Because where breeding - and more crucially, mating - is concerned, instinct holds all the cards. It even colors reason, as in the case of the woman who can rationalize that a relationship with a competitive, physical, acquisitive man is better over all for her, for him, for potential offspring, and for society in general, than a relationship with someone who runs life’s races on his own clock. The idea of tribe is easily replaced by the idea of society, but in many ways, they are the same.
I am sorry that I can’t give an opinion about the reason why people despise the weak. But, from my understanding, people seem to mistake “weakness” for “meekness”. I like the fact that people are discussing over this thing. I was convinced that no one would give a damn about the weak.
There isn’t. Or at least not in the sense that everyone can have the same “place”. But fortunately “strong” doesn’t have to mean the same thing for everyone either.
In our society, meakness does equal weakness. It seems very few are willing to have a thoughtful discussion about anything that matters. Everyone’s already got their mind made up before it even begins. So people just pick sides and go with the guy who’s the boldest, loudest, most audacious. There is no room for meekness because no one wants to listen.
Well said, Scotty Mo.
Ok, back to Nietzsche, an author who goes on about his issue with weakness. Where I’m really going with this is to suggest that the question would be better framed as, “What kind of person despises the weak?”
(quotes from Fall 2012 Lapham’s Quarterly excerpt from On the Genealogy of Morals)
Seems like he might just be telling it like it is, the hard truth about the weak and the strong, but no, really he is a philosophy jerk. He keeps up the dichotomy of weak/strong, but at the same time makes arguments for non-duality:
which may be persuasive for the grain of truth in it but is totally misleading in the context of the duality he is hammering on about. Then he goes on to de-humanize people from birds and lambs to, in some cases, insects:
He despises the weak all right, and he is prepared to cheat logic in order to strip them of whatever he can… everything, it seems. He suggests there is no doer and also deed, rather only the thing itself i.e. there is only weakness or strength, and not a weak person or a strong person behind them. Well ok, but then he goes on to find every excuse to persecute his definition of the weak persons, which consists of a barrage of positions there isn’t time to parse or anticipate. Thought he just said they didn’t exist 
I’m not quoting where he goes on to argue that this lack of duality means we don’t have souls while neglecting to extend this non-duality to the weak-strong duality which instead he insists on promoting. He’s a sneaky dirty rotten bastard for being such a philosophy scoundrel.
Anyway, not everybody despises the weak, and not everyone who does is as bad a rotter as Nietzsche. I don’t dispute that some circumstances necessarily prejudice against some kinds of weakness, say a military unit people have to qualify to enter. But civilians aren’t worthless- they’re what the military exists to protect. See what I mean?
I wonder if there is not an element of “blame the victim” psychology. There is a notion out there called the Just World Hypothesis, in which people have a hard time accepting the fact that bad things happen to good people. Therefore, we tend to attribute some measure of blame to the victim. We don’t want to admit that the universe is random, unjust, and unfair.
I suspect if we see someone who is weak, ill, inept, or whatever, a part of our brains wants to believe that their suffering is deserved punishment for some moral failing (slothfulness, stupidity, gluttony, whatever). This preserves the idea of a just universe and assures us that such misfortune could never befall us, since basically nobody sees themselves as a bad person.
Thoughts?
I think there is some truth to that. Basically, denial to avoid the cognitive dissonance that goes with challenging one’s world view. But consider this, from here:
People thought they were ‘bad’ to the tune of $11 billion. I’d say the just universe view isn’t universal.
If I remember correctly, Nietzsche wrote about a Master/Slave dichotomy. Basically those with superior talent, ability or resources (Masters) more or less do what they pease. “Right” and “wrong” are more or less defined by that which improves their standard of living. Slaves, OTOH, are at the mercy of the system. Whether it is actual slavery, feudal agricultural serfdom, or regular ole wage slaves working at the factory or office park, they have little to no control over improving their lot in life. Unable to define right and wrong in terms of improving life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness, they define it in terms of following externally prescribed behaviors, often in the form of religeon or other mysticism. A Master thinks “good” is growing his business and getting rich while a Slave looks at seeking wealth as a character flaw - greed, gluttony, envy, etc.
I think your description is pretty accurate, and outside of this or that guy’s opinion there is probably some truth to in out in the world, too.
I wasn’t getting on Nietzsche’s case for pointing those things out, but rather for his abuse non-duality in order to drive a point that is totally inconsistent with it. Now, it is kind of weird that I always seem to end up sharing this kind of stuff with you, msmith, who are probably the one person on the 'dope least interested in it, but I swear I am not on some kind of mission to annoy you.
The best exposition of non-duality I am aware of is a book of interviews with a guy who devoted his life to it, here (Tao Te Ching is about the same topic, “The Master is available to all people and doesn’t reject anyone”, “Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power”, “True power seems weak” and so on, but is probably harder to ‘get’). The whole book isn’t online AFAIK and that link omits some of the more interesting parts, but I’m not asking you to accept it as your personal worldview anyway, but just to understand why I am so hard on Nietzsche. In a nutshell what the guy in my link has to say is, “There is only the Self”, which is what you would notice for yourself if you could free yourself of your mind’s habit of dividing everything into subject/object. To accomplish that requires what Nietzsche seems to despise most- doing nothing. Not ‘nothing’ in the sense of sitting still and having no activity, but overcoming your mind’s rebellion against dropping the ego, something which, in the complete sense, apparently is nearly impossible for most people and the subject treats it as a big accomplishment indeed.
Whether non-duality is ‘mysticism’ or nonsense or what-have-you is beside the point though (though judging by the way his society treated him you’d think the guy in the book was the 18th coming of Arjuna or something). You can believe it is crazy talk and still see the point I’m making, which is that Nietzsche builds his argument partly on non-duality. Someone who sincerely buys into that would never adopt a derisive attitude toward the weak. They’d say, “There is no weak or strong, there is no master or slave, there is only the Self.” You could try to point out the obvious to them, ‘look at the differences between these people, mister!’, and they would acknowledge being able to perceive the same illusion you’re seeing but would insist you’re not taking it the right way.
It goes on and on. The point is, Nietzsche perverts the concept for who knows what reasons. Non-duality isn’t something people tend to be familiar with and so I assume these references sail right over people’s heads and Nietzsche got his desired effect of persuading people (and he did have a big influence- soldiers in WWI, on both sides, used to lug around copies of “Thus Spake Zarathustra” instead of the Bible). It is a really sleazy trick on his part to fool people in this particular way.
If you are going to despise the weak, at the very least please find some other justification for doing so. Nietzsche is dishonest and manipulative.
You’ve got to laugh at Nietzsche’s condemnation of the weak. The wanker couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag, but he’s happy to bang on about Supermen and masters and slaves.
Because it gives the other side a good reason to reject you.
Weakness is never a good thing.
A reason, perhaps. Leave good out of it. Also, who is this other side?
But it is not always a sin, a crime, or even a failing.
I see two possibilities:
(a) You’re lying to yourself about how confident you are.
or
(b) Unconsciously or not, you think of women as “other.” They’re not simply people, like other men are. Knock that shit off, and you’ll be amazed at how quickly you start being more “successful.”
I don’t really know all that many people who despise weakness. Weakness is everywhere around us. One guy might be weak in a certain social setting but strong in another, same with work. I find myself in a pretty weak position here at the dope but in my everyday life and interactions I don’t feel weak at all. When I see weakness in a person who has somehow managed to get himself in a position of authority then I could say I despise that person in his present position. I recognize bullying as weakness, I also see bravado as weakness. Some forms I do despise but generaly speaking I just accept that all people are not alike.
Misnomer.
It’s probably A. I’m starting to realize that my failures are a result of failing to make a move.
It’s like the old saying: “It takes a big man to cry…but it takes an even bigger man to laugh at him!”
Why not (c): confidence is not everything women are looking for?
Also, (b) is bullshit. IF there’s any correlation between those who are “successful” with women (meaning being able to just find a girlfriend when they don’t have one) and attitudes about women, it seems to be the exact opposite. Everyone I’ve ever known who is “good with women” has a special way of interacting with women that they would never use with men. I remember some friends trying to give me tips. And if it were true, that whole Mystery PUA thing would have never gotten off the ground.
It’s awfully convenient, BTW, to blame something on something you subconsciously think. It’s like religions that tell people that, deep down, they didn’t really believe, in that, any time someone fails, you can just always say that it was caused by that subconscious thought.
Who said it was? It’s only one of the things.
[QUOTE=BigT; 15714960]
Also, (b) is bullshit. IF there’s any correlation between those who are “successful” with women (meaning being able to just find a girlfriend when they don’t have one) and attitudes about women, it seems to be the exact opposite. Everyone I’ve ever known who is “good with women” has a special way of interacting with women that they would never use with men.
[/QUOTE]
I think we’re defining “success” differently. I assumed that the kind of success Scotty Mo is looking for comes from being yourself around all kinds of people (even women) and just having a basic level of simple self-confidence: genuine relationships, built on honesty and straightforwardness (and flirting). But if his definition of “success” equals what you describe – superficial connections that resut from believing there’s a game to be played/won – then my bad. Both approaches can result in “getting” women, so perhaps I was mistaken.
DISCLAIMER, when I discuss weakness below, I’m NOT talking about honest to goodness physical or mental challenges.
Anyway… Why are you equating timidity with weakness and obnoxious evil with strength? And/or assuming that others do as well? I can’t speak for other dopers here, but I don’t find timidity to be a weakness. But you’re right about despising weakness. I do. Here are some of the reasons.
- Many people like to use weakness as an excuse to not hold up their end of the bargain, in life, love, work and so on. Many people are perfectly capable of things they proclaim themselves to be “too weak” to do.
- I find loudness and aggressiveness to be weaknesses in and of themselves. Those traits are often invoked when the owner is trying to get one over on others. For instance “If I’m loud and scary enough then I’ll intimidate them into not making me do what it is I don’t want to do, or make them do it for me”. Bullies are loud and aggressive, and bullying is one of the biggest weaknesses.
- Many people use their weakness as sort of blackmail against so-called “lucky and capable” people. “But it’s not fair, you have so much and I am so weak and helpless” (again, I’m not talking about mere timidity, I’m talking about actual weakness, not an honest to goodness handicap).
- Weaknesses are those things which people COULD help, if they wanted to, but they get away with more if they don’t, that definition is a big part of what makes it a weakness in the first place.
- If a person insists upon keeping and catering to their weakness then others can’t count on them.
I have to re-disagree. 
This ridiculously easy to figure out, and it’s not as if it hasn’t been covered over and over in every dating book from here to next Sunday. It’s not that women are “influenced by the alpha male” we do have brains and eyes.
First of all, it’s not as if jerks have their future rotten and mean behaviour tatooed to their foreheads. Along with the confidence is crazy good charm and acting ability.
I know it’s not fair, but when a girl walks into a club or other social event, who is going to have the best chance with her, the guy who’s hiding over in the corner working up his nerve? Or the guy that marches right up to her telling jokes and making her feel good about herself? How is a girl supposed to know that there even IS a guy over in the corner? Or that he is a great guy and a good possible choice when he’s taken himself out of the game already?
With the jerks, usually the first traits that are apparent are the charming side of his personality, the crappy part doesn’t show up until she’s already in love and often until after she’s already married and has a kid or two. Plus it’s insidious and sneaking (like the old parable of the frog and the boiling pot of water), add that to the fact that women are already socialized to think they’re “not good enough to get a good man” and they’ll often justify away any little red flags he may have possibly displayed early on as "well yeah, but I probably don’t know what I’m seeing…blah de blah. By the time she figures it out, a lot of times it’s too late.
And most of us, it only takes one, and by the time we get rid of him, we’re on to the good men (NOT the self-proclaimed “Nice Guy” who are assholes of another stripe, don’t get me started), but because it’s so obvious and annoying, what the dateless guy focuses on is “there’s another gorgeous woman with an asshole” and not the “there’s 10 nice women who learned their lesson and are now with a good man”. Why? They’re not as noticeable.
Lastly, we resent that whole “but I’M a nice guy, I deserve to have her more than that alpha male asshole”. Ummmm. we’re NOT prizes to be awarded to the most “deserving” male, timid or alpha. WE choose, and we don’t do it to be mean to the quiet shy men.
Yeah, again sometimes we choose badly, but it’s our choice to make and isn’t some statement against shy guys to make them feel bad.