Depending on who you talk to I am either unreadable, a jerk, a creep, insanely nice, demanding, nit-picky, angry, obsessive, or one of a myriad other things. I think it's definitely possible to be a well liked jerk.
That meta-analysis shows that rather-specific variance is greatest for agreeableness, although that is misleading (in an underestimating kind of way) because what you really want to know is the target-rater interaction variance, which is often not studied because it requires a lot of combinations of targets and raters. What I remember (and I might be incorrect) is that in such studies, there's also a lot of relationship-specific variance for agreeableness.
The papers I've read by Vazire ignores this interaction variance and focuses on agreement across traits. The interaction variance is implied, though, by the huge amount of variance not accounted by target or rater.
The takeaway message is that there will be a lot of disagreement for most people about who thinks who is a jerk.
Realistically, I'm a huge jerk according to the article. While I don't necessarily fit all the criteria for being a big jerk, the end result is still the same.
I agree with this. There’s a difference, though it’s a fine line, between those who have jerky tendencies as the result of a highly focused or driven personality and those who derive enjoyment from just being a jerk.
>There’s a difference, though it’s a fine line, between those who have jerky tendencies as the result of a highly focused or driven personality and those who derive enjoyment from just being a jerk.
I would say that one does not need to intentionally be a jerk to be one. As you said, all it takes is to simply not think of how your actions affect others.
I recently had a baby, and the self-realization that I am a jerk became very clear when I thought about the world. Let me explain:
From a young age, growing up in Queens, I quickly learned the value of being a jerk/asshole as a deterrent for getting "jumped" for my jacket/sneakers. The idea was: kids mugging other kids would go for easy targets. Even an inkling of belief that someone would put up a fight was a disincentive enough to avoid getting "jumped." Now, this wasn't always the case, but the converse (if easy target, then got jumped) was definitely prevalent.
Fast forward to adult age, and it's even more true- give an inch, and people will take a mile. As cynical as it sounds, I've been in many instances where my asshole-ness proved to be beneficial. For example, when someone tried to cut me in line at the grocery store, I let it go. When that same person was at the dog park with me later that night, and he became aggressive with MY dog, I lost my cool, which was mostly fueled by the prior transgression on his part. The guy apologized and to this day, this person has been saccharin to my wife at the dog park when I'm not there, but completely avoids me when I am.
Now, I know there's a fine line between being a jerk and assertive, but I think the line has been muddled over the years as our social norms have evolved to "always be kind- if not, you'll be seen as a jerk." I acknowledge that I am an insecure person, while at the same time, an egotistical person, but being a jerk has protected me from being taken advantage of.
Today, I wonder, how would I feel if my son turned out this way? How do I want the world to treat my son, and vice-versa? I then realize that if the world were filled with people like me, the world would be a terrible place. But, from a game theory perspective, I'm employing my best strategy.
For those that missed it "Bless your heart" is a very typical "southern" (US) insult; it's a condescending statement of pity and yet mild enough for polite company.
Just from the examples given, it doesn't sound like you did anything wrong... I like to take Teddy Roosevelt's mantra to heart; walk softly and carry a big stick. You can bend and bend and bend, and nobody will appreciate it - they just get all upset and pissy when you put your foot down and draw the line.
I'm a jerk, but primarily in the face of unbalanced power or other people being jerks (or blatant unfairness).
People typically love or hate me, but it's usually relevant to their own actions. Maybe it comes from being picked on as a kid, I like to stand up for the little guy.
FWIW, it's "Speak softly and carry a big stick" and Roosevelt meant in in reference to U.S. foreign policy. Specifically, negotiate peacefully, but with the threat of the U.S. military when necessary.
More generally, I take it to mean: act restrained when possible, using your power quietly and only when needed.
> But, from a game theory perspective, I'm employing my best strategy.
Your best strategy would be to be kind by default and then repeat their response. By being a defensive jerk you remove any incentive for people to be kind to you.
Well, the "nice guys", who often get upset that women go after the aggressive/manly/"jerk" guys instead of them, and who secretly do believe that women owe them something, would generally be considered jerks. However, few would ascribe aggression as a trait of theirs.
Assertive people tell jerks to stop crap openly and jerks then feel like someone is getting in their way. Either you stopped the jerk, made him feel bad or just made his/her act public. And they dislike it. Most jerks think that what they do is their god given right, therefore logically, assertive person must be the one who is jerk. Logic.
Meanwhile, non jerks are fully aware that cutting line or being aggressive to dog is not polite or fair. So, even when non-jerk cuts that line because some reason, non-jerks is aware that others have right not to like it and dont assume objection makes you a jerk.
Assertiveness and turbulence are opposites just like passiveness and aggression are.
They're ingrained behaviors that people have and most people will usually act appropriately (read: apply those traits) to any given social situation. Luckily most of us are in the middle on this 4-way spectrum.
If someone is acting way out of proportion to the circumstances, you go "that guy/gal is a jerk!".
If you say "assertive people are jerks", or any of those 4 really, you are making a demand that other people accommodate your needs in social situations. It's a social ultimatum, basically, and if you do it, you're a jerk. Always.
You will most often find this quality in passive, turbulent people (this is my natural default) with poor social skills who mistake assertiveness for aggression.
(Tangent: Can we redefine 'passive-aggressive' as 'turbulent-aggressive'?)
Good catch, it is. That article got submitted 6 times (search for "How to Tell If You’re a Jerk"). Although back then it didn't spark much debate that makes it a dupe on nautil.us and HN.
Interesting tidbit: Sweethearts also seem clueless to the presence of jerks, offering concessions to, and excuses for jerk behavior.
Question: what's with jerks teaming up? How does jerk signaling work, such that it attracts jerks-of-a-feather, when jerks in the wild are found joining forces?
A theory of Jerkodynamics: The only people who will hang around jerks tend to either be other jerks with the same problem, or people too insanely nice to set boundaries and tell the jerks to get bent.
> ...If you unwittingly have been repelling non-assholes, you will get the impression that everyone is an asshole, because you're still surrounded by plenty of people, but everyone left – that is everyone you come into contact with – is, in fact, an asshole.
> ...An asshole filter is a situation one creates that causes non-assholes to reduce contact with you at a disproportionate rate (like at all) than assholes...
> ...An asshole filter happens when you publicly promulgate a straitened contact boundary and then don't enforce it; or worse, reward the people who transgress it...
It goes on to frame "jerk-ness" in terms of "transgressiveness":
> The concept of transgressiveness is one of the most powerful lenses I know with which to look at people's behavior – possibly because it is is a perspective so absent from our culture. It is a phenomenon that is real, but for which we have no words – except "asshole". When we call someone an asshole, pragmatically speaking what we're usually trying to express is that that person transgresses others' boundaries. We might also say, if asked to explain, that the person so described is selfish, in that they want to get their way even (or especially) at the expense of others; we might describe them as rude or disrespectful, meaning that their conduct shows contempt for others' boundaries.
Are you surrounded by fools and non-entities, by people with bad taste and silly desires, by boring people......
If this is how the world regularly looks to you, then I have bad news. Likely, you are the jerk. This ....is not how the world actually is.
Could be. Or you could be surrounded by boring people with bad taste. Can we say honestly say those don't exist? Or don't exist in large groups?
Except when it's truly necessary to provoke some change there isn't generally an excuse for unkindness though. But that doesn't mean the company of boring people and fools is worth seeking out and we shouldn't have to pretend that they don't have those attributes.
As with so many other things jerk is a matter of perspective. If the fact I do judge inwardly if the company of a group or individual is worth my time makes me a jerk then whatever. I do try to be kind and polite to the best of my ability though.
I feel the same way. As a society, we are constantly hammered on concepts like "everyone rates themselves as a B+ driver even if they aren't." What about when you really are an A+ driver though?
Same goes with any form of exceptionalism. Everyone thinks they are smart, everyone thinks they are above average, etc. If you truly are exceptional, and everyone around truly is not as smart as you are, how would you know?
According to all studies, we all think that, and we are all full of shit.
Your traits are an amalgam of the people you are around the most often, so if you are surrounded by boring people with bad taste, it can only mean that you are boring with bad taste.
If you see everyone around you is a jerk, you're likely a jerk. Because you keep them in company, and internalize their traits.
This article seems to focus on your default response to someone new is that they're not worth your time or energy. Are you still a jerk if you think over time someone has acted in a way that deserves that response?
