Having a ranking of better and worse people

[Ghost of the dead horse]

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.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

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.

 

[Phantonym]

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.

 

[Antimony]

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.

 

[proteanmix]

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.

 

[Salomé]

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.

 

[Laurie]

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.

 

[Salomé]

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.

 

[Laurie]

^feel free to fix my typo


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.

 

[Salomé]

I think weak Fe and 'status blindness' are related. It's one of the best things about (not) having it.

 

[FDG]

Well I do categorize people in some way but my natural way is different from yours (Santuu). It's more like: makes my day better-makes my day worse. Gives me a lousy mood-makes me have fun. Is happy-is unhappy. Has a positive outlook on life-has a negative outlook on life. If a person fits all the negative criteria at any given time...well, I'll likely avoid hanging out with him/her. Sometimes though my criteria can be "weird"...for example there are some people that I know that are introverted and have a bit of a dark humor/seem not to talk much, but I like hanging out with them anyway, so there is no objective standard for my judgement, it's more an instinctual impression. I have a friend that is a bit like type #1 in your list, my girlfriend always asks me how can I be friends with him; I don't know, I just like his dumb jokes, his negativity is sometimes funny to my eyes, and I suppose he also enjoys the fact that I like it since he calls me to go out. On the other hand there are some guys that are really successful in their lives but that I consider as dumber than me, slow, just hard-working for nothing, not physically fit - in that case I will treat them like dirt and consider them inferior...but I don't feel guilty for it. I don't know how it works in my mind, really.

If I categorize people in terms of better/worse, I do it only a really specific task, like I know some of my friends are faster than me, some others have more endurance, etc. so for example if I want to go for a long hike I will likely ask my friends that have a good endurance and like/are good at that type of activity.

Competitive element? I don't think about it in my day-to-day life, I only become competitive when I'm in the processo of a race, test, or whatever. And I don't like it, because I feel like I lose friends whenever I am competitive (I have an on-off switch, nothing inbetween, cannot be modulated).

 

[Haphazard]

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.

 

[briochick]

I score people similarly, but I generally assume it has to do with my own fear of not measuring up and that it will go away as I become a more evolved and whole person. On that same note; I think society as a whole, an entity to itself (both eastern and western) with it's lack of heart and constant pragmatism, does this to everyone. It asks "what can you give me? what value do you have? why shouldn't I let you die?"

 

[Stanton Moore]

I don't catagorize people in that way. For instance, if a person is not as adept a musician as I, I don't globally think of them as defective, beneath me, or 'bad'. I think the desire to do so is based on the demands of your ego, and those are usually something to be overcome or desposed of, imo.

 

[01011010]

Couldn't a person be egalitarian where laws are concerned, but also know that people aren't created equal in regards to looks/intelligence/resources?

 

[proteanmix]

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.

Gosh, you're so like wonderfully precocious. And I think I've told you that.

I didn't interpret the OP as believing I have more worth than another human being. I thought about it in terms as trying to have a realistic assessment of another person and if in that assessment you can tell something's not quite right. I've worked with people like Santtu described and they will twist you into their net and if you don't play along with them you're an enemy.

I encountered a similar problem although I still don't know what to make of it. I've been told by two people that my boss is a high-functioning autistic. I have never known if it's true or a really nasty rumor but I could tell within my first three months of working with her something was really off. And for a long time, I thought I was very slow at learning my job because the way she did things I couldn't understand why they were (and are) done the way they were but she insisted the procedures made sense. It was after a coworker saw a heated exchange between my boss and I that she told me what she knew. Another person told me as well nearly a year after that, but it may have come from the same source so I'm not sure if it's true. And I would never go up to my boss and ask "Are you autistic?"

If it is true, I think had I known upfront that she was I may have declined to work with her. It's created many communication problems and a stressful work environment. Most people avoid her in my department, but the division and deputy directors love/use her because she works like a mule. Because she's such a good worker, they overlook the problems she's had with others. I'm the longest person to stay in my position, which is now three years. She's not a bad person, but I would prefer not to have to work so closely with someone who has these types of issues. So I would disagree somewhat with the lack of social development not being an issue because it depends on what your relationship is to that person.

So that's my example of a "better than, worse than" transaction that I would rank myself as "above."

 

[Thalassa]

But ranking others as "better" or "worse" is purely subjective based upon what your standards are. What is great to one person might be intolerable to another. Even people who are disabled or lack conventional strengths may have mad skills in some area that you lack. You're going to hate my leftest point of view, but yeah, people are just different - and the older I get, the more I see that people I might have labeled "less than" at one point in my life actually are just different from what my expectations are, or they surprisingly shine in some area that I don't.

For example, a nervous person would drive you up the wall. You see them as weak or something. I see people who are hyper-logical, over-driven, and lacking empathy as "less than" sometimes. You might think those are the best people. I think they're some of the worst.

It's all relative.

The only one that I strongly agree upon is just someone who continually, continually avoids doing anything to help themselves to a ridiculous extreme. But then again, that could be perception too - what takes only moderate effort for a priveleged person to acheive may take huge, monumental effort for a disabled or otherwise disadvantaged person to overcome.

I could go on and on about my personal preferences, but I think you'll get what I'm driving at. Hopefully.

 

[proteanmix]

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.

 

[Thalassa]

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.

Actually I was mainly referring to the OP and just touching on different posts I have seen.

I understand you not wanting to work with that person. I hate working with people who have OCD.

I was just saying mainly that what one person finds intolerable another might be able to deal with, depending on their preferences and personality.

And even if I don't think someone is necessarily "less than" it doesn't mean I necessarily want them around me either! I can think someone is as "good" as me as a human being, but just not want to be around someone like that, for sure. I will avoid the hell out of people who cause me grief.

 

[Jaguar]

I don't view people as better or worse.

I see people as unique individuals with their own gifts.
There's a reason Neuroscience has taught us: No two human brains are exactly alike.