User Tag List

12311 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 130

  1. #1
    filling some space UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    3,272

    Default Having a ranking of better and worse people

    Previously known as "This is a hard topic for me. I'm not sure how to label it. Perhaps I'll do it later"

    Uhh. I am sure every kind of leftist people will rush in this thread to discipline of my wicked, "Te" ways or whatnot. But.

    I beg you to leave your prejudice at the front door before entering this thread.

    First of all, I'll give you an introduction to the topic.

    The idea of "better" and "worse" has been used for a damned long time. The very reason for it seems obvious. That's one of the most easiest, and natural disction to make. People are naturally drawn to it.

    Then we have a *huge*, overwhelming consensus about what we should apply this concept on. I.e. We should not apply it to anything.

    There's no better and worse DVD players. They're only different. No better or worse cigarettes. Some of them are just popular, but that's a no aspect of their general "goodness". If there is such a concept.

    And then we come to, - oh heavens - yes, we come to people. Now, people are sacred. Oh heavens, there can't be better and worse people? I mean, per equality theorems, people are equal - blasphemy! Some people are just different, they're special, etc - but not worse than the other person. Right?

    But, then.

    Example 1.

    You come to know a person at a place you work in. (S)He seems to have his/her mind wandering on strange topics, he's late, walks like a drunken person, eyes going to off directions. Gives an impression of someone retarded, but you don't know for sure if it's retardation, of if the person is just drugged, or just chosen to be strange. After a month you get to know, the person has the most lousy opinion about everything. (S)he doesn't qualify for a normal adult. Your idea of people being "equal" is served by a single thought: every person deserves to be treated well. You do so. You treat that person well. You think (s)he is equal in your books.

    Wrong.

    Example 2.
    You are attracted to a person because of their looks. They seem OK at the beginning. They end up being incredibly controlling, insecure, and they're having incredibly bad job. They have problems about everything under the sun. Did you walk in from the door the wrong way? It gives them anxiety. Did the mailman drop the mail from the letterbox in an "offensive manner"? They think it tells of a wish to "dominate" or something like that. Perhaps the mailman is out to get them. You sit next to a person. THey get anxious. They've failed at work. Your sitting next to them makes them remember the time they failed. It seems offensive to them. They end up shouting you're a terrible person.

    Example 3.
    Someone thinks they have the perfect world view. Everyone should be equal, and materialist conditions should not be looked upon to make an evaluation of the person. It's the thought that counts, you know. You introduce the person to someone. They are mute, they seem to hold a grudge, and they dismiss the introduction with contempt. They move on to say they don't need anything, it's all the same, and nothing matters. Soon they complain they're anxious about coming payday. They think they're not getting enough salary. They haven't worked much. They didn't like to work, because the work was terrible. They haven't applied for a job, because any job isn't quite right for them. They think it's the society's fault to make things like this. When they go to a job interview, they make a terrible impression of themselves. They dismiss the evaluation as biased. They know what's it like to be "them" inside. No-one should evaluate them according to external standards.

    In other words, the people in the 3 examples are some kind of a failures. Big or small, situational or not, failures nevertheless. We aren't supposed to recognize any of them as such.

    Suppose you were to seek a person of equal level for some purpose. You were to seek them for a mate, friend, business partner, peer, etc.

    You would probably make the evaluation that the person #1. #2 or #3 weren't quite "at your level". You mean, you couldn't imagine gaining relevant insight of the world from any of those persons. They had something attractive, or something that drew your attention. When you saw the all of it, you noticed - to your sadness - they were no good.

    Now that's when it gets hard to believe in equality of people in all respects.

    This is a heavily hated topic for most of the people in modern society. We are giving equal opportunity to everyone. But, some persons show as examples, that people are not quite equal in many respects.

    How do you handle this?

    Do you have a ladder of your own, where some people are on the "top" and some people are at the bottom? What kind of ladder it is?

    In my ladder, people lowest on the life skills are at the bottom. If someone is angry at everyone, has the mindset of a disturbed 3-year old, etc. He's at the bottom. If someone doesn't want to develop themselves - they are incompatible with most everyone, they can't adapt to situations, they don't know how to behave, they are pathologically silent / unresponsive / uncaring / departed from this world, they are at the bottom.

    There's not a prepared diagnosis for everyone. If there were a nice label for someone, I'd understood them better. Someone is behind the social development compared to people of their age? Okay, that's understandable. Lack of social development can be managed, given that the person has some aspects of decent development.

    But, then there are some examples that almost force you to place a ranking of human success for people. You just can't hold them as equally successful.

    Then you get the bad feeling of elitism. Isn't elitism bad? You're only liking someone strong, you only approve of winners, etc. Isn't that terrible. But given how bad some people can be, you can't help but to rank people according to their abilities, how good they seem, etc.

