Having a ranking of better and worse people

[DiscoBiscuit]

I do have an unfortunate tendency to take things literally.

 

[Jaguar]

I do have an unfortunate tendency to take things literally.

Did you catch my edit?
I was actually serious that an INFP recently told me to go fuck myself, twice.
Lol.

 

[Salomé]

Wait! Are you admitting you have poor interpersonal skills or something? Now that's worthy of a

One man's poverty is another man's wealth.

I don't have any problem with what you've said here, but I think you may have glossed over the fact that I said my boss is more more than likely a high-functioning autistic. My whole point was this is not "typical" miscommunication issues and hence my evaluation of the situation. I can deal with differences in communication styles, but when a person's thinking and communication is clouded by a developmental disability wouldn't you say that qualifies as extenuating circumstances that change the typical modes of communication?

Are you asking me to justify your assessment of her as an inferior person to you? I don't see how that helps either of you. I don't see that it matters whether it's typical or not. And it seems to me that her developmental disability is mere hearsay. You have said that her supervisors are pleased with her work, so her "disability" isn't proving to be much of a disability. In any event, the principle still applies. But I don't think we are ever going to agree on this.

 

[Salomé]

Jaguarian diplomacy:

 

[Jaguar]

Blue's diplomacy: What about my infractions? waaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

 

[proteanmix]

Are you asking me to justify your assessment of her as an inferior person to you?

I was waiting for that convenient twisting of words you do so well.

...But I don't think we are ever going to agree on this.

Yeah, you're right. Not much more to say.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I'm happy for the discussion that has started. So far, many views have been expressed.
-Many people feel it's natural for anyone to have an instinctual idea of someone/something as "better" or "worse"
-Many have expressed doubt if such a habit is useful for evaluating people objectively
-F/T, as well as J/P have been both suspected and denied as factors to explain this tendency
-People generally value their subjective right to evaluate people
-At least one person noted the idea that attributes may be evaluated as better and worse
-Many people expressed the idea that we have multiple skills and attributes, and we are probably higher on some of them and lower than some of them compared to any given person.
-Many people applied the idea of better/worse to deciding whether to associate with said person.
-Being on a same developmental level is seen as a positive factor of compatibility.
-A minority opinion holds that even the attributes deemed as "bad" by the majority are just an alternative, and not bad or good per se
-There was an idea that "better and worse" is just a shorthand for deciding whether to use it or not, as applied to objects in general. Thus it is more of an pragmatic rather than a moral evaluation.
-The need to handle the specific situations with the disabled and disadvantaged was acknowledged.
-In one opinion, the concept of bad and good was applied to transaction, as opposed to persons.
-Many people expressed worry for this kind of ordering scheme, fearing it exhibits elitism, discrimination or prejudice by arbitrary factors

These are just my interpretations of the discussion. Might have missed some.

Edit: No, I don't think the truth is as simple as just a list of the opinions being said. I guess I just did this to make a note for myself to follow the discussion.

 

[A Schnitzel]

I'm probably afflicted by this status blindness.

Most people annoy me, others don't.
I try to hang around people that don't annoy me.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I don't know what causes the thinking described in the OP, but it's pretty foreign to me.

The few times I do evaluate a person's attributes by rank it is probably a fairly specific skill set I have in mind, so most people would be in the "doesn't qualify" category. I'm not sure what it would be like to try to constantly rank everyone as better/worse in every way. That would take too much effort from me that I'd rather spend in other ways.

 

[Valiant]

<WALL OF TEXT>

Yes, I have thought about this a lot recently, too.
It was brought on by hanging with a few metric tonnes of SPs of bad grade.
I'm not hanging out with them anymore, since they don't have any sense of right and wrong, appreciation or of loyalty.
Besides that, most of them are acting in a way that is not fit for adults.
And they drink too much.
I always looked out for them. Organized stuff. Even came over with ****ing soup, ciggarettes and coke a few times when a particular ESTP was ill a few times.
Besides that, I showed loyalty in a few tight spots and took their sides in arguments even while not really, really agreeing with them.
That's just fragments. I went far beyond the call of duty for at least two of them, and the rest I treated friendly.

What did I get in return? Lots of effort and a few good parties and being let down by those idiots.

Be sure that I will never, ever again override my prejudices and my gut feeling.
I normally just know if someone is good or bad, in these cases... Well, I just chose not to listen to it because it was convenient.

Now i'm definitely grading people. I don't think much of most people I meet.
They all seem to have a big flaw here, a big flaw there...
I notice and pay attention to character flaws a hell of a lot more nowadays.
But, i'd say about 10% of everyone I meet are decent in most regards.

I don't think about it consciously, but there are a few things that must check out.

Common sense
Morals and loyalty
Integrity
Courage
Being fair and nice towards the people that deserve it
Showing appreciation enough for efforts
Intelligence and wit
Emotional warmth for the people who deserve it
Social skills


If a person does not have those. Not my friend. Maybe acquaintance... Never more.
Big surprise that both of my best friends are ENFJs?
In all, most everyone I hang out with or like a lot falls under xNxJ.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yes, I have thought about this a lot recently, too.
It was brought on by hanging with a few metric tonnes of SPs of bad grade.
I'm not hanging out with them anymore, since they don't have any sense of right and wrong, appreciation or of loyalty.
Besides that, most of them are acting in a way that is not fit for adults.
And they drink too much.
I always looked out for them. Organized stuff. Even came over with ****ing soup, ciggarettes and coke a few times when a particular ESTP was ill a few times.
Besides that, I showed loyalty in a few tight spots and took their sides in arguments even while not really, really agreeing with them.
That's just fragments. I went far beyond the call of duty for at least two of them, and the rest I treated friendly.

What did I get in return? Lots of effort and a few good parties and being let down by those idiots.

Be sure that I will never, ever again override my prejudices and my gut feeling.
I normally just know if someone is good or bad, in these cases... Well, I just chose not to listen to it because it was convenient.

Now i'm definitely grading people. I don't think much of most people I meet.
They all seem to have a big flaw here, a big flaw there...
I notice and pay attention to character flaws a hell of a lot more nowadays.
But, i'd say about 10% of everyone I meet are decent in most regards.

I don't think about it consciously, but there are a few things that must check out.

Common sense
Morals and loyalty
Integrity
Courage
Being fair and nice towards the people that deserve it
Showing appreciation enough for efforts
Intelligence and wit
Emotional warmth for the people who deserve it
Social skills


If a person does not have those. Not my friend. Maybe acquaintance... Never more.
Big surprise that both of my best friends are ENFJs?
In all, most everyone I hang out with or like a lot falls under xNxJ.

+1

I've had the exact same problem.

 

[Athenian200]

Yes. IOW, you are a snob. And proud of it.

In what way am I a snob? What about my preferences indicates snobbishness, and why?

 

[Jaguar]

In what way am I a snob? What about my preferences indicates snobbishness, and why?

Don't mind Blue, she's upset.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

The few times I do evaluate a person's attributes by rank it is probably a fairly specific skill set I have in mind, so most people would be in the "doesn't qualify" category. I'm not sure what it would be like to try to constantly rank everyone as better/worse in every way. That would take too much effort from me that I'd rather spend in other ways.

Doesn't evaluation come immediately if there's some bad signs for the kind of transaction you're having with the person? I mean, the kind of overwhelming bad signs like posted in the YLJ example, something you would actively had to resist in order to not "notice" them.

You might be the one who is: "unfit."
Perhaps you should work solo.

I probably am unfit for many purposes, most likely in many of the salaried work. Some kind of an attitude problem. Career counselor recommended me to pursue a challenging administrative position in the future, and continue being an independent expert for the time. Perhaps she noted my difficulties in adjusting to subordinate positions? I haven't intended to be a difficult person, perhaps my experiences have just left me bitter and snobby, kind of an anti-reaction from being abandoned at a time for serious illness. I definitely need to learn the skill to relate to people on an equal level. So, it's an ongoing task. At the moment I'm nice and approachable at first meeting, but I usually make the evaluation of "not worth it" from 90% of people in 30 second's time.

OTOH, I know from my experiences that 98% of the people aren't to be trusted to go through hard situations with me. If I know the temporary condition of friendship, partnership, etc.. it's definitely going to affect me. But, that's another story. I guess I'd have to learn to appreciate relationships for what they are, and I shouldn't think of them (and the people) any less even if they would abandon me in case of another illness. I mean, I've learned not to burn out again, so the situation will not repeat. I should be cool now, huh?

This is just an example why I might be a "lower" person for some. Some might think I place myself "higher" to them. Either way, that spells problem.

People do engage in problematic behavior with others, and I guess it's a must to avoid that kind of poison.

