Why We Clash: It’s Not Values, It’s What They’re Worth
When waging war, we mustn’t contend with values but rather the weights people assign to those values.
Beyond Values: The Hidden Role of Weight
When engaging with others on what we consider to be important issues of our time, it is important to distinguish between whether frictions and points of contention in our interactions stem from differences in values or differences in the weights we attach to those values. Frustration is misplaced when this distinction is improperly judged.
values val·ue ˈval-(ˌ)yü
1. :the beliefs people have, especially about what is right and wrong and what is most important in life, that control their behavior:
People lead interesting lives, and it is a sign of their trust and comfort levels when we are afforded the privilege of tapping into their core essence. Trust and comfort levels vary considerably across people and time. People can be reticent about their principles and practices, partly due to an underdeveloped understanding of their value system, or a general preference for privacy. Thus, we might only capture a glimpse of someone’s essence rather than their core essence, resulting in more surface-level forms of engagement. The outward shallow appearance people display when reserving their core essence to those they trust and are comfortable with can skew perceptions. What we observe may become temporal, and the judgements we form fleeting and hollow. One’s core essence being inaccessible leaves others to wonder, guess, and conspire.
The Surface vs. the Depths: What We See in Others
It is not often that we observe people’s values directly. What we are more likely to observe are the weights they assign to their values. We see that people care. They possess empathy. They express concern. They avail themselves of moral support when called upon. These are reflective of people’s values. However, the degree to which they care, the depths of their empathy, the extent of their concern, and the price they are willing to pay to support another’s general welfare are harder to evaluate. Thus, what we generally observe are people’s values rather than the weights assigned to those values.
Points of contention, should they exist are often due to differences in values. What is of greater importance, however, is understanding how the weights people attach to their inherent values are allocated, contending with those weights if necessary. Access to these weight assignments should be humbling and induce a level of tolerance and understanding, recognizing that the individual revealing such precious information did not have to invite you into their home for you to get a front-row seat into how they orient themselves in the world.
The Great Misstep: How Misjudging Weights Fuels Conflict
Tugs-of-war exist in our current political climate over values rather than the weights assigned to values. When people are accused of being soulless creatures, inhumane, or any of the other popular characterizations ending in “-ist”, what is often left out of the accusation, is the breakdown of the accused person’s values. What are their priorities? What about yesterday’s priorities? It is imprudent to believe that one’s priorities and as a result, the weights assigned to their values should be the same tomorrow. Digging a little deeper might reveal that among the accused, they have a lower weight assigned to the values in question; your priorities are not theirs. It is also true that their values might be non-existent. Soulless and inhumane creatures (at least in a metaphorical sense) do exist. However, when values are non-existent, the journey one takes to resolve such differences will require a heftier investment. One’s patience must be even greater as compared to the patience required for resolving differences in priorities (or assigned weights).
The Paradox of Values and Weights
Values are readily available and open to the public. Weights are private and much harder to access. Values are more inherent and less malleable, while weights are less inherent and more malleable. What is often in question are people’s values, when rather the question should be about the weight they assign to those values. Questions such as “How much do you care about…” and “How important is it for you this moment that…” might offer a fresh perspective, and an opportunity to respectfully engage and recruit individuals into your allegedly ideologically superior campgrounds. “You do not care” is not likely to have this same effect. The more their values are in question, the less likely their weights will be revealed. This paradoxical misfortune is harder to confront and contend with, than is the battle of differences in values and weights combined.