A Theory of Jerks (2014)(aeon.co)
aeon.co
A Theory of Jerks (2014)
https://aeon.co/essays/so-you-re-surrounded-by-idiots-guess-who-the-real-jerk-is
65 comments
I think Bender said it best:
"Yeah, but everyone's a jerk. You, me, this jerk. That's my philosophy."
"Yeah, but everyone's a jerk. You, me, this jerk. That's my philosophy."
Sounds like a narrow application of the fundamental attribution bias. Not sure that explains everything, but I'd bet it plays a big part.
When my wife was teaching preschool, she said the kids who caused the most trouble also felt that many things other people were doing things deliberately to upset them. It was kind of a reverse of Hanlon's Razor.
Perhaps them thinking everyone is a jerk is a side effect of their narcissism.
This strikes me as circular.
> the waiter messed up because they're a jerk
That's a subordinate clause where "jerk" is referring to the waiter, not the main subject, hence it's not circular.
That's a subordinate clause where "jerk" is referring to the waiter, not the main subject, hence it's not circular.
And people think singular "they" is OK in writing.
Try:
the waiter messed up because he's a jerk.
Try:
the waiter messed up because he's a jerk.
That's not a unique problem of they:
"The man shoved the waiter because he was in his way."
Pronouns only have a few bits of information, everything else has to be inferred from context. (A big problem in natural language processing.)
"The man shoved the waiter because he was in his way."
Pronouns only have a few bits of information, everything else has to be inferred from context. (A big problem in natural language processing.)
This doesn't do anything at all to resolve the ambiguity in this sentence.
"They" is generally accepted as a singular gender neutral pronoun.
And has been since the Canterbury Tales! It's a modern development that it isn't considered "correct" English.
600 years is long enough for me
Here's a short review on the use of the singular "they". It is OK. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbi...
If this is such a problem, do you think it's a problem too that English doesn't distinguish between singular and plural you?
Your comment strikes me as circular.
One interesting quip I've heard from a psychologist recently, is that communication only really works well going down the dominance hierarchy. (I think it can work across.) I see a lot of the outrage driven viral media of today as being "punching down" by aspirant upper-echelon socioeconomic people onto lower-echelon people.
Also, if communication only really works well going down the dominance hierarchy, doesn't this suggest that power is contextual, so that it can change directions and allow communications to flow in different directions?
EDIT: Relevant to the article - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVTogKE25aQ
Also, if communication only really works well going down the dominance hierarchy, doesn't this suggest that power is contextual, so that it can change directions and allow communications to flow in different directions?
EDIT: Relevant to the article - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVTogKE25aQ
It's known that "communication can only happen between equals." Otherwise it's order giving no matter the semantics.
I don't mean to sound too crass, but maybe you should keep calm and hit the pub for a pint, read some literature... something.
"It's known" sounds a little final.
In a more level tone: there are venues for equalizing communication, because of course in society there are hierarchies that we've struggled with for ages. The charge for any individual is being willing to expose themselves to those environments and being willing to engross themselves in the mess of what that kind of interaction can turn up.
Then again, I kind of side with Bohm about the connectedness of people, and yet...
I raise you Bohm on communication problems:
>If each one of us can give full attention to what is actually ‘blocking’ communication while he is also attending properly to the content of what is communicated, then we may be able to create something new between us, something of very great significance for bringing to an end the at present insoluble problems of the individual and of society.
Scratch all the drunk talk that follows and I also raise you this:
http://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/17/archives/the-irish-pub-is-...
There traditionally (in some cultures, anyway) venues where people from various social hierarchies were equals when they passed the threshold, and communication is then wide open. They still exist -- but if you're North American don't count on finding them on the strip.
"It's known" sounds a little final.
In a more level tone: there are venues for equalizing communication, because of course in society there are hierarchies that we've struggled with for ages. The charge for any individual is being willing to expose themselves to those environments and being willing to engross themselves in the mess of what that kind of interaction can turn up.
Then again, I kind of side with Bohm about the connectedness of people, and yet...
I raise you Bohm on communication problems:
>If each one of us can give full attention to what is actually ‘blocking’ communication while he is also attending properly to the content of what is communicated, then we may be able to create something new between us, something of very great significance for bringing to an end the at present insoluble problems of the individual and of society.
Scratch all the drunk talk that follows and I also raise you this:
http://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/17/archives/the-irish-pub-is-...
