How Our Backgrounds Influence Decision Making (Corruption and Hate Thought Experiment)

Our backgrounds can have an impact on the way in which we view the world and how we see, act, and react to others (stimuli). The very way we think of issues is rooted deeply into our upbringing, symbolic anchors, social networks and patterns. Most of the time very good things come from such perceptions of the world but there are times when social networks and misperceptions can have a major impact on the environment. Because it is a deeply embedded way of thinking, only awareness and checks-in-balances can help minimize impact of poor thinking and decision making. On the flip side we can use moral failures to raise the stature of higher order thinking to strengthen the health of the whole. In our long running philosophical hypothetical thought experiment example for learning purposes and pontification we use open hate and corruption to highlight the concepts and will eventually move onto a positive result and the natural adapatations that occured (No specific race, locality, religious, locality, or politic in principles.)

You may want to read this article to understand how background impacts decision making.  

How Our Background Influences Our Decisions

In our running example, the way in which one understands and interprets information is based in filters. An improper filter can bias decision making to a point where defaults in justice performance and clear protection of misbehaviors can occur. Such behaviors may have existed in the past and may continue with little respect for the needs of the community. Good people and officials stood for what was right to create a pause, but victims were still stuck with the bill and those who exploited others rewarded in a flip of moral and legal essential root values. 

In our philosophical example, there were known clan-based behaviors through the misuse of official positions, open actions of bullying/aggression, and the rewarding and protecting of behaviors that would be illegal when comparing the social contracts and history of such ideals.  Retaliation of whistleblowers common and people openly talked of corruption and preferences. The subjectivity of law became increasingly apparent. Official complaints and reports ignored, and new victims created from the power of dehumanization mixed with lack of normal protections.

Eventually the community overcame some of the misbehaviors through mass reporting in a way corrupted officials could no longer deny (Some confused, some lied to, and some doing the wrong thing.). What was obvious to most people was ignored by decision makers intentionally. Investigations into corruption blocked and false investigations opened to further political, ideological, racial and religious misperceptions. Other cases in other areas were dropped due to open allegations of bias and misuse of positional authority for ideological and social purposes (It happens when one doesn't reflect on the bigger purpose of positions.) 

(The whole point of the example is to show grotesque behaviors normalized through poor thought patterns and false anchors. The example is meant to be a little over the top and that is one of the points that will become apparent for deeper understanding. )

On an individual level we can understand how our culture and symbolic understandings can impact what we see and understand in our environment through selective perceptions and ignoring of glaring facts (Monkey Business Illusion or as I think of it glass half full through mirrors that showcase those hidden symbolism. These might be analyzable the same as using public information could be used to uncover patterns of corruption. We might be able to analyze these actions, reactions, and choices from two different lines to understand collaboration as well as intent to harm by some. Likewise, to also show who steadfastly upheld their values, oaths, and integrity of their positions for promotion purposes.). 

We may also consider intentionally understanding other misperceptions and lines of logic to find that in which they are similar and different. Further, we can continue to challenge corruption until a higher moral order emerges. This is where checks and balances would be helpful. Finally, we can be more thoughtful in how we administrate our social contracts and how certain behaviors undermine our institutions. It is important to act with the highest amount of integrity to ensure such systems run into the future at their highest state because people rely on them. Our futures may rely on them. 

What do we learn?

1. Our backgrounds, self-perceptions, and social networks impact how we see the world and how we act toward others. Once one learns the skills needed to universalize values within a specific historical and legal perspective they will see something very different. Winning and getting people in trouble in the short run is a narrow tactical perspective (technicalities of law and corruption) while upholding the shared principles of society through our laws is a leadership founding principle perspective (a philosophers and true north perspective of the purpose of law).

2. It is important to think about how to support institutions through supporting their essential purpose and avoid misusing them for lower order values. That may include making sure only people who are qualified professionally (skill based) and morally are in positions of high authority. 

*This is a hypothetical thought experiment for philosophical exploration purposes so take with a grain of salt and feel free to bring forward comments and different perspectives.