Are people hard-wired that they have to have somebody to look down on?

[raccoon]

I believe they are, and it's something people have to work to overcome.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GodlessBiker]

2. As they say: To succeed is not enough; others must fail.

[dysfunctional press]

3. not just people- ALL animals.

when i "discipline" my alpha cat- he turns around and whacks one of the lesser ones.

[conspirator]

17. That's interesting. I wonder what is the genetic value of bullying?

It seems to me that when you whack a lesser one you are asserting your authority and delaying his attempt to overthrow you.
Or, if other lesser ones are watching, it may be a way of persuasion by demonstration of force.

[pipi_k]

19. This is something that's pretty well demonstrated

in wolf society.

The pack has a definite hierarchy.

Alpha male and female


Omega wolf

and everything in between...it's what holds the structure of the pack together so it functions. Seems kind of not fair that one poor Omega would have to take the thrashings it gets, but it's almost like the Omega wolf accepts its lot in life because it knows it's for the good of the pack.

Although being Omega wolf isn't always a static thing. It's always subject to change.

Anyway, the really odd thing about all this bullying is that, unlike human beings, who are supposed to be all "civilized" and stuff, many animals with a pecking order won't purposely kill members of their own groups in organized "wars".

Kind of makes you wonder just which species the "savage beasts" belong to....

[TlalocW]

4. Feh, loser

What a loser question, loser. :sarcasm:

TlalocW

[Deep13]

5. I think so.

I think if one put ten kids together for a few days who did not know each other, one of them would be an outcast eventually.

[raccoon]

6. Sounds like you're a teacher. nt

[elleng]

9. More than one outcast;

one 'big' guy.

[Marrah_G]

7. Most animals are

it's not so much about "looking down" but rather about an instinct related to procreation. After all we are animals and we do have to work to overcome some basic instincts.

[seabeyond]

8. i dont know. maybe. but maybe not. i never intellectually was able to feel that

so i tended not to. but there were areas i feel maybe i was conditioned. i also worked on letting those go and was one of the more nifty times in my life and since is great to be here.

but

i have one child that tends towards it and one child that is not that at all. the opposite.

these were innate characters in the children as they grew. and the oldest that tends to it has a challenge of overcoming it regardless of the time i spend directing him in another direction. he is also aware he does it. intellectually he knows better. so for him, will probably be having to put effort in not being that way.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. I'm not sure. Sometimes it seems like that.

[elleng]

11. And most don't overcome,

but develop/join groups that take advantage of their feelings of superiority.

[NOW tense]

12. I think you are right.

People feel the need for being above somebody. It strokes their ego. Currently in my community it is beat up on the homeless week. If the community didn't have the homeless to complain about they would be forced to look at themselves or find the next group to complain about.

[MadHound]

13. Humans, along with most other animals, form their societies in a heirarchial manner

Thus that means there will always be society's "winners" and "losers" and in part, those labels are all relative. Jocks look down on nerds because of their inferior physical abilities while nerds look down on jocks because of their inferior mental capabilities.

It would be nice to have a non-judgmental society, but given humanity's nature, that's not going to happen.

[Cronopio]

32. Depends on whether you identify yourself more with the hierarchy or ...

... as a single, vulnerable, responsible individual. Most are too terrified of the risks of isolation and costs of standing on their own feet and so they take refuge in the hierarchy.

But the fly in that ointment is that fealty to the hierarchy is always two-faced. Individuals are motivated to identify with the hierarchy for self-aggrandizement, which is a contradictory motivation. So it's never an either-or proposition.

[DBoon]

14. That's what dogs are for

Dogs are the perpetual underclass

Their job is to accept their status, so no human has to

[On the Road]

15. It Could Be

but I would want to understand Japan better to make sure it's not a Western cultural thing.

[Marrah_G]

16. It goes on in all societies, even those not touched by the modern world.

[pipi_k]

18. I see a lot of territory there...

and I think people are going to use their own definitions of "look down on", or apply one definition to different situations in varying degrees.

For example...many DUers (from what I've seen) don't "look down on" people of different religions or colors or sexual orientation.

But those same people DO "look down on" Republicans...Neocons...Freepers...Freepers who can't spell...etc.


