Not showing proper deference to authority figures?

Page 2 of 4 [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Varelse
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 5 Sep 2015
Age: 59
Posts: 368

17 Dec 2015, 11:14 am

jbw wrote:
The problem has to do with the broad definition of respect. I have no issue in respecting genuine abilities, qualities, and deep domain knowledge, and I also respect that each individual may have a particular perspective different from mine, but I see the notion of deference to an authority figure as a very dangerous concept.

Power corrupts. The best definition of power that I've come across to date is: "power is the privilege of not having to learn".

This definition captures the essence of what is wrong with the broad definition of respect: the assumption that it is possible for some people to gain a position where learning becomes optional.

I treat everyone equal when it comes to expectations of honesty, readiness to learn, and readiness to admit mistakes. Some people perceive this as a lack of respect. That's fine. I don't have any ambitions to be liked by everyone.

As a born anti-authoritarian, I have to say this pretty much sums up my own philosophy of life as well. I strive to be one of the Millgram 35%, rather than the majority.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

17 Dec 2015, 11:29 am

i was also diagnosed with opposition defiant disorder when i was about 8. it did not progress to antisocial personality disorder thankfully.

i never felt that the commands of people who tried to herd me were worthy of obedience. to me it seemed that i was superior to them in every way and that they dared to try to tell me what to do was just a waste of their energy.

i ignored the directives of everyone when i was a small child.

it was not a philosophical opinion i had, it was a flaw in my response to authoritarian exertions.
i somehow enjoyed refusing to do what the teachers told me to do. the more strenuous and cranky they became, the more focused i was on annoying them by my stubborn refusal to accede to any of their demands.

if they laid a finger on me, then it was "on for young and old" as far as i was concerned and i was eager to tempt them into assaulting me for some reason that i can not clearly determine.

it is just an inherent resistance and almost aggression i have for authority that impinges upon my autonomy i guess.

sometimes, i even feel like seeking potential authoritarian confrontation in order to blithely affront them by my leaden impermeability to their efforts.

it gets physical if they try to physically restrain me and i seem to have no reverence for their dignity when i confront them.

but nowadays, i just do my thing at home alone and i do not want to walk in their world any more.



Nickchick
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 19 Nov 2015
Posts: 172

17 Dec 2015, 2:29 pm

I wouldn't even use the word "shocked" It's far worse than that. I remember when there was a substitute for my GP. He kept trying to push the script he had to me. When I had walked out of the room, I lost my way so I ended up overhearing what he said to the nurse. "she's strange she won't take the medicine"

They seem to think that just because they have a degree they know all about how to treat me. While it may be true that you know about the human body, you don't know hardly anything about my personal chemistry.

I think my regular GP has given up trying to script me but at the same time this means I don't get help for my gastritis because I've given up trying to explain myself.



CyclopsSummers
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,172
Location: The Netherlands

17 Dec 2015, 4:25 pm

I got fired from work twice over not properly recognizing an authority type and subsequently getting into conflict with them. And I'm perfectly willing to get fired again over a similar conflict in the future. At the same time I don't recommend it.


_________________
clarity of thought before rashness of action


Amity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,714
Location: Meandering

17 Dec 2015, 4:30 pm

Last weekend I went to collect my prescription from the pharmacy, a different pharmacist was on duty. I requested a two month supply, she corrected me and said one month supply of each, I thought she had misheard so I corrected her, she glared at me and repeated her previous statement.

When my name was called by the assistant I queried why I was not receiving a two month supply as I had requested. She passed on my question to the pharmacist, who came out from the preparation area, and asked me loudly why on earth did I think I could receive a double month supply, I replied by asking her what was her rationale for refusing my request, that really annoyed her and she announced (looking past me to the other waiting customers) that we don't supply more than one month at a time to those on the medical card.
At which point she turned on her heel and quickly disappeared into the storage room. :?

I think I was supposed to accept the 'low status' she bestowed upon me and behave accordingly.

If I am paying even a small amount for a service, then I expect to be served as a customer.
In a restaurant if I am not satisfied, I will complain and move on. The same applies to medical professionals or services I have paid tax towards.



wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

17 Dec 2015, 5:22 pm

Varelse wrote:
Yes, but my approach and attitude seem to be different from yours.

My style is to approach all people as social equals, meaning that any person I interact with, regardless of externally observable factors (age, social standing, hierarchical position, gender, credentials) gets essentially the same 'view' of me. This means that people who see themselves as "lower" in status will often like interacting with me, whereas people who see themselves as "higher" in status can sometimes become nonplussed, frustrated or irritated. Also, people *witnessing* my interactions with bosses, experts, and higher status persons have been known to have a "who do you think you are" reaction to share with me after the fact. I've also been advised quite frequently to shut up, keep quiet, talk less (even though most of the time I don't talk at all!).

