Temperamental Discrimination

Post Reply New Topic

I've posted this topic here because it relates to society and psychology, and this was the closest fit.

Discrimination, I believe, occurs today on a massive and sanctioned form: discrimination by temperament. People have natural limitations in their ability to understand and evaluate others, and too often the assumption is that, if what works for oneself doesn't work for another, the other must be lazy or some such. People naturally vary in their tendency to experience positive and negative emotion, emotional intensity, energy, need for stimulation, regularity, and so forth; this is what's known as temperament. Temperament is the more or less biologically determined aspect of personality and is usually contrasted with character, or what has evolved from experience and values.

For example, some people are innately less rhythmic in their sleeping and eating patterns, yet society is structured around a very close, regular schedule; forcing oneself to live according to such a schedule may add more stress and other ailments. A more introverted fellow may be prodded by a manager to network more with coworkers when in fact his interest in making frequent smalltalk is very low; this mismatch of expectations and proclivities creates conflict and, again, stress. In another case, a person may need plenty of space, relaxation, and different experiences to foment creativity and feel personally fulfilled; another person may actually prefer the boredom of an office and its insipid politics.

Another is for people who are naturally more prone to experience negative emotions. They may be described as depressed, anxious, irritable, sullen, crabby, or similar. Many employers actually factor an employee's attitude and friendliness into performance ratings. A person of a more sullen temperament obviously should not be going around saying, "Bah! Humbug!" but it is unrealistic to expect them to be the cheerful, peppy types.

People with Asperger's syndrome and autism have an unusual set of tendencies that can be described as aspects of temperament. Obviously ours tend to be discriminated against in particular.

If you display characteristics that are disuseful to employers, expect to be discriminated against by them. The key is to find what talents you have that are useful, and make sure that it is worth their while to employ you. No one will ever give you a free ride, and to survive in this world we need to adapt and find ways to make ourselves useful to the purposes of society.

Discrimination means to make a distinction. Discrimination is not inherently bad.

There are many times when making a distinction is important - is the surgeon experienced doing this type of operation, is he drunk or so exhausted he can't function, does he have the proper facilities, does he communicate clearly with patients, etc. I certainly would discriminate in those cases..

On the other hand, most talk of discrimination is about racial discrimination or gender discrimination - we accept to various degrees the idea that a person should not decide in advance that he will not hire members of another race, or that gender should keep women in some (usually lower paying jobs) even when they are perfectly qualified to do other jobs that some consider 'a man's job.'

My thoughts were a little muddled as I wrote this late at night, but basically I was suggesting that, since temperament is in-born like race, sex, etc., it shouldn't be discriminated against as well.

I disagree. If aspects of your temperament prevent you from doing your job well, then that should be discriminated against. After all, discrimination is only wrong when it is against qualified candidates who are being denied deserved positions.

Your argument about it being in-born is meaningless to me. I am a hard determinist and incompatibilist- I deny free will and claim that everything that happens is because of factors beyond our control, whether they be pre-determined by initial conditions or resulting from random quantum effects. We can't, according to my understanding of the world, control anything about ourselves, so then it is irrelevant to say "he/she can't help it because X" or "they don't choose to be Y." If you can not do a job properly, then you can not do a job properly. Make it worthwhile for employers to hire you, or expect to be unemployed.

And how is temperament different than natural talent? And how can a working system refuse to discriminate on natural talent?

Personally I feel I can't help but use discrimination. If someone is a certain way, my blood starts to boil naturally. There is more to it than that, I can't help but judge or express my negative opinions about others, its been something that has been festering inside me since I was about 11 years old. However, I only bother to do so if there is nothing positive to think about, or if the opportunity pushes itself on me. Since these frustrations with others only continue to grow as I am exposed to them, it is impossible to escape, and at the same time I don't want to. Its been my identity and protection my entire life, and one of my many life long struggles. Forcing a change is like a warrior running from the battle field, never to fight another day. Or to put it simply, certain people just push me over the ledge, and I can't help but protest. Who couldn't.

Certain facets of temperament have nothing to do with ability to perform as an employee, yet despite that, certain of those are used by employers as indicators of ability. Just as 60 years ago most employers would take dark skin colour and thick lips as an indicator of low intelligence, so currently most employers take things such as lack of interest in interacting socially and blunted emotions as negative indicators.

On one hand I think people should be able to decide who they employ on whatever basis they want. However, on the other, when it comes to government, and larger organisations, there's certainly an argument to be made for being as inclusive as possible.