"Common psychology"

[Ifat Glassman]

I am wondering if anyone has some insights on "common psychology". By "common psychology" I mean certain psychology that characterizes a lot of people.

I have been talking to a friend and these issues came up for me, which I need to learn more about.

The things that matters to me the most at this time are:

(I) The reasons why some people find more attractive someone who "doesn't give them the time of day", someone who is "hard to get" or who seems indifferent to them, or even someone who treats them badly. And on the other side of the coin: why people loose interest in someone who seems eager to be with them.

(II) The reason why people feel the need to make sure a person they are in any sort of a relationship with, knows that they are not more interested in him than he is in them, or that they have "a social life"/something else and better to do than to be with him. I believe this same section includes putting on a "happy face" for others to see, even when in reality one is not happy at all.

(III) The reason why, if someone insulted them, they would feel the compelling need to return an insult*.

*The insult in this case will not be based on the first insult, and may not be based on reality at all. For example: I might say to someone that I think they are not right for a certain job, and their insult will be not "you're a lousy character judge", but, after a week: "your report was really bad and showed incompetence", or "I think you're pathetic/stupid", when in fact that is not true (and without being insulted they would have no inclination to think so).

Of course there are many other things to discuss in this topic, but currently I am just interested in an answer to these questions.

Also, (and even more importantly), if anyone sees any reasons why someone would have such a psychology and yet NOT be a second hander (meaning that such psychology can be a result of logical premises, and not of spiritual dependency on other's mind), please state those reasons/ logic involved.

Edit: for clarifications.

Edited December 15, 2006 by ifatart

[KevinD]

The principle that springs to mind uniting all three of these, is generally low self-esteem.

(I) If I don't love myself — that is, if I don't regard myself as an important value — it will very difficult for me to believe that anyone else really loves me. I may therefore be drawn to people who I know will hurt or reject me, on the grounds that such is what I deserve, and this will serve as evidence to further reinforce my view that happiness is not in the cards for me.

When a person of low self-esteem encounters someone who treats them well, it can feel very uncomfortable. Clearly the other person does not know the "real them" — if they did, they wouldn't act so nicely toward them. Being with a partner who treats them poorly puts them in much more familiar, albeit often painful territory.

(II) Any kind of faking or phoniness in a relationship (or anywhere else for that matter) is almost always the product of insecurity. Many people believe that to be truly in love with someone, to acknowledge this fact and to express it openly, is a sign of weakness or moral failing. This is especially true of men, but it also happens with many women.

Vulnerability and openness, contrary to popular misunderstanding, require an extremely solid sense of self; they require the courage to reveal yourself on a very profound level, to someone whom you care about deeply. When people put up defensive barriers in this regard, you can be sure there are self-esteem deficiencies lurking behind them.

(III) This is very clearly a lack of self-esteem — but more than that, it's an exceedingly childish way of relating to other people.

If somebody walked up to you on the street and shouted some random epithet at you, you'd probably look at him strangely, then quickly walk away. But some people, whenever they feel they've been "put down," are so hurt by this that their reflexive reaction is to hurl back a nasty comment of their own. It's as if they're saying "You hurt me — now watch me hurt you." It's a foolish kind of revenge, yet it takes place all the time. It's the hallmark of a person whose self-concept will not allow for criticism of any kind, regardless of how idiotic and unimportant the "criticism" may be.

Edited December 16, 2006 by Kevin Delaney

[Ifat Glassman]

I have seen people of self esteem exercise (III). And also someone of self esteem having (I). How can you explain that?

[konerko14]

(I) The reasons why some people find more attractive someone who "doesn't give them the time of day", someone who is "hard to get" or who seems indifferent to them, or even someone who treats them badly.

They have nothing or little to lose when they pursue another person who isnt very much into them. It takes the pressure off a normally very stressful type of situation, and therefore it makes the situation more desirable.

And on the other side of the coin: why people loose interest in someone who seems eager to be with them.

They either dont think they can meet the other persons enthusiastic impression of a relationship that they want formed, or (if they do think they can meet their expectations) they dont want to deal with the pressure of fulfilling the others huge excitation. Or maybe they never liked the other person from the get-go.

