Mean People (and what to do about them).

Well, I was certainly not equating meanness and rudeness (although they appear together often enough). I was thinking of the folks like the corporate controller I met who went out of his way to belittle his subordinates in public meetings, knowing he had the power to trash their careers if they stood up to him.

When I had only known him by reputation, I had thought that he was one of those idiots so commonly found in business who had acquired a high position by sycophantically clinging to the coattails of one of the VPs. Then I found myself in a series of meetings with him. He knew his stuff. He very methodically sliced and diced anyone who tried to bullshit him. He was very definitely “intelligent” (knowledgable, logical, perceptive, etc.). However, anyone who gave him an answer he did not want to hear was illogically sliced and diced with ad hominem attacks.
He was capable of doing the right thing, but chose to be a foul, destructive, monster. I would call that mean.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines mean as:

adjective 3: Ignoble, small-minded (a mean trick), malicious, ill-tempered, vicious, nastily behaved.


Additionally, I define meanness as the unwarranted or unsolicited application of unnecessary force, coercion or unsympathetic behavior to the needless detriment of another or others.

I find it especially telling that the Oxford Dictionary includes the aspect of small-mindedness in its definition of meanness. An intelligent mind is obliged to use scientific method in its own improvement. Scientific method commands an adherent to dismiss illogical or counterproductive modes in one’s behavior or perceptual constructs. A simple example is when my friend showed me how to use “Control / Enter” instead of selecting “Send” with my trackball. From that instant onward, I have never bothered to use the “Send” icon again. So it is with conduct, meanness is very often so obvious to all involved that it requires sub-par intelligence to continue such behavior without self-awareness of it.

This is precisely why I eschew using anything other than intelligence as a yardstick in this debate. To lay claim to intelligence intrinsically demands that the claimant engage in autoscopic thought. You will never find me willing to defend the disuse of introspection. Those who neglect such self-examination automatically discount themselves from intelligent society.

If an individual is unwilling to review their own behavior in a clear minded fashion, it is extremely debatable that they possess any large measure of intelligence. For elucidation I will include the Concise Oxford Dictionary’s definition of intelligence:

noun 1. Intellect, understanding; hence intelligential (-shal). a 3. Quickness of understanding, sagacity (of person or animal)… ~ test (designed to measure intelligence rather than acquired knowledge). 3. Intelligent or rational being.


Per that definition, acquired knowledge has little to do with intelligence. The capable and accurate processing of that knowledge seems to be implied. I have often alluded to this elsewhere as wisdom, but I do not wish to muddy these waters. Again, there is by definition the inference that intelligence (by its very value in measure) is more desirable than small-mindedness (or meanness). It is precisely this sort of open-mindedness that seeks self improvement and (one would hope) elevation of spirit. The “narrowness” that Drastic refers to is another excellent example of this mindset.

I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to suggest (what I hope is) a better term than self-centered. As a proponent of self, the concept of self-centeredness bears no negative connotations. We are living beings that have a center of activity, namely our own bodies and selves. I would nominate the term self-absorbed, instead. A person who is entirely self-absorbed is usually incapable of real sympathetic consideration. Anyone who is so self absorbed that they are incapable of putting themselves in another’s shoes is almost by definition, mean. It is this self-limitation of scope that renders it quite easy to engage in destructive (as opposed to constructive) criticism and initiation of intentional discourtesy.

And here our views on the subject diverge abruptly. I believe the functioning mind to be one of the most powerful tools in the entire realm of known existence. A rational human being is capable of changing their behavior and the very core of their own personality, if they elect to do so. We must immediately dismiss pathological, antisocial behavior, as we are examining the voluntary exercise of meanness as a method of interpersonal transaction and interaction. Although, I often find it rather difficult to distinguish between unsympathetic and pathological behavior in others. Likewise, per MrO’s observation, we are not discussing the Bringlish (British English) word “mean” (as in miserly). Incidentally, being a jerk (like I sometimes am), does not necessarily imply meanness of character. Awkwardness and other minor subsets of character defect can create error and mistake without any malign intent. That said, as most of us have witnessed, it is still possible for mean people to be real jerks.

