Rules for being better than someone else

scanlas

I'm curious what people here think makes one person better than someone else.

Factors some might consider are:

Wealth
Job
looks
body
morals
sexiness
social status
talents
penis size
charisma
popularity
height
fighting ability
drive, ambition, laziness, hard working
etc....

Which factors or function of factors do you use to determine someone being better than someone else?

Red Hand

First of all, you will have to define what you mean by a person "being better" than you.

Cause the way you have phrased the question, instantly makes me think that no piece of protein, lipid and carbonated calcium (that we usually call a human) is "better" than me.:pac:

miec

This is a sticky one because you have to set the perimeters of the ideal looks, body, sexiness, etc, etc. Also comparing and contrasting yourself with others is a bit self destructive and judgemental. Also its redundant which I'll show through a few examples:

For instance looks: most people agree that clear skin, a shapely body, shiny hair, etc, etc is considered beautiful. Now say you are average in looks and your friend is considered by most to be beautiful and you are both 20. Fast forward 20 years, you are still average but you have a cheerful personality and your face hasn't aged much and somehow you look better now than when you were younger because you took care of yourself. Meanwhile your beautiful friend has dieted excessively, smoked and has really aged plus life has been hard for them, which shows in the face and they are losing their looks. You could say the same for wealth, your friend is wealthy but they lose it all in bad investments, or your female friend is wealthy but her husband secretly knocks ten barrels of **** out of her. As for penis size, lets say you are average, your mate is huge but he has erection problems, whereas you can go all night. Do you see how comparisions are useless.

Yes there is always someone better than us if we look for it, but by doing that we have to make ourselves feel inadequate or smaller than another and at the same time in order to boost our low morale, we then look down upon someone else and it creates a hierarchy, so personally I am not in favour of this type of thinking. I have only just got rid of my neuroticism.

Latchy

scanlas wrote: »

I'm curious what people here think makes one person better than someone else.

Factors some might consider are:

Wealth
Job
looks
body
morals
sexiness
social status
talents
penis size
charisma
popularity
height
fighting ability
etc....

Which factors or function of factors do you use to determine someone being better than someone else?

Ever heard of Humility OP ?

Thoie

If I had to pick something from that list by which to judge if someone is better or worse than me, I'd have to go for the loose term "morals".

So, someone who steals and lies is worse than me, but I'm worse than someone who doesn't drive a little too fast at times.

The problem is you're then getting into a debate as to what morals are good and bad. Some people consider it immoral to have sex before marriage, others don't. So if I don't consider that immoral, and have sex before marriage, is the person who lies, but doesn't have sex better than me?

scanlas

I want to clear a few things up.

Firstly, whatever "better than" means to you is what I'm referring. It's an egotistical and subjective idea and most people are egotistical.

Secondly, Im a big fan of being egoless ( see power of now).

Thirdly, you can use whatever characteristic is relevant to you, not just those on the list.

I'd like to see peoples different values which contribute one person "being better" than another. I think it's an interesting topic.

scanlas

Who do you consider better between the following and why? ( Remember it's your own personal definition of better)

Mother Theresa vs George Bush

George Bush vs Fritzl

Christiano Ronaldo vs Barack Obama

Barack Obama vs Mother Theresa

Fritzl vs Hitler

Roger Federer vs Christiano Ronaldo

kmick

It seems I have it all.

Wealth - x
Job - x
looks - x
body - x
morals - None
sexiness - Yeeeowww
social status - High
talents - Many
penis size - oversized
charisma - x
popularity - x
height - x
fighting ability - no
drive - no
ambition - no
laziness - x
hard working - no

scanlas

I think most people secretly consider themselves to be "better" than some people but don't admit it. I'd like to hear from those people and figure out their criteria for "betterness" more exactly.

Wibbs

I dunno, I would consider myself different rather than better and others different to me. It depends what you're looking for in yourself and others. On the biz front I've lost contracts to complete chancers. In two cases they were more expensive and the client regretted it down the line, but in those case those guys at that time were preceived as better than me. On the women front, I've had women leave me for shorter, less intelligent, objectively "uglier", poorer men with smaller willies* and a large dollop of the beige about them. They were clearly "better" for the woman in that case though. I've attracted women who had "better" men than me sniffing around them too. Except in extremes it's hard to judge better or worse. In the general average of people it's so dependent on too many factors. Maybe it's because we're all pretty average, the overall diffs are hard to spot.






* dont ask how I know:D

Fink Goddie

scanlas wrote: »

I'm curious what people here think makes one person better than someone else.

Factors some might consider are:

Wealth
Job
looks
body
morals
sexiness
social status
talents
penis size
charisma
popularity
height
fighting ability
drive, ambition, laziness, hard working
etc....

Which factors or function of factors do you use to determine someone being better than someone else?

Looks! Mingers come last

scanlas

When I was in my teens I used to consider myself better than anyone who was less intelligent than me.

Oh The Humanity

scanlas wrote: »

When I was in my teens I used to consider myself better than anyone who was less intelligent than me.

Me too, but thankfully I've copped on to myself since then!

I notice people always choose the quality they have in abundance/excel in as being the most important quality to define what makes them 'better than' their peers.

So if someone is brainy but plain, they might tend to denounce people who are good looking as being biologically lucky and nothing else. THey will give them no points as they will tend to argue that looks deserve no merit as they are just an accident of genetics.

I used to think this way, then I realised, intelligence and insight are also accidents of genetics. Ok you can enhance them by studying etc but you can enhance looks with devices too.

On the other hand, people will denigrate qualities which they do not have/do not excel in as being irrelevant or less worthy!

Its human nature, as a young girl I was always very uncompetative, my mother discouraged shows of egotisticalness! (if thats a word) as being vulgar, grasping and seslfish.

So those are my values. I can since see that my Mother might have cultivated this philosophy as she was not a confident person who valued her own talents.

So I think whatever qualities we profess to be most important are those which WE posess ourselves. Its human nature to want to feel different, special and apart from others. But in reality all humans seem to be suprisingly alike!

I must say though I really dislike people comparing themselves based on stuff like this, even intelligence can be twisted into intellectual snobbery which I despise!

Even in convents/monastries where Christians attempted to invoke ego death, nuns and priests would eventually begin competing to see who was most humble!

So it seems to be embedded in human nature to try to compete with our peers even if we believe ourselves to be ego-less!

profitius

It simply depends on what you think of yourself to be.

If you have a high opinion of yourself this will manifest outwardly into you having money, healthy body, being confident, having lots of friends and high social status etc etc.

People with low opinions of themselves will manifest a less successful life.

The difference between men who are good with women and men who are not is the men who are good with women have higher opinions of themselves in terms of attracting women. Thats basically it.

scanlas

profitius wrote: »

It simply depends on what you think of yourself to be.

If you have a high opinion of yourself this will manifest outwardly into you having money, healthy body, being confident, having lots of friends and high social status etc etc.

People with low opinions of themselves will manifest a less successful life.

The difference between men who are good with women and men who are not is the men who are good with women have higher opinions of themselves in terms of attracting women. Thats basically it.

What does a high opinion of yourself mean? does it mean you view yourself better than a majority of people?

profitius

scanlas wrote: »

What does a high opinion of yourself mean? does it mean you view yourself better than a majority of people?

It means you're a confident person and you believe you're capable of anything. Its about you not about others.

scanlas

profitius wrote: »

It means you're a confident person and you believe you're capable of anything. Its about you not about others.

Ok, I'd like to reframe that a little bit. One could say a person with a high opinion of themself doesn't have limiting beliefs, they do not believe they are unworthy of anything. The person with a low opinion of themselves does not view themselves as worthy of certain positions, outcomes, achievements etc in life. #

That said, I wonder if the person with the high opinion of themself can't help see others as therefore lower or higher.

I'm not sure about the confidence though. You could have someone who believes they are capable or worthy of anything but are extremely nervous in most situations.