(II) The reason why people feel the need to make sure a person they are in any sort of a relationship with, knows that they are not more interested in him than he is in them, or that they have "a social life"/something else and better to do than to be with him.

Maybe they dont want to give the impression that anything else matters to them. Its probably just a subconscious prevention to keep the relationship, and cautiousness to try to ensure the other doesnt lose interest in him. If they give the other the impression that their life revolves around them, then maybe the other will do the same thing for him. Not that its necessarily good to do, but they think it is.

I believe this same section includes putting on a "happy face" for others to see, even when in reality one is not happy at all.

Whether they have low self-esteem or high self-esteem, it comes down to wanting others to have a certain impression of them. Maybe the depressed guy smiles a lot so others dont see his unhappiness. Maybe another person smiles at others to try to express that they are nice and accepting of them.

(III) The reason why, if someone insulted them, they would feel the compelling need to return an insult*.

It obviously offended them and harmed their self-esteem in some way. It might be defense or retaliation that is aimed at getting even with them. Metaphorically speaking, I think its the same thing as when someone gets physically harmed. They act in self-defense or at some point want to hurt them because they hurt him.

Im not sure I would call it foolish though, as KDel did. Its therapeutic to get revenge- its a form of justice when the other person cant get charged lawfully.

[KevinD]

Its therapeutic to get revenge- its a form of justice when the other person cant get charged lawfully.

A rational person is never motivated by the desire for "revenge" (at least not of the kind under discussion here). He wouldn't be concerned about another person's consciousness in that way.

To derive satisfaction from the infliction of pain per se is sadistic, not an act of justice.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Kevin Delaney

[konerko14]

A rational person is never motivated by the desire for "revenge" (at least not of the kind under discussion here). He wouldn't be concerned about another person's consciousness in that way.

To derive satisfaction from the infliction of pain per se is sadistic, not an act of justice.

Justice: administering deserved punishment.

He is not necessarily receiving pleasure from causing the other person pain, but from the fact that he is serving justice. The other person deserves to be punished. And if its not a situation that can be brought to court, then I think it can be morally right if the person seeks personal justice against the other.

[KevinD]

Justice: administering deserved punishment.

Actually, justice is the virtue of judging the character and conduct of others objectively, and acting accordingly: it means granting to others what they deserve, and only what they deserve (from you).

It does not mean "administering punishment" to every two-bit cretin who levels baseless barbs, because he's drunk, deranged, disturbed, or just unbelievably immature.

He is not necessarily receiving pleasure from causing the other person pain, but from the fact that he is serving justice.

You're not serving justice by granting importance to those who, by their own choices and actions, are unworthy of your time and attention. Justice doesn't demand that you work to extinguish insignificant fires; if it did, that would quickly become your full-time occupation, and you'd never have any time to pursue your own interests.

In the vast majority of cases, if a person demonstrates that he's unwilling to communicate with you as a thinking adult, you're much better off ignoring him. When you focus your consciousness onto him — when you exhibit concern for his inner experience, and try to (negatively) affect his emotional state — you treat him as a metaphysical equal, and a brother-in-spirit; your insults in fact pay him a complement which he definitely doesn't deserve.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Kevin Delaney

[Ifat Glassman]

In the vast majority of cases, if a person demonstrates that he's unwilling to communicate with you as a thinking adult, you're much better off ignoring him. When you focus your consciousness onto him — when you exhibit concern for his inner experience, and try to (negatively) affect his emotional state — you treat him as a metaphysical equal, and a brother-in-spirit; your insults in fact pay him a complement which he definitely doesn't deserve.

Your last post has summed up everything I used to think. Especially this last part. But, I think there is a purpose to a certain type of revenge which is actually good.

Sometimes revenge can be means to teach someone a lesson in a more effective way than a conversation can, when you know the relationship will last despite of the bad thing that the other person did to you.

I suggest a real life example: a few years ago I had a stereo system that my brother used to borrow from time to time. After 1 or 2 times he forgot to bring it back to my room, I still agreed to loan it to him, but I warned him to bring it back. When he didn't, and I had to carry the darn thing for 3 floors because of his party, I decided it's time to teach him a little lesson. So when he was sleeping I plugged the stereo system in his room, with a timer set for 6 AM and a volume that was certain to wake him up on time.

Let me tell you, it was funny, and fun too.

