Having a ranking of better and worse people

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Most of the point why I instinctively rank people like that is probably related to one goal: how good of a synergy the two of us would have in some pursuit. I guess people who have the same kinds of goals and issues, and are about equally advanced, can give each other a lot of help. A much more advanced person can help a lesser person, as well, but it gets troublesome fast, and it needs some other "binding agent" for the relationship to work. Being at the same level is easiest, as mutual support and companionship forms naturally.

I guess I wouldn't have to think of "better and worse", as most of what I think about it pertains to compatibility.

There's a lot of different views on equality as well. I think you folks have good, balanced views about it as a whole. Equality would then mean that equal people are on equal par with something, but on different level with another thing, and they might have different capabilities and means for ends. I think it's been hard for me to find out how to handle the factual differences between people, given the strong ideas people generally have for fair and equal treatment.

I'm trying to treat people in an appropriate way for every occasion, but it's hard when wishes of the people conflict with the needs of the project. Project might be best served by noticing someone as less capable - perhaps less capable for mostly everything - and giving them a role where they don't do much harm. It would also mean limiting their participation and their interaction. They would feel left out. On the other hand, it would be hard to invent appropriate role for them, if they're unfit. If it's a project that is supposed to combine carefree people interaction and tangible results, it's a hard conflict.

I think marriage is one of such pursuits. People wish it to have "results" - i.e. perhaps good life for children, security, support. Mutual financial help. The two wish it to bring joy and a feeling of participation. Love. Okay, I don't view marriage as a "project" but more of a life-long journey. I'm intending to select my mate so well it'll end in the death of either one of us after many happy and productive decades.

Having a hobby group with a few friends would be another, less significant project.

There's other things too, where desires for results and desire to make everyone feel involved get conflicted, mainly by someone being too incapable in too many ways.

I have to think about this.

 

[Athenian200]

I think I probably do rank people in this way, but I don't think I believe that some people are universally better than others. I just think that they're better for my needs and purposes. In other words, I rank people relative to my own standards.

For instance, in my mind, the best kind of person is a very curious, semi-successful (but not wealthy) Liberal Arts major with a slight intellectual bent, but who is very charismatic, popular, and likable as well. They would have a sense of boldness, but not to the point of being flamboyant. They would generally have a balanced personality rather than being extreme in any way. Eccentricities are possibly present.

The worst kind of person is a family-oriented, religious, and conservative person who mostly likes sports, thinks "book smarts" don't mean anything compared to "street smarts," and constantly criticizes people in crude, unrefined ways. They may be successful socially in some circles, but they're not generally well-liked or likable. They're loud and obnoxious, never have more than an Associates degree, and are either very poor, or very wealthy.

Of course, naturally, a criminal or someone who does harm to another doesn't even get onto this scale, because at that point they're so disgusting a separate scale has to be created for them.

Does that give you an idea?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Yeah, it does. I'm ranking people for my own purposes, too.

 

[Salomé]

Think about it this way:

People yes, deserve equal opportunity, but not everyone will get equal results. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

You can't save everyone. Their attitudes are often permanently toxic and can corrupt you from being productive yourself and ultimately harm you if you dig too deeply into them. You've just got to learn to quit at some point if it's not your job to keep going (psychologist, pastor, etc.).

These people are not worse than I am, per se, because perhaps they have grown up in conditions that are conducive to the kind of self-destructive behavior you say, but I can recognize them as a bad influence on me. Therefore, I do not associate with them.

What does compatibility have to do with rank? I don't understand and am extremely wary of ranking people either subjectively, or according to "objective" standards. A cursory glance at history and/or a little bit of Ne will tell you where that leads. And it ain't pretty.

Well, if you're referring to my post I would prefer not to work closely (and when I say closely I mean she's my boss) with a person with such issues.

It's convenient for you to suggest that she is "worse" than you because then you make it her problem and not yours. It's equally valid to suggest that you have issues dealing with someone whose communication style is different from yours and that this is a failing on your part. Especially in view of the fact that she is YOUR BOSS, not the other way around.

 

[Salomé]

I think I probably do rank people in this way, but I don't think I believe that some people are universally better than others. I just think that they're better for my needs and purposes. In other words, I rank people relative to my own standards.

For instance, in my mind, the best kind of person is a very curious, semi-successful (but not wealthy) Liberal Arts major with a slight intellectual bent, but who is very charismatic, popular, and likable as well. They would have a sense of boldness, but not to the point of being flamboyant. They would generally have a balanced personality rather than being extreme in any way. Eccentricities are possibly present.

The worst kind of person is a family-oriented, religious, and conservative person who mostly likes sports, thinks "book smarts" don't mean anything compared to "street smarts," and constantly criticizes people in crude, unrefined ways. They may be successful socially in some circles, but they're not generally well-liked or likable. They're loud and obnoxious, never have more than an Associates degree, and are either very poor, or very wealthy.

Of course, naturally, a criminal or someone who does harm to another doesn't even get onto this scale, because at that point they're so disgusting a separate scale has to be created for them.

Does that give you an idea?

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

 

[Quinlan]

I just don't know if there are any objective standards out there, nor if I would be a good judge of people against those standards anyway.

I think people have roughly pretty similar (outside of the extremes) potential, they just all have different values and ration out their potential into different areas (all the time you have used developing intellectual strengths could have been used developing athletic strengths and vice versa. The decision is simply a preference, not "better" or "worse".

 

[King sns]

That's interesting... I rarely think of people as being better or worse than me.. It's too black and white.. I think of people as having more problems or fewer problems than I do sometimes. Being more forunate or less fortunate. Being more intelligent or less intelligent. And generally, people do deserve to be treated well. Sometimes I look at them as possibly needing my help. My personality, intelligence, resources, knowledge, problem-solving skills, whatever may be in a position of strength to theirs. And if they can use me to make themselves better, then good. If they don't want me, then that's fine too. Beyond this, I can't really benefit from classifying people as better or worse.

If I can't relate to someone somehow, in a major way, I might just choose not to spend time with them.

 

[proteanmix]

It's convenient for you to suggest that she is "worse" than you because then you make it her problem and not yours. It's equally valid to suggest that you have issues dealing with someone whose communication style is different from yours and that this is a failing on your part. Especially in view of the fact that she is YOUR BOSS, not the other way around.

It is her problem. I'm not the one who is HFA. It's not a situation of simply having different communication style, it's a situation of someone having a unacknowledged developmental disability and it creating major problems in the workplace. Since she is the supervisor the onus of responsibility is on her, not me. I have no problem working with someone who has a developmental disability. As an employee, I think it would be helpful if the employer taught employees how to work with someone with developmental disabilities (which are different from physical disabilities) to improve communication, produces results and minimizes conflict.

Overall, I think I've been pretty accommodating in the situation, even if the proof is I've held the position longer than anyone else who's been in it and I've done reading on how to communicate with an autistic person to make my life easier. I've found being supervised by her and very valuable educational experience.

I doubt that if given the chance I'd work with someone like her simply because of the stress it's caused me. And I will continue to rank this as a "worse" situation with a "worse" person. I'm not going to run out and put myself in a high-stress situation just to prove how much high my tolerance is for dealing with difficult people. I wrote a thread awhile ago about emotional challenges and I've come to have a much more nuanced view over the past two years.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm trying to treat people in an appropriate way for every occasion, but it's hard when wishes of the people conflict with the needs of the project. Project might be best served by noticing someone as less capable - perhaps less capable for mostly everything - and giving them a role where they don't do much harm. It would also mean limiting their participation and their interaction. They would feel left out. On the other hand, it would be hard to invent appropriate role for them, if they're unfit.

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

 

[Laurie]

That's interesting... I rarely think of people as being better or worse than me.. It's too black and white.. I think of people as having more problems or fewer problems than I do sometimes. Being more forunate or less fortunate. Being more intelligent or less intelligent. And generally, people do deserve to be treated well. Sometimes I look at them as possibly needing my help. My personality, intelligence, resources, knowledge, problem-solving skills, whatever may be in a position of strength to theirs. And if they can use me to make themselves better, then good. If they don't want me, then that's fine too. Beyond this, I can't really benefit from classifying people as better or worse.

If I can't relate to someone somehow, in a major way, I might just choose not to spend time with them.

I have a friend with this same (what I think is healthy) attitude. She told me once that she can be friends with anyone as long as they aren't cruel. It makes her life a lot easier and she has a lot of friends of all types. (not mbti types, just all different life situations)

 

[Haphazard]

What does compatibility have to do with rank? I don't understand and am extremely wary of ranking people either subjectively, or according to "objective" standards. A cursory glance at history and/or a little bit of Ne will tell you where that leads. And it ain't pretty.

So I can't stay away from people who are harmful to me?

I know that antifreeze has its uses but I'm not going to drink it. That's just stupid.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm going to have to preface this post with a few things:

We are all equal. If not in our capacity then at least in our humanity (and in the rights we deserve).

This equality is objective and applies to us all as a species.

This thread however, addresses another type of equality. That being subjective equality.

Subjective equality, is how we view others relative to ourselves. Objective equality is how others are viewed relative to the human race.

I believe everyone is objectively equal.

When judged relative to me however, the vast majority are anything but.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this kind of judgment because how else are we to understand others (this applies most directly to those with an underdeveloped Fe) except by how they rank relative to how we act ourselves.

I'll make an educated guess and say that this (subjective) judgment is genetically ingrained in us. This judgment is how we find our significant others, our best friends, and our closest business associates.

Conversely, this judgment is also how we make our worst enemies, our most bitter exes, and our biggest business rivals.

The only time it becomes a problem is when it is improperly used to humiliate or denigrate others.

I personally, love the fact that I am allowed to subjectively judge others. If I couldn't how would I be able to cherish the warmth of my friendships, and the intimacy of my relationships.

It is only by experiencing the lows, that we grow and truly appreciate the highs.

I honestly don't understand why so many people freak out about being judged in this manner. Being judged by others is the nature of the human condition. If you don't want to be judged, be reincarnated as something that isn't sentient.

 

[nightning]

Agree with Hap's view point.

I don't know if it's just a society conditioning thing but I don't see people themselves as being better or worse. People's attributes (looks, intelligence, personality) I do. After all, you must have some sort of benchmark to base things on. It's only human nature to line things up, to categorize. For the most part, different people are good at different things. It all more or less evens out if you compare the rankings of all the attributes.

You have to focus on the specifics simply due to the nature of the situation at hand. You're trying to get work done here. Why not rank people based on their attributes to find people that you get along the easiest with? I don't see this as a J/P thing at all.

 

[Jaguar]

I honestly don't understand why so many people freak out about being judged in this manner. Being judged by others is the nature of the human condition. If you don't want to be judged, be reincarnated as something that isn't sentient.

The title of the thread is specifically: "better and worse people."
That's an F value type of thinking, not T.

I make judgements of others all the time.
If I judge someone to be an asshole, I don't ask myself:
"Gee, is he a better or worse asshole than me?"

 

[Salomé]

You have to focus on the specifics simply due to the nature of the situation at hand. You're trying to get work done here. Why not rank people based on their attributes to find people that you get along the easiest with? I don't see this as a J/P thing at all.

LOL. Spoken like a true J.

So I can't stay away from people who are harmful to me?

I know that antifreeze has its uses but I'm not going to drink it. That's just stupid.

I repeat. What does that have to do with ranking people?

It is her problem.

As you wish. But you seem to be the one complaining about it.

 

[Haphazard]

I repeat. What does that have to do with ranking people?

Antifreeze is not going to be on my top five list of beverages, that's for sure.

 

[Salomé]

Antifreeze is not going to be on my top five list of beverages, that's for sure.

Meh, lists.

 

[cascadeco]

Agree with Hap's view point.

I don't know if it's just a society conditioning thing but I don't see people themselves as being better or worse. People's attributes (looks, intelligence, personality) I do. After all, you must have some sort of benchmark to base things on. It's only human nature to line things up, to categorize. For the most part, different people are good at different things. It all more or less evens out if you compare the rankings of all the attributes.

Although, edit: although I categorize attributes, I don't consciously label most attributes as better or worse. Although attributes like cruelty or vindictiveness or the like, yeah, they'll be 'worse' than kindness, etc.

As for myself, I've never thought directly in terms of better/worse. I do observe trends when it comes to personality (obviously - hello, this forum!), and pretty much every other human trait, and I definitely have preferences when it comes to who I desire to bring into my life, and who I don't particularly want to play an active role in my life. And I could list traits that I don't care for, so in that sense, yes, I can easily categorize. Every trait could be put on some sort of sliding scale, whether it be extroversion, or honesty, or intelligence, or open-mindedness, or closed-mindedness, etc etc (and it goes without saying that the definitions themselves of these traits might vary from one person to another) so in that sense it's pretty easy to categorize. And it's already been said that all of it's subjective to begin with, in terms of the categories themselves as well as how one integrates them (or doesn't integrate them) into their life view. Or whatever.

 

[Saslou]

No. I don't rank people.

By doing so, you limit the potential these people can bring to your life to make it easier.

I don't like the idea of better or worse. That is retarded.

It is like being told to read a classic novel yet you won't buy the book because the cover is not to your standard. The best books are the ones that are slightly worn.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The concept of something being better than something else is retarded?

Please explain.