This does not mean that there must be agreement. Part of Acceptance is, as I have said, accepting when others do not agree. Disagreement is no justification for disrespect.