In a recent, abortive attempt to get a qualified assessment, for example, I asked the psychologist if he had a system for receiving feedback as to the accuracy and reproducibility of his diagnoses. This was in response to his own opening question "do you have any questions for me before we get started". He appeared to be somewhat taken aback, and then fumbled for a bit before saying that someone working for the county had once made a point of calling him to tell him that the *format* and *completeness* of his reports were always acceptable. My failure to be suitably impressed must have shown, in spite of my best efforts to hide the disappointment and anxiety that resulted from this reply. I'd been hoping he'd have a track record, as do many other health care professionals such as surgeons, pediatricians and the like (especially if they are specialists) but apparently the only record that can exist is whether he dotted the i's and crossed the t's, so to speak. :(

Later in this marathon session, which ovveran by more than an hour over the appointed time due to the interview portion being longer than planned, he actually stopped me to say "I'm the therapist here" in an obvious bid to reassert authority. I felt immediate frustration, but not, ironically, with him. I felt frustrated with myself for 'doing it again' because whatever this mysterious 'it' is, it seems to really set off people in positions of real or self-identified authority. By contrast, my sister who was present and witnessed this event, said that he looked threatened and assumed that this meant he, and not I, had slipped.

There's a lifetime of this, and I could type a novel about it, but one thing I've never been able to do is cure myself of it. And I have tried, believe me. Something always slips, and often my first clue that it has will come to me via a third party. I rarely catch myself in the act.


I can relate to this so very much. This is why my step-father hates me: he says I am incapable of showing proper deference to authority and that means I am "no good". :|



wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

17 Dec 2015, 5:29 pm

C2V wrote:
Quote:
My style is to approach all people as social equals, meaning that any person I interact with, regardless of externally observable factors (age, social standing, hierarchical position, gender, credentials) gets essentially the same 'view' of me. This means that people who see themselves as "lower" in status will often like interacting with me, whereas people who see themselves as "higher" in status can sometimes become nonplussed, frustrated or irritated. Also, people *witnessing* my interactions with bosses, experts, and higher status persons have been known to have a "who do you think you are" reaction to share with me after the fact.

This is the same for me. I am respectful, period. It doesn't matter who you are. What I do not do is venerate, and this question of authority was mentioned by someone in response to my question about celebrities and hierarchy.
If someone is more knowledgeable than me in a particular area, then I may have marginally more trust in their opinion, but I would still require proof. This has been true of doctors throughout my illness - they were specialists, in one case associate professor of a state university medical school - and I was constantly misdiagnosed, to the point that I lost thousands of dollars in an operation which failed to find the cause and caused me years of chronic pain, and another misdiagnosis which left me with scars on my chest and back. The only reason I recovered was through my own research, and finding a surgeon who would agree to the surgery even though the professor had ruled it out. I fixed this problem, not the experts. The experience has made me even less likely to blindly believe anyone just because they are an "expert."
As to bosses and such - I can understand that they have a job to do sure, and their behaviour is likely intended to keep the business running, so if direction is reasonable I will comply. But I don't recognise any inherent status of that person being superior to me just because of the job they perform, and will not respond with deference toward them.


Yes, this too: I am respectful and polite to everyone I encounter (unless they are being abusive to me, in which case I am less polite); but I cannot venerate or be deferential in regards to social hierarchies because I think they are fake and useless and not worth my time trying to navigate. I think of my approach as the democratic approach to social life. People who are used to being treated as "less than" tend to appreciate the way I just treat them like a regular person, and people who are used to having automatic authority due to their social standing usually despise me for treating them as a regular person and not someone who is "better" than me and others.



wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

17 Dec 2015, 5:32 pm

StarTrekker wrote:
the_phoenix wrote:
As a Q in Star Trek fandom,
all I have to do is show up
and anyone with the rank of Captain or higher
reacts with immediate suspicion.
Lower ranking crew of a starship
tend to like me better.
And people who aren't Star Trek fans
really like me a lot.

Out of Star Trek costume,
I've had people tell me
I'm too intelligent.
Some have expressed
dislike or fear
because of that.

C'est la vie.

...


Ah yes, Janeway and Picard were never big fans of Q :) It's ironic, because they like to command respect and show their authority, but they can't do it with Q, because he has more authority, being able to do whatever he wants in the universe with a snap of his fingers. He's not like an upstart young ensign trying to overstep his bounds with a higher authority figure, he IS the higher authority figure, and it drives the captains crazy!


To be fair to the captains, I think at least some of their frustration with Q was how irresponsible he could be in the application of his limitless power, as well as their inability to express authority over him.



wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

17 Dec 2015, 5:36 pm

jbw wrote:
The problem has to do with the broad definition of respect. I have no issue in respecting genuine abilities, qualities, and deep domain knowledge, and I also respect that each individual may have a particular perspective different from mine, but I see the notion of deference to an authority figure as a very dangerous concept.

