Bears Repeating from Jess Hill: Uncovering goodness

I have a pet peeve. It is the way many people talk about pre-teen and teenage girls as a monolithic group. That talk isn’t always positive, either. When I hear the universal comment about “mean girls” and toxicity, I say to myself, “Well, they must not know the same girls I know.”  

Are teenage girls capable of being unkind? Yes. Are they sometimes dripping with cynicism? Yes. Yet, I know some very kind, deeply compassionate, thoughtful, and caring girls — over 700 of them, as a matter of fact. So, why is it that the general perception of girls this age is so negative? While listening to an interview with Jamil Zaki, researcher, professor, and author of Hope for Cynics: The Surprising Science of Human Goodness, I may have found a viable reason for this discrepancy in perception.

In a study that Zaki conducted during the height of the pandemic with over 1,000 Americans, he asked the question, “Did kindness around the world increase or decrease during the period from 2020 to 2022?” In many ways, kindness was much more visible during that time. We know that donations to nonprofits rose and strangers helped strangers in surprising ways. During one of the worst times in human history, humans found ways to help each other in countries all over the world. However, 80% of those surveyed thought kindness decreased during that period.

Why is that? One of Zaki’s most striking findings is that perceptions shift depending on proximity. 

Asking the question, “Can Americans be trusted?” is a temperature check that reflects that observation. In 1972, we thought half of Americans could be trusted. By 2018, our trust had declined — we thought one-third of Americans could be trusted. Yet, when asked in that same year about the trustworthiness of people we interact with each week — the crossing guard, the coach, the bus driver, the sales clerk, the neighbor, the mail carrier — our trust index rose significantly. Americans thought that over 80% of those people could be trusted, even if they didn’t know them well. It turns out that we tap into more optimism and trust when we talk about the people within our communities.

For places such as a school, this insight is important. A student-teacher connection in the classroom or a supportive peer conversation in the dining hall reminds us that relationships — built with each other one interaction at a time — can elevate the goodness we perceive around us. The question then becomes, how do we build relationships in a more global sense, particularly with people whom we may mistrust or think lesser of? The answer lies, Zaki says, in being a skeptic instead of a cynic. Both sound somewhat negative, I know, but here’s the difference.

A cynic, Zaki says, assumes the worst in people and looks for evidence to confirm those beliefs. Research shows we are much more cynical when it comes to our assessment of large groups of “other” people. We put them together in the same untrustworthy, unkind box and don’t take the time to uncover what is beneath the surface. Yes, we all have moments of cynicism, but the true cynic believes specific groups of people are inherently bad — greedy, selfish, dishonest. There is no nuance; it is a blanket assumption applied to everyone in that “other” group. 

The skeptic, on the other hand, approaches life with curiosity, just as a scientist would. No assumptions are made before meeting someone or after learning only one or two facts about a person. Information such as what car he drives, where she works, which candidate he supports, or where she attends school does not provide sufficient evidence from which to draw conclusions about a person or an entire group of people. The skeptic doesn’t believe anything until she learns more — much more. This mindset of inquiry and critical thinking, which we teach so purposefully here at Harpeth Hall, fosters a willingness to understand others’ perspectives rather than defaulting to negative assumptions.

One might say where cynicism closes doors, skepticism opens them.

At the core of Zaki’s research is the idea that if we focus on amplifying the curiosity of a skeptic and work to understand each other’s values, we can begin to see each other more clearly. Instead of looking for evidence to support our negative conclusions, we foster a learning posture. Even more powerful, Zaki says, is when we initiate this learning in a place where individuals already have some shared values. When we focus on what we hold in common — a commitment to kindness, honor, creativity, respect, and curiosity, for example — we see each other more clearly. As Zaki said, “Educational settings and classrooms, in particular, are incredibly impactful in shaping children's lives, not just in terms of what they learn, but in terms of their values and their ability to see the goodness in other people.” 

As I reflect on these ideas, I am the first to say that it is much easier to cling to our “certainty” about another group of people than to remain open and curious about them. At the same time, I believe even more strongly that the values we share at Harpeth Hall give us an edge in our desire to support and understand one another.

As a start, the next time you are with a teenage girl, try to really listen to her. She may have an off-handed way of responding, but when you listen a little more deeply, you will probably find someone who is trying to figure out the world, the way a skeptic or scientist would. Surely, it will give you one reason not to draw a negative conclusion about the whole lot of teenage girls. You may just be surprised by the goodness that is uncovered.