Every person has an emotional side that is prone to making judgmental decisions. In most situations, judgment is inevitable, and it does not matter whether it is true or false. Judgment is simply a matter of an individual’s perception following inferences from observed phenomena. Therefore, it is uncalled for, to fault an individual’s judgments without understanding the basis from which they are made. The reason for the above assertion stems from an understanding that different people can reach different conclusions about a similar object, situation, or person, regardless of the facts presented before them. Such judgments are usually outcomes of individual’s perceptions following internalization of the presented evidence in their own socio-cultural contexts. In this regard, judgments become critical in contextualizing the manner people frame issues because they may provide insights into the social and cultural factors driving their thought and decision-making processes. Such factors vary between individuals, workplaces, cities, communities, countries, and the world over.
In language use, the concept of judgments becomes significant because of the socio-cultural differences in perception of the implied meaning of phenomena among individuals. Judgment refers to the process through which a person expresses their thought and emotions in reference to a given phenomenon that is familiar to them. Such phenomena can be people, objects, or circumstances, and judgment may require a person to endorse or refuse them. Throughout history, people have made judgments based on their understanding of the issue at hand. Therefore, it is a common fact that the judgments differ between communities, culture, language, and social settings. Even in the use of languages such as English with international appeal, judgment would be based on what is ingrained in a person because of exposure to specific social and cultural contexts. People acquire different worldviews of things from such exposures, which makes them inclined to judge in a particular way. Things that attract approval from a given culture or language may not generate similar perceptions from another.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The implication is that despite the universal definition of critical thinking, people have developed different approaches of experiencing the process from their socio-cultural exposures. Perhaps this is the reason some people are labeled critical thinkers and others not. The categorization based on one’s ability to express critical thought is merely a reflection of their potential to make plausible judgment based on the presented facts. For this reason, judgments can be confounding in that they represent an overall scenario reached after consideration of the facts in the case. Language plays a crucial role in the expression of judgments, and adds to the confusion because of the differences in the implied meanings by the speakers. Such is the case with use of “Slang” version of the English language without highlighting the facts or report that led to the conclusion. Consequently, people are advised against using such words that report and judge at the same time (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). Slang can have different connotations because of the strong social and cultural associations to specific contexts. According to Hayakawa and Hayakawa (1990), the objective is to ensure as much clarity as possible in the statements to avoid room for assumptions about the phenomena in question. For instance, it is advisable to use words with clear definition rather than general ones: entered quietly for sneaked in; “candidates for politicians; public official in place of bureaucrat; homeless person instead of bum; and people with unconventional views rather than crackpots” (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990).
Specific Example of the Concept in Actual Language-use
Understanding the dynamics at play during formation of judgment is necessary to avoid what Hayakawa and Hayakawa (1990) termed as an obstacle to a clear thought process. The obstacle stems from the confusion of the meaning of reports and judgments. In actual language use, judgment refers to the expression of feelings about a specific situation, person, or object. However, such expressions do not provide any background of the entity being inferred to, meaning they remain open to interpretation. Given the prevalence of difference perceptions about phenomena in different societal settings, judgments, when communicated ineffectively, can lead to misinterpretation and distortion of meaning. For example, in an exchange between an American and a Russian, and the same American and an Indian, the dynamics of judgments are likely to be different; hence leading to different perceptions of thee implied meaning. Based on the assumptions that the Russians tend to state the facts as they are in their judgments compared to Indians, the American interacting with the two can draw a conclusion that culture plays an immense role. The observation may lead into the conclusion such as, “Russians are direct and brutal” in their judgments. It is evident that such a statement has no clarity about why the observer reached such a conclusion. Hayakawa and Hayakawa (1990) referred to the tactic as judging rather than reporting.
In language use, judgmental statements assume the use of adjectives and adverbs, which in most circumstances, are taken as statements of facts. However, in all cases, the statements include an inference, such as a description of the actions of the person in question, and the speaker’s disapproval of the action of the person they infer. Nevertheless, the inference is usually summarized in a way that does not reveal the facts of the case, hence rendering the whole statement as judgment. The role of social and cultural factors under the circumstances cannot be understated.
Justification of the Significance of the Concept
The apparent school of thought advanced by Hayakawa and Hayakawa (1990) in the description of the concept of judgments is that of its role as an impediment to effective communication. Judgments in language use represent a form foreclosure, implying the speaker does not give audience to a dissenting view. In a modern world defined by cross-cultural differences, application of the concept can be detrimental to interactions because people have no knowledge of each other’s backgrounds to try to contextualize the implied meaning of their judgments. People simply take such statements at face value based on their own socio-cultural perceptions. Failure of judgments as communication concept to initiate productive dialogue justifies the assertion that they form “a conclusion, hence stop the process of thought” (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). Therefore, judgments can critically limit successful communication among speakers of different languages, diminishing their prospects to be productive as a team.
Judgments as a concept is significant compared to others in the chapter because it draws from all of them. Reports, inferences, snarl and purr words, and slanting, can all lead to judgments. In other words, judgments form the overall thought process of an individual on the given entity, which makes it the most important because it shapes the subsequent relationship between the speaker and the person being inferred. The review of the concept of judgment herein shows that it is detrimental to effective use of language by any means. Individuals with preference for using judgments when addressing important societal themes and discourses have always found themselves being forced to provide explanations of their judgmental conclusions (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). The implications for using judgments are that an individual is incapacitated from producing lengthy, meaningful content, and the induction of temporary blindness that prevents the process of thought. Consequently, people who use judgments face communication difficulties because they are fast to develop impressions about others that may deter the communication process. I have been labeled as judgmental on a few occasions by my work colleagues, which is a very negative reputation to have. Globalization is shaping the interactions among people in the modern world, and avoiding the concept of judgments can ensure such interactions are productive. The importance of giving room to dialogue among people of different cultures and social background cannot be understated. Judgments eliminate this possibility.
References
Hayakawa, S. I., & Hayakawa, A. R. (1990). Language in thought and action . Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
