Why are losers and weakelings the best people?

[WALKYRIA]

Days after days, I see living proof that poeple who are in a position of losing are way much more developped on a moral stand-point.( atleast on a surface level !).
I arrived to that conclusion by collecting infos over years: fat women, black people, immigrants, beggars, low socio-economical people, handicapped people, kids and elderly,..Etc
It seems that having high morals is associated( cause or consequence?) with being in a somehow bad or inferior position.
I met and interacted today with the most beautiful and radious woman working in a shop, her energy was way different, way more positive than your average young woman... Curious, I checked her out and realised that she had obviously a fake eye and was trying to compensate by being overly nice and warm... It was actually cute and sexy and she inspired me to start this topic... Had she been normal from head to toe and her behaving would have been ugly as hell... I'm quasi sure lol.

Here is a video of something similar, a woman with a handicap that helps her keeping her feet on the ground and therefore is way more beautiful...

What do you think of this phenomenon? Is humiliation or the potential of humiliation the basis of true humility?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA8FE0AlS2M

 

[Tannhauser]

The best people are definitely those who experienced hardship and decided to face it head on. The worst are those who decided to become victims.

 

[Alias]

Yep. An example I like is Gordon Hurd, aka Big Man Tyrone. Now known as a philanthropist, personal video maker, and internet personality, he started off in Cameroon but was able to migrate and lives in England. He's extremely optimistic, he loves to spread joy, and he's full of laughs. You have to be tested to prove yourself humble. Another is a guy only known as Charlie or cr1tikal. He's in a terrible financial situation because of how much he donated and invested in charity. Until he was unemployed, Charlie never used his YouTube money on himself. For quite a while he's been in a rough spot, with his girlfriend proving unfaithful and loads of personal quandaries, but he still maintains a humble, chill personality. He's been keeping his head up, and he's really a great guy.

 

[Yellow]

I think the conclusion is incorrect. As Tannhauser and Alias said, nearly everyone faces one or more hardships or obstacles in their lives. It's how you face them that shapes you as a person.

I used to think adversity makes people stronger, but I'm finding in practice that it doesn't. It only gives you a chance to test your strength. A staggering number of people face a hurdle, and if they fail to jump it on their first attempt, they just sit down next to it. There they stay, sometimes for the rest of their lives, pointing at it dumbly whenever anyone asks them why they haven't moved on. It makes them hopeless, petty, shallow, spiteful, small-minded, and in every way stunted. They become the worst people, and you can't even be upset with them. I guess those are the people you are supposed to pity (in the warmer meaning of the word). They are like the bodies on the side of the road. The casualties of life.

 

[Rualani]

The main culprit that I see is the Just world fallacy.

Spoiler

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/the-just-world-fallacy/

You know what happens with people who see the real way the world works? They realize that the world isn't just. This fallacy is a cape, which protects people from actually having to be empathetic about victims in the world. If it's their fault, you aren't obliged to figure out a solution now are you?

Secondly, when it comes to judging people, it's rare that people consider the factors that influence decisions in the first place. They see people fail to make the right choices and give up. The questions about why this person did this or that are lost.

Conclusion: People are fucking lazy
Laziness is more empathy destroying for the successful

I leave the rest of it to the humanities. Peoples character is probably one of the most ambiguous and difficult systems to understand.

How to solve the problem

Spoiler

The strong must help the weak, and the weak must look up to the strong.
If you try to help someone else up, and they fail to get up. YOU are the one who failed.
If someone is in a rough situation, but they don't seek help. THEY have failed.
If society doesn't create systems where this process happens. SOCIETY has failed.
Failure isn't some permanent judgement, but a position of where the weight of responsibility is placed. There are many cases where people just don't have what it takes in various situations and that's OK. People still need to accept the fact that they failed. Acknowledging a loss is vitally important, less people turn away and give into to their biases and fallacies, transforming into assholes.

 

[Yellow]

^^^
I don't think OP is employing that kind of fallacy per se. It seems to be the opposite of how the "Just World Fallacy" works, actually. The fallacy you mention is the idea that people in crappy situations must have deserved it. The OP is the opposite. That people in crappy situations are better than those more fortunate.

It's all a part of the Illusion of Control, however. Life is random and bad things happen, but one can find comfort in a made-up system that will balance things out. Like karma. Bad things are happening because I did something to deserve it, or I did nothing to deserve this bad thing happening, so if I'm patient and endure it, I am bound to be rewarded in some way.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

Because the *winners* can afford to be assholes.
You can either be winners or losers
Or you can be a person who doesnt give a fuck about other people's impressions about you, then it doesnt matter anymore whether you are a "winner" or a "loser".


But most people give too much importance to social acceptance.
Society accepts people who are;
a. Useful (aka winners becos winners tend to get things done and have more contacts)
b. Nice people

If you are striving for a *certain* level of social acceptance, then if you have sufficient skill points in the (a. Useful) category, you dont need much in the (b. Niceness) category.
And if you dont have enough (a. Usefulness) you have to make up in the (b. Niceness) category.



