So how do we decide between good and bad people? Recently, basketball superstar Kobe Bryant passed away in 2020. While many people expressed sadness over the death, others reminded the world of the rape Bryant was accused of committing in 2003.
Such polarized responses are the result of our tendency to categorize people as good or bad. This dichotomy is not supported by Psychological Science, and understanding this can help us develop compassion for those who do bad things.
Definitions of Good and Bad
Good and bad have conflicting definitions. While both are morally wrong, they are qualitatively different. Bad people behave morally wrongly and cause difficulty or harm to others. Similarly, things can be bad or good because of their low standard or lack of skill. Both of these concepts are largely uninformed and subject to interpretation. For these reasons, it is imperative to avoid making broad generalizations. We must also move away from black and white thinking.
As we progress through time, our perception of good and bad changes. New information challenges our old ideas, such as " Evil is Evil." Despite the changing nature of our perceptions, we still require a basic concept of good and bad to make social guidelines and laws.
Characteristics
Personality is an important part of a person's identity, there is a wide range of good and bad traits. These traits are usually a reflection of a person's feelings, beliefs, and upbringing. Let's take a closer look at some of the characteristics that define good and bad people:
Good character focuses on empathy. Good people genuinely care about others and sacrifice their well-being for their fellow human beings. Bad people do not care about others. They are self-absorbed and lack empathy. They also have little or no sense of justice. They are often cruel and selfish. In many ways, their lack of empathy and a sense of justice makes them a threat to society. And, bad people tend to commit acts that are contrary to morality
While some traits are good and others are bad, they tend to be more disruptive than beneficial. Let's take a look at some of these negative traits. Here are a few:
The conceited
These people tend to think they know it all, while others view them as self-centered and inconsiderate. Their behavior often shows that they don't care about other people and don't want to connect with them. They are also often rude and unpleasant to deal with. They are unlikely to face adversity or stand up for what's right. And they are sloppy in appearance and surroundings. This is why they are perceived negatively by others.
Self reflection
We all have a character that we'd like to emulate. The best way to recognize your character is to observe it in others. People with the same traits often act similarly. If you notice that a person snaps at you, then they have a character trait. The opposite is true as well. You might be snappy, but that doesn't mean you are snappy.
Genetics
Although the left largely avoided talking about genetics, there is an inchoate movement in social science devoted to the study of human behavior. Kathryn Harden and his colleague Elliot Tucker-Drob were invited to join the Russell Sage Foundation in New York City, which is based in the Philip Johnson building. They were initially unwelcome, and many left-leaning social scientists worried that behavior-genetics research could lead to Eugenics.
Jensen's colleagues agreed that there is a genetic basis for general intelligence in humans, which can be measured with I.Q. tests. Jensen's theory argued that genetics played a role in this, but a critical review pointed out the convoluted social pathways that lead to complex traits. Jensen's racial analogy, for example, is invidious and unwarranted.
Nonetheless, a new study looked at psychopathic tendencies in teenagers from low-income families. Researchers found that certain variations in one gene were associated with the development of aggressive behavior in children and increased risk for mass murder, armed robbery, newspaper theft, and other crimes. Genetics is only one component of human behavior, but it is one source of behavioral variation. However, genetics cannot explain all human behavior.
Criticism
How can we respond to criticism? Whether it is a good or bad one, we should try to remember that we can always learn from our critics. If someone gives us criticism, we should take the time to record it and implement it. Criticism should be constructive and not focus on our shortcomings. It is an opportunity to grow and become a better person. We should try to keep an open mind, own our mistakes, apologize when needed, and avoid dwelling on the criticism.
It's important to remember that we are not all creators, and we can't make others change. Critics, by contrast, are motivated by repressed feelings. For example, self-helpers often suffer from the "If You Spot It, You Got It" disorder, where they blame a colleague X for something that has nothing to do with their performance or group morale. Often, their criticism will harm their performance or group morale.
Good criticism helps us improve. Instead of ignoring negative criticism, we can integrate it into our ideas. By listening to others' opinions, we can develop our ideas and understand ourselves better. It's a healthy practice to embrace constructive criticism. But you shouldn't ignore the bad criticism. It may sound painful, but it is the most productive way to improve our work and live a good life. And remember, we can't hide behind a rock. But it doesn't make any sense to be insensitive or shut down to others.
Hypocrisy
Inconsistency is a major source of hypocrisy. When an individual has an unpopular belief, they rationalize it by pretending that they believe in it even though they don't. Inconsistency is often as significant as the hypocrisy itself. Listed below are the most common examples of hypocrisy and its consequences:
Asymmetries in hypocrisy stories may be related to informational processes. Participants often gave elaborate stories of hypocrisy in others after providing an example of their own. This may be related to the participants' desire to paint the accused in a bad light. Providing examples of others' hypocrisy also helped normalize their hypocrisy. But, redefining this construct may require some critical thinking.
One example of hypocrisy in other people may be the alleged use of moral authority in a religious context. Religious leaders, for example, are infamous for being hypocritical. However, in our culture, the prevalence of religious hypocrisy is increasing. Despite this fact, the problem of hypocrisy is not limited to religious and philosophical beliefs. While the broader definition of hypocrisy suggests that it is pervasive, there are even many types of it.
Irrationality
Irrationality can be found in all humans, but the difference is the degree to which it's present. Some people are more irrational than others, but it is always a matter of perspective. Some people don't have all of the information or experience to fully understand what is going on in their heads. Others may not understand irrationality at all. People should be careful when approaching irrational people.
For example, philosophers Julius Bahnsen and Arthur Schopenhauer both stressed the fact that every thought process, desire, and action is irrational. However, Schopenhauer went a step further by asserting that the irrational will is the basic reason for human existence. Schopenhauer founded an entire metaphysics around the idea of will and argued that the irrationality of men, as well as the irrationality of society, explains all other phenomena.
Similarly, animals frequently follow instinctual behaviors. They expose themselves to death and injury to pursue their natural needs. They do so because they are guided by their genetic compulsion. Their actions are a natural response to their circumstances. However, this doesn't mean that they are irrational. A sense of rationality is required to judge whether a particular act is rational or not. Hence, animals may be rational, but humans are the only creatures who are irrational.
