![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bolsonA post by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
flexagon got me thinking. To what degree are people jealous of people who are superior in some quality? Not too long ago I read some well known works of fiction where that could be a primary motivating force behind major social and political movements, and I found this absurd and it made the fictional world unbelievable (I'm pretty sure the fictional world was supposed to be essentially like the real one). At the time I read it I thought this completely absurd because I hadn't run into the phenomenon at all and I was convinced that no one thinks like that. flexagon's anecdote makes me think it is out there and active in some small way, but still not the major social mover of those books I read.
How much of the problem is that unreasonably much weight is being placed on the one aspect where the differential lies? If the differential is fitness/hotness, would the less fit person be better off if they didn't worry about that so much? Of course, more fitness is better up to some point of diminishing returns and a desire to do other things. On the other end of the spectrum unreasonable weight can be placed on the quality one is superior in, leading to assumption of general superiority and arrogance and assholery.
Either of those kinda conflates 'better at X' with 'better human being'. Somehow moral worth gets tied up in one quality, leading to positions of holier-than-thou, or being annoyed at people who you assume think they are holier-than-you. I talk about assuming what others are thinking because I've never knownflexagon to display that kind of annoying arrogance, and yet it sounds to me like she was assumed into the role. Is this rationalization by the person on the bottom? Seeing someone overfit they bring them down a notch in their mind by adding the imagined flaw of arrogance? Maybe just a predisposition to believe that after seeing it in others.
I'm often annoyed by equating moral worth with economic worth. It should be too easy to disprove this by pointing out assholes on top and good people being shat on by our economy. But of course this argument wouldn't work against someone who really started by assuming economic worth to be fundamental, because they would neglect any personal style issues of the very effective person on top (nevermind whatever it is they actually do for their money or how they got there) and assume that the economic failure is a worthless person (again, nevermind how they got there). In short, GRrrr, this is a frustrating argument.
OK, ramble off, it's past time for me to get to work.
flexagon got me thinking. To what degree are people jealous of people who are superior in some quality? Not too long ago I read some well known works of fiction where that could be a primary motivating force behind major social and political movements, and I found this absurd and it made the fictional world unbelievable (I'm pretty sure the fictional world was supposed to be essentially like the real one). At the time I read it I thought this completely absurd because I hadn't run into the phenomenon at all and I was convinced that no one thinks like that. flexagon's anecdote makes me think it is out there and active in some small way, but still not the major social mover of those books I read.How much of the problem is that unreasonably much weight is being placed on the one aspect where the differential lies? If the differential is fitness/hotness, would the less fit person be better off if they didn't worry about that so much? Of course, more fitness is better up to some point of diminishing returns and a desire to do other things. On the other end of the spectrum unreasonable weight can be placed on the quality one is superior in, leading to assumption of general superiority and arrogance and assholery.
Either of those kinda conflates 'better at X' with 'better human being'. Somehow moral worth gets tied up in one quality, leading to positions of holier-than-thou, or being annoyed at people who you assume think they are holier-than-you. I talk about assuming what others are thinking because I've never known
flexagon to display that kind of annoying arrogance, and yet it sounds to me like she was assumed into the role. Is this rationalization by the person on the bottom? Seeing someone overfit they bring them down a notch in their mind by adding the imagined flaw of arrogance? Maybe just a predisposition to believe that after seeing it in others.I'm often annoyed by equating moral worth with economic worth. It should be too easy to disprove this by pointing out assholes on top and good people being shat on by our economy. But of course this argument wouldn't work against someone who really started by assuming economic worth to be fundamental, because they would neglect any personal style issues of the very effective person on top (nevermind whatever it is they actually do for their money or how they got there) and assume that the economic failure is a worthless person (again, nevermind how they got there). In short, GRrrr, this is a frustrating argument.
OK, ramble off, it's past time for me to get to work.