    You have become elitist, no matter how egalitarian you were at the beginning.

    Now this is a taboo subject. I find this subject much polarized. People are being called "nazi" for noticing people to have better and worse opportunities for a good life.

    So, I now got it off my chest. You have noticed I didn't make a central claim or proposition to the subject. That was intentional.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  2. #2
    filling some space UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    3,272

    Default

    Yeah, a wall of text. Summary: I can't but to help to think of people on an instinctual level: this person is below my level, (s)he's not a good match with me. This person is above my level, I can get (s)he's not interested of much of anything about me.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #3
    Phantonym
    Guest

    Default

    I think that my initial reaction is to categorize people. People above me, below me, ahead of me, behind me, concerning whatever categories I happen to apply to them at that moment, positive or negative. This is somehow subconscious, a split second decision that doesn't involve any serious and lengthy thought. When I later realize that I'm doing something like that, I don't like it but it's somehow ingrained and I do feel guilty for doing it.

    It's not until later when I start to consciously analyze my thoughts and feeling about those persons I realize how wrong I really am. Then I'm able to see that it's not really about any ladders and who's "better" and "worse". I think about people as walking a straight line, however, they're all walking a different distance at their own pace. It's not a contest of who is going to win and the time they must beat to win, it's all about the process and everyone is equal in that they're a part of the process. But in doing so I might actually be rationalizing my guilt.

    Nevertheless, this initial process of thinking still remains. Like you said, Santtu, it's instinctual. People walking the line with the same distance and pace as I do are sort of "compatible" with me while others are...not. I guess this can be regarded as being "better" and "worse". If that makes sense.

  4. #4
    You're fired. Lol. Antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    3,437

    Default

    I view most people in the manner of "better" and "worse" than I. Most of the time, the better comes from they having more skills than I, doing better academically, etc. Same when I look at people whom I view as "worse"

    It is instinctual. Everyone does it. Maybe we are all equal, but while one person is completely great to someone else, that same person could be viewed as a lowlife from another's point of view. However, this is not normally about the general view of the person, this is about your view.

    Some may even think they are better because they treat everyone equally.
    Excuse me, but does this smell like chloroform to you?

    Always reserve the right to become smarter at a future point in time, for only a fool limits themselves to all they knew in the past. -Alex

  5. #5
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    I'm always shuffling and arranging people around in my head like that. It's part of my people evaluation.

    It's hard to explain that aspect of being judgmental without necessarily judging. I prefer to call it being discerning, that has less negative connotation than judgmental. I'll have to think more on this to give a better answer.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  6. #6
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Do not understand the concept. It's certainly not "instinctual" - unless you are talking about being able to determine something discrete, like physical strength. Human beings are too complex to be measured in such an arbitrary way. I can't even imagine how I would go about constructing a suitable model. Or why I would want to.

    Maybe it's a J thing.

    ETA
    When I read the thread title, I thought it might relate to an idea I had about rating posters on the forum - a sort of "star" system to help sort the wheat from the chaff, but for members, rather than individual threads, based on posting history. I'm happier about assessing a person's work, rather than a person's worth. That's probably a Ti thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  7. #7
    Was E.laur Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    I've been known to do that. I have since labeled it as having issues with wanting to be "in" as a child so I didn't want to hang out with the dorks I naturally gravitate to. There is a bit more there but that's the gist of it.

    It really has little to do with people's inherent worth so I've since learned to ignore it.

    I'm mostly better than everyone (ok and maybe worse) in some way anyway, so there ya go.

  8. #8
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elaur View Post
    I've been known to do that. I have since labeled it as having issues with wanting to be "in" as a child so I didn't want to hand out with the dorks I naturally gravitate to. There is a bit more there but that's the gist of it..
    Ah well, that explains it then. I've always had the opposite problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  9. #9
    Was E.laur Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    ^feel free to fix my typo :P


    Yeah for me it was just maturing that helped.

    It's really very common though, it's not a type thing. "attractive people will be with other attractive people" and that kind of thing. It's all crap but it's pervasive.

  10. #10
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    I think weak Fe and 'status blindness' are related. It's one of the best things about (not) having it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

Similar Threads

  1. [INFJ] INFJ-constant tug of war between liking people and needing my own space
    By Lightyear in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-08-2015, 08:39 AM
  2. Does anyone have the philosophy of live and let die?
    By BWCB1890 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-14-2014, 06:35 AM
  3. The temptation of Se and how it relates to archetypical people
    By Venom in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2011, 04:40 AM
  4. Hello, people of Earth and anywhere else you live!
    By I'm Unregistered in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-15-2011, 12:50 PM
  5. Replies: 78
    Last Post: 06-27-2009, 07:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO