Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    How can anything that a human feels be against human nature?
    
    It would be a bit clearer to me if you were to explain what you meant
    by human nature, and what it means for something to be against it. I
    get the impression that what a lot of people mean by human nature is
    our baser, more animalistic tendencies -- territoriality, the tendency
    to howl when our desires aren't meant, etc. What I mean when I talk
    about human nature is what we have that other animals don't -- the
    opportunity to reflect and act more nobly.
    
    Therefore, according to my definition of human nature, valuing
    differences (or as I call it, tolerance) is not against human nature;
    rather it is far closer to the very definition of it.
    
    	Jon 

    re: .1 I disagree, to a point.  I am not sure what it is that I
    find fault with, but there is something.
    
    re: .0  I read this too, and was interested in the topic, glad you
    brought it here.
    
    I tend to agree with the quote, but it is somewhat out of context.
     The main jist of the comment was that the author disagrees with
    the concept of Valuing Differences and that 'we' shouldn't do it,
    makes no sense, etc.
    
    As far as the quote goes, that people do not value differences but
    value sameness instead is true, as the rule.  I beleive that this
    stems from the fact that we are animals and share many traits with
    lower animals, such as teritory, etc.  However, the concept of Valuing
    Differences is importent to me because I beleive in the value of
    the concept.  Also, it has to be pointed out and emphisized *because*
    it is NOT the natural way people go.  Pointing it out allows us
    to be aware of the concept and make a judgement about ourselves
    and it value to us.
    
    Sorry if this sounds like rambling...
    jim
    

    Someone would have to define human nature and then this point 
    could be discussed.  Actually, I find wearing a tie more against
    human nature than valuing differences.

    	I think "Valuing Differences" is just a means of job creation.
    Why do I have to 'value' anything???? I value my car, my home, my
    kids, but I don't value the 'spare tire' around my waist, I don't
    value my daughter's value of Corey Heim (teen-age actor), and I
    don't want to value some one else's differences. I do value the
    fact that I don't have to value someone else's values.
    
    Get my drift????? I don't mind if you don't value it. 
    
    Ken  

    
    To me, both the instition of Valuing Differences (whose functional
    definition is one that "belongs" to industry in that the concept
    of a policy dealing with this is a direct result of Federal legislation
    -- EEO and Affirmative Action to be exact.  In this sense it's a
    concept that industry *must* pay attention to for a multitude of
    business and legal reasons.  Unfortunatly the policy probably did
    come about due to an earlier point of view mentioned in this topic,
    stating to the effect that...human nature tends to gravitate towards
    *sameness* (not a direct quote obviously).
    
    From a practical point of view -- this side of human nature is seen
    time and time again -- and is analagous to the early American settlers
    and the native American Indians.  At first the settler, afraid of
    people, behavior and rituals they never saw before, attempted to
    destroy the property, lives, and cultural foundations of the Indians.
    Of course, the Indians responded by defending themselves, and as
    this cycle continued, hatred, prejudice, destruction occurred --
    and neither side won -- polarity grows quite quikly under these
    circumstances.  Next, after the situation develops where both sides
    become large, powerful, and further-distanced since most of their
    time and energy is devoted either planning or defending the next
    conquest -- or building a bigger more fatal mousetrap.
    
    Well sooner or later in the history of these situations, someone
    comes along and is charismatic and skillful enough to show both
    parties the irony of it all, and demonstrate the need to share values
    and absorb a part of each other's culture -- otherwise the situation
    is a LOSE/LOSE type of mess.  These people are quite prominent in
    our history -- Plato, Jesus Christ, Santiayana, (sp?), Martin Luther
    King, Freud, Einstein, Germaine Greer, Eric Hoffer, to name just
    a few. . .
    
