TFH Principle #1: The Good Person/Bad Person Bell Curve

Are you a good person?

The way people answer this question tells me a lot about them.

One of the most significant barriers I have witnessed in interpersonal communication is how quick we are to assign moral alignment to ourselves and the other person we're talking to. It's all too often that we disregard people whose opinions differ from our own by labeling them a “bad person." Despite the irony of having the word “person” right there, it’s a sneaky way we dehumanize others and elevate our own identities. You also see the phrase “I’m a good person!” slung defensively when someone feels accused of doing something “good” people typically don’t do.

This labeling of “good” or “bad” in regards to personhood is, at best, reductive of the essence of humanity. At worst, it’s actively harmful. I have found that reframing my perspective on “goodness” or “badness” has allowed me to curb my bias when talking with those who are fundamentally different from me, and I hope this may serve to help you as well. This is one of the fundamental principles to note before we can begin to dive into more complex subjects.

One common theory that I’ve heard is that there are “no good people and no bad people, only good or bad circumstances”. I also find this to be counterproductive when discussing an individual’s fault versus responsibility (which is another fundamental principle I’ll discuss in a later post). I, instead, like to bring things back to Statistics 101.

Yeah, you heard that. Statistics. You know, the math class you slept through in high school? That kind of Statistics. Let’s refresh ourselves on a Normal Distribution, aka the Bell Curve. I recommend checking out a visual, I’ve provided one here.

Essentially, in basic statistics, the normal distribution is a probability function where the majority of the data collected is clustered near the mean (the middle line) and tapers evenly towards the edges, creating a bell curve. How I’ve chosen to view “goodness” and “badness” of individuals is by placing ‘“Good” and “Bad” on either end of the bell curve, and viewing individuals from the perspective that 68.3% of them hover close to true neutral, 95.5% are generally neutral, but some are slightly closer to “good” or “bad”, ~2% of people either close to good or bad, and ~0.1% are innately good or innately bad.

If those numbers seemed overwhelming, don’t worry. All you need to know is that under this theory, the vast majority of us are neither inherently good or inherently bad. We are all, statistically, more likely to be somewhere within the neutral zone.

Now for Applied Statistics (aka- how this sh*t applies to real life):

Keeping this idea in mind, I’m about to make my most controversial statement yet. Hold on tight. Okay, here it goes:

Most people are doing the best they can with information and life experiences that they have.

Yes, even if they vote differently from you.

Yes, even if they support people or organizations you fundamentally disagree with.

Yes, even if it seems like they hate [insert group of people here].

Wait! Before you click away thinking I’m going to go all “let’s build a cake full of rainbows” on you, stay with me.

It is important to acknowledge that most people are inherently morally neutral because it allows us to better hold people accountable when they cause harm.

When we accept that well intended people are capable of causing harm, it allows us to zoom out and see how easy and pervasive it is to persuade people into doing it. It is significantly harder to advocate for better treatment if we resign everyone who aligns with those who hurt us as unchangeable. And if you've ever been called a "bad person," you know your willingness to empathize and cooperate drops drastically if that person isn't even willing to give you a chance or change their mind about you.

I’ve found from my own personal experiences that unity is best found when communicating on an individual basis and finding some common ground to build off of. It very rarely, if ever, happens in a group setting. Especially when the groups in question are postured in moral opposition to one another. You have more in common with your next door neighbor than you do with the celebrities you endorse or the politicians you vote for. And that kind of connection is what leads to true, tangible change. It’s amazing how much we have in common when it comes down to brass tax.

If you’ve read this far, thank you. I have a challenge for you.

Next time you see someone you know express an opinion on an issue that you wholehearted disagree with, ask yourself genuinely, in good faith:

Why?

Why might they feel this way?

What experiences may have led them here?

Can I figure out how they pieced this opinion together rationally?

Are they really a "bad person"?

You’ll probably have a moment where you feel sympathy for them. And that, believe it or not, is a legitimate human emotional response! Don’t feel so quick to toss it aside in favor of anger. Maybe, if you’re feeling brave, ask them directly why they feel the way they do. Don’t ask with the goal to lecture or teach them. Don’t ask just so you can posit your opinion from a lens of superiority. Just ask to listen in good faith. See if there’s something you’re missing.

This is only the first step in finding ways to reach across the proverbial aisle. When we build our understanding from a place of moral neutrality, we can better navigate productive conversations with one another that keep us from feeling personally attacked. There’s a reason a sense of connection comes before self-actualization in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. With this basic concept down, we can move forward in this space discussing tools for communication in all types of conflict, including platonic, familial, romantic relationships, and our relationship with ourselves.