it's a dog eat dog world

cm1179

cm1179

cm1179

Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2009
Posts
3,626
would you agree with this? i remember when i first heard this phrase when i was a youngster and didn't have a clue what it meant. however as the years went past i found myself in positions where i could have taken this stance with other people in work, sports, social situations etc but because i am (for the most part) quite an easy going person, i didn't. i now realise that as i get older and life throws more at me, it is often the best attitude to take.
do most people (like me) go through life with a positive, help others out attitude ie don't want to drop other people in it, but then realise you have to look after number 1 and if you don't stand your ground, people will take advantage. it's a shame really but it really does seem that this attitude is the only way to ensure you get the best for yourself in a lot of situations.
 
It depends who you surround yourself with and what you are willing to put up with I guess. If you have good people around you they wont want to take advantage of you.

If you let people you don't know very well dictate too much of what you do then you will find they take advantage and dont reciprocate.

Any particular examples of this happening you want to share?
 
As long a you get the balance right you should get along just fine, and not be like that **** off of the apprentice, he is what we call an arse.......
 
HAz said:
As long a you get the balance right you should get along just fine, and not be like that **** off of the apprentice, he is what we call an arse.......
Click to expand...

That programme annoyed me a lot for a while. The same old self centered shallow people climbing all over each other made them all look like idiots in my book. Now I just enjoy it for the commedy factor.

People just need to chill out more. It's not the 80/90's when greed was good.
 
This should be of interest to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Personally, I subscribe to the tit-for-tat strategy. In life I am inherently altruistic and hold no grudges. However, if someone 'betrays' me, I will react in kind until they are willing to return to co-operation. In short: I'm always nice to people first. If people are nice to me, I'll be nice back. If people are asshats, I'll be an asshat right back but I'm happy to go back to being nice the second they are.
 
Interesting info Nix. :)


I don't agree with the tit-for-tat strategy as it is ultimatly self defeating however, there is a point of no return where forgiveness, recompense, and moral judgement failure gains no return. At that point you have to walk away and hold onto your morals, unless backed up into a corner where other means, to me, are more acceptable.
 
i often wonder what it is that drives people to want success that much, that they are willing to tread on other people to obtain it?
 
It sure is.

I dont give a **** about anyone else, and always assume that everyone is an ******* until they prove otherwise.

Ive learnt not to expect anything from anyone, and always do things yourself if you want them done properly.

I only actually trust my mother, and my stepdad out of everyone in the world.

I'd **** over anyone to get what I want, they are afterall only humans, who I value less than the Planet, nature, and animals. Humans **** me off!!
 
weescott said:
Interesting info Nix. :)


I don't agree with the tit-for-tat strategy as it is ultimatly self defeating however, there is a point of no return where forgiveness, recompense, and moral judgement failure gains no return. At that point you have to walk away and hold onto your morals, unless backed up into a corner where other means, to me, are more acceptable.
Click to expand...

Tit-for-tat as I've described is a perfectly reasonable long-term survival strategy based around non-zero sum. There's an old (1980s I think) video floating around with Dawkins using it to explain the development of altrustic behaviour.

It is of course only a guide and not a rule. But, if someone is an asshat to me, I fail to see why I should be altruistic and allow them to betray me further at my expense. By retaliating in kind I am actually reinforcing more positive behaviour from the second party in future encounters. In such an understanding, I fail to see how tit-for-tat is self-defeating.
 
Nix said:
Personally, I subscribe to the tit-for-tat strategy. In life I am inherently altruistic and hold no grudges. However, if someone 'betrays' me, I will react in kind until they are willing to return to co-operation. In short: I'm always nice to people first. If people are nice to me, I'll be nice back. If people are asshats, I'll be an asshat right back but I'm happy to go back to being nice the second they are.
Click to expand...
This is what I do. I know it's not right (moral highground and all) but I am *always* nice... first :).
 
Nix said:
... if someone is an asshat to me, I fail to see why I should be altruistic and allow them to betray me further at my expense. By retaliating in kind I am actually reinforcing more positive behaviour from the second party in future encounters. In such an understanding, I fail to see how tit-for-tat is self-defeating.
Click to expand...

People have to have faith in mankind but at the same time be consious that we are also 'asshats'. This is where charachter judgment and experience come into play.

I could possibly conjoin an eye for an eye with 3 strikes and your out...in a crude play of phrase.

You can be judged by others at any stage of interaction, might as well make every interaction positive on your part or....at some stage to an outsider could see you as the 'asshat'....which is self defeating. ;)
 
Last edited:
weescott said:
People have to have faith in mankind but at the same time be consious that we are also 'asshats'. This is where charachter judgment and experience come into play.

I could possibly conjoin an eye for an eye with 3 strikes and your out...in a crude play of phrase.

You can be judged by others at any stage of interaction, might as well make every interaction positive on your part or....at some stage to an outsider could see you as the 'asshat'....which is self defeating. ;)
Click to expand...

As I said, it's not a rule but more a guideline and perspective. I believe people are inherently good and there's no such thing as 'evil', just misguided or damaged people. If someone's having a bad day, I'm not going to suddenly start telling them what a nasty person they are - they're having a bad day. I'm fully aware of the greyscale involved here. However, should a stranger think it's acceptable to shove me repetitively on a train for example, the first couple of times I'll ignore. If they take the ****, that makes them an asshat and they're getting an elbow in the kidney.
 
Ah it's such a horrible time when you come to the moment in life where this question rears it's ugly head.

I'd never experienced it until I entered the working world. I had the misfortune of my former boss completely throwing me out to the dogs on several occasions.

I don't surround myself with people like that in my social life and I'm guessing most of you guys are talking about work people.

Personally, I think you live and you learn. As you mature you'll become a better judge of character, you'll know the tell tale signs and possibly be able to stop over thinking everyones ulterior motive, underlying gestures, double meanings, hints, subconscious mannerisms... yeeeaahh.

I'm trying to be less professional these days and I'm going for the freindly approach instead of the 'I mean business' approach. I once had an excellent boss, he was the nicest and friendliest person I've ever worked with. There would be insane situations that he could get us out of, just by adding a little friendly charm into the mix. Turning a 'fire drill' situation into an 'ok not a problem'.

I hope to be a little more like that some day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom