Are 'people like you' the problem?

It can be easy to push the blame of social change onto the 'others' creating the problem, but perhaps the first stage in shifting the cultural narrative in a more positive direction, is to take a looong hard look in the mirror and ask yourself ...

"Are people like me actually the problem?"

Values within a society evolve slowly. There are opposing forces, ensuring that even when rules intervene to evolve social norms, true change is slow. Even when we are constantly told the difference between right and wrong we more so deflect or ignore responsibility.

(shorter version also published on squareholes.com - here >)

A few years ago when I placed my order at a food court counter, the nearby customer loudly stated ...

“People like?you?are the problem!”

I’d inadvertently pushed in, and clearly the other customer was over 'people like me.' As I returned to my table bewildered, the silver lining was self-awareness of being part of the problem, taking a long hard look in the non-literal mirror.

People generally do not set out to be the problem. History is full of bad people, with a warped sense of doing good. It is easy to deflect responsibility to those ‘other people,’ rather than taking responsibility. Entrenched norms and cognitive bias help us to deflect the blame.

The values of our time come from social proof, the psychological tendency for people to seek conformity to ensure they behave in a socially acceptable manner. It makes people feel confident, a sense of belonging and sharing commonality.

Over time attitudes start to slowly change, often from an intervention, or a change in rules and standards. Humans are innately lazy, and slow to change. We don’t like admitting we are wrong. Normative values set how one should act, which may or may not align completely with what all people actually believe and how they behave. Rules, especially more formal laws, evolve with society to protect the rights and safety of the population – ethics, privacy, safety and otherwise. Sadly, humans have been proven historically that they are unable to be trusted to self-regulate based on ethical values.

Since back in Ancient Egyptian times, as far back as 3000BC, the rules of law have guided our social equality and impartiality. King Hammurabi further developed Babylonian law around 1760 BC by codifying and inscribing it in stone and placing copies of Hammurabi’s law code throughout the kingdom of Babylon, providing a primitive constitution for the people and government. Rules are there to protect us and the values of the time.

Yet, even with clarity around right versus wrong, bias remains. For example, implicit bias is when the attitudes towards different people are based on associated stereotypes without our conscious knowledge. Implicit bias skews perceptions, even when evolving social norms and values should be evolving them.

An interesting related initiative is Project Implicit …

“The product of a team of scientists whose research produced new ways of understanding attitudes, stereotypes, and other hidden biases that influence perception, judgment, and action. Our researchers and collaborators translate that academic research into practical applications for addressing diversity, improving decision-making, and increasing the likelihood that practices are aligned with personal and organizational values”?More >

The US site provides 15 implicit bias tests (guns, disability, gender and race, et cetera).

A further cognitive bias preventing new norms is confirmation bias, which infers that humans prefer to seek evidence to prove entrenched values, rather to seek to disprove.

“Confirmation bias?is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior?beliefs?or values”

Groups of friends, and family with similar views, have those views normalised with social proof shared from one to others, reconfirming each other’s confirmation bias, often with limited and/or inaccurate evidence. A group of racist or sexist friends fuel their own bias.

Social pressures can be so strong that people are swept up in the current, and think and act in a way they may even know is irrational, but view as the most acceptable and least risky or embarrassing way within their social groups. People are drawn towards information that affirms their?confirmation bias, and ignore opposing evidence.

Our values evolve over time, and cultural friction such as the #metoo movement, gaining new life in October 2017 impact the narrative. In 2018 France extended the statute of limitations for sexual crimes, and created new laws around cyberstalking. Other jurisdictions have since made similar changes. The #metoo movement brought issues of sexual assault into the mainstream. (More >)

Closer to home in Australia, over the past 18 months, Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins have created a ruckus that has gained significant media and political attention. Creating much support, opposition and debate, and with this initiating policy change.

Yet, even with such media and other focus, true change in attitudes and behaviours is slow.

As an examples research illustrates traditional gender roles in the home still remain, even if there are signs of progress. Research also illustrates that younger men are not hugely different to older generations. The primary burden of domestic work remains on women, and the housework undertaken by men across age groups is generally consistent.

From Australia ...

From a US study ...

Why does this all matter?

There are likely counter perspectives that society operates by and large well, and social engineering overly fabricates the reality. Further to this, there is the attitude that life's tough for many, irrespective of gender and culture and there are other factors at play.

Fundamentally the rationale behind interventions and policy change including diversity quotas and legislation is that innate biases slow or prevent progress in the right direction. Humans have been proven historically that they are unable to be trusted to self-regulate. Confirmation, implicit and other cognitive biases prevent us from making quick progress

Importantly, behaviours are guided by attitudes.

How gender and other inequality manifests in workplaces is one example, and attitude, policy and other changes are likely to create a safer work environment moving forward.

Another example is the role that gender inequality has in intimate partner violence (IPV). A comprehensive review of the drivers of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in 2020 identified the key structural factors as gender inequality and the normalising and acceptability of violence in relationships. While there are broader factors at play, social norms and biases play a critical role. (More >)

A few years ago I directed a research study guiding and testing a relationship violence campaign targeting young males aged 18 to 30.

As part of the research I moderated a large number of deep dive focus group and other discussions with young men from different sectors of the Australian community. It was somewhat alarming as to the consistency of "having friends" who regularly crossed the line, and while they tried to intervene, often this was complex or non-effective. Normalised values were at times warped, particularly amongst some segments. While there was consistent recognition of the problem, I had many confronting discussions. Some of the young men did not know what to do to intervene, when things seemed wrong, crossing the line. Fundamentally, it was rare that they noted themselves as being part of the problem.

Admitting we may be part of the problem is the first step in truly overcoming it.

Ooroo!

(Top picture of Robert De Niro in an iconic scene from the 1976 Martin Scorsese,?film Taxi Driver, a character with a warped view of right and wrong. The movie also starred 12 year old Jodie Foster, plus Cybill Shepherd,?Harvey Keitel etc)