Power corrupts. The best definition of power that I've come across to date is: "power is the privilege of not having to learn".

This definition captures the essence of what is wrong with the broad definition of respect: the assumption that it is possible for some people to gain a position where learning becomes optional.

I treat everyone equal when it comes to expectations of honesty, readiness to learn, and readiness to admit mistakes. Some people perceive this as a lack of respect. That's fine. I don't have any ambitions to be liked by everyone.


There is so much in this thread I can relate to, thank you all so much for sharing! What I bolded in your particular comment really resonated with me. When I was younger, it was harder for me to accept that they egalitarian way I approach my dealings with people made me unpopular with people who absolutely rely on and NEED social hierarchy as the basis for their functioning in life. Now I know to look for friends among people who are capable of finding value in the more important things in life than social standing and jockeying.



the_phoenix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,489
Location: up from the ashes

17 Dec 2015, 6:38 pm

StarTrekker wrote:
the_phoenix wrote:
As a Q in Star Trek fandom,
all I have to do is show up
and anyone with the rank of Captain or higher
reacts with immediate suspicion.
Lower ranking crew of a starship
tend to like me better.
And people who aren't Star Trek fans
really like me a lot.

Out of Star Trek costume,
I've had people tell me
I'm too intelligent.
Some have expressed
dislike or fear
because of that.

C'est la vie.

...


Ah yes, Janeway and Picard were never big fans of Q :) It's ironic, because they like to command respect and show their authority, but they can't do it with Q, because he has more authority, being able to do whatever he wants in the universe with a snap of his fingers. He's not like an upstart young ensign trying to overstep his bounds with a higher authority figure, he IS the higher authority figure, and it drives the captains crazy!


Personally, StarTrekker,

I do have some respect for Picard and Janeway.
What gets me is some of the fans who play at being Captain
while I play at being Q.
For them to apparently feel threatened or insecure by my mere presence ...
well, I would hope for better.
I simply seek like minds and kindred spirits
as well as intelligent life.
Someone to be equals with, friends with.
Adventure with ...
That's quite a challenge.

In any case, you raise some excellent points, StarTrekker,
and you do so with understanding and eloquence.

...



jbw
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2013
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 421

17 Dec 2015, 6:50 pm

Yes, this thread confirms the level of insanity of "normal" human behaviour.

One small experiment (2 minutes at 36:00) goes a long way towards understanding the significance of autistics for progress and innovation. The autistic element is essential for reducing spurious complexity in human societies.

Autistics learn and play differently. Autistics communicate and enjoy themselves by sharing information and knowledge, and not by negotiating social status and reputation.

wilburforce wrote:
people who absolutely rely on and NEED social hierarchy as the basis for their functioning in life.

The existence of such people and the realisation that apparently the majority of people operate this way took me decades to comprehend.

wilburforce wrote:
Now I know to look for friends among people who are capable of finding value in the more important things in life than social standing and jockeying.

This is the only way of staying sane. Whether you can manage to stay sane depends on how many friends you need to share your interests with. If that number is larger than one, the risk of disappointment is already very high. My experience is that with this approach you can add around one person to your circle of trusted friends per decade. The first three decades of life can be very tough. If you manage to hang in there, with a bit of luck, things get somewhat easier from 40 years onwards.



wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

17 Dec 2015, 7:41 pm

jbw wrote:
Yes, this thread confirms the level of insanity of "normal" human behaviour.

One small experiment (2 minutes at 36:00) goes a long way towards understanding the significance of autistics for progress and innovation. The autistic element is essential for reducing spurious complexity in human societies.

Autistics learn and play differently. Autistics communicate and enjoy themselves by sharing information and knowledge, and not by negotiating social status and reputation.

wilburforce wrote:
people who absolutely rely on and NEED social hierarchy as the basis for their functioning in life.

The existence of such people and the realisation that apparently the majority of people operate this way took me decades to comprehend.

wilburforce wrote:
Now I know to look for friends among people who are capable of finding value in the more important things in life than social standing and jockeying.

This is the only way of staying sane. Whether you can manage to stay sane depends on how many friends you need to share your interests with. If that number is larger than one, the risk of disappointment is already very high. My experience is that with this approach you can add around one person to your circle of trusted friends per decade. The first three decades of life can be very tough. If you manage to hang in there, with a bit of luck, things get somewhat easier from 40 years onwards.


