Niche's theory of insecurity: Why stupidity will outlive you!

[The Niche]

Ok guys, I may have just solved human nature. Scary, right?


Ok, so imagine a bar chart. With three bars on it. On the left, we have bar C, the smallest bar. To the right of that, is bar B, the middling bar. Further right is bar A, the highest bar. There is also bar D, not shown on the graph.

Now, bar A targets bar B because bar B is jealous of bar A's exceptional qualities. If bar B is successful, bar A will stop regarding these qualities as benefits and think of them as flaws.
Bar B, however, knows the truth and remains insecure. And so, bar B finds bar C, the bar in a worse position than it. Bar B targets bar C, based on C's shortcomings, raising bar B's self esteem, value, whatever.

This establishes a norm, ensuring that the leader, bar D, may rest on its laurels, safe in the belief that the self preserving status quo will help it retain its authority.

Now, a breakdown. Bar A - C = the followers. Not individual followers, mind you. Each one represents an aspect of every single person not in position D. This is why people are such pricks to each other.

So, bar D maintains the preservatory status quo by keeping the pack in the safe zone, not too happy, not too unhappy. The only way to avoid this is to control without relying on the above mechanic, but how can that be done?

I'm posting this in intelligent debate because it's not a finished theory. Eventually I'm hoping to get a good character development tutorial out of it as well, but before I do that, I'm planning to make a whole series of these articles. I beseech you to bombard me with your own theories and feel free to add in suggestions for articles, because I'm basing this on four years of developing among very insecure teenage boys. And looking at them with an ever-changing perspective.

[Power Hungry Midget]

Now, bar A targets bar B because bar B is jealous of bar A's exceptional qualities. If bar B is successful, bar A will stop regarding these qualities as benefits and think of them as flaws.

Just checking if the above is a typo. You say bar A targets bar B because bar B is jealous of bar A's exceptional qualities. Do you mean bar B targets bar A because bar B is jealous of bar A's exceptional quality.

Also bar D seems a bit murky. Also, you classify yourself in bar A? Yes? Well then why is bar A down as a follower? Bar a shouldn't be the follower.
Although I like your theory, it doesn't solve human nature however.

[Power Hungry Midget]

Also, shouldn't this be in Intelligent Debate?

[Blizzard]

*moves*

Also, please no double posting. Use the "Modify" feature instead.

[The Niche]

Now, bar A targets bar B because bar B is jealous of bar A's exceptional qualities. If bar B is successful, bar A will stop regarding these qualities as benefits and think of them as flaws.

Just checking if the above is a typo. You say bar A targets bar B because bar B is jealous of bar A's exceptional qualities. Do you mean bar B targets bar A because bar B is jealous of bar A's exceptional quality.

Also bar D seems a bit murky. Also, you classify yourself in bar A? Yes? Well then why is bar A down as a follower? Bar a shouldn't be the follower.
Although I like your theory, it doesn't solve human nature however.

I classify myself as type D, hence I am able to see these patterns. It solves a fundamental part of human nature. Why exactly it is we are so compelled to abuse each other.

Also, if you think I classify myself as one of the three follower types, go read it again.

[Power Hungry Midget]

Oh right

[winkio]

So are you saying that everyone sees Bar A is larger than Bar B is larger than Bar C, or is that different depending on the observer?  What if people see the reverse, or all bars the same?  If it differs depending on the observers, then maybe everyone sees themselves as D, but sees other people as A through C.  Also, you assume that C is jealous of B and A, but what if A is friends with C?  What if people actually have natural self esteem not based on comparing themselves to other people, but based on self satisfaction?

Basically, what I'm getting that is that this is way too simplified.

Also, you are saying the only reason people are mean to each other is because they want to climb the social ladder, or keep others from climbing it.  That's somewhat interesting, but it leaves out a lot of the individual component of emotion.

[The Niche]

So are you saying that everyone sees Bar A is larger than Bar B is larger than Bar C, or is that different depending on the observer?  What if people see the reverse, or all bars the same?  If it differs depending on the observers, then maybe everyone sees themselves as D, but sees other people as A through C.  Also, you assume that C is jealous of B and A, but what if A is friends with C?  What if people actually have natural self esteem not based on comparing themselves to other people, but based on self satisfaction?

Basically, what I'm getting that is that this is way too simplified.

Also, you are saying the only reason people are mean to each other is because they want to climb the social ladder, or keep others from climbing it.  That's somewhat interesting, but it leaves out a lot of the individual component of emotion.

You're probably right. I have a tendency to view things from a leader/follower perspective. This is too black and white, definitely.