Or you just dont give a fuck about what others think, and you be a nice winner or an asshole loser/weakling.
But because 99% people care about what social acceptance, they are either nice losers or asshole winners trying to achieve the Particular level of social acceptance they wish to reach.
And sometimes there is luck too, say by chance you are married to this amazing woman who can take a lot of shit from you and still be nice to you, then you can be an asshole loser, because by luck you got accepted by people even without having either of the qualities

 

[Rualani]

@Yellow

This wasn't a rebuttal to the OP. It was an explanation in agreement with the OP. I apologize for not making that clear. The only point I was making is that the Just World Fallacy disintegrates when the chaos of life reels it's ugly head thus providing people with an incentive to become more ethical. They can no longer justify away peoples suffering.

I agree that people seek the illusion of control for comfort. In this scenario I am arguing that it, also, enables people to be assholes for this specific fallacy.

@YOLOisonlyprinciple

I agree, mainly, with the idea that winners can afford to be assholes. It reminds me of these "alpha behavior" blogs I ran into *please don't ask* that talked about how those with power are less likely to get "socially policed" into respectful behaviors. Social pressure does force people to be more kind and accepting to each other... I kind of wish that people would implement such behaviors in response to a more compassionate understanding of humanity, but... idealism.

 

[Urakro]

The best people? What you are comparing is a hard element to measure. What you see on the surface (even the abstracts) are just a small portion of that person you are observing. Inside that person are stories and experiences that are surprising. A dressing room of roles and characters you wouldn't expect. A whole way of thinking from a different place and time. Even the most craziest ones have their justifications. And the nicest may have horrific skeletons.

An assumption that's really strong for me to make is that what I get has always been and will always be. But with people it's transient. Sticking around a few years, I've watched the childish mature. The mindless think. I've watched the calm snap asunder into chaotic storms. The sane go insane, then pull themselves back again. The strong become weak, and the quiet learn to roar.

What yellow was mentioning about life being random was on my mind a lot today, tagged along with the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy. I thought about the billions of occurrences that happen in any time, all without much of a rationale. But being in one perspective in a specific place creates some order to that, limits it to a frame of reference to start with. From that standpoint, we still can only prioritize a limit to what we find meaningful in that place of time, and from this is where we develop filtering algorithms.

So it's funny when a person starts the day by spilling their morning coffee on themselves, and states: "Today is going to be one of those days." Throughout the day, similar mishaps keep occurring, deepening the frustration and feeding the belief. The belief that programs the filters. Saying that a day is a bad day, is like saying the world is all blue while wearing blue-tinted glasses. But without glasses, we can't see, so we all must choose a pair. Spectacles that organize the chaos into something we can reason with.

I also find people are strange when they feel really good. Especially when relatively good is all they've known.

There is two kinds of hell on earth; the one which people are knowledgeable and sympathetic of, and the lesser known one. The lesser known is slightly worse, but both bring a huge change of perspective to the table. The normal distress of heart-breaks, existential crises, melt-downs, broken limbs, etc is still on the top tier of human pain. There does exist deeper levels that really do go far beyond a person's level to cope. Agony that stretches much longer time-frames than anyone can reasonably endure. Sometimes it may not even be noticeable, but some are figuratively licking the tar floors of hell. And in this place, there is no hope. There is nothing they can do, and no help possible from others.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Good people fight for good and not for themselves.

 

[Urakro]

Good people fight for good and not for themselves.

I find the saying meaningful; "If you want something done right, do it yourself". If people did for themselves, a lot more things would be done right. People would learn resourcefulness, self-sufficiency and self-discipline.

Of course, there is exceptions where it's more appropriate to delegate. At times, I still perceive the scales tilted too much towards dependency though.

 

[Pyropyro]

Good people fight for good and not for themselves.

Good people fight for others AND themselves. Of course how much one gives to themselves and how much is dedicated to others vary.

That's why "good" is attractive, it basically says that I have enough resources to help you and myself in the process. Of course there is much inconsistency in what "good" is. Both the nun that is doing charity and the mom who takes care of her babies are considered good but the people around them might see either the mom or the nun as the better person.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Good people fight for good and not for themselves.

Good is a part of themselves. Their objectives are tribe/group inclusive, or blindly dispassionate or code-bound.

 

[Intolerable]

There is a basic psychological component to it.

You can't know yourself until you've lost. This is said a lot in sports, too and it is entirely true. To go your whole life without losing means you only know how to win. You've never had to cope with losing.

Some don't cope very well with it. As some others have stated previously. Though I think as people lose perspective is gained. Should we really give a shit? I think that is when humility is reached. You just see things a different way as a loser that frees your mind.

 

[nanook]

Yeah, it never stops to boggle my mind, how little self knowledge or philosophical insight nero-typical and therefore socially successful people have and how happy they are to look down at a person who appears to be stuck in their own ass, about which that person may or may not have learned anything by now, because their life isn't going anywhere else, due to the fact, that they are not neurotypical and are basically not allowed to play or at least not to win.

first rule of beta monkey fight club is:

always accuse other people of being the sole cause of their suffering, to show which club you belong to. winners get to take what they need. the "worst people" are those who end up speculating on compassion. they are just out there to ruin your winning trip, aren't they?

chimps ....