There traditionally (in some cultures, anyway) venues where people from various social hierarchies were equals when they passed the threshold, and communication is then wide open. They still exist -- but if you're North American don't count on finding them on the strip.
I've been in places all across the US billing themselves as Irish pubs, and this is corroborated by my experience particularly in Ohio and Houston. (Yes, I know I went from a state to a city.) I've literally been at sessions where left leaning doctors, devout Christians, gun shop owners, republican judges, wiccan radicals, Discordian internet hipsters, polyamorous librarians, liberal engineers, and libertarian programmers can all bond over a love of music and even be friends. The level of actual Irish Pub authenticity can vary. The actual communication from different points of the socioeconomic ladder and political spectrum is real. What's more, it seems to work better in red states than in blue. In Red states, there's enough left leaning in the music communities, such that a left-right balance of power occurs in such places. In Blue states, there's an overwhelming left lean, so sometimes people far enough on the right are shunned. (And the center-left is labeled "right.")
I agree with just about everything you said excepting your implication that communities that lean further left are not as welcoming to communication (shunning opposing views).
I don't argue that doesn't happen, but I don't think it's isolated to one end of the spectrum. I would bet the symptoms are the same at either extreme -- right or left.
If you mean "center-left" when you say right, I think what you're actually implying is communication is better tolerated in communities with more balance between political viewpoints, and less given to extremes.
But traditionally, outside of movements, it's been somewhat bad form to bring politics into the pub at all.
I don't argue that doesn't happen, but I don't think it's isolated to one end of the spectrum. I would bet the symptoms are the same at either extreme -- right or left.
If you mean "center-left" when you say right, I think what you're actually implying is communication is better tolerated in communities with more balance between political viewpoints, and less given to extremes.
But traditionally, outside of movements, it's been somewhat bad form to bring politics into the pub at all.
It is known.
Could you expand on the "it's known" part? Any research? This sounds as a very general statement. Social hierarchies can be dynamic.
He is a Dothraki.
As far as I can trace it, this quote originates from the Illuminatus Trilogy and is actually "True communication...".
Sounds interesting, who is the psychologist?
Jordan B. Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVTogKE25aQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KfVXV2IjYQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVTogKE25aQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KfVXV2IjYQ
thanks, I binged 10 hours of his lectures. This professor has changed my life!
Yes! He's basically Mr. Rogers for adults!
I'm confused.. The video doesn't seem related to your post?
Is there another video about what you wrote?
Is there another video about what you wrote?
Video is relevant to the article.
I found this article very insightful.
However, let me make one important addition. The author says that the person who is not a jerk is a sweetheart. However, following Aristotle's theory of the golden mean, let me point out there is also a third type, namely someone who discounts their own perspective and always thinks the other person is right, and so goes around feeling guilty and inferior.
However, let me make one important addition. The author says that the person who is not a jerk is a sweetheart. However, following Aristotle's theory of the golden mean, let me point out there is also a third type, namely someone who discounts their own perspective and always thinks the other person is right, and so goes around feeling guilty and inferior.
That seems to be a type of negatively expressed sweetheart, in these terms.
There is a magical center of action, greatly to be desired, where one neither runs over others nor lies down to be overrun.
There is a magical center of action, greatly to be desired, where one neither runs over others nor lies down to be overrun.
It is interesting that the meaning of"jerk" has moved very recently from meaning something like "bumpkin" to something closer to "arsehole". As the author points out, this is similar to the change in the meaning of "villain", along with several other words where a class-based insult eventually became moralised.
But most of the words he mentions are old words that changed their meaning back in the days when litteral aristocrats, kings, dukes and princes ruled the English speaking lands and their neighbours. "Jerk" changed recently and I wonder if the change hints at a new class system.
But most of the words he mentions are old words that changed their meaning back in the days when litteral aristocrats, kings, dukes and princes ruled the English speaking lands and their neighbours. "Jerk" changed recently and I wonder if the change hints at a new class system.
Jerk has been synonymous with "rude person" as long as I've been alive. If there was a shift, it wasn't all that recent.
I near sixty. It has meant arsehole since I was a kid, with one exception. Namely, the soda jerk. That usage was still part of the vernacular when I was young.
I am not sure what timeframe they are using for reference.
I am not sure what timeframe they are using for reference.
And yet "rude" itself has also changed -- from meaning "unsophisticated" to meaning something more along the lines of "obnoxious".
