Double Bubble
The whimsical quiz I linked to on Wednesday has drawn complaints here and there. In a comment, Professor Hale pointed out that the lower and higher scores both indicate insulation and that the questions themselves indicate a bias. I agree to an extent, but I don’t find it that germane.
The questions were written with regard to this Charles Murray article contrasting the growing divergence of two hypothetical neighborhoods. As Murray’s focus is on the elites who influence the norms and mores, or in this case ignore bad ones, the questions in the quiz were designed to show how little the true elites, who would presumably score around zero, know about those they are purporting to help or save from themselves.
Commenter jz offered two concise summations:
One of Murray’s concerns is the elite class making decisions for others with absolutely no understanding of their values, behavior, incentives of the lower class.
and
One of Murray’s prescriptives was music to me; he states,
“The best thing that the new upper middle class can do is to drop its condescending ‘nonjudgmentalism’. Married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids shouldn’t hesitate to voice their disapproval of those who defy these norms. When it comes to marriage and work ethic, the new upper class must start preaching what it practices.
One step toward dropping that condescending nonjudgmentalism is understand those who need to be judged. The idea may be foreign to those of us reading this, but there are really people out there who are wholly ignorant about those living between the coasts. Those elite ignoramuses are powerful and increasingly dangerous.
” When it comes to marriage and work ethic, the new upper class must start preaching what it practices.”
I’ve been meaning to do a post on this subject for a while. It seems to me that society would be well-served by having moral elitists that preach proper living, of the sort that has made them successful in their own lives. This non-judgmentalist mindset isn’t doing anyone any good.
I’ve wrestled with the terms, “judging, judgmental” for years. How did the term become a pejorative? Isn’t judging others beneficial to me? Doesn’t the bible address this?
I see two definitions:
1) eternal damnation. Only God will judge our eternity.
2) critical analysis. Judging others is an essential skill to survival.
Murray states that nonjudgmentalism is condescending. What does he mean by that?
I surmised it to mean what W might have called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Authoritarians often think they need to be the parent for the poor unwashed rubes as they are too stupid to think for themselves. (Whether there is some truth to that authoritarian notion is another matter altogether.)
How did the term become a pejorative?
In Western Society at least, I think it was how people interpreted the biblical injunction “against judging others” that laid the groundwork for the rot. I struggled with this concept for years.
My understanding is that “bad” judging consists in writing people off; as in final judgement. An example of “bad judging” would be thought systems which permanently put people into a certain “caste”. I think the whole Christian project rests on the assumption that even the worst man can be made good, and it is this “bad judging” that frustrates this purpose. Not accepting people who have reformed because of their past is an example. Another example would be in considering people as permanently worthless, based on their current behaviour. I think God wants us to think that no matter how rotten or hopeless our neighbour is, he has a chance for redemption. More importantly, I don’t think he want’s us to fall into the trap of judging ourselves as superior to others. It’s this Pharisaical attitude of superiority that God finds offensive. This is precisely the attitude of our “superior” elite types; to them, the “elect” don’t judge, it’s only the rednecks and the bigoted who lack “tolerance”.
Good judgement, on the other hand, consists in moral objectivity and I don’t think there is any biblical prohibition against that. I think many people-(especially the religious who are less intellectually rigorous)– have interpreted the injunction against judging as a sort of uncritical acceptance of other people’s behaviour, since God is “nice” and He accepts everyone as they are. The whole libertarian culture from onwards of the late 19th Century of tolerance fed this sentiment; the net result being a cultural moral relativism. These religious sentimentalists forget that whilst God hung around with sinners he wanted them not to sin, and warned them where they were headed to if they did not straighten up their act.
Catholicism has always emphasised the need to distinguish the sometimes subtle difference between the sin and the sinner. Unfortunately, most people (even Hi IQ types) have a difficulty in making that distinction. Behaviour gets conflated with identity and in real life, people who “judge” cleave themselves into “superior” and “inferior” types. Since everyone instinctively hates a Pharisee, the whole act of judging attracts a certain moral odium amongst the intellectually weak, who cannot make subtle distinctions. Unfortunately, the intellectually weak constitute the majority of mankind and moral objectivity gets conflated with Pharisaical behaviour.
Good thoughts, SlumLord.
And don’t forget Christ’s injunction against hypocritical judgment in the sermon on the mount (Matt. 7:1-7, if I recall correctly). Our standards by which we judge have to be consistent.
I’ve got no problems, I judge everybody….condescendingly.
That’s a winning combination too
I find no reason to judge others.
My default is that they’re all disappointing.
Withholding judgment probably helps you professionally, except for being a barrier to moving from country lawyer to judge. You have something against black robes?