Why the heck do people seem to have to butt heads to get along? I was about ready to slam a guy into the grill yesterday, and today we get along fine.

This happens a lot actually. Is it just guys refuse to get along till the threat of violence? A test of will? Some primal demand to establish who is lower on the totem pole?

The more important question is why were you about ready to do violence over what was likely a minor disagreement, or is this just hyperbole?

In reply to otghand (msg # 2):

I was getting pretty tired of some new guy cussing at me and trying to walk through me. Getting slammed into kinda ticks me off.

So I showed him the same attitude and today we get along pretty decently.

A person who will stand up to me is a good potential ally.

Human nature is dualistic.

Sometimes it is similar to that of a selfish animal, and other times sacrificing and logical. Everyone has both, even at the same moment.

Some people tend more toward one side of the spectrum in general. Sometimes there's other factors.


In short: Could be that guy's a *%#* and was unconsciously trying to establish the pecking order in an unfamiliar environment.

Or maybe it was a bad day.

In reply to OceanLake (msg # 4):

A person who will cooperate with me is an even better one.

It all depends on your upbringing and how you see the world.  For instance, this: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/...eSouthernCulture.pdf is a very interesting read.  It's easy to find, just do a Google search for the phrase "Applehole experiment" and it's the very first result.  Some people are just indoctrinated by their culture to respond in certain ways.  That doesn't necessarily make it right to respond in this manner, but it certainly explains a lot.

I have wondered about the original study of that... thanks for the link.  Another general observation in animal science is that the longer term a relationship is likely to be, the less severe a fight will be and the more likely combatants are to make up afterward.  In this case, the peace-making may have more to do with the perceived duration of the relationship than cultural standards.

This. When I was in the military, a lot of new people would get put through the ringer pretty harshly until they proved they had some backbone. After that, it's usually all good.

Honestly I severely dislike the alpha mentality.

If someone has to stand up to me, I've gone wrong somewhere and need to re-evaluate. We get off days and such and I do lose my temper, but theres a difference between having a bad day and having to be needed to be stood up to. Having someone stand up to you means you're oppressing someone for them to do it. Which is a bad thing. 'Tests of personality' and 'seeing if someone has backbone' aren't far removed from bullying IMO.

YMMV of course.
This message was last edited by the user at 09:22, Fri 01 Aug 2014.

Possibly Merevel's idiot is a coward bully, who backed off now Merevel's shown he won't put up with it.

Possibly he's an idiot who intended to test Merevel's mettle.
Either way he's an idiot.


There are so many male idiocies. That's not to say all men are idiots or own one of these bizarre beliefs, but there are some examples of idiocy which mainly belong to men.

Haven't really got an answer for this but its happened to me.

As a 14 year old I was waiting outside a class to go in when a new kid barged by me to get to the front of the line. I pushed him back and we ended up on the floor fighting. My dad, who was a teach at my school came along and broke us up.

The next day we were in the same class sat next to each other and now 31 years later, he's still my best friend, was my best man at my wedding and is godfather to my daughter.

AND

I still don't know what happened between the time we stopped fighting and the time we sat together the next day but whatever it was made us fast friends for life.

Jamat knows what I mean then :-)

I am still not sure about the guy honestly, but it seems a common thing that happens. Mostly he is just a pretty goofy guy with a mouth.

The alpha male mentality is not limited to violence, nor to bullying.  It is embedded in every facet of our society -- politicians, scholarly professors, doctors, teachers, lawyers, business, etc.  It just manifests differently (i.e., not as physical confrontation) when in different contexts.  It may be jockeying for position or votes, trying to get the promotion over others, out-arguing someone (here on RPoL, for instance) or to outdo someone else; it is competition and testosterone and all those things vying for recognition as the 'top dog.'

That's not to say it is good, but if you know what you're dealing with, it's easier to manage.  And you usually don't need the tit for tat response to earn respect.  The great thing about being human is understanding the transcendence of kindness, patience, and tolerance over constant friction.

Hahaha I know what you mean no worries. My temper does not always allow that these days. Honestly it was either bother management, or show him who's boss. Especially when it was slowing me down at work.

IMO, there are times when one person must decide for, or direct, a group. It can, and probbly should be, that person A should be the "decider" for situstion A, and person B for situation B...both in RPOL and RL.

Example: http://www.nps.gov/cwdw/histor...-at-fort-stevens.htm

Located atop the parapet of Fort Stevens is a commemorative stone dedicated to Abraham Lincoln and his involvement with the fort on the second day of the Battle of Fort Stevens. On July 12, 1864, President Lincoln stood atop the parapet of the fort to witness the battle and came under direct fire of Confederate sharpshooters. It is the only time in American history in which a sitting president came under direct fire from an enemy combatant.

Many individuals claimed to be the one to encourage President Lincoln down from the parapet. The most notable individual was a young officer named Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. His remarks to the president were short and straightforward:

    “Get down, you damn fool!”

Holmes would eventually serve as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, 1902-1932.

In reply to Merevel (msg # 3):

Dude, the people you hang out with are just psychotic. My friends don't behave that way, unless it's a stupid joke. I suggest you find some new pals.

It was coworkers. I have, well, no RL non family people I hang out with.

I assume you're not a pro wrestler...  :)

Mcdonalds, but I have seen this issue on well, almost every job I have ever had.

In reply to OceanLake (msg # 16):

Tbh, telling someone above your station to 'get down you fool' is not being alpha as what I meant in my post and is really just being a good guy. I wouldn't be narked at anyone telling me to get down followed by any insult if a bullet was following the statement with the intent of killing me.
Sure I'm shoved down, but thats someone who is trying to save my life, not trying to be top dog over me.

No offence, of course.

Thanks for clarification. IMO, trying to be top dog in all situstions is a bad idea almost always. I guess if among a group of cutthroats...reminds me of another story (from Plutarch).

First, when the pirates demanded a ransom of twenty talents, Caesar burst out laughing. They did not know, he said, who it was that they had captured, and he volunteered to pay fifty. Then, when he had sent his followers to the various cities in order to raise the money and was left with one friend and two servants among these Cilicians, about the most bloodthirsty people in the world, he treated them so highhandedly that, whenever he wanted to sleep, he would send to them and tell them to stop talking.

For thirty-eight days, with the greatest unconcern, he joined in all their games and exercises, just as if he was their leader instead of their prisoner. He also wrote poems and speeches which he read aloud to them, and if they failed to admire his work, he would call them to their faces illiterate savages, and would often laughingly threaten to have them all hanged. They were much taken with this and attributed his freedom of speech to a kind of simplicity in his character or boyish playfulness.

However, the ransom arrived from Miletus and, as soon as he had paid it and been set free, he immediately manned some ships and set sail from the harbor of Miletus against the pirates. He found them still there, lying at anchor off the island, and he captured nearly all of them. He took their property as spoils of war and put the men themselves into the prison at Pergamon. He then went in person to [Marcus] Junius, the governorof Asia, thinking it proper that he, as praetor in charge of the province, should see to the punishment of the prisoners. Junius, however, cast longing eyes at the money, which came to a considerable sum, and kept saying that he needed time to look into the case.

Caesar paid no further attention to him. He went to Pergamon, took the pirates out of prison and crucified the lot of them, just as he had often told them he would do when he was on the island and they imagined that he was joking.