#351. Honest Feedback

#351.

I was going to write this from the perspective of employment, but I think it's a good rule of thumb for anyone.  Always, always, always welcome feedback.  Honest feedback is the first sign of an open dialogue, and I believe that open dialogue is the first rule of civil society.

I want to stress this, because I believe that feedback is the last thing that most people in authority are interested in.  They believe in their authority, and believe that authority itself is enough of a reason that they do not need to consider the role of feedback, open dialogue, in the order of things.  They believe in the concept of Darwinism, which has been bastardized as the most simple interpretation of "survival of the fittest," in that those who have the tools to influence others are the most worthy of reaping the rewards of society.

In the wild, yes, animals capable of and willing to kill other animals definitely fit that concept, "survival of the fittest."  Yet the human animal is unique, otherwise you wouldn't have the chance to read this perspective.  We have the ability to think critically, and to react to our environment in ways that do not directly reflect our basic survival.  The fact is that the true 1% is the segment of the population that produces the basic ingredients of what we eat.  The 99% is the population that needs to find other ways to make a living, because we've determined that everyone must appear to be productive.

I say, "must appear to be," because clearly most of that 99% is not needed to do anything remotely productive to eating and sleeping, the only things a living being really needs to accomplish.  Everything else is dictated by the rules of society, and most of those rules have to do with the dispensing of resources, or to be more accurate, the control of dispensation.  Those who are able to put themselves in a position of control believe that they are in the best position and should therefore be compensated accordingly.

That may be, but the fact is that they could not control if there were no one to control, and the idea of control is that there are many other people actually doing the thing than those who are standing over them expecting them to do it.

Now, is it really a smart thing to give total control to those in such a position?  My theory is that those under control should have the right to dictate the means of control.  I suppose this is where unions come from.  But what I mean is that no condition that favors those in the position of control over those who are controlled should be tolerated.  This is the basic idea of feedback.  This is, like I said, the first rule of civilized society.

If we are to consider ourselves enlightened, should we not demand equality?  Someone in the position to direct the flow of things should not, in fact, be in control.  That's not what they should be doing.  This is not to advocate chaos, but to ensure that there is a balance.

I do not blame those who benefit from inequality.  That is the structure we have all supported for millennia, whether actively or passively, even today, partly because traditionally those who are in control have had the power to dictate terms, and we still live in times where old systems live on, even if it's very difficult to admit.

It's not about a significant contribution to society.  It's about admitting that a spade is a spade.  We're all human.  When an accident happens, you don't get to survive just because you have a lot of money.  This is not, "You can't take it with you."  It's about, from an objective view, can you be respected for your decisions?

Maybe it's because it's not encouraged to consider things objectively.  Or to consider things critically.  I believe independent thought should be encouraged, celebrated.

Not told you're worthless and should just do as you're told.  If you need to resort to any definition of a threat, maybe you should consider whether you're benefiting everyone, or just your own selfish interests.

These are some of the thoughts available in honest feedback.