On another topic: I thought of an explanation how a man of self esteem would be drawn to someone who "doesn't give them the time of day" and would be repelled by those who pursue his/her company: I got this explanation from the friend I was talking about: She said that someone who is coming on too strong for her taste is probably someone who is socially needy and dependent, while someone who is indifferent to other people is more likely to be independent. Dunno, sometimes I think she's the kind of girl that likes the "asshole" type of guy (something about "make her feel like a challenge to have him"?), but still, the explanation she provided does not reveal it.

So someone who is unable to tell the difference between the needy type or someone who just happens to like them (specifically) is also likely to exhibit this pattern (of being attracted to those who do not pay him/her attention). Or, if someone just thinks that an independent person is someone who is indifferent to people (from now on will be called the idiot type).

So anyway, I don't know. But I have no time to find out right now.

So Kevin, if you have more to say about revenge (or anyone else has) I'd be happy to hear about it, because it's interesting.

[~Sophia~]

She said that someone who is coming on too strong for her taste is probably someone who is socially needy and dependent, while someone who is indifferent to other people is more likely to be independent.

Why the false alternative?

An independent, self-confident, rational person, with a clearly defined set of values, a person of integrity, would neither be indifferent nor clingy/needy toward their romantic value.

Also such a person would not be disinterested in another simply because they showed them interest. If my values are rational and I like myself, if another likes me also - we value the same great things, which is actually a positive point for them.

I agree with Kevin that most of the time revenge is a waste of ones energy which instead can be directed toward a more productive goal.

[Ifat Glassman]

An independent, self-confident, rational person, with a clearly defined set of values, a person of integrity, would neither be indifferent nor clingy/needy toward their romantic value.

I agree with you. She said that the behavior of calling her a lot, wanting to meet frequently, telling her that he likes her etc' are usually an indication of needy behavior. She agreed that there is an alternative explanation that this person truly likes her, and therefor his open expression of his desire to be with her are not signs of dependency, but possibly of virtue.

I consider this idea (that if someone calls a lot etc' it might be an indication of a needy person and therefor a rational reason to be turned off by this behavior) to be a rational explanation. So I just added it to the hopefully increasing list of rational explanations to be turned off by a "passionate pursuer".

Also such a person [rational & self confident] would not be disinterested in another simply because they showed them interest. If my values are rational and I like myself, if another likes me also - we value the same great things, which is actually a positive point for them.

I perfectly agree with you. I would just like to know if it is possible that someone can be rational and self confident and still become disinterested in another person because they show interest in them, and if so, what is the rational reason for it.

Another reason my friend provided for finding someone who seems indifferent or relatively disinterested attractive, is that by ignoring her that person is saying that he is better than she is, and therefor, if it is true (and from her PoV she bases her judgement of him on his behavior), he is more of a value than if he was just as good as her or less, and not above her. Thus his ignoring behavior becomes an attraction factor.

Now this is new for me. Such a thing was never an attraction factor for me (unless it has a certain specific, personal reason that I'd like to keep out of the discussion). If I like someone, I tell them so. If I like a guy I might ask him out. If someone ignores me I ask what is wrong with them. But I guess her explanation of the "above thing" can count as a rational reason for finding an "ignorer" attractive. What do you think? Can you find any flaws in it?

I agree with Kevin that most of the time revenge is a waste of ones energy which instead can be directed toward a more productive goal.

You said "most of the time" - at what times is it not a waste of time?

And if someone insulted you, is it possible that you would have the need to return an insult? If so why, and what purpose can it serve?

Edited December 18, 2006 by ifatart

[~Sophia~]

I would just like to know if it is possible that someone can be rational and self confident and still become disinterested in another person because they show interest in them, and if so, what is the rational reason for it.

I can't think of one. Indifference is not an indication of value. Interest is not an indication of dis-value.

... is that by ignoring her that person is saying that he is better than she is ...

How? I don't see the logical connection between the two.

[and if true] he is more of a value than if he was just as good as her or less, and not above her.

Thus his ignoring behavior becomes an attraction factor.

I don't see how ignoring in itself is an attractive behaviour. Attraction for me is based on perceived values - not imagined. Maybe you mean being perceived as busy, the so called 'having a life', having a purpose aside from romantic pursuits? That requires more information than the perception of indifference alone.