Luckily I can stay sane with most of my time spent alone as long as I have at least one trusted contact with which I can share my interests and my love of learning, and luckily that I've found that trustworthy friendship and understanding in my brother. I may someday soon choose to again try to expand my social circle, but for now I'm happy with my life as it is. Finding people who are capable of setting such "normalcies" as social hierarchy aside are hard to find, indeed. But I literally cannot function at that level--if I were capable of learning the social hierarchy dance and all the steps of recognising and deferring to authority, I would have learned it by now. It's just not in me, to be performative in that way.



dowekeller
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 7
Location: Bakersfield, CA, USA

17 Dec 2015, 10:50 pm

I don't show deference, but, I believe not primarily because of my AS, but because authoritarianism is evil. A necessary evil in the case of the police and judiciary (an institution that because of the power we defer to them must be constantly under our scrutiny).

I work as a security guard presently, so I am for the most part on my own recognizance. My supervisors and I have a good relationship, due primarily to the fact that I am dependable. I don't treat them any differently than I treat anyone else. They don't seem to me to crave submission, they only ask me to do my job, and treat me, I imagine as they would treat anyone else. The only time I got into any trouble regarding work hiarchies was at an office job I had for a couple years at the county. When one of my dotted-line bosses asked me to do a task, and my newly added boss got angry about it. But she was primarily angry with the co-worker who went under her head rather than through channels (government workers do love their channels).

I do respect knowledge and skill, but the need for authority is a nasty hold-over from our brutish past that we should endeavor to shed.



SnailHail
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2015
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 339
Location: NYC

18 Dec 2015, 2:32 am

I follow orders really well but I don't brown nose and stroke their egos and sometimes even point out their mistakes if the person in charge is very questionable. Their authority given to them only social wise or even within a limited area ( like a police or supervisor), they're not perfect beings that are deities they're human just like everyone else with all the flaws and all that. Just because you have your position doesn't mean you deserve it like a guy that gets to be a supervisor but only because he is related to the boss so he goes around being a douchebag because he knows he's "untouchable" or that police officer that expects you to kiss up to them and do everything they say even know they really can't make you do it.

People don't like being corrected, especially in a field the specialize in they feel it is a direct attack. Doctors will get hissy if you try to correct them on something and assume you're one of those people that think they know everything because of WebMD. Nevermind some doctors refuse to join the modern era and use computers, misdiagnose people, or try to push prescriptions on people for their own monetary gain.



Apple_in_my_Eye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: in my brain

18 Dec 2015, 8:02 am

Yup, I recognize a lot of the stories in this thread. With medical doctors I've learned to play dumb and they happily eat it up. I think the social status goes to their heads. I've met some incredibly smart people (I.e. who went to the best math grad school in the world (I was a student in another dept.)) and I never heard them trying to impress others with how smart they are. Only medical doctors.

On the other end of it, after I accumulated an "impressive" degree (for this "cow town" I live in), I got to see how often people would treat me differently after they knew, as opposed to before. It's nauseating, but I'm not above using peoples' predjudices to my benefit. Social status really does matter a lot to many people. The most disturbing examples I've seen have been in emergency rooms. They would first always assume I was on drugs (and no, I never used drugs, not even pot) without any tests, not even a pupil response or an eye tracking test. My only conclusion is that it was how I looked, and since my manner of dress was not not of any sub-culture that it was simply racial.

And, as someone mentioned above, they didn't realize at all when they were in a situation where they would never receive feedback about their mistakes. I.e. guessing that someone was on drugs and trying to get rid of them before doing any tests (which always showed them to be wrong thank god).

I think the reason they do that is because a drug user is considered a "lowly" person and thus it is acceptable to be mean/unjust to them and that that feels so good that people subconsciously want to maintain the situation even if It isn't true. I.e. not doing tests that might ruin their fun.

You would you would think that in a life-or-death field people be more careful and put their egos second. I read of a case of a native American guy in an ER who was assumed to be drunk and was "punished" by being made to wait for 34 hours. It turned out that he was not drunk but rather had an infection and had died of shock some hours before someone finally checked on him (rigor had already set in). A nurse from another hospital kept telling the nurse in charge that the man didn't seem to be breathing, but she just laughed it off. That's how intoxicating feeling superior can be.



C2V
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Apr 2015
Posts: 2,666

18 Dec 2015, 8:57 am

Quote:
i never felt that the commands of people who tried to herd me were worthy of obedience. to me it seemed that i was superior to them in every way and that they dared to try to tell me what to do was just a waste of their energy.

See, I don't consider myself "better" or superior to anyone at all. My last bunch of flatmates were ex-drug addicts and one was a prostitute, and that meant nothing to me. I did not consider those people "below" or inferior to me, and that seemed to confuse others, who wondered how I could be living with "those kinds of people." Like I was so much better because I wasn't on drugs or in the game. It just didn't occur to me the concept of social standing, how anyone was different based on whatever circumstances. It's all too subjective and variable.
The idea that you consider yourself superior to me suggests at least come concept of and compliance with a social hierarchy - the only difference is you are placing yourself nearer the top, with others below you.


_________________
Alexithymia - 147 points.
Low-Verbal.