Jealousy

[Danneskjold]

I was at my High School basketball game earlier tonight, it was the Les Schwab Invitational, a tournament sponsored by the local tire company amongst others. The game was a rematch between last year's state championship teams, both teams have players that are top ten in the nation. The thing is I noticed the particular hatred directed towards our best player Kevin Love. Kevin Love is 6'10 or so, 260 lbs, and can do it all. Kevin is ranked (last I checked) third in the nation for his age, the other guys is ranked (don't quote me on this) 8th or 9th. The troubling thing was the amount of pure hatred directed towards Kevin. There quickly came a point where the sheer hatred became ridiculous. Kevin Love would shoot a foul shot, people would boo and hope he missed. It's natural for fans from a certain school to want the other team to lose, but this wasn't only kids from the other school and they weren't only the other team's fans. Especially troubling was the anger exerted by a kid from a city that was nowhere near either of the team's whenever something good happened for Kevin Love. Because he had no clue what was actually going on, it meant that he was told to hate a person because they are good.

This is not the only thing that bugs me about jealousy. It seems like I'm the only one that is dissapointed when my team doesn't win so much as the other team losing. I am not sure why it bugs me so much when it doesn't bother my teammates or anyone else for that matter.

Has anyone else experienced stuff like this that is just ridiculous?

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; The quality you are talking about is not jealousy but envy. Ayn Rand called envy "the hatred of the good for being good". I wish I could give you more references. Missed you while you were gone. Hope you had a good time.

[omphalos]

>>"the hatred of the good for being good"<<

This boggle my mind as well. I just don't get it, either.

Best example I've seen is the practice of 'keying' an expensive car.

What goes through those tiny little minds???

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I moved this from the "Objectivism" forum. I left a link there and will take it down after a few days.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; Are you saying that there is no admiration of the superior player. I can understand being frustrated playing opposite a superior player. It really sounds so small.

[Danneskjold]

No, there is not an ounce of admiration for the person as a player. No respect whatsoever. Most often when people talk of him from opposing teams they:

A. Call him overrated

B. Point out every little thing he does wrong

C. Reflect his dad's poor image upon him without consideration of him being an individual in and of himself.

D. Denegrate him as a team player

E. States no real reason for disliking him.

There is normally very little to no respect for him as a player. His father doesn't help his image, but reflecting the image of a father upon a son is just wrong.

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; Your last post did not make me happy. Does anyone make the point that this person's acheivements don't take away from anyone else. There is not a little pool which if one person uses the acheivement no one else can use it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

I agree this is envy, but it is due to a competitive spirit gone haywire. In the university where I studied, it was common for those striving to be invited to audition for professional symphony orchestra positions to harp on the weak points and mistakes of those who were the actual heavy players. I always found this strange. People wanted to win through the disgrace of a competent person, not strive to be better than him.

I remember an all-state band I played in once in high-school where, to my chagrin, a trombone player showed up who was brilliant. I walked up to him and said, about as arrogantly as I could, that I hoped he played his best because I intended to beat him and that my purpose at the event was to show I was better than him.

He beat me, though, winning the first trombone spot and I played assistant first. He told me during the rehearsals that he had been suffering from a depression and probably would not have auditioned very well, but what I told him pissed him off so much that he gave it his all. He was sincerely grateful to me for pulling him out of his depression.

I remember thinking that if I had kept my mouth shut, I would have been in the first position. I felt nothing, though. I even tried to feel envy and it wouldn't come. On one level, I was glad he beat me because we both gave it our best shot and he actually was better than me at that time. On another, I was pissed at myself for not being better and promised myself that I would practice more and work harder. When I thought about him, I couldn't feel anything negative. It was an enormous pleasure to play beside him. The guy was damn good.

I have observed over the years that this attitude is not common. The one of envy you describe is. I believe the root of the attitude you describe is tribal more than anything else (win at all costs for the glory of the tribe--and this has nothing to do with being a first-rate team player). The attitude I hold (and you from what I am able to perceive) is one of a self-confident individualist in the best sense of the term.

