On Being Judgmental

Judge verb)- to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.

- to form an estimate or evaluation of; esp. to form a negative opinion about (Shouldn’t judge him because of his accent.)

Judgmental (adjective)- of, relating to, or involving judgment

- characterized by a tendency to judge harshly (You’re a judgmental fellow.)

Judgment (noun) -forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing.


So, our ancient man (or woman)- the one before major societal covenants, the theoretical one, and the one who will serve as my metaphor- is walking through a fierce tract of jungle. Feet crudely wrapped in old animal skin, he is the original Apocalipto, and he is in the state of nature. In the Hobbesian sense, then, he must endure a nasty, brutish, unforgiving, one-mistake-away-from-dirt-nap, war of man against every man, slavery pending, kind of existence.

Imagine now that there are two of these men, Jack and Sam, both following separate paths at different times to the same destination, a river. As Jack and Sam shuffle along they hear the sound of their own weight crushing the foliage beneath their feet. But they hear other sounds too. Birds call out to one another. A small monkey acrobatically swings from one branch to another. And then there is what seems to be the sound of a clunk of something heavy falling into a bush. The wind makes whistling sounds through the gap of two trees that grew close together long ago. The sound of it echoes the notes of a familiar song.

Now Jack, despite the ruggedness of his daily routine, is a careless and quite happy chap. He hears the clunk, recognizes the whistle, but, nevertheless, he assumes there’s nothing to be concerned about. Sam hears the same phenomena; however, being justifiably over cautious, he assumes the worst. The clunk, Sam declares with his inner voice, was a clumsy jaguar giving up his position in a tree above him. The whistle, familiar as it was, must have been the signal that the competing tribe uses to communicate between each other just before they sack a slave. Jack, assuming nothing like what Sam assumes, carries on. In fear of the impending possibilities, Sam turns back.

So what were those sounds, really? Just wind whistling or other men passing messages? Was it a random clunk, or the misstep of a paw above? It doesn’t really matter. What does matter are the incredibly different possibilities for Jack and Sam.
Jack’s trust and judgment that the sounds were insignificant carry with them the possibilities of disastrous consequences, being dinner or enslavement by the stronger. Jack could be a dead Jack. Sam, on the other hand, took the precaution of thinking for the worst and thus has minimized his risks.

The moral of the story for Jack and Sam is: Adage #1- It is better to assume something is there and it not be, than it is to assume nothing is there and it actually is.

To generalize this idea might be to say: Adage #2- It is better to assume the worst of things and get something better, than it is assume the better of things and get the worst.

Is this notion possibly the origin of being Judgmental?

No doubt, there are varying connotations of what it means to be judgmental. Of the most popular connotation is the idea that one who is judgmental, as Webster defines above, is one who thinks harshly of others either about something they did or of something related with their character. But the other definition- to Judge- is, according to Webster, a careful weighing of evidence and appropriately forming an opinion.

But these are not so distinct. For grammatical clarity, once someone Judges (verb) they have then made a Judgment (noun) and are then a Judgmental (adjective) person. All of these are really only ways to describing the same thing in relation to when they are occurring.

I have come up with three primary reasons why the notion that being judgmental is a bad.

1. The judgments of judgmental people often involve stereotyping.

2. The worst judgmental people tend to cling on to their judgments despite any changing evidence that would justify an ammended judgment.

3. Religion. Here specifically, Christian’s are taught not to pass judgment. This might be a consistent philosophy if one does indeed maintain that there is an ultimate judger who not only claims the sovereign right to judgment, but that this entity will settle all judgments in a near future.

I will debunk two of these three.

#1: it is justified to stereotype as it applies to our Adage #2. If in your experience, or from a legitimate advisor, you know that the poor district of the city is filled with criminals that intend to harm you, then it may be in your best interest to stereotype all streetwalkers as criminals.

If dangerous people tend to be less appropriately garbed, then upon meeting someone inappropriately garbed it may, likewise, be in your best interest to stereotype him as dangerous. If sex offenders tend to wear long trench coats, have unkempt hair, or drive a van, it might be in the best interest of your safety to stereotype him as pervert. Etc. Etc. Etc. Remember, this kind of harsh judgment may keep you alive, if not at least keep you from associating with people who do not share your interest.

Skip #2 for now and go on to #3...

#3 is absurd. It is not only potentially dangerous to not pass judgment (as I hope the previous paragraph has shown) but it may also be impossible for one to not do so. If judgmental, cautious, stereotyping, think-for-the-worst kind of people, like Sam, were the ones who lived longer, thus having more time to procreate, then it stands to reason that all of the these characteristics would be genetically inherited, and rightly so. And why does one constantly have to remind themselves not to be judgmental if it were not the case that being judgmental was a natural thing?

Beyond the simplification of Jack and Sam’s situation, when people begin to amass in great societies and strike great covenants, figuring out what each other’s intentions are becomes very complex. Unlike Jack and Sam, who must merely read the signs of mother nature, we must read each other’s minds, facial expressions, and body language. In a way, we are Jack and Sam in the great concrete jungle.

And that is a great burden with many pitfalls. Precisely this mental component alone requires the generalizing of dangers. In other words, stereotyping. We are not granted access into each other’s minds and must therefore take what we can get from what we can observe. These observations tend to rely on the analogy that the outer appearances of a person will often correlate to the inner world of that person.

Finally, I have no argument against #2. This is a case of the improper fostering of a judgment. It may be in your best interest to stereotype and pass a judgment on an individual, but it is never really in your best interest to hold on to that judgment in the light of new evidence. (It should be noted, however, that “evidence” is always conditional and can never be completely closed.

Evidence that a person is caring and kind may be drawn from the continued observing of that person being caring and kind. But this can never always be. One who has observed a person being caring and kind for 50 years has stronger evidence to their judgment than one who has only observed this for 3 weeks, or even 3 years. On the matter of whether they will remain that way will be guided by the strength of the continued evidence and a measure of faith that something doesn’t snap.)

It is possible that reason #2 may be what gives bad recognition to the label of being judgmental. But this is not a negativity for the actual use of judgment but a negativity on the individual who is not properly maintaining his evidential input.

I have often been, on account of my looks and body build, judged to be a dumb jock or even a dangerous individual with a tendency to fight. I say, on account of what’s been offered in this meditation, that they are right to pass this judgment on me if such qualities they wish to avoid. What they are not right in doing is not adjusting that judgment after new evidence surfaces of my not being a dumb jock or fight prone.

I conclude this with a final thought. Often times stereotyping and being properly judgmental can also get you killed, harmed, or brokenhearted. What if we flipped the scenario? (I owe my father for bringing this to my attention).

A proper judgment may lead us to consider a certain individual as safe to walk along side or best to fall in love with if that judgment is based on evidence that appears to point in that direction. The well dressed studious college girl might appear to be better walking company than the inappropriately garbed crazy eyed individual; the poetically well versed and romantic individual might be a better love interest than the beer bellied mechanic, but the girl may turn out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing and the crazy eyed one a Franciscan monk; the romantic one becomes the abuser and the mechanic the most compassionate lover you’ve ever known.

But even though it seems that all of these considerations may contradict the idea that being judgmental is good, they actually support that notion. These characters that dress themselves in sheep clothing or become scholars of English poetry to swoon, they have taken advantage of a good thing - people’s judgments on one another. They are the exception to the normal way of things; they hide their inner nature and their minds from you in order that this great advantage of judgment that you possess runs amok.

Still, they are no exception to our Adage, and since they inhabit such a small corner of world we must maintain judgment to the most plausible scenarios that make up the general reality of things, while keeping one eye turned in on ourselves.