Grouping

            At the heart of a thing like Acceptance theory is interaction. Interaction exists not only within the self, but within the people, and between them and other people, and the endgame of Acceptance theory includes a look at (and a change of) how we interact with ourselves and the people we share this world with. Our interactions typically relate to those whom we are near, and with whom we have things in common. Though we are all individuals, made up of our trivial, yet interesting, details, naturally, the things that make us create a reality where we have a little more in common with some people, and a little less in common with others, and so we are all part of groups of some kind, superficially at least.
            Groups, put simply, define us in an incomplete, yet often convenient manner. One trait, or a small number of (seemingly) related traits are presented as representative of the subject matter and together, those individuals who possess such traits are then classified as a group. Defining features may include skin color, gender, sexuality, appearance, habits, professions. Grouping is not inherently harmful; it is a way for us as people to quickly organize and process the vast information in this world today. This categorization may range from a general guideline to how one from a given group might carry themselves, to a focused(and oftentimes ignorant) declaration of key, unwavering, qualities of certain individuals, for better or worse.
            Grouping allows us to make assumptions about others, and therefore interact with them accordingly. It allows us some small measure of learning and understanding in that if we can recognize that two individuals are related(part of the same group) then there is likely some overlap in their individual mannerisms as they pertain to what is typical(defining) of the group. Put simply, understanding the individual may give us perspective on the group, and vice versa.
            However, grouping can be harmful when the associated information is inaccurate, incomplete, or misunderstood. When false things are assumed about a group, and then processed as other information would be, such misconceptions may be taken as defining features of a group they have nothing to do with. This is related intimately with perception, as there is no guarantee that the qualities we associate with individuals and their groups are actually representative of that individual or their group. Oftentimes, the problem at hand is that an individual who is of the group for one reason or another(race, appearance) may express a quality or trait(behavior)  unique to them, and others, observing this behavior, move beyond it to apply it to all members of the group based on the other associated traits.
            Sometimes, the basis for group labeling is even less rooted in fact. Perhaps the trait ascribed to the group is one where an outsider witnessed part of an activity, or misunderstood the reasons and circumstances behind such behavior, and then carried on to communicate their misunderstanding as fact without approaching the group now incorrectly labeled.
            As people, we need to better understand just how well, or how far qualities go in defining us. We need to recognize the extent of the ‘defining’ and ‘typical’ features of groups. If we can determine what actually plays a part in classifying the group, and separate that from the qualities present in members of the group, and further still, the reasons for those qualities, we can move closer to understanding one another. Once we accept the limitations of such small pieces of information, we can actually take the time to get to know those groups in detail, and more importantly, the individuals that fall within them. Put simply, we must recognize the difference between what we perceive in the group, and the actual traits or features that define it.