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.

Perception

            Perception, according to Google: “A way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.”

            Perception plays a large role in our lives.  Perception, related to observation, takes place all the time, whether we are aware of it or not. The translation of the world through one’s personal lens, a lens shaped by other stimuli previously received. Observation, perceptions, stereotypes, judgments- it’s all related.

            When I say that perception occurs regardless of our awareness, I am not speaking only of that which occurs in our sleep. People are often unaware that they have certain perceptions(interpretations) let alone where they come from, and perhaps most importantly, how accurate they are. Perception is powerful. It’s a force so powerful that it can defy reality, at least in the mind.

            Perhaps the most significant part in the forming of perceptions is exposure. Constant and repeated access to stimuli which all present the same traits about a given entity will shape our perceptions of that entity. Once that shape has been set, it is difficult to alter. So what happens when perceptions are formed with only one set of information?

             The barrier to a mutual acceptance of all humanity is less a matter of difference than a matter of perception. As humankind, we have more things in common than we do differences, and among those differences, the majority are neutral in and of themselves. It is the people, with their individual or collective perception of those differences, that create conflict. Perceptions, for example, that some practices, traits, or behaviors are inherently evil, or perhaps perceptions that some practices, traits, or behaviors are superior while others are inferior. Essentially, such perceptions are inaccurate. It doesn’t end there, however. 

            As I mentioned, most attributes(really, anything that isn’t an aspect of character, and even that is debatable) have neither positive nor negative value until we as people decide such, and yet, so great is the power of perception that we find excuses for it. Excuses both to justify our perceptions(typically based upon the limited information that has shaped our perceptions) and to dismiss anything that runs contrary. Exceptions to the rule, certain conditions that altered the outcome or distorted the evidence, details that were ‘missed’. Anything to avoid admitting that the perception itself(our interpretation of the world, in whole or part) is wrong. So, in effect, not only are we misinformed or lacking relevant information, we are also insistent on remaining in such a state. But why?

            Put simply, no one likes being wrong. Being wrong can mean feeling guilty. It may require an apology. It may be cause for receiving retribution or giving reparation. It may even require a change. See, being wrong(being PERCIEVED as wrong, for that matter) calls a person into question, not just in regard to the matter at hand, but as a whole. Think of the negative stigma that comes with being wrong- the demonization and discrediting, especially in terms of public image. Think celebrities, think politics. Everything is a scandal. Even ‘a little’ wrong is a serious offense. At the very least, if we’re wrong and we don’t know it, we can fall back on the excuse of ignorance- no harm, no foul, no need to change.

            So we have faulty, limited perceptions. We have no desire to rectify this. Why is this such a big deal? People have opinions. The problem comes when people’s perceptions lead them to act in ways that cause problems for others. Serious problems. Faulty perceptions include the association of completely unrelated qualities to one another. This can cause misunderstandings, strife and resentment. This ascribing of qualities may lead people to dismiss others entirely, dehumanize them. Once that happens, it is far easier to justify any mistreatment they receive without any sort of moral backlash on the part of the perpetrators. If people are hunted, hurt, or ignored for their differences, a mutual understanding becomes impossible. After all, those who are (incorrectly)perceived in a certain manner cannot change that perception, and those who possess that interpretation have no interest in rectifying it.

            In short, inaccurate perception stands in the way of people coming together in tolerance, let alone acceptance.

            What can we do about it? It starts with rethinking our perceptions. It starts when we do not label inherently neutral things as good or evil.What do we believe of those who are different from us? Why do we believe those things? Do we have enough information? Do we have the right information? There will always be more questions than answers, but that’s no excuse not to ask. We need to recognize as people that our perceptions may associate things, positive or negative, that have no correlation, or at least a hidden correlation that has not been considered. Perhaps we will be led to ignore actual cause and effect relationships- whatever is convenient for our view. Regardless—

            Above all else, when it comes to people, we are all individuals; by definition, we defy classification. And that’s okay.