Is Passivity the Norm?
Look around your own social ecosystem. How many leaders are there compared to followers? Are they good leaders? How many could be good leaders but are too passive to do so, or lack the skills?
It reminds me of the phenomenon when playing a game versus a random group member (whether chess or basketball or whatever): Am I this good, or is everyone else simply that bad?
To continue with the shift in analogy, are there a lot more good players than meets the eye? Or is it just that one happens to be a big fish in a small pond? Because look at the actual leaders if theyre not that impressive, what does that tell you? Maybe you truly are better, relative to your sample size.
I and I assume others have often felt this way in life. Sometimes its provable but probably not very impressive (I can beat my cousins in chess, big friggin deal), or else simply in ones mind (my fellow classmates, and this teacher, are all idiots or god people are fucking boring conversationalists) but either way, it makes one ask the question above: Is this real? Am I really better in x way, or is it just a self-serving fantasy? Or: is it real, but fairly minor and not statistically significant?
I struggle with this. Having studied psychology for years, Im probably overly conscious of delusions and self-serving biases. I say to myself, Youre not that special or important, calm down. While others have had hifalutin ideas for themselves about moving to California to write TV shows or become singers or professional athletes or CEOs or even the president of the United States, Ive often secretly rolled my eyes knowing how statistically unlikely it is, and have tried to be more realistic.
Yet as I get older, I look around to see a lot of passivity, no thinking, no ideas, no passion, no vision, no interests in anything harder than sports or movies or mortgage rates or career advancement, a house, a car, marriage, and some kids. I had to even get on a philosophy forum just for an occasional outlet in this particular area but it extends to government and education and parenting and health and jobs and money too. I dont really feel like everyone around me are stupid automata, I just feel like its difficult and busy and people get distracted, are tired from work, etc.
Is there a lot more passivity and ignorance than I once thought? Or is it just a self serving bias of specialness mixed with big-fish-in-small-pond syndrome?
It reminds me of the phenomenon when playing a game versus a random group member (whether chess or basketball or whatever): Am I this good, or is everyone else simply that bad?
To continue with the shift in analogy, are there a lot more good players than meets the eye? Or is it just that one happens to be a big fish in a small pond? Because look at the actual leaders if theyre not that impressive, what does that tell you? Maybe you truly are better, relative to your sample size.
I and I assume others have often felt this way in life. Sometimes its provable but probably not very impressive (I can beat my cousins in chess, big friggin deal), or else simply in ones mind (my fellow classmates, and this teacher, are all idiots or god people are fucking boring conversationalists) but either way, it makes one ask the question above: Is this real? Am I really better in x way, or is it just a self-serving fantasy? Or: is it real, but fairly minor and not statistically significant?
I struggle with this. Having studied psychology for years, Im probably overly conscious of delusions and self-serving biases. I say to myself, Youre not that special or important, calm down. While others have had hifalutin ideas for themselves about moving to California to write TV shows or become singers or professional athletes or CEOs or even the president of the United States, Ive often secretly rolled my eyes knowing how statistically unlikely it is, and have tried to be more realistic.
Yet as I get older, I look around to see a lot of passivity, no thinking, no ideas, no passion, no vision, no interests in anything harder than sports or movies or mortgage rates or career advancement, a house, a car, marriage, and some kids. I had to even get on a philosophy forum just for an occasional outlet in this particular area but it extends to government and education and parenting and health and jobs and money too. I dont really feel like everyone around me are stupid automata, I just feel like its difficult and busy and people get distracted, are tired from work, etc.
Is there a lot more passivity and ignorance than I once thought? Or is it just a self serving bias of specialness mixed with big-fish-in-small-pond syndrome?
Comments (18)
Those are safe topics. If people discussed philosophy and politics all the time they'd end up hating each other. Best to keep it safe.
And regarding chess, you sound like a big fish in a small pond. Chess is one of those sports where you'll be humbled quickly no matter how good you are.
Without question. Playing on chess.com shows me that. Above average, but nothing exceptional. Even @Hanover beat me for Gods sake. But the point being that in situations less amenable to real proof, one can go on wondering
Since you pinged me on the chess comment, I read the OP and so I'll respond.
I don't think it's hard to determine how good you are objectively at something as long as you have data from the general world to compare it to. For example, you can run a 5k race and look at your time and compare it to others and you can do the same in golf. In your chess example, you can play enough to obtain a rating and you can compare that to others.
I do think that being a big fish in a small pond does elevate some to be big fishes in big ponds as well. You see that often in politics where someone becomes a representative from their small hometown and they're able to dominate the national scene in Congress because they're invincible back home. You can gain an advantage by growing big in your little pond where the competition is less. Those small town guys would likely have never amounted to anything close had they been born in Manhattan. As they say about New York, if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.