You said "most of the time" - at what times is it [revenge] not a waste of time?

Rarely it is not a waste of time. But if perhaps the violation was very serious/permanent and justice has not been served and never will be unless you take action... and you have good reasons to believe it may happen again to you or someone else - perhaps it may not be a waste of time.

When it comes to issues under current discussion - it is a waste of ones energy.

And if someone insulted you, is it possible that you would have the need to return an insult?

Not since I became a mature adult.

[Febod]

I would just like to know if it is possible that someone can be rational and self confident and still become disinterested in another person because they show interest in them, and if so, what is the rational reason for it.

I think it's important to keep context in mind when discussing these things.

When you first meet someone, if that someone is all over you like a hot rash, then it's perfectly reasonable to become disgusted with them. Sure, you may really like yourself, and you may think you have a lot of good qualities to offer a romantic partner, but there's no reason to believe that this other person would know that about you. Their longing for you is probably just do to looks, or some form of projection. Either way, your best bet is to assume that they like you for some superficial or irrational reason, and to steer clear of them as much as possible. After all, dating can be risky business, and so we all make snap judgments about potential mates to save time.

However, after a relationship progresses, and the other person becomes more aware of your values, your good points, and can relate to them, then yes, a rational person of self-esteem wouldn't become disinterested if their partner showed interest, be it with words, gifts, attention, etc. This is, in fact where needy, insecure people become scared and run off.

[Ifat Glassman]

I think it's important to keep context in mind when discussing these things.

When you first meet someone, if that someone is all over you like a hot rash, then it's perfectly reasonable to become disgusted with them.

What if someone is able to learn real fast whether or not they like the person in question? By real fast I mean by looking at them and talking for a while.

By assuming that every person who comes on "too strong" is a social leech you might miss out on the best person possible (the fast learner).

So no, I don't think it is smart to assume second handishness even under this context (of just meeting someone).

Sure, you may really like yourself, and you may think you have a lot of good qualities to offer a romantic partner, but there's no reason to believe that this other person would know that about you.

Well why is it my fault if they are slow learners? Why should I take under account their psychology and their faulty interpretation of my behavior? It should be the other person that should be worried about misinterpreting my behavior to not loose a value.

Their longing for you is probably just do to looks, or some form of projection.

You're wrong. Some people can judge character pretty fast by observation. I agree though, they are very very rare. In most cases if someone is like a "hot rash", it does mean that they are needy.

However, after a relationship progresses, and the other person becomes more aware of your values, your good points, and can relate to them, then yes, a rational person of self-esteem wouldn't become disinterested if their partner showed interest

Can you think of any rational reason why someone would find an indifferent behavior directed toward them attractive (and still be self confident)?

[Febod]

Well why is it my fault if they are slow learners? Why should I take under account their psychology and their faulty interpretation of my behavior? It should be the other person that should be worried about misinterpreting my behavior to not loose a value.

It's not your "fault." I don't think anyone here is to blame. People misinterpret social cues all the time, and like I said, dating can be risky. No one wants to end up in a relationship with someone they deem unworthy. There will be risks regardless, but it's smart to minimize those risks as much as possible.

You're wrong. Some people can judge character pretty fast by observation. I agree though, they are very very rare. In most cases if someone is like a "hot rash", it does mean that they are needy.

Yes, that's why I used the qualifier "probably."

Can you think of any rational reason why someone would find an indifferent behavior directed toward them attractive (and still be self confident)?

No. Flat-out indifferent behavior isn't attractive. However, this doesn't mean that it's healthy to let all your feelings out at a drop of a hat. It's possible to show someone that you're interested without being clingy. People, in general, like it when other people like them, but not when people are clingy because it's a sign of insecurity. Insecure people are a psychological drain, and so are very unattractive.

"Showing interest" and "acting clingy" need to be kept separate in such a discussion.

[Olex]

Case 1. Kevin in post #2 mentioned a case of a person with no self-esteem. Here is another case with someone who has self-esteem, but has come to an incorrect conclusion about people's expressions. Imagine the following logic.