Don't ever let that go. Your nobility resides in it.

Michael

[Judith]

Schadenfreude is becoming more common in our society. It's a very ugly thing. Ayn Rand wrote about it in her essay "The Age of Envy", which I recommend highly.

You'll see it in things like the graduated income tax, and "Why are the rich getting richer?", and "Nobody deserves to make that much money!", and keying of nice cars, and resentment of people who are happy and guiltless.

Recognize it for what it is. You can't really understand it.

Judith

[Paul Mawdsley]

I believe the root of the attitude you describe is tribal more than anything else...

Michael,

I fully agree. I would like to discuss the psychological/social dynamics of this in greater depth as time and shared interest permits.

Paul

[zarxo]

You are being not only conscious at that moment but you are also thinking of how others are thinking. They are being mechanical and you just "care". They are not necessarily wrong but that are just not "there" as you are. Just observe and integrate what you are seeing into your consciousness, don't let it beat you down. Enjoying the game aren't you? :frantics: You should relay this thought to the player that you are talking about, that is, if you both are friends. I am sure it will open new doors for you. Remember, pick your battles, part of being an efficacious man is to use "your energy" wisley. Sometimes its hard to do when you get all caught up in the moment but as time goes on, you will control that part of you better. Just remember most of those people are not even aware of why they are hating this guy, so its useless to throw pearls before swine. Keep thinking, but don't let it steal your fun!

zarxo

I was at my High School basketball game earlier tonight, it was the Les Schwab Invitational, a tournament sponsored by the local tire company amongst others. The game was a rematch between last year's state championship teams, both teams have players that are top ten in the nation. The thing is I noticed the particular hatred directed towards our best player Kevin Love. Kevin Love is 6'10 or so, 260 lbs, and can do it all. Kevin is ranked (last I checked) third in the nation for his age, the other guys is ranked (don't quote me on this) 8th or 9th. The troubling thing was the amount of pure hatred directed towards Kevin. There quickly came a point where the sheer hatred became ridiculous. Kevin Love would shoot a foul shot, people would boo and hope he missed. It's natural for fans from a certain school to want the other team to lose, but this wasn't only kids from the other school and they weren't only the other team's fans. Especially troubling was the anger exerted by a kid from a city that was nowhere near either of the team's whenever something good happened for Kevin Love. Because he had no clue what was actually going on, it meant that he was told to hate a person because they are good.

This is not the only thing that bugs me about jealousy. It seems like I'm the only one that is dissapointed when my team doesn't win so much as the other team losing. I am not sure why it bugs me so much when it doesn't bother my teammates or anyone else for that matter.

Has anyone else experienced stuff like this that is just ridiculous?

[Robert Campbell]

After Rand's essay "The Age of Envy," I recommend a book simply titled Envy by a German sociologist named Helmut Schoeck. Writing around 1970, Schoeck argued that envy has been far more prevalent in some other cultures than in American culture. In fact, he thought that the word "envy" in English doesn't convey the full sharpness or malice of its cognates in many other languages.

Schoeck's book introduced me to the word Schadenfreude, long before Lisa Simpson explained its meaning to prime time viewers...

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Prof. Campbell,

I recall that Rand, Rothbard & I think Russell Kirk discussed Schoek's book. It's been on my "to read" list for the last 10 years. Maybe 2007 . . . .

Neil Parille

http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/

[hbar24]

I notice that people with low regard for themselves are so self conscious that they don't function well. Self centering is short sighted. You don't do well when you are looking at your feet all the time. In the sports example though, I know that they always encourage being a team player, because the opposing team may block a good player and he has to practice superior team skills to counter that tactic. If you couldn't figure a bad reason for their doing boing that might mean that there was a good reason. Makes sense. OK, it's true, I am just trying to start a fight.

Edited January 1, 2007 by hbar24

[zarxo]

Very nice and even though am intocicated on New Year's Day, I would like to reinforce the logic that you just persuaded!