And finally, Drastic, I think it is safe to say that those who do not seek the company of challenging individuals are sorry specimens of humanity. The desire for unprovocative companions pretty much guarantees a lack of self improvement. I hardly see that as a benefit much beyond ignorance being bliss. Such people are often unscarred by the ravages of intelligence.

So, zgystardst, I hope we have satisfactorily defined meanness. Logic usually precludes counterproductive methods. It is rather easy to show that the adoption of an overly restricted (self-absorbed) perspective will quickly produce a deficit in your profit from situations. Thus, logic demands the dismissal of mean conduct. As to the question of why people are mean, that is the exact nub of this debate. Somehow, mean people seem to regard their behavior as productive, or they are of limited intelligence. That is what is being debated in this thread. Factotums without any sense of decency need not apply. We are talking about people who lay claim to intelligence yet knowingly persist with intentionally offensive behavior.

Onward:

By the above definitions Scylla, you still weren’t being mean to your white trash relative. She had willfully endangered your loved ones and thoroughly abused the privilege of angling on your private property. I think it is far safer to call her mean than you give you that label in any respect. (I believe the term righteous anger is more appropriate here.)

That you willingly admit to going over the top by being intentionally abusive in your demeanor only shows the depth of your relative’s offensiveness. Your harsh expulsion of them reestablished a previously endangered security for the focus of your life. I don’t see how that was mean. You not being so harsh and not successfully expelling them (so that they might return and do possible harm to your loved ones) could be a tremendous sorrow for you by comparison.

And finally:

By Jove Tom, I think you’ve got it! (Your posts are always fun reading.)

Four hours of composition and a bowl of rigatoni with marinara later, I hope we have a framework to hang some meat and gristle onto (still hungry I guess). I maintain that meanness (in the absence of pathology) is a sign of sub-par mentality.

Tomorrow I shall submit some of my solutions for dealing with meaness when you encounter. I appreciate the honorable protests for a clear definition of terms and look forward to continued debate regarding the mechanisms and pseudo-rewards of meanness. I suspect that there will be a remarkable similarity among the few successful responses to mean people.

Zenster:

If I told you that I took personal satisfaction and pleasure from telling off my wife’s aunt, would that change the nature of the exchange?

Just becasue my meanness is justifiable, or I’m able to rationalize it, does that mean that I’m not being mean?

How can I be sure that there wasn’t another solution available that didn’t involve humiliating this woman?

The bottom line is that I’m sure there was. It didn’t seem worth my effort, and I didn’t think enough of the woman to try anymore, so I went for overkill.

On top of that, there are theories of business management that suggest that being mean is a good thing.

Being arbitrarily nasty on occasion keeps everybody on their toes and makes them work harder. It also supposedly prevents underlings from building too close a personal friendly relationship with their managers. The theory goes that employees will naturally try to develop a personal relationship with the boss because it’s harder to discipline a friend, and once such a relationship is in place the employee will be able to get away with more.

Being deliberately mean helps maintain proper distance in such a relationship.

(I think there’s something to this theroy but I personally don’t follow it.)

In short, I think your thesis that meanness is primarily an attribute of the less intelligent is false.

The less intelligent merely have a harder time, controlling, hiding, rationalizing, justifying, and making their meanness useful.

Scylla and Zenster, thank you both for some eminently readable, and thought-provoking posts.

I learned in grade school that the verb “to be” can be confusing when used in the English language. This is because English has no pair of words that can distinguish between “to be” in the sense of being in a condition at a specified pooint in time (compare the Spanish “Yo estoy bien” – I am well – I am well right now; that could change tomorrow), and "to be " in the sense of describing one’s intrinsic qualities (“Yo soy bueno” – I am good – I am good always; goodness defines me).

Scylla forgive the mangled Spanish, but the best way I can think of to describe the difference between what the two of you are talking about is that Zenster would allow you to say “Yo estoy [mean]”, but would object to you saying “Yo soy [mean]”. OTOH, using Zenster’s meaning for the word “mean”, a Truth Serum administered to tomndebb’s executive would elicit the statement “Yo soy mean.”

Also please forgive my gross oversimplification of the concept of Truth Serum, and its effects.

Well, that was a whole lot shorter than the mental outline of what I was going to type, and said it more effectively. Damn you.

A few years ago, I likely would have agreed that more intelligent people are morally superior. It’s a very appealing story. I don’t buy it any longer, though.

As for the other disagreement about the power of the thinking mind, I’ll just adapt the above. The less intelligent merely have a harder time creating convincing (to others) narratives about how their thinking minds have charted the course of their life, is the unchallenged captain of their soul, and so forth. Like the more intelligent equals higher morality narrative, it’s an especially appealing one the more brainpower one has–but appeal doesn’t make truth.

Not quite.

Modern management theory tends to believe being arbitrarily mean to your employees is NOT a good thing. Fear does not inspire productivity. It only inspires people to do the least amount they can get away with before they find a new job.

The object is to hire people who don’t need to be disciplined and micromanged and lead by example. Its the diference between a “pull” management style and a “push” style.

I’ve found that both extremes are found in the business world. You have “mean” managers who berate their employees and you have “too nice” managers who try to be their best pals. Either example usually indicates a manager who is inexperienced or lacks confidence.

mrsmith537:

Actually, Yes quite. My firm has sent me on some of these management training junkets.

I feel relatively confident that I understood what was said, and in rereading my post, I feel that I represented those apsects I described fairly, if in simplified form.

Please note that being arbitrarily mean is neither my firm’s or my own personal policy, but one merely discussed.

Oddly some people perform quite well if you kick them in the ass, so suggesting that this makes people walk isn’t always true.

I personally don’t try to be a drill instructor, or a mommy.
I just tend to be myself.

I remember reading about a study in Sweden a few years ago which said that depressed workers were more efficient than happy workers. So a mean boss might translate into better results from the workers.

You do make some very valid points. Being too close to your subordinates can undermine your effectiveness as a manager.

And you are correct that there is a style of management that advocates punishment and reward as a method of motivation. The so-called ‘carrot and the stick’ method.

You can be a ‘stern’ or ‘hard-nosed’ manager without being mean. Simply kicking someone in the ass or disciplining them when they screw up is not mean. Mean, IMHO, is someone who belittles or abuses employees for no good reason. That, by itself, will never acieve the desired results of increased productivity.

Often, people will put up with a tyranical boss because they have a shared vision. The meanness comes from being so passionate about your goals that you don’t worry about others feelings. A good example would be Steve Jobs of Apple. Supposedly, he drives his employees hard but he also motivates them with his vision for the company.

If a manager is tough but fair, I think people respect that. If they are just pricks, no one respects that.

**Originally posted by Zenster

**
So far the discussion has centred on meanness being a choice that people make, viable or non-viable; I would submit that meanness may not be a voluntary choice, but may be an end-result of the conditions people are living in. I’m sure we’ve all heard of the psychological experiments with rats in overcrowded conditions that turned on each other and hurt each other due to the overcrowding. Maybe the meanness we are seeing has nothing to do with whether it is a viable behaviour or not, but has everything to do with a human’s response to overcrowded, stressful stimuli.

Meanness is a viable method of conduct because there are always people willing to take or helpless to stop the abuse.

Days later…

The solution has already been mentioned by msmith537. I know that this may seem anticlimactic, but the simple answer is leadership by example. Leading in such a fashion is to practice the golden rule of;

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The equation is rather simple. If you are capable of expecting others to treat you better than you treat them, then there is a distinct cognitive dissonance involved. The attempt to augment one’s position using unworthy methods is rather akin to a thief taking unfair possession of another’s material goods. It is merely dignity that is being purloined instead of worldly possessions.

It really is this simple. The Golden Rule appears in nearly every major religious manifesto and is pivotal in many non-theist philosophies as well. There is a good reason for it. This mentality promotes a disposition of generosity. A person of generous nature is more likely to lend a hand to another and be willing to do the first favor. For the generous person the benefits are manifold.

[Here I must digress momentarily. We must needs distinguish between three categories of people before we go further. As mentioned there are people who voluntarily act mean for no reason at all (the focus of this debate). There are those who eschew such methods and there are those who willingly put up with mistreatment. The last case probably involves people with low self-esteem or feelings of unworthiness who are almost more comfortable when they are being mistreated. This does not justify such abuse in any way.]

For generous people, there are a wealth of opportunities that such a disposition inherently creates. Since such a person is willing to go out of their way for others they will more frequently encounter others of a similar cast. The reason is simple. Many kindhearted people have also been taught by cruel experience that others will often take advantage of a good-natured person.

The tendency to conceal one’s good nature is a result of such mistreatment. When an outgoing person makes an unprompted demonstration of good will, then other nice people tend to come out of the woodwork as well. There is a ready synergy between such allies and any effort suddenly finds willing helpers.

The exact opposite occurs to mean people. As they continue to demonstrate their ill manners, others will not only disguise their own generous traits, but even neutral people tend to rapidly disassociate themselves from such a scoundrel. The net result is foot dragging and half hearted attempts to fulfill the goals of the mean-spirited person.

Bosses who are all stick and no carrot, do not inspire loyalty or get an enthusiastic reception to their ideas. The rightfully sullen nature of workers in such a situation predisposes them to making mistakes or letting errors go unchecked solely due to dissatisfaction with their working conditions. A corollary to this is that mean bosses are usually unwilling to let employees know that they are valued for fear that the employee will then seek a raise. All of this underhanded behavior leads to a negative downward spiral of conflicting interests and hard-nosed politics. Employees often solve the problem themselves by relocating to another firm. The mean boss then loses all of the experience of that person and must replace them with another short term worker. The drought of seasoned and skilled staff can be a serious roadblock to departmental success.

Even in the most menial customer service jobs, this construct still applies. Disgruntled staff convey an unconcerned attitude to the patrons and return customers (the most valued of all) are fewer in number. The pool of capable candidates for promotion is smaller and often consists of less qualified people who are willing to put up with a mean boss. Usually, the only solution is to promote from without by filling management positions with people from outside companies. This only serves to infuriate any longtime employees who had hoped for advancement and the downward spiral continues.

Successful supervisors (like mine) demonstrate their leadership by setting a good example. They treat their workers with respect and are always ready with a kind word or praise for a successful outcome. The loyalty that this conduct inspires cannot be overestimated. Employees are often willing to move mountains for such a person. Overtime is worked with the intention of pushing through projects instead of merely padding a paycheck. Milestones are frequently met ahead of schedule and details are attended to with a sense of pride in workmanship.

All of this adds up to a synergy that is unobtainable by any other method. Financial rewards (usually a foreign concept to a mean boss) do not compensate for abuse, and the luster of being bought off quickly dims as workers realize that their compliance with abuse is being purchased. When rewards only serve to quench dissatisfaction with intolerable working conditions such compensation typically serves to neutralize ill will but does not create any of the aforementioned synergy.

This is the critical point in such management practices. There is no way to buy inspiration. You either have the willing respect of your workers, or you limp along with a hobbled team and sub-par performance. There is little middle ground in these situations. It is extremely difficult to counteract the poisonous influences of unsympathetic direction and oversight. The myth of a stern taskmaster getting the grudging respect of his underlings is long overdue for the scrap heap. Depressed workers may save time by not cheerfully chatting with each other, but the lost hours due to uninspired performance and inattention to detail rapidly negate any supposed benefits of such a management strategy.

All of these factors transpose equally well onto individual and interpersonal transactions. A mean person’s reputation will spread with unusual speed. However much that may serve to insulate such an individual from perceived threats by establishing that they are not to be meddled with, they are also just as quickly cut off from the aid and assistance of generous people who will not countenance such rude conduct.

Mean people effectively strand themselves within their community and void a portion of civility from the social contract. This discrepancy quickly manifests in the society a mean person enjoys. Being surrounded by fawning or servile people quickly loses any attraction it may have once had when the lack of challenging interaction becomes manifest.

And here we arrive at one of the most critical points of all; It requires an extreme degree of cognitive dissonance to find value in meanness and the poor company it obtains. People who are willing to seek out the weak-willed and spineless so as to have lackeys to dance at their command get their just desserts.

A critical aspect of this dysfunctionality is what I have named, “The Conspiracy of Silence”. Most mean people and other bullies will rarely examine themselves concerning such conduct. In a similar way, people who are willing to put up with mistreatment are frequently disinclined to introspection, otherwise they would be more likely to solve their self esteem problems and move on.

The conspiracy of silence also allows mean people of every stripe to continue their questionable conduct without having to answer for it. Other mean people will not call them on the error of their ways and the vicious scratch-itch cycle remains in place. The only purpose served is to keep the mask in place that honorable people rip from the visage of wrongdoers with their rightful protestations. Our society currently suffers from this malaise in epidemic proportions. Many types of dysfunctional behavior goes by the boards without being spotlighted by other people, such that their own misconduct will not be questioned. The lack of self-improvement and enormous impediment to enlightenment is profound and only serves to pollute civilized society with a muddy undercurrent of unstated intentions and hidden agendas.

I firmly believe that this conspiracy of silence is responsible for a substantial portion of non-pathological and non-criminal offenses committed by people, especially in the name of office politics. It is here where we return to the topic of sub-par intelligence being a component of meanness. People of intelligent mien seek to improve themselves and uplift their own spirit and that of others. An enlightened attitude is its own reward in this crucial battle for purification of mind and soul.

It is intrinsic in the character of a mean person that they must be less intelligent to either refrain from autoscopic thought, or be confronted with their own shortcomings yet continue to indulge in their underhanded ways. By its very definition, meanness requires a small-minded attitude that constricts the mentality of its practitioners and casts a shadow upon all who are surrounded by it. I challenge any proponent of meanness to refute this simple fact.

Meanness of character rapidly fulfills every other definition of the word mean as it tramples the unwitting or unaware. Mean, in the sense of “average” is quickly met and descended past as one devolves into unkind behavior. Mean, in the British sense of “miserly” is the next rung on this slippery ladder. More often than not, meanness manifests in ungenerous displays of rudeness and discourtesy. What could be more miserly than withholding simple decency from this world?

Again, I will state that there is a strong cognitive dissonance in anyone who thinks that they might lay claim to intelligence while committing such offense to the world around them. Such dissonance results in the thwarting of personal growth and will always serve to delimit the scope and range of intelligence. This is an uncontrovertible fact and I welcome all attempts to disprove it.

Mean people are basically stupid enough to convince themselves that there is nothing wrong with patently unfair and ill mannered conduct. I think that sums it up quite nicely.

As to the solution? Again, quite simply, it is leadership by example. You must be the change you wish to see in this world. If your behavior is generous in nature, then you may hope to inspire those of less developed character. Virtue is truly its own reward. All of this may sound quite smarmy, but there is little alternative in dealing with mean people, other than outright shunning of them, which does not really solve the problem (as they will usually continue in their ways unchecked).

Sometimes it is required to call a mean person upon their behavior, but again, it is critical to do so in a decent fashion such that you provide an acceptable standard of conduct as an alternative. Otherwise the situation can quickly result in what the business world informally refers to as a “pissing contest”.

So, once again, I will state that mean people also have a stupid streak in them that allows for such self-delusion.

All the posts attributing any validity to meanness have relied upon anecdotal evidence. I have relied upon accepted definitions and logic to posit a strong case for meanness being a product of sub-par intelligence. I find it conspicuous that everyone else seems to have dropped the ball in this debate.

What to do about mean people?

Dress up in a cat costume, and then skin them alive.

Umm, perhaps the whole issue is not as important to others as it is to you?

As to

I’m not at all sure what “accepted definitions” you are claiming, but your logic appears to be based on the notion that people behave in logical ways. That is certainly not my overwhelming impression of human conduct.

You have also made a number of assertions that look nice, but are not necessarily supportable. The idea that people will always walk away from a mean boss may be true in your experience (particularly if your work experience has been shaped by high-tech jobs over the last dozen years or so of steady economic growth). I can assure you that I have watched people put up with a lot of grief from lousy bosses because 1) their particular industry/job/whatever was basically stagnant and getting hired elsewhere was not an option, 2) their skills were at a basic level and they had attained a certain income through seniority that they would have had to surrender had they gone to another company, or 3) they had invested enough time toward pensions and salary and they considered any nasty boss in the way that farmers look on periodic droughts–just part of the business that comes, inflicts pain, and moves on while they stay in their positions.

In addition, I know several corporations that use meanness combined with high salaries (contrary to your belief that a mean boss would oppose a decent salary), luring people in with the money, using fear and anger to get a lot out of them in a short time, then watching them leave to be replaced by the next crop of people who see the money and have not heard of the turnover.

Finally, I have to ask why it is so important to you that meanness be linked to low(er) intelligence? Since I do see such a connection, I have no emotional stake in the answer, but it seems to be something that you need to believe.

Since I do not see such a connection. . . .

Just so we’re clear, your argument seems to be as follows:

(1) behaving in a mean manner is generally not in the interest of the person who so behaves;

(2) all things being equal, an intelligent person is more likely to recognize that acting mean is not in his or her interest; therefore

(3) people who consistently act mean have sub-par intelligence.


Now, let’s suppose we define a trait - call it “trait x.”
X means the ability to objectively look at a situation; master one’s emotions; and do what is in one’s best interests regardless of force of habit or emotion.

People who drive aggressively, who consistently over-eat, who abuse their children, who abuse drugs, and who act mean could be said to have a sub-par level of trait “X.”

If you want to define the word “intelligence” to encompass trait “X,” feel free.

Just be warned that most people don’t define intelligence that way. Instead, they use words like “wisdom” and “self-restraint.”

I have to disagree with you, Zenster. Stupid people who are mean are just stupid. Even a relative wuss like me has little trouble manipulating, intimidating, and cowing mean, stupid people. In fact, they can be quite useful.

I think what you are defining as “mean” is the sort of dim, asocial behavior which many competent people can cut through with just a minimum of teeth-baring. While I don’t disagree that this sort of person can be annoying, they are not genuinely threatening if you can assert some sort of dominance over them. The stupid mean person who does not implicitly understand the social pecking order is the one who hasn’t come across someone like me yet. They all do.

What I think tom is defining as “mean” is the character description I’ve always called an asshole. An asshole is someone who has found a way to continue to be antisocial in a social environment. A genuine asshole is someone who has found a way to profit from such antisocial behavior. These people are far more dangerous, far more hurtful, and much more clever than the thug of which you wish to speak, Zenster, because they gravitate toward positions of authority. Their meanness affects dozens, hundreds, millions of lives, and we read about them every day.

I know a genuine, 24-karat asshole, someone who takes pleasure in profiting from the misfortune of others, and in orchestrating that misfortune. He is my friend, as much as he can be a friend to anyone. I’d be happy to tell you all about him, but you’ve all met him before.

You all have it all wrong! Some people are mean so they can be left alone!

I worked at a company and the head of a department was one of the meanest, insulting SOB I’ve met. His department was a service-type department that was understaffed. I should have known something was up because his staff really didn’t seem upset at him and there wasn’t much turnover. When I left, we went out for beers and he was one of the nicest guys I’ve met and we still keep in touch. He told me his ‘meaness’ was developed over time because if he was nice then people would give his area more work. By being mean, people found other ways to get things done.