People who are not stable emotionally and are "needy" would display their intentions and views often and publicly. Thus, (incorrectly) those who don't show them publicly (even to the person they like) are the opposites. Now, showing dis-interest or the appearance of disinterest is a good sign for that person in the eyes of those who hold this faulty logic. And the opposite will be the negative sign.

Essentially, the logic is "since person A does not exhibit behavior X, then the person has behavior Y." And this would be a reason for the confusion.

Now, there are things that could add on top of this layer. For example, if the person does not want to admit the mistakes in their induction, or has not yet seen the evidence to the contrary, or has yet to work through the logic to the correct end, etc.

Case 2. I can take my case above and extend to cover this one. In this case, the person could have decent self-esteem, but have a bad approach to human relationships, such as sticking to a weird "ritual" of handling people, or even hold a view that people can be "controlled" by a certain behavior (such as ignoring them will lead them to respect you, etc.).

----

Case 3. Most common reason I've noticed by watching people is to respond back with an insult in order to make the original insult insignificant. It is a defensive action made by a quick learned reaction. (The technique is usually to attack the person not the argument.) Later on, once the insult sinks in, the person may decide that the insult was "damaging" to their ego, and reply back with a second insult of their own, this time it would be an offensive action.

The reason I've seen to perform defensive action is the general fear of being shown in a negative light in person or in public. (In this case, private admission does not matter a whole lot usually.)

The offensive action is often based on the idea that a worded insult is an actual damage, and must be handled. Just take a notice of the implementation of this idea in pretty much all TV programs, shows, movies, etc., where almost everyone responds to an insult in order to prove (to whom?) that the insult has nothing to do with reality.

----

In the end, it is possible for a first-hander to be in one of these positions, but only by an honest error and only temporarily.

[Ifat Glassman]

Case 1. Kevin in post #2 mentioned a case of a person with no self-esteem. Here is another case with someone who has self-esteem, but has come to an incorrect conclusion about people's expressions. Imagine the following logic.

People who are not stable emotionally and are "needy" would display their intentions and views often and publicly. Thus, (incorrectly) those who don't show them publicly (even to the person they like) are the opposites. Now, showing dis-interest or the appearance of disinterest is a good sign for that person in the eyes of those who hold this faulty logic. And the opposite will be the negative sign.

So hypothetically, suppose you have this person who expresses his/her intentions and views publicly: would you say that checking his/her reaction to an insult (or a couple of insults) can be a good way to determine if they are "not stable emotionally and are "needy""?

Case 2. I can take my case above and extend to cover this one. In this case, the person could have decent self-esteem, but have a bad approach to human relationships, such as sticking to a weird "ritual" of handling people, or even hold a view that people can be "controlled" by a certain behavior (such as ignoring them will lead them to respect you, etc.).

I don't see how this would be a behavior of a rational person, or a person with self-esteem.

For example the last suggestion you made ("ignoring them will lead them to respect you"): This has so many second-handish premises that I need more than two hands to count them. And I also don't think that someone with self-esteem can have it:

First, they must think that people should base their self esteem on other people's opinion of them (that this is normal and fine). Then, they are interested in being friends with people who are like that (since they behave in a way that makes sure such people stick around by them). They also think that making someone unhappy is a way to form friendship. They use intimidation as a way to ensure someone doesn't leave them, which must also mean that they are afraid that someone would leave them. In fact the absurdity is that they don't care about the people they are friends with: they don't care if they are happy or sad or proud or humiliated: they just care that they won't leave them. Now, in a normal friendship (between first handers), I would say that caring (in the sense that one is not indifferent to this option) if a friend terminates the relationship is normal, but for this dude ("the ignoring dude") the main value in the friendship that will be taken away if it comes to an end will necessarily be their self esteem, since they don't care about their friend as an individual, as a real person, but only as a tool. So therefor they do not have self-esteem and they are not rational too.

Case 3. Most common reason I've noticed by watching people is to respond back with an insult in order to make the original insult insignificant. It is a defensive action made by a quick learned reaction. (The technique is usually to attack the person not the argument.)

Yeah? and you're ugly! (ok, I'm just kidding, you're really not).

The reason I've seen to perform defensive action is the general fear of being shown in a negative light in person or in public. (In this case, private admission does not matter a whole lot usually.)

