A Theory of Jerks (2014)

However, let me make one important addition. The author says that the person who is not a jerk is a sweetheart. However, following Aristotle's theory of the golden mean, let me point out there is also a third type, namely someone who discounts their own perspective and always thinks the other person is right, and so goes around feeling guilty and inferior.

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#5

Post by Animats » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 11:36 PM UTC

Compare "Assholes, a theory", which is a serious book.[1] It could be subtitled "Why Sociopaths Get Ahead".

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Assholes-Theory-Aaron-James/dp/080417...

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#6

Post by toomchsauce » Fri, Aug 11, 2017, 11:38 PM UTC

"Third, I’ve called the jerk ‘he’, for reasons you might guess. But then it seems too gendered to call the sweetheart ‘she’, so I’ve made the sweetheart a ‘he’ too."

Absolutely hilarious. I guess one point he's making is that men have a problem with noncompliance, but seems to have forgotten the upside entirely

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#7

Post by adrianratnapala » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 12:14 AM UTC

It is interesting that the meaning of"jerk" has moved very recently from meaning something like "bumpkin" to something closer to "arsehole". As the author points out, this is similar to the change in the meaning of "villain", along with several other words where a class-based insult eventually became moralised.

But most of the words he mentions are old words that changed their meaning back in the days when litteral aristocrats, kings, dukes and princes ruled the English speaking lands and their neighbours. "Jerk" changed recently and I wonder if the change hints at a new class system.

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#8

Post by stcredzero » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 12:23 AM UTC

One interesting quip I've heard from a psychologist recently, is that communication only really works well going down the dominance hierarchy. (I think it can work across.) I see a lot of the outrage driven viral media of today as being "punching down" by aspirant upper-echelon socioeconomic people onto lower-echelon people.

Also, if communication only really works well going down the dominance hierarchy, doesn't this suggest that power is contextual, so that it can change directions and allow communications to flow in different directions?

EDIT: Relevant to the article - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVTogKE25aQ

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#9

Post by cyanexttuesday » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 12:26 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #8

One interesting quip I've heard from a psychologist recently, is that communication only really works well going down the dominance hierarchy. (I think it can work across.) I see a lot of the outrage driven viral media of today as being "punching down" by aspirant upper-echelon socioeconomic people onto lower-echelon people. Also, if communication only really works well going down the dominance hierarchy, doesn't thi…

Sounds interesting, who is the psychologist?

Re: A Theory of Jerks (2014)

#10

Post by nerdponx » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 12:28 AM UTC

adrianratnapala wrote: post #7

It is interesting that the meaning of"jerk" has moved very recently from meaning something like "bumpkin" to something closer to "arsehole". As the author points out, this is similar to the change in the meaning of "villain", along with several other words where a class-based insult eventually became moralised. But most of the words he mentions are old words that changed their meaning back in the days when litteral a…

Jerk has been synonymous with "rude person" as long as I've been alive. If there was a shift, it wasn't all that recent.