If they don't, it's news to me, as I've NEVER seen any DUer come out in defense of anyone on the "other side".

Which is fine...hey...that's the way it is.

But I think we need to really take a hard and honest look at the various ways that we DO look down on certain people, and not sit here on our high horses pretending we're so virtuous. Hell, I'll be among the first to admit that I'm a bit of a hypocrite at times, and yes, I do tend to look down on some people (one thing that bugs me and makes me think a little less of others is illiteracy born of laziness).

Personally, I think that it takes a true Saint not to look down on others...something most of us here are not.

[seabeyond]

20. not to be on a high horse, nor proclaiming to be a saint, lol. you haven't read my posts

in this regard but it is an excellent example. many times i will read a thread about how one cannot value the repug. just cannot. it is wrong. ect...

i married a repug. my father and two brothers are repugs. my in laws are repugs and ALL my friends are repugs. i do not know a single dem.

of course i love them. no i dont agree with their politics, but not necessarily disagree with what they think. we are not so much different. i also realize why they are part of the repug party, and keep ears closed ect... it is not hard.

and i love them anyway.

i see all the good too

i cannot dismiss that and make all of who they are as repug

so no

not all people do that. and over the years, all the politics i have talked with sons, being in a christian private school, i have been adamant in teaching boys, those we disagree, we do it in love and with respect. has been an invaluable lesson for the boys and serves them well.

it really isn't hard

[pipi_k]

22. Just wondering, though...

You use members of your family as examples, which I don't think is quite fair.


What about strangers?

Do you think "Right to Lifers" are wrong?

Are homophobes wrong?

Do you have any feelings toward murderers or rapists?

Do you donate to charity?


Remember, even pity or compassion imply that the person feeling either of those things puts him/herself above the object of his pity.

[seabeyond]

23. people are allowed to think and feel as they chose and that includes myself

even in disagreement. i am not here to dictate they think like me. i may put it out once, but it is theirs to chose. i cannot make them anymore than they can make me. all of this is ego. living thru ego... i believe though that we are all connected in spirit, energy, however one may feel. and getting beyond the ego, we are one. that one can see the purity. (this is getting beyond how i talk on this board, i do it seldom). i can see all of this is ego talking so it has its place on this dimensional world, but for me that is not the ultimate of what we live

yes... to feel pity or compassion is in essence feeling a person lacks. people call me pragmatic, not a play on the emotion. that is what i did years ago, i got beyond the ego of it all. and everyone walks their journey exactly how they need. who am i to decide for them. i may not like it, i may not do it, but i know, it isnt mine to do.

it doesnt mean we dont strive for the harmony, balance, i call it a stillness, where there is not the energy of action/reaction.

i can only do me. that means no one can do me, i cannot do anyone else. if i do me, it ripples out....

[pipi_k]

25. I have no problem with people

thinking however they choose.

We can strive for harmony and balance and whatever else that will make our lives better.

All I'm saying is that, in relation to the OP, implying that "looking down on others" is a fault that we all have to strive to overcome is unreasonable. Especially if it's hard-wired into us. To me, it's the same as telling a gay person that he or she has to strive to overcome being something he or she can't help being.

Now, if the OP had written something to the effect that, "This is something I need to strive to overcome" (instead of using this "we" stuff), that's something entirely different. I would be like, OK dude...whatever you need to do.

Personally, I think striving to correct something that isn't hard-wired into us is probably a better use of time and energy, but that's just my opinion. In other words, changing personal character defects...not trying to change something it may be impossible to change, such as a possible survival mechanism built into our species.

If it's hard-wired into us, and we try to change it, we set ourselves up for failure.

Life is hard enough without purposely sabotaging ourselves...

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

28. but see... here is the difference

you are going off the premise it is hard wired and i do not necessarily believe that.

i see a higher and lower vibration in all things. so though you may see something as good or bad, deficit or asset.... i see that all can be a lower or higher vibration dependng how a person choses to experience them. that is why in all instances i feel we create.... we create to live it whatever it may be and why there is not the pity or compassion, per se you were talking about before.

my point is getting beyond the ego, not looking down on someone is not very hard. understanding the ego and its job, what it is there for, then it is really easy to put it aside adn say not needed to make it thru life.