Its a little disappointing to see that half of the comments are people defending their actions to no one in particular, justifying why they act like a jerk but aren't necessarily a jerk.
Its not like being a jerk/sweetheart is some binary or mutually exclusive relation, but it seems like this article struck a chord with a lot of users.
Why would you think that? Rationalization is one of the pillars of human behavior overall. The only difference I would readily admit is that smarter people are probably more mindful of their own rationalizing.
"Academically intelligent people, by the way, aren’t immune to motivated reasoning. On the contrary, recent research by Dan M. Kahan of Yale University suggests that reflective and educated people might be especially skilled at rationalizing their preexisting beliefs..."
So here's the ultimate, highly scientific jerkness test proposed by the article:
Think about this article sometime later today, sometime when you are surrounded by other people—maybe in the lunch line, or at a department meeting, or at a party, or in a crowded plaza. Notice the people around you. Are they fools and tools, or do they sparkle with interesting individuality?
Exactly what kind of individuality sparkles do most people
in a crowded plaza emit? Their clothes, face expression at that moment, pace of walk?
The danger in this kind of whooshy-mooshy is that some people might start to believe that these things do constitute an individuality. To the benefit of the fashion industry, and probably to our loss as a society.
Just remind yourself daily that life is incredibly complex, that simplicity, except in the rarest of cases, is a myth (if you finally 'have the answer' you've only decided which lie you're most comfortable believing), that the global socio-economic system we are a part of has more moving parts than any one person could conceivably grapple with let alone understand, and that almost everyone, almost all the time, is working off a best guess. In other words, don't play the blame game, demand much of yourself, demand little of others, and appreciate everything you have, which, as soon as it's under your nose, becomes light, airy, invisible--until it has suddenly evaporated. We're all prey and prone to our own little fantasies--we live our fictions. That's why the madman laughs. His hoarse chuckle is not a sudden aberration or break, not the unfortunate collapse of some 'right' mentality but the final, total dissolution of an imposition--the breaking of the yoke.
57 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadFor example:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656616...
That meta-analysis shows that rather-specific variance is greatest for agreeableness, although that is misleading (in an underestimating kind of way) because what you really want to know is the target-rater interaction variance, which is often not studied because it requires a lot of combinations of targets and raters. What I remember (and I might be incorrect) is that in such studies, there's also a lot of relationship-specific variance for agreeableness.
The papers I've read by Vazire ignores this interaction variance and focuses on agreement across traits. The interaction variance is implied, though, by the huge amount of variance not accounted by target or rater.
The takeaway message is that there will be a lot of disagreement for most people about who thinks who is a jerk.
Realistically, I'm a huge jerk according to the article. While I don't necessarily fit all the criteria for being a big jerk, the end result is still the same.
Why not both?
Good luck with that strategy.
It has never been intentional, I simply did not think about it.
Don't know about my current jerkiness I think one needs outside perspective to really judge that.
From a young age, growing up in Queens, I quickly learned the value of being a jerk/asshole as a deterrent for getting "jumped" for my jacket/sneakers. The idea was: kids mugging other kids would go for easy targets. Even an inkling of belief that someone would put up a fight was a disincentive enough to avoid getting "jumped." Now, this wasn't always the case, but the converse (if easy target, then got jumped) was definitely prevalent.
Fast forward to adult age, and it's even more true- give an inch, and people will take a mile. As cynical as it sounds, I've been in many instances where my asshole-ness proved to be beneficial. For example, when someone tried to cut me in line at the grocery store, I let it go. When that same person was at the dog park with me later that night, and he became aggressive with MY dog, I lost my cool, which was mostly fueled by the prior transgression on his part. The guy apologized and to this day, this person has been saccharin to my wife at the dog park when I'm not there, but completely avoids me when I am.
Now, I know there's a fine line between being a jerk and assertive, but I think the line has been muddled over the years as our social norms have evolved to "always be kind- if not, you'll be seen as a jerk." I acknowledge that I am an insecure person, while at the same time, an egotistical person, but being a jerk has protected me from being taken advantage of.
Today, I wonder, how would I feel if my son turned out this way? How do I want the world to treat my son, and vice-versa? I then realize that if the world were filled with people like me, the world would be a terrible place. But, from a game theory perspective, I'm employing my best strategy.
"Don't be such a shit that you don't know you are one."
