Hello Steemians!
Last Week I published [a post about the Sociology of Disinformation](https://steemit.com/steemstem/@davidesimoncini/the-sociology-of-dis-1578428738). You can read it to know more about it. As its example, I will explain another simple case, analyzing from a sociological view of what happens. I am speaking about the Talk Badly Behind the Back.
I am not an expert, I only describe what I see in daily life; what happens between the people and their like. Talk Badly Behind the Back is an action not always made with a petty purpose, but which is also repeated in normal chats or within more or less serious personal outbursts; sometimes it is done just to talk, even without thinking about some possible consequences. As I made in the last article about the disinformation, I will schematize what happens using some general unknowns.
We Start!
1. It happens the X fact, did by A person; X fact is a negative fact and the A person is in the wrong.
2. The B person is forced to perform a Y fact in response to X fact.
3. The A person says to a C person that it happens the Y fact and that the B person is in the wrong. At the same time, the B person knows nothing about what A person is saying to C person.
___
___
4. In the mind of the C person will born an idea about the happened: for him/her, the B person is in the wrong; for him/her, B person is guilty.
5. In the mind of the C person born a PREJUDICE toward the B person. This thing will lead to an immediate consequence: each time it will happen a fact similar to the Y fact, the C person will accuse the B person, not knowing that the fact similar to Y is only in answer to a previous negative fact.
___
___
6. RESULTS SUMMARY: each time it will happen something similar to the X fact (negative by A person), the B person will reply with a Y fact; the C person will accuse the B person of the happened, not considering that the cause of everything is the A person and his/her wrongdoing. This will happen because the thought of C person will be guided by the prejudice that has formed as we have seen in the previous passages.
So, the B person will have suffered a first wrong (the X fact committed by the A person) and a second wrong (discrimination from the C person, born from the prejudice). In the worst cases, spreading C person's thinking among other people (whom we call "society") will all lead to blaming the B person. Therefore, avoidance behaviors and hostile social positions towards B person will develop, which will result in the exclusion of him/her from the surrounding society.
Another case of this paints: the B person becomes aware of what A person has said to C person and tries to exculpate himself: C person, and society, see this attitude as an attempt to exculpate, or tarnish the reputation of A person, and continue to judge B person as guilty. This is because the PREJUDICE has already formed in the mind of the C person and the society, and their thinking is guided by the PREJUDICE itself.
ALL THIS...FOR WHAT?
As in the case of disinformation, the result is that the person who really made a mistake - that is, the person in charge of everything - is A person, but no fault is attributed to him; a fault which is instead attributed entirely to the shoulders of B person.
Now try to replace A person with a person who does something wrong but talks behind the back of the B person, complaining to C person: you will see the specific case of what happens when we talk behind the back of a person :)
Obviously this is not what always happens: it is what happens in cases where a person who does not know of a fact (X fact) blindly believes the complaints of a person (A person) because maybe he is in confidence with her, or is he a trusted friend, or is he a public authority, or something else. So: it is good to be wary of interpretations.
I hope you enjoyed the post. To the next! :)
