I refer to having a positive social experience with a person or a group as a Prosocial Token. Every time we interact with a social group, if the end emotional state of the group is greater in a positive way, we have earned a token. If it is neutral, we have not progressed or devalued ourselves to them. If we engage with a social group and at the end of the interaction they perceive us in a negative emotional context, we have actually reduced our social token.
The type of social interaction does vary and not all interactions are equivalent. Some social contexts have more meaning than others, like receiving the mail from the mail person and smiling is vastly different than fighting with someone on the subway. Both are single interactions but one holds a significantly different value than the other.
Within the tier of meaning we are engaging in, like having a beer with a friend every Friday, we can focus on developing a positive relationship with that individual or group by achieving positive emotions at the end of the social interaction. Once we have exhausted or become habituated, see Training and Learning Tool, to a specific tier or type of interaction, we can move to a more meaningful or novel interaction to gain a new type Prosocial Token based on the interaction.
When we have a negative experience with a person or group it can be quite costly to our overall value to them. Certain offensive actions must be repaired directly, as seen in the Apology Tool. Some mistakes are irreversible and the social may be compromised. If this happens it is still important to accept responsibly and be accountable for one's actions. One reason is even though the group may not want to socialize further, they will at least recognize your ability to accept mistakes. Secondly, you are learning from your mistakes and are less likely to commit the devastating action in future social groups.
Some social forces may be out of your control and some social groups may be immature or have misplaced values. The goal of the Prosocial Token is not to be confused with violating the Ethical Intimacy code. Some situations it may be more ethical to leave a social interaction with a negative social token due to unethical or problematic values of the social group. The agent will have to make this decision on a situation by situation basis.
Problematic Social Situations:
1. Bullying
When a group makes a person an object of fun or causes harm to a person as a means to create social cohesion among other members. Higher ranking people in immature social groups will use bullying as a tactic to create camaraderie.
2. Ostracization
A means to exile a person who is perceived to put a high ranking person under threat in a social. Shunning an individual this way was used in ancient Greek times usually when the person was seen as a threat to the state or a tyrant.
3. The Bystander Effect
Occurs when the increase of people observing a person in threat or harm causes the decrease that one of those people will actually help the victim.
4. Scapegoating
When a person or group unjustly pins blame for a negative action on an individual who was not actually responsible for the action in question.
5. Conformity
Can be good and bad. In 1951, Asch conducted an experiment where a group was to determine the relative size of lines displayed at the front of a room. All members of the group but 1 were part of the experiment and they lied to see what the 1 person would say. 74% of people agreed with the other members even when they clearly knew that they were all wrong.
6. Whistle Blowers Dilemma
A person who exposes information that is illegal or unethical within a corporation or organization and faces consequences to their placement within the organization for the exposure.
7. Obedience to Authority
In 1961, Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments to test people's compliance with a perceived authority figure when it act directly conflicted with their personal conscience. The experiment had a participant give electric shocks to a person in another room and was instructed by a lab representative to continue even as the person being shocked would scream how painful the shocks were and they had a heart condition.
All individuals involved in the experiment were acting, including the person being shocked, accept for the person doing the shocking. The results of the experiment were 65% of participants would shock the other person all the way to the highest voltage of 450v when instructed by a perceived authority. The participant did not know the person being shocked was acting and even though they may protest to the lab representative, they continued shocking the person when told.
It may be difficult at first to detect these social psychological phenomena and it is up to the agent's discretion to determine if give up the Prosocial Token is warranted.
AJ 10.2.18, 13.3.18, 27.3.20
© Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com, 2018 - 2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Comments