Steve Andreas > Articles > Escaping the �Black Hole� of Judgement

Judgement

When someone slips from preference into judgement, most (or all) of the rich sensory-based detail listed above is deleted, a massive example of the deletion and distortion that results in a very simplified and impoverished generalization. �I do/don�t like what you do� expresses a relationship between us. But if I say, �You�re bad/good,� the badness/goodness appears to exist only in you—my relating to you, and my evaluation of this relating, is completely deleted. Since something is either good or bad, there is no room for it to have good and bad aspects, to be more or less good, good for one person and bad for someone else, etc. All that is left is a digital either/or distinction, (good/bad, right/wrong) in contrast to the detailed analog distinctions that occur in preference. Gordon Allport described this process as �intolerance of ambiguity� many years ago in his studies of prejudice and the �authoritarian personality� [1] and found that this insistence on fixed, either/or categories extended even to the simplest perceptions. In preference we are aware of both the positive and the negative, while in judgement we are aware of only one or the other.

When dealing with a complex situation, we think about details, options, consequences, weigh pros and cons, consider other people�s thoughts or views or conflicting values etc. We may eventually conclude with a digital yes/no decision, but hopefully only after carefully considering and evaluating all these different factors. Someone who judges doesn�t have to go through all that effort; they simply apply the judgement, which is essentially a pre-decision, a prejudgment (prejudice) that can be applied quickly to any situation, without having to think about it in detail. It is a �one-size-fits-all� �freeze-dried� decision that greatly simplifies life, but at the cost of deleting most of our experience.

Since a judgement deletes all the specific experiential and contextual elements listed previously for a preference, it is absolute and universal. The statement, �That person/thing/event is bad,� means that it is bad for everyone, everywhere, always, in all regards, and for all outcomes. Since bad is simply bad, there is no point at all in communicating or negotiating about it; the only solution is to isolate it, eliminate it or destroy it.

The universality of a judgement assumes that everyone should have the same identical response, imposing the judger�s values on everyone else. If someone else disagrees with someone who judges, that threatens both the universality of the judgement, and also the world-view of the judge. If I judge something as bad, and someone disagrees with me, my only alternative is to think of it as good, which would turn my world upside down. Since that would be very unsettling and threatening, I will typically redouble my efforts to make the dissident conform, often with some form of verbal or physical coercion.

Since a judgement is universal, it exists independently of who is saying it, and this is one of the great attractions of judgement. Someone who judges doesn�t have to take responsibility for the judgement or defend it; it simply exists. �It�s bad.� �It�s God�s will.� This makes it very difficult for the judger to even consider reviewing the situation being judged, or considering alternative understandings.

The absolute and universal nature of a judgement separates it from our own personal experience. Many judgements are learned from parents, priests, and other authorities, rather than arising out of our own experience, so there is no connection with experience. Yet even when we have fully experienced the event that we judge, the act of judging it separates us from the sensory-based details of that experience, as we focus our attention exclusively on the resulting judgement.