I don't understand it: What is the meaning of: "private admission does not matter a whole lot"? Does it mean that the person who received the insult will not care to respond with an insult to person A in private conversation, but will only care to respond to it in public (as if to say "look everyone: I am the man and he is the chicken")?

Also, what does it mean to be shown in a negative light in person?

The offensive action is often based on the idea that a worded insult is an actual damage, and must be handled. Just take a notice of the implementation of this idea in pretty much all TV programs, shows, movies, etc., where almost everyone responds to an insult in order to prove (to whom?) that the insult has nothing to do with reality.

But I like those chain of insults in TV shows. They are funny: "Your mama is so stupid, that when she sees a movie only for over 17 she invites 16 more of her friends" "Oh yeah? your mama is so fat that when she walks into a room people start yelling "free wheelie"" ... "Well, (to person with a pointy hair held by jell) your face is so ugly that even the hairs on your head try to escape from it" And so on...

In the end, it is possible for a first-hander to be in one of these positions, but only by an honest error and only temporarily.

So you wouldn't say that an "honest error" can last for a month or so, sort of like a mission someone would take on themselves to insult another person. Right?

[aleph_0]

(I) Funny, having been “the nice guy” in high school, I’ve also wondered why girls like guys that are indifferent or even mean. When a girl is indifferent or mean to me I become indifferent to or repulsed by her. If somebody cannot understand my worth and does not want to see the good in another person, I have utterly nothing to gain from her.

On the other hand, as your friend said, it may seem like a challenge. They’ve already won over the guys who are attracted to them—and a lot of times, guys are attracted pretty easily, so it doesn’t say much. But then there’s the hold-outs. The guys that aren’t already attracted to them must have a higher standard, and the girls want recognition that they meet this higher standard.

The standard is usually a poor one to begin with, I’m guessing. It probably hinges on beauty or popularity. But in some cases, where the guy is indifferent because he is looking for an intellectual, it might be right for the girl to want to convince him that she is what he is looking for. In this narrow case, she might not be a second-hander because she is simply looking for the man with the highest possible standards, which is a genuinely attractive quality.

(III) I would say when you tell a person something negative about them, they want to think that your judgement is invalid. If they’re not able to do that directly, they may find some other way of trying to discredit you as a person.

[Olex]

So hypothetically, suppose you have this person who expresses his/her intentions and views publicly: would you say that checking his/her reaction to an insult (or a couple of insults) can be a good way to determine if they are "not stable emotionally and are "needy""?

That sounds logical, though certain responses would give more or less information.

I don't see how this would be a behavior of a rational person, or a person with self-esteem...

Yeah, this case needs to be pulled very hard by its ears to make it even to temporarily confused rational person. Like you said, if that person sees others as so dumb to be manipulated, then why bother with them at all? (This reminds me of Gail Wynand in TF.)

I don't understand it: What is the meaning of: "private admission does not matter a whole lot"? Does it mean that the person who received the insult will not care to respond with an insult to person A in private conversation, but will only care to respond to it in public (as if to say "look everyone: I am the man and he is the chicken")?

Yeah, the response will depend on who is around and how many are around.

Also, what does it mean to be shown in a negative light in person?

I didn't phrase that part right. 'in person' isn't needed, since I said 'in public'. So simply: "The reason I've seen to perform defensive action is the general fear of being shown in a negative light in public."

So you wouldn't say that an "honest error" can last for a month or so, sort of like a mission someone would take on themselves to insult another person. Right?

Yes, or possibly longer if the error requires more work, such as some errors of main characters in TF (Dominique) and AS (Rearden).

[~Sophia~]

When you first meet someone, if that someone is all over you like a hot rash, then it's perfectly reasonable to become disgusted with them. Sure, you may really like yourself, and you may think you have a lot of good qualities to offer a romantic partner, but there's no reason to believe that this other person would know that about you.

I also think that this is not a matter of timing (too soon - not too soon) but a matter of what is perceived by the other person as earned.

If affection is expressed in proportion to values presented - it is not a turn off.

So a smart man on a mission will always make sure that his advances are proportional to what she perceives he already knows of her value. She has to feel like she is earning his affection, the more that happens, the more she will value it. A good idea is also not to try to sell yourself too much (some of it is obviously needed), but instead, to let the other person recognize your value. If they are worthy of you - they will.