[pipi_k]

35. Actually I never said, or implied, that it was good or bad

I'm saying that it is within all of us, whether we know it or not.

And it's not all this spiritual hoo-ha stuff, either, although I can certainly appreciate the spiritual side of life.


Realistically...in the real, concrete world...

if a person has ever...for even one moment...felt a twinge of pity for someone else, that person HAS, for that one moment, placed him or herself in a position above the object of his or her pity.

Doing so, a person will often feel that something needs to be done to relieve the suffering of the object of pity, and that leads to people giving to charity or doing whatever they can to help.

Which means that the OP's premise that looking down on others is something we have to strive to overcome is wrong. Because sometimes looking down on others (i.e. pity) can have a positive outcome.

In reality, it was the OP who has laid a negative connotation onto the concept of looking down on others and claimed it must be defeated in all of us. Looking down on others isn't bad as long as it leads to positive things. That is part of my point.

[seabeyond]

43. really we agree on so much. just different language.

but basically you are saying what i say.... that even though one may see something is bad, can be good. i heartedly agree. what i was saying in that i see a lower/higher vibration in all things.

you say it is reality, i say it is ego.

your reality takes it out of our control

ego, .... it is in our power, control to create....

i dont believe in handing out my power, giving it away. that it is some other that controls me. i just simply do not believe that nor live it.

[BuddhaGirl]

36. I agree

:thumbsup:

I think it is a learned behavior - we are all born with the same capacity to feel empathy and compassion.

[pipi_k]

50. But empathy and compassion aren't the same as pity

And, there are some people who, because of neurological problems, cannot feel empathy or compassion.

I don't believe that it's an either/or situation...nature vs nurture. It's probably a little of both

But to me, empathy means that I understand another's plight based on the fact that I've been through it myself. I don't pity the person. I'm an equal who feels that person's pain as if it were my own...which, in many cases, it is, because I have been through it. We share a common pain.


Pity though...that's a whole different ballgame. That's looking at a person and thinking, "There but for the grace of God...." And once we do that, we've taken ourselves above the level of feeling on an equal basis (empathy) and made them the unfortunate and ourselves the fortunate. In a way, we're looking down on someone else, even if it's not with anger or hatred.

[LWolf]

21. Are people hard-wired,

that they have to have somebody to look up to?

I think the answer to both questions is probably yes. Humans are pack animals that spend their lives establishing rank.

I'd like to evolve to a point where we don't feel like we have to judge the rest of our species, one at a time, and one group at a time, and rank them according to our personal values, bias, and world view.

I'd also like to evolve to a point at which we have enough confidence that we are not always looking for a savior, a messiah, a "leader" to take care of us, to step up so that we can settle comfortably into the position of "flock."

But that's just my personal view, and judgment, of the species, lol.

[lonestarnot]

24. I think it stems from survival of the fittest, fight or flight, so yes

hardwired and must be fought! NO OUTCASTING ALLOWED! Well unless they suck. :)

[pipi_k]

30. I think you have a real valid point there...

Back in prehistoric times...even now, as a matter of fact...people judged others as possible mates based on some very specific things.

The survival of our species depended on it.

Women mated with the strongest men...the men best able to provide for them and their children.

Men mated with women who could provide them with heirs.

In doing so, possible mates were judged either "suitable" or "unsuitable" (i.e. inferior)


And today, whether they know it or not, people do the same thing. I saw a social "experiment" one time on TV...the same guy was used. He drove an older model car to a nice neighborhood bar. Was clean, but not dressed in expensive clothing. The women there rejected him...in other words, looked down on him as being "inferior"...not worth their time.

A while later he was back...expensive car...expensive clothing...Rolex watch..the whole bit. Same guy, different outer trappings. The women were falling all over themselves trying to be noticed.

Now, we can say, "How shallow", but in reality, it's only the whole self-preservation/survival thing in action. They looked down on the nice but poor guy, but made a big deal over the guy who looked like he would be able to give them what they need.

We all do it, to some extent or another...

:)

[L0oniX]

26. Mentality left over from the high school days n/t

[ShortnFiery]

27. No, just the one's who hate themselves and unwittingly PROJECT. eom

[Lorien]

39. Agreed. Only insecure people need someone else to look down on

I truly wish that I could have complete faith in everyone on the planet-hell, I wish that everyone could wake up tomorrow morning and find themselves with a 140 IQ or higher! That, along with high quality educations, would go a long way toward solving the world's ills.