As to whether people have ambition, I'd say it's a special trait, not unlike being faster, smarter, or stronger. If you have the drive to want it more, that will seperate you from the crowd. The difference between ambition and those other traits is that ambition is within your control, but it's hard to fake. You have to have passion or you just won't do it.
You have 6,400 posts here, which in itself sounds like no big deal, but if you had 6,400 cold calls as an insurance agent, you'd be killing it. But you don't want to sell insurance because it's work, whereas here your postings are what you want to do. You don't lack ambition per se because some things you do with a vengence. It's just you have to do what you have a passion for, and if you can find that and that thing gets you riches, fame, or whatever it is you seek, then you're the lucky few.
What rating & time control? I'm around 1900/2000 level on chess.com at 10 minute. I wouldn't typically mention this in conversation.
I also keep in mind that just because people may talk about frivolous topics doesn't mean that they are that shallow and frivolous. But some are. But not necessarily. I also find that there many different types of intelligences (social, emotional, mental, etc.)
Good point but I wonder how often. I would think mostly theyre just crushed.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, and maybe thats all it comes down to: few have truly any real passion. Or I havent encountered it much in life. Maybe just bad luck for me, who knows. But I wonder.
Nice.
It varies because I often play stupidly just to try new things, because its fun and I dont care much about the points. I think I could play at 1950 or so at 3 minutes consistently, which is my favorite time, if I played to win every game (which sometimes gets boring because it involves taking advantage of little gains).
Anyway like I said, not amazing. Maybe above average, but Ive never studied it formally and would be destroyed by anyone who has.
Incidentally, I have played a few guys in New York at the famous Union Square for money, and won each time. But again that just likely proves theyre not that good and are used to taking advantage of random people.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yeah, me too. But I dont see many taking the lead on anything I guess thats the point. Everyones waiting for something to happen.
"Leader" isn't a character trait, but a social position. Leaders have followers.
But what are they following, and how do you tell who is leading? Wouldn't it depend upon what the leader wants?
If so then I think leaders are everywhere. People take on responsibility and leadership roles in various capacities as long as they care about something. This doesn't need a social designation or a plan or something along those lines. The rule is "Leaders have followers" -- so if someone doesn't want to do anything because it won't matter anyway and everyone else follows them then "waiting around for something to happen" is the state of affairs, not the rule. The rule is "Follow the leader", and the leader has various disgruntled reasons for convincing everyone to not put in any effort.
Okay, sure. But whatever the traits are that a leader possesses, its usually not passivity. Being confident, outspoken, have clear goals, being persuasive, perhaps even arrogant, manipulative, and domineering (if one is a bad leader, in my view).
Its a shorthand.
Quoting Moliere
:chin:
Well in that case, youre right: there are a lot of leaders after all!
And then this from "Princess Bride."
Wallace Shawn is fantastic. Great scene.
I would have thought that in the West at least, too many folk think of themselves as exceptional, with special skills and prodigious energy and positivity.
Ive certainly noticed in industries I work in every second callow youth fancies themselves an innovative leader and disrupter. No one seems to want to do the grunt work; they want to be in charge. But the passion isnt for the work, its for themselves.
You can only milk the cow for so long.
I got into an outdoor activity in the 1950s that was just beginning to become popular in America. After a year or so, for various reasons, I began to see this activity in a different light, and began practicing it from this perspective. Without an effort to influence, some others began, slowly, to see the activity as I did. As the years passed my version of the activity gained considerable popularity and attracted those far more fit than I, and my achievements were substantially eclipsed.
This was an activity going back to the late 1800s at least. It is now an Olympic event. I was in the right place at the right time for a normal person to influence the future.
Were you a professional? Just curious.
Guess not. That's OK, I never became a professional in the outdoor activity I alluded to. And I spent countless hours at it.
Missed this. Yes, I was.
If I'm not misreading you, I think you are conflating "skills" with intelligence. Historically, many intelligent people have lived an obscure existence -- not famous, not wealthy, not leaders. Could they be good leaders? Not, unless they trained for it or has a natural aptitude to be charming and persuasive.
Intelligence is measured in averages, skills in probability distribution. Which means, you could literally ask, what's the distribution of people who could be used in the manufacturing jobs? What's the distribution of people who could compete in the Olympics?
We only need a leader if we are going somewhere new. The future is always somewhat new, and mainly the same, so the leader is mostly unimportant, and occasionally vital. Occasionally, circumstance requires a great change in society to be made rapidly (climate change comes to mind for some reason). When we as a society come to recognise this need, we turn to face it and find that someone is already there out in front making the change. A leader has miraculously appeared.
Such a leader is not to be confused with those power seekers who only follow the crowd, but try to push their way to the front. Following such we will go nowhere pleasant.