Of course there is much inconsistency in what "good" is.

yeah, betas think it's good to help other betas in putting omegas on their place and weakening the ruling alpha in the hope that one of them gets to take over one day.

omegas may think it's good to be good to everyone. since competing is not an option for them. they may not be trained to think of others at all, since they lack influence.

alphas have both options. a few of them figure out how to be good to everyone and how to command betas to behave on occasion. but i don't think they can give up competing and supporting crab mentality all together, or else they would be taken down.

 

[emmabobary]

Actually I think, I rather have a leader of great values, than millions of soft, kind and well intended, lovely comformists.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Actually I think, I rather have a leader of great values, than millions of soft, kind and well intended, lovely comformists.

What? This isn't about conformism, but the opposite. To stand up for what is right counter to the beliefs of society, and pay the price.

Or maybe that's not what the thread was about... No. But it sort of leaned that way.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

Good is a part of themselves. Their objectives are tribe/group inclusive, or blindly dispassionate or code-bound.

yeah...people fighting for anything only means they're seeking to set the scales of justice in accordance with what they believe to be just

 

[emmabobary]

To stand up for what is right counter to the beliefs of society, and pay the price.

I wonder what do you mean by paying the price.

Hmmm
What you call right doesn´t really exist.
I mean, it´s ok to stand up for what you think is right, but life isn´t only about that.
Great leaders, and also great people can be hurtful sometimes, you know? You can´t be loved for everyone, someone has to hate you.
I suposse the only people who are undeniably loved by the whole irrational mass are victims. Those who are indefense and had suffered injustices through their lives are the ones, whom most of the people sympathize with.
But believe me, no one can be a victim his whole life.
....or maybe I´m wrong...

Spoiler

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

I have been popular/high-status as well as an outcast at different times in my life. In both cases, I noted different virtues and vices emerge as a corollary of the unique social position. True leaders do not lead by fear or intimidation; people understand this. There is quite a bit of pressure on leaders to lead in strict moral rectitude, according to the dictations of the given collective.

Outcasts are no more innately virtuous by virtue of being outcasts. They are often just as capable of evil as the leaders the argument attempts to demonize. Constant humiliation can be processed to render humility and empathy, yes, but just as easily into hatred and acts thereof.

Reason I fashioned myself into a social nomad of sorts is because I needed to experience the full gamut of social positions, the pressures and paradigms that come with them. Delving too far into both society and isolation brought out some very ugly albeit distinct tendencies in me. It is best to strike a balance between conformity and independence.

The conflict can sort of be framed on an Fi-Fe axis:

Fi is intensive, loving and looking out for those close to one, i.e. the given collective or group. Naturally, those outside of the group are antagonized to a certain extent.

Fe is extensive, spreading caring and empathy in a far-reaching manner, but thereby weakening the net effect. Little to no concept of group, and thus antagonization, but therefore an apparently frail and feeble caring toward those which one should be closest to.

The core problem with humanity is that individual constituents are irrevocably selfish. If individual members could each put aside their own selfish considerations, consider the needs of the collective over their own, there would be far less suffering in the world.

 

[Stagename]

What do you think of this phenomenon? Is humiliation or the potential of humiliation the basis of true humility?

It might be that you don't perceive losers to be a threat, and their presence are therefore more pleasant than that of a winner who's primarily looking out for number 1.

The type of loser that you describe also seems to have a self effacing personality. Humility is a good thing to use tactfully. But not to the degree that it poses a risk to oneself. It seems to do exactly that in the case of this loser personality, and it is probably a central contributing factor to their loser status. These kinds of people are "pleasant" to be around because they never challenge you, cause any problems, stand up for themselves, or voice their opinion about anything. This is not a good thing.

Having an egotistical approach to life is probably regarded as not that moral. However, in order to be able to help and take care of others, one must first take care of oneself. If the loser lacks this drive and ability, they will amount to nothing, and their generosity won't even be worth that much anyway.

 

[MosMaiorum]

There seems to be a lot of intuitionist speculation going on here. Intuition has been proven to be a poor tool when it comes to forming general opinions on issues within psychology (and on the subject of human nature as a whole).

 

[Haim]

There seems to be a lot of intuitionist speculation going on here. Intuition has been proven to be a poor tool when it comes to forming general opinions on issues within psychology (and on the subject of human nature as a whole).

Said the intuition based on few cases that intuition is false.
(otherwise why would the study get publicity?an obvious result won't get publicity)
Statistical based research is as bad,in the end there is a human that form a false consolation,using what?intuition.

 

[Brontosaurie]

(otherwise why would the study get publicity?an obvious result won't get publicity).

Yes it will. Welcome to psychology.

 

[Haim]

Yes it will. Welcome to psychology.

How many of the researches that are highly obvious did you read/heard?
I didnt ment published in the news but got a lot of people attention.

 

[WALKYRIA]

What? This isn't about conformism, but the opposite. To stand up for what is right counter to the beliefs of society, and pay the price.

I wonder if this is an INTP thing to do? In the same vein that INTP don't buy in into facebook stuff...

Spoiler

 

[JimJambones]

that's how I look with a room full of people praying