    The whole concept comes down to the fact that we really *cannot*
    define and control human nature -- it's the most fascinating and
    illogical phenomenon in our universe.  However due to this I believe
    we all tend to get caught up in the idea of "the comfort of sameness"
    as it is (relatively) safe, secure, and carries little risk.  But,
    the concept of Valuing Differences is an attempt to instill upon
    all of us the fact that we must not become blinded, and we must
    not merely tolerate, but accept and distinguish other philosophies,
    otherwise we stop surviving -- and this is true in any relationship
    -- a corporation, a small business, an extended friendship, personal
    relationships, marriage, children.....
    
    My long winded .02 worth. . .
  
      

    The way I see it is....EVERYONE of us is different.  We look different,
    we think different, etc.  The point is - even if someone is different
    from me, I can still value them as a human being.  
    
    -Dotti.

    Ah, human nature! If we go all the way down to the primal instincts,
    most living things don't value differences at all. Groups of creatures
    always seem to protect their species-identity carefully, by refusing to
    mix with other species and by destroying any offspring that don't fit
    the pattern. 
    
    I read somewhere that babies seem to have a built-in ability to
    pattern-match a normal human face (helps 'em look for Mom, presumably),
    and they can be terrified by a picture with, say, the eyes placed
    upside down, or the features rearranged just enough to *almost* fit the
    pattern. This may explain the visceral reaction to certain deformities;
    it's a warning about "the thing which is different." 
    
    In fact, given this basic tendency, it would be surprising if a
    human did *not* feel some unease when confronted for the first time
    with someone of a different racial or cultural group. 

    This was a survival trait, of course, and has become unnecessary due
    primarily to our medical advances (and, perhaps, the idea that there is
    something more important than the survival of our particular clan). But
    our knowledge has grown rapidly, and our instincts haven't changed
    much, so we're in the interesting position of having to control them -
    usually without even knowing what they are. 
    
    Fortunately, it also seems to be "human nature" to learn about ourselves...

    -b

RE:  .1  ERIS::CALLAS

     > Therefore, according to my definition of human nature, valuing
     > differences (or as I call it, tolerance) is not against human 
     > nature 

When I say "valuing differences" I do not mean tolerance.  I mean to actually
feel that the part of you that is unlike me has, in and of itself, value.
I also do not mean "you have a right to your own opinion".  I mean that even
though my opinion is different from yours, I do not feel that your opinion
has less value than mine.  For example, within the framework of "valuing 
differences", I should feel that my Irish-ness is of no more or less value
than your Indian-ness.  In a more common sense, one should feel that the
job of a janitor here at Digital is of no more or less value (dignity etc) 
than that of Ken Olson.  I also feel that the logical (and wonderful) byproduct
of genuine "valuing differences" is an insatiable curiosity about all things
that are different from me.  If I truly find that your Indian-ness is of
great value [since I _know_ my Irish-ness is of great value :^)], it would be 
hard for me _not_ to be curious about Indian-ness.


    > How can anything a human feels be against human nature?

Based on my now clarified definition, "valuing differences" is not something
that one feels.  It is something that one _does_. You either do, or do not
value a thing. Though we are getting close to a semantic discussion, for the
sake of this topic I think it is important that we nail it down to something
more concrete than "feeling", since it is easier to say whether we "do or do
not" do something than it is to say how we feel.


RE:  .2  TUNER::FLIS  "Penguin lust"  (love that P_N)

    > I tend to agree with the quote, but it is somewhat out of context

Yes, it is out of context.  But the notion did strike me in a very independent
way. 

    > The main jist of the comment was that the author disagrees with the
    > concept of Valuing Differences and that 'we' shouldn't do it ...

Though, after reading numerous replys from that author on that and other topics,
it does seem that he may not always value differences, I don't think that is 
what he is saying in that particular quote.  He says that "we value sameness",
which does not rule out valuing differences.  He also says that we "hang around
those who [do, think, act (etc)] the way we do".  Though that may be true, does
that mean that we do not _value_ those that are not similar to us?