If person A is incompatible with most with huge problems, B is somewhat compatible with most and C is compatible with most anyone, most people would rank the said persons as A < B < C in some group situations. Compatible people are the glue for the group - key to group cohesion - whereas incompatible people are seen as problems to be managed. I guess I flex from A to C depending on context, which is why I think of ranking.

 

[FDG]

You're asking ME for interpersonal advice?

I think this just comes down to a different mindset. I mostly have problems with E**Js trying to steam-roller over me. Like you, I would prefer not to have to deal with that either. But I see it as a mutual communication problem, rather than one person being superior to/worse than the other. They often have problems having their ideas challenged - they may find it personally threatening or even insulting. I have a problem with people getting overly emotional or loud and aggressive in response to my entirely impersonal approach. Perhaps being a rarer type and having to repeatedly deal with extroverted Judging types, one learns not to think of it so much as the other person's problem, and more as just an issue of compatibility. The advantage in having this attitude, is that one learns to compromise, and to choose one's battles.

Well, my experience is that sometimes INTPs are really tactless when they "challenge your ideas". You can say that's just "being impersonal", but most people perceive it as tactless (not just me, it's a rather common experience).

 

[wildcat]

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.

You do not say anything Hitler did not say in Mein Kampf.
He is your idol. So what?
Hitler was not exactly an original thinker.

 

[Salomé]

Well, my experience is that sometimes INTPs are really tactless when they "challenge your ideas". You can say that's just "being impersonal", but most people perceive it as tactless (not just me, it's a rather common experience).

An ENTJ disses INTPs for being tactless. This thread is a classic!

I don't perceive things as most people do. I welcome having my ideas challenged. I don't even see how it is possible to be tactless on *impersonal* topics. I'm just interested in solving the problem in the optimal way. The hidden agenda of people who are constantly anxious about / trying to boost their status gets in the way of that a good deal. It's a source of frustration.

Perhaps I should claim a developmental disability? After all, if a person's opinions or approach are uncommon, there must be something very wrong with them, right? "Ban them!" "Burn them!" "Exterminate them!" "They are worse than me!"

Scary.

Edit.
^haha! Wildcat Godwinned before I could.

 

[FDG]

An ENTJ disses INTPs for being tactless. This thread is a classic!

I don't perceive things as most people do. I welcome having my ideas challenged. I don't even see how it is possible to be tactless on *impersonal* topics. I'm just interested in solving the problem in the optimal way. The hidden agenda of people who are constantly anxious about / trying to boost their status gets in the way of that a good deal. It's a source of frustration.

It's possible. An example: an INTP professor doubted I had actually written a paper myself because "students generally do not have the ability to write such papers". I had to give him all the material I used, and convince him I wrote it myself by showing some form of expertise. That's tactless, in my opinion, and I don't understand the hidden agenda reference. I'm not going to say that all INTPs act this way, but I have had collected multiple evidence, so there must be something to it.

Perhaps I should claim a developmental disability? After all, if a person's opinions or approach are uncommon, there must be something very wrong with them, right? "Ban them!" "Burn them!" "Exterminate them!" "They are worse than me!"

Scary.

It's just a matter of delivery, not of contect. A person can have the most idiosyncratic ideas, but if the delivery is scathing, people will be offended - not by the content, of course.

 

[Salomé]

^Your professor was not being impersonal, but prejudiced. There's a difference.

The hidden agenda relates to political manuevering.

I have found the trouble with E**Js to be that they refuse to accept that people perceive things in different, equally valid ways. They refuse to question their own reaction to events as having any possible reasonable alternative. ("Your delivery was scathing! Ergo, you are a tactless individual!", not "I found your delivery to be scathing, what does that say about me and you and our relationship?") Is this because they embrace the cultural norm, or do they enforce cultural norms through their own dogmatic approach? Probably a bit of both.
In any event, it's just a recipe for intolerance.

 

[Charmed Justice]

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?

Top the Personal Ladder

1.People with a combination of the following:
2.People with high EQs
3.Altruistic
4.Friendly
5.Upbeat disposition
6.Generous

Bottom of Personal Ladder
1.People with severe emotional/psychological disturbances that are not managed very well and have inadvertently hurt others as a result
2.People with low EQs
2.Intellectually closed-minded
3.Unfriendly
4.Moody/gloomy
5.People with superiority complexes
6.Hypercritical, unnecessarily and excessively sarcastic people

Regardless, I don't see the people on the bottom ladder as less than I am. I simply see them as humans I'd rather leave for others to interact and appreciate.