Is not saying hello when you see someone that you would normally be expected to say hello to not considered "rude"? It is to me, but it's not obnoxious...
There's a reason I said "more along the lines of" -- I was having trouble coming up with a definition which was precise without being circular.
In any event, I'm sure you can agree that "rude" no longer means simply "unsophisticated".
In any event, I'm sure you can agree that "rude" no longer means simply "unsophisticated".
If you’re interested in this kind of thing, I recommend CS Lewis’s book Studies in Words, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_in_Words
"Third, I’ve called the jerk ‘he’, for reasons you might guess. But then it seems too gendered to call the sweetheart ‘she’, so I’ve made the sweetheart a ‘he’ too."
Absolutely hilarious. I guess one point he's making is that men have a problem with noncompliance, but seems to have forgotten the upside entirely
Absolutely hilarious. I guess one point he's making is that men have a problem with noncompliance, but seems to have forgotten the upside entirely
I think the reason is that if he had used 'she', there would have been a shitstorm.
If you do a word-replace of all instances of 'he' with 'she' and 'his' with 'her', it becomes an entirely different article.
If you do a word-replace of all instances of 'he' with 'she' and 'his' with 'her', it becomes an entirely different article.
Maybe, but actually a masculine avatar is fine here. The whole thing would have worked just as well if, instead of "sweetheart", he'd used the term "nice-guy" as in the claim "nice-guys finish last."
feminists have totally discredited nice guy though, turning it into a passive-aggressive hanger on who hopes to get rewarded with sex from being nice.
I've seen that image of “nice guy” far more from MRA, PUA, and other anti-democratic than from feminists, despite having a lot more interaction with the latter.
Missed the edit window, but “anti-democratic” should be “anti-feminist”.
Stupid “smart” auto-correct on the phone keyboard...
Stupid “smart” auto-correct on the phone keyboard...
Do you mean that interpretation of "nice guy" an actual term of modern feminist jargon? I hadn't known that.
Or do you mean that it is a human eternal, the instinctive reaction of womens' inner bullshit detectors?
Or do you mean that it is a human eternal, the instinctive reaction of womens' inner bullshit detectors?
See the niceguys reddit https://reddit.com/r/niceguys for the full flowering of this interpretation of the "nice guy" trope.
The guy who thinks that "being nice" to women is what gets them relationships + sex & that they're being wronged when a women rejects them even after they've "been nice" is definitely a thing.
The guy who thinks that "being nice" to women is what gets them relationships + sex & that they're being wronged when a women rejects them even after they've "been nice" is definitely a thing.
Plenty of women that take liberties also. I've always tried to be nothing than pleasant. Where does it get you?
Compare "Assholes, a theory", which is a serious book.[1] It could be subtitled "Why Sociopaths Get Ahead".
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Assholes-Theory-Aaron-James/dp/080417...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Assholes-Theory-Aaron-James/dp/080417...
Is this article what a professor of philosophy considers work? I hope not. I skimmed it, seemed to have little to zero content.
1st half, longwinded exploration of semantics. 2nd half, making some random assertions based on no data.
1st half, longwinded exploration of semantics. 2nd half, making some random assertions based on no data.
Are you a jerk though?
As a recovering jerk, I found the article rather insightful and useful.
This is the heart of the professor's theory: the jerk culpably fails to appreciate the perspectives of others around him, treating them as tools to be manipulated or idiots to be dealt with rather than as moral and epistemic peers.
so, a sociopath?
is this theory really new or interesting?
so, a sociopath?
is this theory really new or interesting?
No, a sociopath is someone who lacks a conscience, and so they work to get what they want, even if it harms other people.
Some sociopaths are very good at understanding other people's perspectives, and they use that understanding to trick them, as in the case of con artists. Other sociopaths, the thug-types, instead use force and threats, and so they are not so concerned with understanding other people's psychology.
Some sociopaths are very good at understanding other people's perspectives, and they use that understanding to trick them, as in the case of con artists. Other sociopaths, the thug-types, instead use force and threats, and so they are not so concerned with understanding other people's psychology.
The guy's just trying to be helpful. Think about it from his perspective.
[deleted]
This theory is regularly independently rediscovered by jerks. https://www.pftq.com/blabberbox/?page=Three_Tiers_of_Mind
[deleted]
It's not that they don't care why the waiter messed up their order, it's that they think the waiter messed up because they're a jerk.