It seems to me that when I value differences, I inevitably learn something 
nifty and/or feel better about _myself_ for having done so.  The nib of my
question, however, seems to be whether it is in human nature to do so, or is
it more common to human nature to feel that that which we do, are, (etc) is 
superior to that with we don't do, or aren't.  


Here's some of the thoughts I had while considering this topic -

presumption - Since a child has had less experience in life, s/he would exhibit
              human nature in a more pure form than an adult.

I don't know that this presumption is true, but lets say for a sec. that it is.
Children are cruel.  They are always the first to make fun of differences that
they find in their peers.  They are also the first to feel self conscious if they
perceive themselves to be different from what they consider the norm.  This
would seem to support the statement that "valuing differences" is against human
nature.

On the other hand, young people are much more ready to take up "new" trends,
causes etc (seen much blue hair recently?).  They seem to be much less burdened
by prejudices in some ways.  This would seem to support the statement that to
value differences is very much part of human nature, and that adults have had
more time to "muck up" that more pure human form.

Marion

    Re: .8
    
    >"valuing differences" is not something that one feels.  It is
    >something that one _does_.
    
    I think "valuing" is more of a feeling than an action.  To me, the
    reactive elements are stronger than the elements of conscious decision.
    
    Re: in general
    
    With some hand waving around the terms, I think that valuing
    differences is foreign to human nature.  Why?  People tend to think
    well of themselves.  Often what they like in other people are the
    same qualities they see themselves as having.  (Yes, they can like
    other qualities as well, but usually not qualities opposite to their
    own.)  So people tend to prefer sameness or at least some kind of
    common denominator.  (Remember the discussion about society encouraging
    conformity?  I think that applies.)
    
    "Valuing Differences," the Digital policy, is a somewhat artificial
    constraint because it's a logical approach to human relations, rather
    than a reactive or emotional one.  I *know*, intellectually, that
    someone who has not had a complete formal education can have ideas
    just as good as those of a PhD candidate, but it's harder for me
    to treat that person as a peer.  I know I should respect them, and
    I know why I should respect them, but the emotional response of
    respecting them as a peer must be learned.  It's not automatic.

    re:8
    
    	You should reread your own reply. You stated that 'intellectually'
    you have a hard time accepting the ideas of candidate with less
    than a PhD formal education. What make those that have a PhD
    intellectually superior?? A PhD in what? Engineering, Philosophy,Indoor
    Air Quality?? Be careful, you may fall off your pedestal.

    
    	Re .8 "Children are cruel"
    
    Hah! Parents are cruel. They are the first to teach their children
    all the conformity bullcrap that kid's end up teasing each other
    about! "Your socks dont *match*! HAHAHAHAHAHA!" They are the first to 
    teach that those outside of the "clan" are somehow "less than" those
    in the immediate family. "We dont talk to *those* people". Parenting
    is where all these "prejudicial" problems come from; Children are
    *not* born with an inate sense of "clan/family/species" undeserved
    loyalty, this they are taught very explicitly. "You're a *Jones*
    - I expect you to act like one!" The kid'll act like one alright...
    
    Point is, if the milk and cookies didnt come out just the same when
    your 3rd grader's little friend was Black (or White as the case
    may be...), what intrest would the person as an adult have in cultural
    differences? There may be exceptions, however the parents feelings
    would certainly be clarified by this scenario and imposed upon the
    child, who will carry them into later life and the next generation.
    
    	Joe Jas               

    
    An interesting continuing discussion -- in fact I think that the
    various points that are coming out here commonly point to the fact
    that this is indeed a tought concept to define, and fully understand
    -- both logically and intellectually. . .  For example, I'm
    well-intentioned and (I think anyways) sensitive to people's values,
    perceptions, needs, etc,,, other than my own.  But inevitably I'll
    be talking with someone, or talking about something, and without
    knowing it, amd unintentionally, will do the old "foot in mouth". . .
    