[seabeyond]

44. lol lol. insecure people, people with lower than 140 iq, high quality education.....

you did the same thing, .... making good and bad.... with three things.

isnt that looking down on insecure, less than 140 iq, uneducated people?

i you really suggesting that these qualities innately create good?

[Cronopio]

29. I see it more as software than hardware. The programming is strong, but eminently hackable ...

... for those interested in the challenge.

[pink-o]

31. The perception definitely stems from basic survival instincts

When I was a younger homo-sapien, that very competitive instinct was manifested as insecurity, and since my talents are all verbal, I would do an "Elvis Costello" on people I thought were dorks, cutting them down with sarcasm and mean-spirited humor. This elicited laughs from all my "cool" crowd (newsflash: none of us were ever really cool). I knew it was cruel and hurtful, but it made us all a little less fearful of our own place in the world if someone else wasn't up to snuff.

But now that I'm old and gray (ish) and have nothing more to prove, I cringe looking back at those times. We all have episodes in our lives where we behaved badly because we were afraid, but hopefully as individuals--and as a species--we will evolve towards a more equalized perception.

Those old instincts with nowhere to manifest are the core root of all our conflicts and suffering, from war and murder to racism and oppression. Humans are a work in progress; we'll either destroy ourselves or rise to the task.

I reeeeeeeaally hope it's Option B!

[yellowcanine]

33. Chickens also. Hence "pecking order". And don't get me started on cows. Bossy bitches.

[HughBeaumont]

34. Reminds me of a "Note from the Rich":

http://www.namebase.org/richnote.html

Keep selling us your souls . . .

[raccoon]

37. thanks for the link.

That deserves its own thread.

[pipi_k]

45. I have to admit

that it made me chuckle.

Not that many of them care, but I think most rich people suck. I pity them, I really do. For people who can have almost anything they want, life must be awfully boring. There's nothing to dream for or save for. Not that money is the root of all happiness, but I think people probably know what I mean...

:)

[HughBeaumont]

46. What do you do on Christmas?

I'm not getting what's in it for them to hoard cash rather than put it towards the greater good or their businesses?

[pipi_k]

51. Not sure if I understand what you're saying...

can you clarify a bit?

:)

[HughBeaumont]

52. It's about the whole "what's there to look forward to if you have everything you want when you want"

Christmas and birthdays probably wouldn't be as fun . .. you know, unless the billionaires played Santa to random people. If I was one, that's what I would do, since no one in my family would ever have to want for anything.

[Bucky]

38. No, just slimy pathetic illiterate conservative red neck trash feel that way.

Hmmm, my subconscious irony detector is going off.

 

[blues90]

40. You have a few posts searching for answers.

What are you looking for? Asking out of curiousity only.

[ieoeja]

41. Yes. And we are all glad that you are there for us. n/t

[JitterbugPerfume]

42. no

it is conditioning

we are born with a capacity for compassion. It gets distroyed by learned behavior.

[applegrove]

47. No. I don't believe that is anything but learned behaviour. Unless you are looking down

on someone who purposely makes others small I don't believe we are hard wired. Kids are hard wired to see people who are different as "others". But they learn their way out of it if they are brought up properly.

[Tsiyu]

48. nature/ nurture

In a culture such as ours, I believe we are socialized to continually compete and compare ourselves to others.

Study some native cultures, and you will see more egalitarian societies where the "tribe" cares for all members of the community and one's wealth is measured by what you give away.

Hard to say if it's "hard-wired" in humans as we pretty much decimated the more gentle societies. There's not much left to study.

[treestar]

49. Probably - it's just one of those base instincts that like you say

need to be worked on to establish a more civilized society.

The way DUers might look down on freeper is because of their ignorance.

The reason the right wing is worse is that they want it to be a group thing, not based on individual achievements or merit, but just because they were born who they are. They just want to be superior because they are born in the U.S. rather than say Iran. And they feel entitled to have that recognized by those not born in the U.S. White freepers don't just want to be superior because they are born white, they want the nonwhites to acknowledge that. That's why they pitch a fit when white liberals don't toe that line.