Probably I'm a jerk.
People typically love or hate me, but it's usually relevant to their own actions. Maybe it comes from being picked on as a kid, I like to stand up for the little guy.
Isn't that the opposite of being a jerk? Like, isn't that being kind?
More generally, I take it to mean: act restrained when possible, using your power quietly and only when needed.
Your best strategy would be to be kind by default and then repeat their response. By being a defensive jerk you remove any incentive for people to be kind to you.
...in fact, I'd say it's the people who correlate assertiveness with jerkiness that are in fact most often jerks.
Meanwhile, non jerks are fully aware that cutting line or being aggressive to dog is not polite or fair. So, even when non-jerk cuts that line because some reason, non-jerks is aware that others have right not to like it and dont assume objection makes you a jerk.
They're ingrained behaviors that people have and most people will usually act appropriately (read: apply those traits) to any given social situation. Luckily most of us are in the middle on this 4-way spectrum.
If someone is acting way out of proportion to the circumstances, you go "that guy/gal is a jerk!".
If you say "assertive people are jerks", or any of those 4 really, you are making a demand that other people accommodate your needs in social situations. It's a social ultimatum, basically, and if you do it, you're a jerk. Always.
You will most often find this quality in passive, turbulent people (this is my natural default) with poor social skills who mistake assertiveness for aggression.
(Tangent: Can we redefine 'passive-aggressive' as 'turbulent-aggressive'?)
Question: what's with jerks teaming up? How does jerk signaling work, such that it attracts jerks-of-a-feather, when jerks in the wild are found joining forces?
> ...If you unwittingly have been repelling non-assholes, you will get the impression that everyone is an asshole, because you're still surrounded by plenty of people, but everyone left – that is everyone you come into contact with – is, in fact, an asshole.
> ...An asshole filter is a situation one creates that causes non-assholes to reduce contact with you at a disproportionate rate (like at all) than assholes...
> ...An asshole filter happens when you publicly promulgate a straitened contact boundary and then don't enforce it; or worse, reward the people who transgress it...
It goes on to frame "jerk-ness" in terms of "transgressiveness":
> The concept of transgressiveness is one of the most powerful lenses I know with which to look at people's behavior – possibly because it is is a perspective so absent from our culture. It is a phenomenon that is real, but for which we have no words – except "asshole". When we call someone an asshole, pragmatically speaking what we're usually trying to express is that that person transgresses others' boundaries. We might also say, if asked to explain, that the person so described is selfish, in that they want to get their way even (or especially) at the expense of others; we might describe them as rude or disrespectful, meaning that their conduct shows contempt for others' boundaries.
If this is how the world regularly looks to you, then I have bad news. Likely, you are the jerk. This ....is not how the world actually is.
Could be. Or you could be surrounded by boring people with bad taste. Can we say honestly say those don't exist? Or don't exist in large groups?
Except when it's truly necessary to provoke some change there isn't generally an excuse for unkindness though. But that doesn't mean the company of boring people and fools is worth seeking out and we shouldn't have to pretend that they don't have those attributes.
As with so many other things jerk is a matter of perspective. If the fact I do judge inwardly if the company of a group or individual is worth my time makes me a jerk then whatever. I do try to be kind and polite to the best of my ability though.
Same goes with any form of exceptionalism. Everyone thinks they are smart, everyone thinks they are above average, etc. If you truly are exceptional, and everyone around truly is not as smart as you are, how would you know?
According to all studies, we all think that, and we are all full of shit.
If you see everyone around you is a jerk, you're likely a jerk. Because you keep them in company, and internalize their traits.
Its not like being a jerk/sweetheart is some binary or mutually exclusive relation, but it seems like this article struck a chord with a lot of users.
"Academically intelligent people, by the way, aren’t immune to motivated reasoning. On the contrary, recent research by Dan M. Kahan of Yale University suggests that reflective and educated people might be especially skilled at rationalizing their preexisting beliefs..."
Is Eric Andre a jerk?
Samy Kamkar?
Andy Kaufmann?
Exactly what kind of individuality sparkles do most people in a crowded plaza emit? Their clothes, face expression at that moment, pace of walk?
The danger in this kind of whooshy-mooshy is that some people might start to believe that these things do constitute an individuality. To the benefit of the fashion industry, and probably to our loss as a society.