    I also picked up a good point from another reply and want to stand
    clarified. . I did not exclusively mean to express my definition
    as merely "tolerating" and surviving with others. . .but I did manage
    to come across that way.  I was making a lenghtly analogy for the
    "origins" of the "primal need" to value people's differences for
    the most raw reasons (survival)...  But, it is much, much, much
    more than that -- we need to sensitize ourselves to try to accept
    and quite literaly flourish and prosper with each others unique
    and hetrogeneous qualities -- life would be damn boring without
    these!
    
    Intersting too -- I'm reminded of the age old question about prejudice,
    racial discrimination, etc...:  How many infants are born with these
    feelings?????????????????  But,once they are learned (usually
    frighteningly fast) how long does it take to *unlearn* our prejudices,
    and truly treat others as we expect them to treat us?
    
    /Dave
    
    /Dave

    re .8:
    
    I agree with you -- we are fast approaching a rathole. When you
    describe what you mean by "valuing differences" I sit in my chair nod
    and think, "yup, that's what I mean by tolerance." Since you seem to
    take a more narrow definition of tolerance, I'll use the term "valuing
    differences" to avoid semantic conflicts. 
    
    Now then, on with the show.
    
    I still think that valuing differences is part of human nature. There
    are many things that are part of human nature. Some are not very nice,
    like selfishness, xenophobia, and territoriality. Some are more noble,
    like honor, respect, love, and valuing differences. They're all
    part of human nature as I see it.
    
    When I hear someone sniff that valuing differences is not natural
    (which is what claiming that it's "against human nature" really is), I
    get confused. How could any emotion that a human feels not be part of
    human nature? It's not like we conjure these feelings out of whole
    cloth. They're part of us. 

    	Jon

    RE:  .12
    
    Actually, Dave, your reply sparked in me a totally unexpected train
    of thought.  It is very common to have parents and children not
    "get along" for a period of time when the child has become old enough
    to be out on his or her own.  In fact, it is very common for there
    to be a certain level of hostility between parents and children
    during this time.  Usually what happens is the children begin to
    live their independent lives, and in time everybody "makes nice".
    There is a strong analogy in the wild when bears or foxes have
    children.  As the young animal matures, he is driven away by the
    parent in order to make in-breeding unlikely.  This is clearly
    in the animal's nature, and in the best interest of the species.
    Is it not therefore reasonable to say that the hostility between
    a parent and a nearly grown child for that period of time is part
    of "human nature"?  And isn't it also reasonable to say that the
    hostility often takes the form (in both parent and child) of an inability
    to value the difference they see in each other?
    
    Hummm ... so perhaps it is somtimes _not_ "natural" (whatever that
    means) for us to value differences.  Perhaps it would be better
    stated that human nature is somtimes inclided _not_ to value
    differences for outmoded animalistic reasons.  These reasons are
    outmoded because of our "power of reason" - or whatever it is that
    makes us defferent from animals - and this inclination, which was
    made obsolete by that "power of reason" should be over-ruled by same?
    
    um ... excuse me ... I think I just fell off the edge of the earth
    ...
    
    Marion
                                             

I think that people do look for sameness more then they do differentness. People
tend to think that other people are like themselves.  But on the otherhand,
differentness is a lot easier to come by then sameness; there are a lot more
type of different then there and types of same. :-)

But I don't think this is intimately related with 'valueing differences'. A baby
does value differences; show a baby something different, and they'll be off to
check it out and discover something new to them.  I think this is the childlike
attitude that we need to 'value differences'. 

Jim.

    Oh this is confusing!  I think it is important to get a clear 
    definition on the term "Valuing Differences."
    
    Valuing can mean:
            a.) To determine or estimate the value of;
            b.) To regard highly, esteem;
            c.) To rate the worth or desirability, evaluate.
    
    In business I believe we would be dealing with either a. or c.
    In our personal life we may at times apply  b.
    Each definition seems to mean something different which may be the
    basis of this discussion.   
    
