<p>Or do others usually act condescendingly towards you?</p>
<p>And do you let perceived levels of relative intelligence or perception influence such feelings of condescension? </p>
<p>just wondering what people think. ^_^</p>
<p>for my part, i don’t mind condescension that much (although condescension towards me often does worry me). I’m usually on the receiving side of explicit condescension, although I tend to implicitly condescend towards others. My perception of another’s intelligence probably affects my level of condescension in some ways (it’s easier to condescend towards someone of clearly lower intelligence), but my condescension also sometimes applies to people I see as especially vulnerable to cognitive biases (which many intelligent people tend to have - high intelligence coupled with success tends to diminish incentives to change one’s thought patterns). What seems most important is how risky I perceive the stability of maintaining friendship/contact/etc with the person though - if I perceive a friendship/contact as not particularly stable, then I tend to avoid condescension. Usually though I have the advantage in knowledge whereas the other has the advantage in intelligence and stats (which makes things kind of messy). I tend to be explicitly condescending towards my parents though. :p</p>
<p>(a) You display your worst insecurities on public forums, and
(b) Most of your interactions with others consist of either
– asking for advice, or
– confessing your insecurities.</p>
<p>How can you expect anything but condescension?</p>
<p>Being self-centered means information exchange will mostly focus on you, meaning the other party will know far more about your vulnerabilities than you will about his.</p>
<p>Oh, and you aren’t going to get very many truthful answers to this post, since most people who condescend to others don’t realize it and don’t like to think of themselves as condescending.</p>
<p><a href=“a”>quote</a> You display your worst insecurities on public forums, and
(b) Most of your interactions with others consist of either
– asking for advice, or
– confessing your insecurities.</p>
<p>How can you expect anything but condescension?</p>
<p>Being self-centered means information exchange will mostly focus on you, meaning the other party will know far more about your vulnerabilities than you will about his.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>yeah, that was a very good reply that i was looking for. I tend to be somewhat condescending towards someone I know on CC as he confesses all of his insecurities to me and constantly asks for my advice (although I often have to say that I’m not qualified to give the best response to him). Although I generally don’t explicitly ask for advice that much (compared to him at least :p). i just like asking for responses that may yield insights</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>hard to say. I just posted this based on what I knew from people’s self-perceptions of how condescending they were (motivated by a single girl who told me that her major flaw was that she was condescending - when I asked her of whether she had self-perceived flaws or not)</p>
<p>Although a lot of people I know don’t have any major flaws in the socially defined sense - which is what motivated me to ask the question to her (of course, they could have flaws if one defines flaws in other ways)</p>
<p>Mmm, just remember: most people are attracted to confidence, not insecure emo kids. People want people who seem perfect and whole from the outside. That’s one reason people aren’t usually honest with each other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or they just don’t tell you.
You don’t really realize the flaws inherent in most people until you hang around them for several years or so. Or unless they’re very, very honest with themselves and with you, which is rare.</p>
<p>yeah I know. probably one of the reasons I have very few friends (although I’m somewhat confident about the efficacy of actions for my own desired ends - which are not seen as desired by most - including my parents).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends on how they qualify flaws though. Most people don’t qualify “excessive social influence” as a flaw - whereas I do - but this flaw would apply to the vast majority of the human population (“excessive social influence” causes outcomes such as prematurely jumping to conclusions and not questioning one’s own normative axioms before attacking those of another). I know someone very well for several years, and I don’t see many socially defined flaws with her (other than the obvious one that she is very socially influenced). I’m the only person I know who explicitly and critically acknowledges my own normative axioms whenever I think of some decision (and I don’t reject most socially acceptable actions - the ones that I reject are more noticeable precisely because they are rejected).</p>
<p>Similarly, one could define “lack of curiosity” as a flaw that applies to almost all people, even though it generally isn’t seen as a flaw unless it is too extreme. But my excessive curiosity is a socially defined flaw. Right now I’m reading a social science book even though I should be studying for a math test. But I don’t care - I’ll learn more per unit of time by reading the social science book than by studying for the math test (studying for a test inevitably introduces stimuli redundancy)</p>
<p>Flaws hinder communication and respect. Of course flaws in a way could be relative. But we can speak of general flaws that hurt performance in most socially acceptable pursuits. Yet some people seem to be almost free of such flaws and are well-adept socially. But it’s hard to say unless you put them in a particular position (like a position of power, or in a position of potential adultery :p)</p>
<p>Of course some people do secretly cover their questioning of their moral axioms (but then I’m in no position to know that, so it’s hard to say). Certainly, I’m one of the few people who wouldn’t judge someone too much if the person told me that he thinks murder is okay or that “social taboo Y” is okay (but obviously I’m not in the position to ask that question to anyone :p). except for maybe one ccer i know… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks. actually, my most interesting threads came before September (a thread search on my threads will reveal a lot of spam threads. hm, dang it, I regret making so many useless threads - although you could search for them in ascending order ^_^)</p>
<p>i know one person who’s confident but who has few foundations</p>
<p>(you know him too)</p>
<p>but he’s remarkably good at attracting people</p>
<p>is this good?</p>
<p>it depends</p>
<p>some people may get annoyed with him, eventually. a few might care enough about him such that they can motivate him to reciprocate. i don’t think he has antisocial personality disorder :p</p>
<p>from the whole masses of people in some place, you focus your attention on a few (due to attentional allocation constraints). those few are the most confident of them (confident in approaching you - if they approach you. If you approach them, then it’s probably different, but then you’re probably going to approach those who seem to have something rather than nothing. especially on a place like CC). but some of them have unsubstantiated confidence, some have substantiated confidence. i do suspect, however, that there is some correlation between confidence and real intrinsic ability, although not a particularly high one. or maybe it’s just that confidence usually goes along with motivation, and some intrinsic ability is necessary for motivation (unless the person is exceptional in being able to tolerate hours on something he can’t understand just for the social results)</p>
<p>==
but why do people socialize with the people they happen to socialize with?</p>
<p>it’s really based on the fact that they don’t have the time to get to know the compatibility of themselves with every single person they could encounter. so then they use proxies to approximate how compatible they are with each other (such as initial impressions or “questions” or thought-provoking questions). and even then, it kind of depends on how far each one wants to go with each other, and whether one changes during the period of contact or not. and this is often done on the basis of the calculations from the one who APPROACHES. meh</p>
<p>this matching process is probably more efficient than random chance (imagine yourself matched with any other random person in the world). or even more efficient than random chance in a particular environment. But it’s obviously an imperfect matching process based on imperfect knowledge of both the other person and on one’s own potential to change. and so then what happens is that imperfect matches come up and does one choose to try for another match? or stick with the first particular match? (when one hasn’t explored the world very much?) hmm. of course this is all assuming that one’s interactions with another don’t change the other - but sometimes they do, and sometimes they draw the other into one’s basin of attraction. at other times, they repel the other from one’s basin of attraction. </p>
<p>I’m condescending, and no one seems to care. I don’t mind people being condescending toward me, unless they’re not justified in being condescending.</p>
<p>People are mostly condescending towards me in a “social” sort of way (assuming I’m completely socially inept), whereas I’m condescending in an intellectual way.</p>
<p>I’m never seek to condescend people, I just don’t shy from letting everyone know I’m smarter than them if they happen to ask or… differ from my opinion.</p>
<p>I condescend my dinner every night. It makes it taste way better. I just have to be careful not to get any on my clothes though, because it stains.</p>
I just posted this based on what I knew from people’s self-perceptions of how condescending they were (motivated by a single girl who told me that her major flaw was that she was condescending - when I asked her of whether she had self-perceived flaws or not)</p>