Judgement, Evaluation, Feedback, etc. LO10153

William J. Hobler, Jr (bhobler@worldnet.att.net)
Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:05:02 -0400

Replying to LO10137 --

In continuing the conversation about judgement in society Donald Kerr
posted some insight into judgements that I would like to view from a
different perspective.

>I also believe Bill and I are using different interpretations of the word
>judgment. When I use the word judgement, I am referring to the practice
>of classifying people and putting them into slots.

I agree that I have a different interpretation of the word judgement. To
me judgement is the act of selecting among alternative conclusions. The
selection is based on our reasoning and beliefs. I find the easiest way
to conceive of this is the ladder of inference.

My remaining remarks should be taken in this context, judgement is the
result of judging among alternatives.

Donald continues
>Judgement=separation=alienation=sin. For example, Let me use John 8 (my
>interpretation), the story of how Jesus dealt with this issue. The
>Pharisees (religious rulers) had stones in hand and wanted to stone a
>woman caught in adultery, because that was the accepted rule of the time.

Note that the Pharisees made a judgement based on their beliefs of right
and wrong. Even today adultery is a serious infraction of society's

>They judged her. Jesus did not. He did not separate the so-called "good"
>from the so-called "evil." He said "Let he who is without sin cast the
>first stone" and the Pharisees walked away realizing they were no
>different from the adultress.

Let me put forth the thesis that Jesus judged the Pharisees wrong and
separated them from the good and god like by this action. In fact in
other verses they are called vipers.

IMO the difference here is that the Pharisees believed in one set of rules
and Jesus another. The rules called for a different selection of good and

>I arrive at the conclusion that our current system or civilization's
>existence depends on alienation, because it depends on systems that
>separate. We need a new civiliation that depends on unity for its

While I agree that we have many systems that separate people into groups
or communities I find that there are also systems that unite. This is one
of them. The ubiquity of modern communications is drawing whole societies
together (and in some cases nations are resisting). I am not sure if this
is good or bad, but it is happening.

Donald again
>Scott Cypher's inputs have helped me with this:
>>Judgement (Is it right/wrong, I have concluded my way is
>>right, yours is wrong) Evaluation (What is the utility of A, vs.
>>What is the utility of B. what I find useful you may not)
>>Unity (everything is the same, what others see as parts, I see as a
>>whole/system/one piece that can't be separated).
>>98% of us live in judgement, 1.9% live somewhere between unity and
>>and the .1% live in unity.

I see Scott's remarks differently. We all make judgements based on our
beliefs. We do this through evaluation and cannot avoid it. It is our
response to our judgement that incites separation or unity. Our behavior,
IMO, stems from our values. If we value unity we will seek it. I may
judge a person to be wrong. Placing that person in a category that
separates them from my society is a valid response. (Get thee behind me
Peter!) Working to build unity between us is as valid.

>The religious differences Bill referred to puts the fragmented religious
>in the 98% or 1.9% slot., because their system is based on
>judgement=separation=alienation. How do you shift this paradigm is the

One shifts models, values and beliefs in them. This is the leader's job.
It is a goal of the LO movement to establish values, and actions that
reflect them, to form communities of action.

>Bill asked:
>>Where is the alienation in placing some children in 'gifted and talented'

>I used the Gifted and Talented Programs in our school system as an example
>of one of those structures. Students are put into slots. This labels and
>alienates the ones who don't pass the test and doesn't help make friends
>for those who got in either. Separation is the result. The ones who are
>gifted enough to do well on the test, get extra privledges in the form of
>getting out of regular class and going on field trips, etc.

As the father of children who participated in gifted and talented programs
I have a different perspective. Our children worked much harder, this was
their privilege. They were much more challenged and became much more
rounded people because of the experience. (I'm not prejudiced at all ~:-^)
) I don't see these programs or the special programs for autistic children
as separating. They are programs that recognize the diversity of needs
and attempt to fill those needs.

>If artifical scarcity, separation, judgement, win/lose, and alienation are
>the assumptions our current organizations depends on, how can we promote
>cooperation (belonginess=win/win) in a these smaller systems to improve
>competitiveness (alienation=win/lose) in the larger economic system and
>civilization? What economic system is required to promote
>belongingness,unity, and systems thinking, and the capacity for ALL
>individuals to create their future,achieve their purpose, and use their
>given gifts and talents to the fullest?

I don't understand the basis of the assumptions. What organization or who
assumes that alienation is a driving variable in our decision making? Who
or what organization is not forced to choose among alternatives based on
their best judgement? In forming alliances who is not trying to develop
win/win situations? In fact commerce is built on the premise that both
parties receive benefit from the transaction. Whether the commerce is one
of buying and selling goods or employing and being employed each party
must evaluate the transaction and decide that it is worth receiving and
paying is mutually beneficial.


bhobler@worldnet.att.net Bill Hobler

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>