    I personally look at valuing differences as determining the merits
    of someone else or some other idea.  In other words, look for the
    good points even when there seems to be a lot of bad.

    Re: .10
    
    >You should reread your own reply. You stated that 'intellectually'
    >you have a hard time accepting the ideas of candidate with less
    >than a PhD formal education.
    
    You should reread my reply.  I said no such thing.
    
    Re: tolerance vs Valuing Differences
    
    Tolerance is more along the lines of "You're not like me and I'm
    not going to do anything about it."  Acceptance is not necessarily
    part of tolerance.  I might not even *like* your differences, but
    I won't do anything about them.  Tolerance is one of those things
    society encourages.  Since society is made up of so many different
    people, it would tear itself apart without tolerance.  Religious
    tolerance in Europe came about after several countries had been
    seriously trashed in the Thirty Years War.  Without society, I suspect
    that people in general would tolerate differences that didn't get
    in their way.
    
    Valuing Differences (the Digital policy) says, "You're different
    and you're still worthwhile."  If I tolerate something, I don't
    have to think it's okay.  If I value a difference, I have to support
    the idea that this difference is okay.  What if our differences
    are polar opposites?  I'm assertive and you're passive?  It's hard
    to value your difference without implying that there's something
    wrong with my difference.  Intellectually, it can all work out,
    but I can see that it could be awfully difficult on the emotional
    level.

    It is my hope that the Valuing Differences program will one day
    be known as Enjoying Differences.  
    
    Jim Baranski's comment about infants is so true...when they see
    something different that gravitate toward it to examine and enjoy.
    I think a lot of us loose this childlike curiosity because of negative
    experiences.  I think it is difficult to not react to negativism
    and yet when we get beyond it the rewards are fulfilling.
    
    I live in the South End one of the best multi-cultural communities
    around.  It is exciting, it is fun, it is an experience that I do
    not want to trade.
    
    A few years ago when I went to the Cape for a week I felt a sense
    of differentness that I could not identify.  It wasn't until I returned
    to the South End that I realized how boring the Cape community was.
    Everyone was the same, their voices, their accents, the food.
    
    It seems that children might be wiser then adults and instead of
    trying to pour them into our mold we should look at their attitudes
    and behaviors and emulate them.

    I live in a nice neighborhood of white-collar professionals like
    us, who mostly have kids like we do, who mostly have wives who
    stay at home at least part time, like I don't, and who put a lot
    of pressure on me to be like them . . . 
    
    And it is SOOOOOOOOOOOO  BOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIING
    I could scream.....
    
    When neighbors get together, the most controversial topic of
    discussion is toilet training, or why a Fisher-Price highchair is
    better than a wooden one.  Truly hot feelings develop over whether
    Chem-Lawn or Old Fox is the better lawn-care company -- what, you
    don't use a lawn care company?  You fertilize your lawn yourself?
    With SCOTTS?  But it's the greenest nicest lawn in the
    neighborhood!!!!!!!!
    
    If liking people who are not identical to myself is against
    human nature, does that mean I'm not human??????  
    
    --bonnie

    When I talk about valuing differences being the same as tolerance, I
    mean the Enlightenment virtue of capital-T Tolerance. I suppose I
    should therefore say that I think Valuing Differences is the same as
    Tolerance. Sorry. 
    
    The way I read the definition of Valuing Differences, it reads like
    Tolerance with teeth. I far as I can see, "Valuing Differences" is
    nothing more than cutesy managementese for Tolerance. 
    
    I find the program very interesting, because Tolerance is a rather
    radical notion for a Fortune 50 corporation to make into policy. I'm as
    amazed as I am pleased. 
    
    	Jon

In support of view .18:

Have you observed a 1-2 year old in the grocery store? My 1 1/2 yr.
old says hello to EVERYone. Regardless of age, sex, color, beauty,
height, size, etc. She DEmands a response. Once at the deli she
kept saying 'Hi' to an elderly man until he finally said 'Hi' back.

