National Citizens Panel

Scoring with the Index can be a challenge for anyone who’s not used to looking through the lens of dignity and contempt.  To score accurately, we have to be able to see dignity in the expression of views we oppose and see contempt in the expression of views we embrace.  Often, when we first see a view that we agree with – and we see it scored as contempt -- we say, “but it’s true!  How can it be scored as contempt when it’s true?”  

It takes a moment to see that the purpose of the Index is not to check facts.  There are many other measures that do that.  The job of the Index is to detect dignity and contempt and highlight them as distinct dimensions of our speech that are different and separate from whether a statement is true or false, whether we like the messenger or not, whether we agree with the message or not.  The dignity or contempt of a message is crucial because it’s the principal factor in whether it unites or divides us, whether it makes it easier or harder to solve our problems together.  

This means that when we score, we have to be able to (1) separate the substance of the message from the way the message is expressed and (2) assess the dignity or contempt separately from other factors in the speech.  To do this, we have to be able to see our biases and resist their appeal – and that is the reason for the text-matching scoring system that we have developed.  

On the scoring guide, each scale point is described by a set of quotes or traits that are typical for that scale point.  As we score, we read the passage, identify the key lines, and then review the Scoring Guide to find the quotes and traits that best describe the lines in the passage.  Then we match the language in the passage with the language of that particular scale point in the Scoring Guide.  This serves both to determine the score and explain the score.  It also helps limit the influence of our bias. If we see a statement that makes us angry, we may have an urge to score it low. But if we have to match the language we’re scoring with the traits of a particular mindset, it’s harder for our scoring to be driven by our emotions.   

Even among trained scorers, passages will not always receive the same score.  The variations will come from different interpretations of the passage and different applications of the scoring guide, and these differences are both expected and helpful. Nobody can see everything from every angle.  Scorers often gain more insights by discussing different scores than they gain from agreeing with others.  So the point is not to match someone’s idea of a correct score, but to find out if people of opposing views see the presence of dignity or contempt in the same passage, and if not, to explore the reasons the scores differ.  That said, trained scorers tend to converge on the same score.  That’s the key measure of the validity of the tool, and the differences among trained scorers tend to be narrow.  If the variations are significant and frequent, then there is some problem with the understanding of the scoring process, the clarity of the scoring guide, or the clarity of the language being scored.

In the end, the value and power of scoring passages is the practice it gives us in recognizing the words and phrases that convey contempt, so that ultimately, we can recognize these words when we use them ourselves.  This self-recognition is what drives change.  

If you would like to suggest a passage to be scored by the National Citizen's Panel, click here to access the submission form. The Dignity Index team will review submissions and consider them for use in various applications like Social Media, research, and the Dignity Daily game.

When we first used the Dignity Index® to score public speech in the 2022 mid-term Congressional elections in Utah, we believed that if we put a spotlight on dignity and contempt, people would start to use more dignity and less contempt. That holds true, in our evidence and experience, but the 2022 project also showed us something we didn’t expect. People told us over and over that when they heard about the Dignity Index®, they thought it was a tool for judging others, but when they used it, they found it became a mirror for seeing themselves. And when they saw their own contempt, they recoiled and redoubled their efforts to use dignity instead. We began to call this the “mirror effect.” And this, we believe, can be an engine of personal and social change. When we use contempt, it’s hard for us to see it, but when we start to see it, it becomes hard for us to use it – and scoring language with the Dignity Index® helps us see it. The energy driving the dignity movement, we realized, is the urge for self-improvement, not other-improvement – and that is why it can be effective: because the only change that lasts is the change we choose for ourselves.

The Dignity Index® is grounded in social science research on human conflict and owes a debt to a number of researchers and their published works.

In the landmark book Love Your Enemies by conservative scholar Dr. Arthur Brooks, Brooks writes that we have created a culture of contempt in our country, and that “If we want to solve the problem of polarization, we have to solve the contempt problem.” 

As we see it, a culture of contempt is a culture that encourages and rewards contempt. When we can get money, fame, power, and belonging by mocking people on the other side, we’re living in a culture of contempt – a culture that rewards us for using contempt. 

Treating each other with contempt is so harmful because it’s the exact opposite of what we all want and need. Dr. Donna Hicks, an international conflict resolution specialist and author of the book Dignity, writes, “Along with our survival instincts, our longing for human dignity is the most powerful force motivating our behavior. It transcends race, gender, ethnicity and all other social distinctions.” 

“If you violate someone’s dignity repeatedly,” Hicks writes, “you will get a divorce or a war or a revolution, because a desire for revenge is an instant response to a dignity violation.” 

This means that when we insult people, sneer at them, look down on them, make fun of them, we guarantee that they will start looking for a way to get back at us. When we make our case with contempt, we are making enemies for our cause. 

In contrast to the system of incentives marked by the culture of contempt, we can create a culture of dignity. If I gain stature and respect for treating others with dignity when we disagree, then I’m living in a culture of dignity. A dignity culture is a place where people feel safe saying what they think – and they say what they think in a way that makes other people feel safe saying the opposite! A dignity culture – even if we create it for just a moment – works wonders in helping us ease divisions, solve problems and seize opportunities. 

The impact of treating others with dignity or contempt is not just a matter of politics or national policy; we can also feel it in our families. Dr. John Gottman, the prominent psychologist, says successful couples maintain a 5:1 ratio of positive exchanges to negative exchanges even during disagreement. Contempt, Gottman says, makes it “virtually impossible to solve a problem.” Instead, he says, “contempt leads to more conflict.” 

What does marriage counseling have to do with political divisions? Donna Hicks tells the story of a series of meetings she led between two warring parties in a Latin American country. At the end of the talks, one stern Army General approached her and said: “Donna, I want to thank you. Not only did you help the relationships in this room. I think you also saved my marriage.”

The toxic effects of contempt on relationships are easier to see when we’re talking about a marriage or family. But the effects on the country are the same. There aren’t separate principles of human relations based on the size of the group. There is one set of principles that is true for family, friends, communities, and countries: Dignity brings us together; contempt tears us apart.

The Dignity Index® emerged from a belief that our divisions might be simpler to solve than they seem – that divisions are not ultimately caused by global economic trends, or the rise of social media, or the loss of trust, or the decline of institutions or even the increase of our passionate disagreements.  Our divisions, we believe, are caused by treating each other with contempt and can be eased by treating each other with dignity.  

Testing these assumptions with the National Citizens Panel is a small-scale way to test a much bigger question:  Is the United States of America a viable proposition?   Can government of the people, by the people, for the people work – and work better than any other possible system? If so, how?  

We can sharpen the inquiry with this question:  What is the minimum possible moral agreement needed to form a society that works?   We believe that if we agree on the singular value of treating each other with dignity, that alone is enough to create a society that can ease divisions, solve problems, seize opportunities, and create peace and prosperity for its people.  More agreement than this is not necessary; less than this is not enough.  This is what we believe.  If it’s true, then the search for unity comes down to the search for a common understanding of human dignity that people can embrace, endorse, honor and practice without regard to their political or cultural beliefs and backgrounds.  That’s why we believe that the future doesn’t depend on whether liberals or conservatives prevail; it depends on whether dignity or contempt prevails. 

We believe we can achieve a culture of dignity, and the Dignity Index® can help by offering us the common vocabulary and a common metric we need to have a truly national conversation about division – what causes it, what we contribute to it, and what we can all do to help heal it.