[Blizzard]

Well, as for category C I can definitely say that I am witnessing something I call the pussification (or alternatively wussification) of our race, specifically the males of our race. Pussification (wussification) is the reduction or even complete removal of values, mechanisms and instincts mother nature has implemented in males in order to ensure survival and reproduction. Simplified, it means making men into pussies/wussies. Sadly our current culture encourages this trend. Just look at any comedy movie you can find. What happens? Some mediocre guy with all of his flaws meets a beautiful woman and they end up falling in love. Of course, he gets the girl even though he either messes up badly in their relationship and she forgives him or he acts like a complete pussy for one time sometime in the movies where it's supposed to matter. Society encourages us to stay where we are. It encourages us not to evolve socially, not to become better, not to become exceptional. It tells us that it's totally ok where we are and that we will get everything we want even if we stay where we are and put absolutely no effort into it. This is unreal. The average Joe will NOT have sex with a model if he thinks she doesn't mind him being a bit insecure, a bit sucking up and a bit of a pussy. Guess what, she will mind. And she will find another man, not a pussy. A man is supposed to be strong (mostly psychologically, because physically does not matter that much nowadays), decisive and confident. This attracts women to men. They are attracted to men, not jelly.

Whoops, went a bit off there. :=

Basically what I wanted to say, more and more people end up in category C and they aren't even aware of it. They are brainwashed by society. -_-  Why this is happening? Simple. Who is harder to control? Some weak-willed pussy who gets retarded as soon as he sees an attractive woman or a man who knows what he wants and doesn't take compromises?

[Starrodkirby86]

Interesting insight

It reminds me of this ;~;

Spoiler: ShowHide

[The Niche]

Basically what I wanted to say, more and more people end up in category C and they aren't even aware of it.

*Facepalm*

Now, a breakdown. Bar A - C = the followers. Not individual followers, mind you. Each one represents an aspect of every single person not in position D.

[Blizzard]

Eh, I misunderstood you. I thought you would be describing people, not attributes of people.

[Ryex]

ooh I love these kinds I topics.

here goes.

People break them selves into groups, almost with out realizing it. these groups are almost always based around areas of interest. how well a particular person "fits in" inside this group however has nothing to do with how much they like the subject however. instead, how well they fit is based on how closely their personality meshes with the majority or average personality of the group.  this is not the say that the personalities of people in the group are all the same as this is hardly the case. rather it is to say that certain personality types get along better.

there are many many different groups, and people are often members of more that one group, in fact it would be rare for a person to only be in one group.
the commonality of conflict between groups is inversely proportionality to how much the membership of the groups overlap.

now, to illustrate my point, lets rewind to high school because these devisions are much more distinct in adolescence, they are present through out life but they are easier to see when most people are still trying to figure out where they want to be. also lets break the groups down into stereotypes, easier to describe that way even it if is inaccurate, the point is clearer.

now lest say two of these groups are the Jocks and the Nerds, member ship of these two groups don't over lap because their personality types clash. whats more the personality types of the jocks is perceived by most of society to be "stronger" and more "desirable" thus the jocks gain a implied right of superiority.

Now, "why" the jock stereotype is perceived that way is unclear to me, some would claim that it goes back the the hunter-gather stereotype but I don't buy that it is that simple.

not that for the most part I don't claim that conflict is "caused" by the separation of the groups, simply that it is more common. 

the cause of the conflict is much more complex and can range from jealousy (members of one group desire qualities of another group) to the other group simply being a convenient scapegoat for the true object of the animosity.

there are also people who really don't fit well with any of the groups, that is in any group they joined they would be toward the edge of the group with how well their personality fit. while these types of people are basically outcasts of society they are also free to drift from group to group as they see fit and are often free from the conflicts that arise between groups. I identify with this type of person most.

[Power Hungry Midget]

I agree with Ryex. You can't say all conflict within a social setting is cause by the bar. For example, If me and you (Niche) were to have an argument about the writing of the novel or something else and then that escalates into hatred and the insulting of another. It solves bullying in schools and workplaces on the most basic level but that's about it.

[Blizzard]

Actually if something like this could solve bullying at school, kids would develop better psychologically in general and later in life the bars would have little to no effect. Even though not completely, it probably is part of the core problem.

[Power Hungry Midget]

What about children who bully other children because that's how they are treated at home? Would you argue that that behaviour is relevant to self-esteem?

[The Niche]

Eh yes. That's a terrible example. If you're treated negatively at home, your self esteem is effected in guess what way? Yup. Negatively.

[Power Hungry Midget]

Oh yeah.... The system makes sense when I apply it to certain people, namely John Martin. Can we call it that? John Martin syndrome or the John Martin Theory or something cool like that..