Zarxo

I notice that people with low regard for themselves are so self conscious that they don't function well. Self centering is short sighted. You don't do well when you are looking at your feet all the time. In the sports example though, I know that they always encourage being a team player, because the opposing team may block a good player and he has to practice superior team skills to counter that tactic. If you couldn't figure a bad reason for their doing boing that might mean that there was a good reason. Makes sense. OK, it's true, I am just trying to start a fight.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Basically, envy is the root cause of socialism, though paternalism is a secondary cause and may be more common in America. Envy is widespread in America but I find it even more common in the people I meet from other countries. It really is despicable.

Anna's parents had 20 acres of good farmland in the western Ukraine, which between the world wars was part of Poland. When the Germans and Soviets invaded Poland to start WWII, the Soviets took over this area and her Dad had to flee as a known Ukrainian patriot. The farm stayed as was with his wife doing all the work. Then the Nazis took over and her Dad returned home, until the Soviets swept back in again. This time, the Soviets came to take Anna's Dad away, but found him not home at the moment. They debated whether to take Anna's Mom, but did not. As a result her Dad left the Ukraine again and her Mom took her son and Anna's older sister and walked hundreds of miles to the west to rejoin him. The abandoned farm was then heavily damaged by envious neighbors. Absolutely pointless destruction. They were so envious that they heavily damaged the very fine orchard that covered several acres of the farm and damaged the buildings and the gardens. It is hard even to understand why a mere 20 acres of land caused so much envy, but it was a much more productive farm than most in the area and it was bigger.

There are always people who resent good students and the grades they get. In some communities even in the US this is really rampant. It is a good part of the destructive culture of many African American and Hispanic inner city slums. Even in wealthier communities such as Prince George's County or still wealthier Montgomery County in the Washington, DC Maryland suburbs, there are large groups in which envy of good students is so strong and the accompanying resentment is so strong, that large groups of students will not allow anyone of that group to do well in school. It is less common to see such an attitude applied to athletics, however.

Envy also seems to cause a lot of resentment of better looking people. Since character is even more important than looks, it is not surprising that there are many who actually resent people because their character is too good. I have often seen cases where to prove that you belonged to a group, you had to show the group that you were willing to compromise your character. In other words, you had to prove that they were as good as you, though they were not willing to put in the effort to develop good character. This form of envy and of distrust of anyone who does not bow to it is a strong component of many corporate cultures, whether in industry, government, or education.

[Judith]

There are always people who resent good students and the grades they get. In some communities even in the US this is really rampant. It is a good part of the destructive culture of many African American and Hispanic inner city slums. Even in wealthier communities such as Prince George's County or still wealthier Montgomery County in the Washington, DC Maryland suburbs, there are large groups in which envy of good students is so strong and the accompanying resentment is so strong, that large groups of students will not allow anyone of that group to do well in school. It is less common to see such an attitude applied to athletics, however.

Envy also seems to cause a lot of resentment of better looking people. Since character is even more important than looks, it is not surprising that there are many who actually resent people because their character is too good. I have often seen cases where to prove that you belonged to a group, you had to show the group that you were willing to compromise your character. In other words, you had to prove that they were as good as you, though they were not willing to put in the effort to develop good character. This form of envy and of distrust of anyone who does not bow to it is a strong component of many corporate cultures, whether in industry, government, or education.

I can't help wondering if some of this is not really envy, but dislike of the goody-two-shoes, teacher's pet type of kids, and the assumption that if someone is trying to get good grades, that person is a sell-out to "authority", or a conformist, or a tattler or rat. It's quite different from envy. It would be quite a challenge to convince young people in such a culture that achievement of good grades is in their own self-interest, and not a caving-in to all the liberty-denying people in their lives that have been trying to make them do things they didn't want to do. Same goes for character; it would be a challenge to teach them the difference between genuine honor, etc., and all the things the Sunday School teacher tried to ram down their throats. By resisting all of that, they were fighting for the integrity of their own individuality, and it felt like a fight for their own souls, so their resistance is actually a sign of a healthy self. They just need to learn to make some very important distinctions.

Judith

[Charles R. Anderson]

Judith,

The factor that you have pointed out does play a role and with a subset of kids it probably is primary. The schools do tend to be very authoritarian and this did really rankle my middle daughter, who rebelled strongly against it.

It does appear to me that there is actually increased favoritism in the schools as they now try so hard to inculcate their social program through out-and-out propaganda and as they elevate those groups blessed by government as the oppressed and the underprivileged. This tends to leave white males out and behind, which I am sure some resent greatly. But it is also true that those who buy into the government-mandated propaganda that anyone who is successful in society (for example, the rich) must have become so by oppressing some group of people, then why should these convinced people not also assume that academic success is a result of the academically successful making victims of those who are not academically successful. People are being made to eagerly identify themselves as victims. It is the perfect excuse for all failures and, in the present school environment, it is actually a badge of honor to be a victim. The alternative is to be an oppressor. So, one can be lazy and morally superior at the same time! This has a very great appeal to some kids.

Sorting such feelings out from envy is not a simple and straightforward thing to do.

[Danneskjold]

I would have to disagree with Judith's assessment if for no other reason than that I see kids who are generally intellectual ground-zeroes getting straight A's in school and they are not disliked because of it.

[Judith]

I would have to disagree with Judith's assessment if for no other reason than that I see kids who are generally intellectual ground-zeroes getting straight A's in school and they are not disliked because of it.

In what subculture? White middle-class suburbia upper-class? Or black inner-city? Or druggie-rebellion types dropping out of the first class? I'm talking about the latter two.

Judith

[Danneskjold]

The lattermost. The first one is non-existent (or nearly so).

Edited February 2, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[xbacksideslider]

I'm new here, having found this old thread when I  searched the word jealousy as an antonym to the word envy. 

General usage treats these two words as synonyms.  Putting etymological relativism aside, I think their conventional usage is at least vague and at worst profoundly incorrect.  

I want to insist that both words go to property rights - their taking versus their defense.  I understand that envy, according to convention and according to Rand, implicates factors such as interpersonal resentment as well as personal property factors such as covetousness. 

I want to see envy as related to a desire to steal  someone else's property and jealousy as related to defense of that property.  This is a concept of property broadly defined, to include not just personalty but also a person's reputation, attractiveness, intelligence, achievements, and the like. 

Thus, envy is evil and jealousy is righteous.   They are both incipient, in the mind, not yet in action.  Envy is about the idea of taking someone else's stuff.  Jealousy is about the idea of keeping your own stuff.

That distinction is offensive to the confiscatory egalitarian mind which generally loves to conflate the two words, treating them as synonyms; erasing the moral distinction.

Admittedly, this sharpening of the difference between envy and jealousy is iconoclastic.  I think that for Objectivists, and libertarians generally, it is critical to use language in the defense of the concept of property, in all its forms, as a core value.

 

[Jonathan]

12 hours ago, xbacksideslider said:

I'm new here, having found this old thread when I  searched the word jealousy as an antonym to the word envy. 

General usage treats these two words as synonyms.  Putting etymological relativism aside, I think their conventional usage is at least vague and at worst profoundly incorrect.  

I want to insist that both words go to property rights - their taking versus their defense.  I understand that envy, according to convention and according to Rand, implicates factors such as interpersonal resentment as well as personal property factors such as covetousness. 

I want to see envy as related to a desire to steal  someone else's property and jealousy as related to defense of that property.  This is a concept of property broadly defined, to include not just personalty but also a person's reputation, attractiveness, intelligence, achievements, and the like. 

Thus, envy is evil and jealousy is righteous.   They are both incipient, in the mind, not yet in action.  Envy is about the idea of taking someone else's stuff.  Jealousy is about the idea of keeping your own stuff.

That distinction is offensive to the confiscatory egalitarian mind which generally loves to conflate the two words, treating them as synonyms; erasing the moral distinction.

Admittedly, this sharpening of the difference between envy and jealousy is iconoclastic.  I think that for Objectivists, and libertarians generally, it is critical to use language in the defense of the concept of property, in all its forms, as a core value.

 

Um, you're over-Objectivishizing it. In reality, words don't have a single, objective, Ayn Rand-approved meaning. They have multiple meanings which depend on context. You're tilting at windmills.

J

[Peter]

Jealousy is seldom brought up in objectivist circles. I don’t think I ever feel it myself. I remember being naked in high school gym class and “wishing” I had the equipment that other “show off” had but I don’t I think felt jealousy, or that “fate” had shortchanged me. Joke.  

Peter

From: Walter Foddis To: ATL <atlantis Subject: ATL: Romantic Love and Attachment Theory Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 04:27:56 -0600

Attachment theory is an influential model of relationships in the field of psychology. A prominent researcher in the field is Kim Barthomolew of Simon Fraser University. She and her colleagues have proposed 4 peer attachment prototypes that have implications for romantic relationships. The attachment prototypes are labelled as secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing. Here are brief descriptions for each:

1. SECURE: Positive self-model, positive other-model.

Key Features: high coherence, high self-confidence, positive approach to others, high intimacy in relationships.

Their romantic relationships are also characterized by intimacy, closeness, mutual respect and involvement, disclosure, etc. They do not necessarily have perfect relationships, but they can make realistic appraisals of their partners and the issues in their relationships. When asked about the ideal relationship, one secure person responded: "Is there an ideal relationship? I think that you can strive for the best that you can offer each other." They are able to resolve conflicts constructively. If secure individuals are not currently involved in romantic relationships, they are likely to have been previously involved, or to have a reasonable explanation for their current lack of involvement.

2. FEARFUL: Negative self-model, negative other-model.

Key Features: low self-confidence and avoidance of intimacy due to fear of rejection, conflicting motives of both wanting and fearing intimacy, high self-consciousness.

Fearful individuals find it difficult to become involved in romantic relationships. For example, when asked why they didn't date, one fearful person said "I don't want to be rejected or seen in a negative light." When involved in a romantic relationship, they assume a passive role, are very dependent, and tend to be more invested in the relationship than their partner. They are very insecure within the relationship and tend to blame themselves for problems (e.g., "Every argument we've had has been my fault because I'm an idiot.") They have difficultly openly communicating and showing feelings to their partners. One person said: "I'm incapable of vocalizing my emotions. I'm afraid that I'll say something that will ruin the relationship." They avoid conflict in relationships, and have a hard time breaking off relationships because of their fear of ever finding another relationship).

3. PREOCCUPIED: Negative self-model; positive other-model.

Key features: preoccupied with relationships, incoherent and idealizing in discussing relationships, highly dependent on others for self-esteem, approach oriented in relationships.

To preoccupied individuals, romantic relationships are of critical importance (e.g., "When I have a boyfriend, he becomes my everything. He takes up all my extra time and my energy and my thought. For me to half way like someone just doesn't work. I just can't do that .... I wouldn't date someone that I wouldn't consider  marrying.") They may worry about never finding someone to share their life with (e.g., "I'm just a total worry-wart. I worry that I'll never meet somebody and then, on the other hand, I worry that I've already met her."), but are likely to have been constantly involved in romantic relationships....

Their relationships are punctuated by emotional extremes, including anger, passion, jealousy, and possessiveness. They tend to initiate conflict (e.g., "I love to argue but it's hard to argue by yourself"), and they openly express their feelings and insecurities in relationships. They are more invested in the relationship than their partners and more dominant. They are clingy or dependent in their relationships, and very demanding of their partners. The dominance and intrusiveness of the preoccupied is often reflected in an extreme desire to be needed, to look after, or to "fix" romantic partners.

4. DISMISSING: Positive self-model, negative other-model

Key Features: low elaboration and coherence, downplays importance of relationships, high self-confidence, avoidance of intimacy & compulsive self-reliance

The romantic relationships of dismissing individuals are characterized by a lack of intimacy or closeness and low self-disclosure and emotional expressiveness. These individuals are less involved in the relationship than their partners. They tend to be low in affection in relationships and prefer to avoid conflict or other emotional displays. In addition to not relying on their partners for support, they are uncomfortable with requests for support or indications of dependence in their partners. They often shy from commitment and are quick to feel trapped or bored in relationships.

F

or more information, please see Bartholomew's Lab page: http://www.sfu.ca/psychology/groups/faculty/barth/research/index.htm

From: "Mary-Ann A." <mfanet@worldnet.Reply-To: Starship_Forum Subject: Re: [Starship_Forum] I have no such bitterness--rep to Monart Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:57:27 -0600

Just a quick note to respond to the following statement with a clarification:

>I think Rand promoted that kind of divisiveness by her rancorous words about people who did not agree with her ideas. I wish she had come from a more loving and accepting frame of mind. In fact, I wonder if, with all her emphasis about trading relationships, if she really understood the limits of trading in friendship or love, when it is a whollistic commitment to the relationship that makes or breaks it, not an "I'll give you only if you give me.">

Gently, I wish to tell you that you have misunderstood AR's "trader principle," to the extent you think it is comprised of what you say here.

The "trader principle" (which I am bitterly, very aware of, having had it used against me) is one of an association of co-equals, particularly in the "spiritual" sense, as Objectivism defines spiritual.  (Although an Atheist, AR does use the word at times, in her particular sense.)  If you think of types of relationships as a pyramid, with the 'pinnacle' being the one you have chosen for your life/sexual partner, and acquaintances at the base, the trader principle requires that, as you move up the pyramid toward the top, your important associations should (MUST!) only be with those who are your spiritual equal.  The "trading" is in the sense of -- in characteristic grandiosity -- the spiritual "food" you get/give each other by virtue of your virtues;  the vindication, if you will -- though that's not accurate, it's the word I can come up with as I'm rushing here -- of finding another or other human beings who are "like you."  ("Like you," of course, being perfectly rational and efficacious human beings with no excuses in their lives.  Like you, of course.)  (Forgive me if I sound bitter; but don't bother to ask, this is all I have to say about that subject.)

Love to say more, but have to run THIS MINUTE! (to a class).  Please let me know if you want any other clarification, or references.

Regards, Mary-Ann

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 hours ago, Jonathan said:

In reality, words don't have a single, objective, Ayn Rand-approved meaning. They have multiple meanings which depend on context.

Jonathan,

This is 100% correct.

An example I, myself, have given many times over the years (which I know you've read--I'm saying this for the reader  ): open any dictionary on earth and there will be multiple definitions for--at least--the vast majority of words.

However, if we look at xbacksideslider's distinctions as conceptual distinctions (irrespective of what word we use for each concept), they need work, but there is a there there. In general, I've always understood one concept to be about direct human attachments (we can call that jealousy here) and the other about what another person has, whether thing, position, reputation, the love of someone, etc. (we can call that envy).

Oddly enough, I have been rereading Return of the Primitive for some reason and I just finished "The Age of Envy." I'm rethinking my former automatic acceptance of Rand's idea of "hatred of the good for being the good" as a primary motivation for the collectivist bad guys in society. I think it probably is a for some people, but I no longer see it that way for many others she included under that umbrella. Or, at least, it might be present, but not as a primary motivation.

The more I dwell on core story (or something similar like core model or even core stories and models, etc.) the more I believe living within them in one's mind is a deeper motivation.

In other words, collectivism gets spread so easily throughout the world not because many people "hate the good for being the good," although some might, but because collectivist intellectuals came up with a damn good story of bullies (the oppressors), the bullied (the victims), the hero savior (the state) and peppered it with lots of comeuppance for the bullies for reinforcing the emotional appeal.

The best thing Rand ever did was to come up with some equally compelling stories, but putting producers and high-end achievers in the victim role and getting them to win as the bullies get destroyed for the comeuppance emotional appeal. 

The urge for poetic justice (comeuppance) seems to be a hardwired human universal. Whoever frames that urge with a strong relevant story for the audience will be able to mobilize people up to a point where groupthink can take over, often with the storytellers pulling the strings.

Michael