You say that Identifier selection is ‘morally neutral’. But if weak people are victimized in an Identity strategy, how is that morally neutral?
Obviously the act of a bully is not morally neutral. What is neutral is the method of Identity enhancement chosen by that individual. The bully is almost invariably not bullying to obtain an otherwise unachievable tangible benefit. Not all people with a dominant power abuse weaker people. Would the bully prefer to have a sufficient sense of self augmented by socially supported processes? Probably. Given the opportunity, does a person with power and an effective self choose to victimize weaker people? Probably not. What is neutral is the psychological process that searches for an Identity resolution and determines that a set of I solutions that are incidentally socially approved, are somehow also insufficient. The Identity process continues to search for effective Identifiers for that individual and clarify Identity. If a person is severely depressed and secondarily is not reliable as a worker, is negligent as a parent and unsupportive as a friend, do we say that they are morally (non-n
- You say that Identifier selection is ‘morally neutral’. But if weak people are victimized in an Identity strategy, how is that morally neutral?
- Which are the most important KM dimensions (people, management/strategy, processes/technology, innovation, customers, markets/products)?
- What is IVIG and is it helpful for people who have weak immune systems with lupus?