I think kids would continue to have this attitude until told either
directly or by our non-verbal that it's OK to say hi to this kind of 
but not to that kind. Do we teach them to be selective in our effort
to protect them from danger? 

Nancy

    Looks like we're dealing with different Differences.  There are
    character differences (passive/agressive, selfish/sharing, etc.),
    physical differences (race, handicapped, etc.), and (for lack of
    a better term) personal differences (hobbies, ethnic affiliation,
    etc.).  My remarks apply more to personal and character differences.
    Other remarks appear to apply to physical and personal differences.
    I think it's worthwhile to distinguish between the classifications.

    I think on a strictly instinctive basis, we're drawn to those who
    are similar.  We're more comfortable with what's familiar, or
    with something we can easily understand.
    
    On a more intellectual basis, I think it's important to value 
    differences in others (as long as the differences aren't psychotic or
    dangerous).  If everybody wanted to work on an assembly-line, there
    wouldn't be anybody growing food to feed the assembly-line workers.
    And, I happen to enjoy the insight I can gain by looking at things from
    someone else's point of view.  
    
    Our society seems to be encouraging folks to conform, though.  I feel 
    that it would be better for individuals to be encouraged
    to develop what they're good at.  In the end it would all balance
    out, but the individuals would be happier because they worked in
    areas where they excelled, rather than being forced to do something
    where they're only mediocre.            
    
    It's a fact of life that people differ.  I think we should make
    the most of that, and enjoy the differences, rather than try to
    fool ourselves into thinking everyone is alike, and expecting
    people to conform.
    
    Paula

	From Letters to the Boston Herald	19-December-1988

  Brad Templeton, owner of Looking Glass Software and moderator of the
Usenet newsgroup, has recently been accused of endorsing and promoting
open racism among the users of Usenet.  Johnathan Richmond, a graduate
student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been the
primary force behind these accusations ("Student raps racist computer 
joke," Dec 4).

  Templeton is the moderator of the above mentioned newsgroup; he is
not the author of the material it contains.  He serves as moderator
on a voluntary basis.  Templeton receives many joke submissions every
day and decides which ones should be posted in the newsgroup for the
rest of the subscribers to see.  If he feels that a joke is particularly
offensive to one group of people, he will encrypt the joke and post a
warning indicating its possible offensiveness.  By doing this he lets
people know in advance that they may be taking a risk by decrpting the
joke.  He did not feel that the joke which prompted Richmond's furor 
was offensive.  Obviously Richmond disagreed.

  Richmond has seen fit to promote censorship on the computer network,
and by going to the media for support, he has raised an important 
question and made a statement.  Should electronic mail and electronic 
news be censored simply because there is a possibility of offending
someone in the target audience?  If electronic mail is to be censored
what about written mail?  What about television?  Should David Letterman 
be removed from network television because he offends someone?  Should
the Herald be censored or shut down because it chose to publish a story
that seems to support Richmond's viewpoint?  I find that offensive.
Where does this all lead?
					James Pullen
					Department of Computer Science
					Washington University
					St. Louis, Mo.

    This is a late reply, but yet another bit of evidence that some people
    get off on (much less value) differences.  Maybe it was the result of 4
    years in redneck farmer country (and, yeah, some of my best friends are
    redneck farmers), but I get a big kick out of people that are
    strikingly different in personality, philosophy, background, physical
    characteristics, whatever.  (Hmmm, guess that includes those redneck
    farmers. (: >,)
    
    In fact, the biggest problem I've had adjusting to New England after 4
    years in NYC is the lack of diversity.  Everyone seems to look the
    same, dress the same, talk the same...and I live in Cambridge, which
    seems relatively wild next to other areas up here.
    
    RE: .25 - I heard the joke.  Alas, I don't remember it - only that it
    was a mouldy one and not particularly offensive.  Along the lines of
    "There was a priest, a rabbi, and an Episcopal bishop playing golf..."
    
    Ray