Funny Guy In The Group
Games People Play, vying for status and dominance
~
Why don't people like to talk about this stuff?
(Because it's embarrassing to find out that you've been taken for a ride...
because a lot of people feel like talking about human behavior is the same thing as getting blamed or accused...
and last but definitely not least, those who are magicians, cons, and manipulators don't want their tricks exposed.)
~
So how come when Scott tells a joke, any joke, everyone laughs and acts like he's so funny, but when Jeffrey tells the same joke, people ignore him, don't listen to him, or ridicule him?
If you ask anyone, they'll all say something like "Scott's just a funny guy!" or "Jeff's just not funny..." or "Scott has that way about him", or "Jeff's just doing it for attention..." Maybe they'll say it's "Chi"...
Here's the thing... it's not about SCOTT or JEFF, really, it's more about the people around them.
If you took Scott and put him in a different crowd of people, the chances of them laughing at his every joke go right down the tubes. Ask any professional comedian about it. The reason everyone in Scott's group is laughing at his every joke, but treating Jeff like he couldn't make a baby laugh if he tickled him, is because everyone in that group WANTS SCOTT to be the "funny guy" in that group. They DON'T WANT JEFF to be a "funny guy", because that would wreck the way the group is "set up".
Scott being the "funny guy" is part of the illusion of SOCIAL STATUS and Hierarchy in that particular group. It's a "position" that seems earned, and Scott has probably learned tricks and cues about making certain people laugh, but that's only half the picture.
In another group, JEFF is the "funny guy". They wouldn't even like Scott very much, never mind laugh at his jokes. The people in that group aren't stupid, or crazy, or ignorant, so what's the reason they make Jeff the "funny guy" in their group, but not Scott?
In the group that makes Scott the "funny guy", the REAL "leaders" inside of that group don't feel threatened by Scott. They don't MIND that he gets more laughs than they do, or that people like him, because it doesn't MESS UP the "Hierarchy" that they already have in place. Now if Scott was exactly the same but of a different race, or if he was a "SHE", or even if he had a different body type or height, the story would almost certainly play out differently. Scott FITS IN with the illusion of hierarchy that is already SET UP, his popularity does not change the hidden "power" positions of others. But Jeff does NOT fit into the current "hierarchy", so everyone is GUIDED AWAY from supporting and respecting him!
IN OTHER WORDS... the Controllers in the group are AFRAID that if people started liking JEFF, they would STOP liking THEM, or allowing them to have their control and hierarchy.
Over time, that same group stops treating Scott with the same approval and respect... did Scott change so much that now he doesn't "deserve" it anymore? Or could it be that someone in the group is jealous of him, or worried that he's not falling in line anymore with their ever present agendas? Did Scott do something "crazy" like stick up for someone else, or show that he's not really aligned with the whole "social hierarchy" thing?
The first thing to know about human group behavior is that you don't have to make EVERYONE laugh, or approve of you, support, respect, or like you; you only have to get the "Controllers" to accept and like you. Other people will FOLLOW THEIR LEAD. If the "Controllers" laugh, so will most of the others. JUST LIKE when one person points to the sky on a crowded street and everyone looks up. It goes from there; the other members in the group learn and follow along with "what the Controllers think is funny". Anyone who DOES NOT follow is just ignored and treated like they DON'T FIT IN, like they're "weird" or "uncool".
The underlying truth is, those in the group who have Control and Status Issues only "allow" certain people to be graced with positive attention, respect, and support. Those certain people don't threaten their ego or agenda, they fit in with the Control and Ego motivations of those people.
Sometimes a person is "allowed" to get positive attention (even a Leadership position) because they're just easier to manipulate, they make good chess pieces. The others in the group just go along with it, and don't really question or look at it in any depth.
It's because of the different status, power, and hierarchy agendas in each group, and WHO has ego and control issues, and how DEEP and FAR those issues and agendas go. Only certain KINDS of people, and certain individuals, are "allowed" to get positive attention and support in a given group. Others are "kept down" with all kinds of social signals, controls, blocks, and interactions.
With Scott and Jeff, everyone laughs when Scott jokes, which sends the message that "We Like Scott" "We Let Scott Be A Leader". Everyone NOT laughing at Jeff's jokes, and making critical or demeaning comments at him sends the message "We Don't Take Jeff Seriously", "We Don't Really Respect Or Support Jeff", "We Don't Allow Him To Be Important". All of that ALSO sends the message of: "You Have To Agree With Us If You Want To Be Part Of Our Group".
~
For Scott personally, that all translates to having more freedom of expression (people won't criticize him or shut him down, they're afraid of embarrassment or social consequences), freedom of movement, and more approval, support, and respect for OTHER things he does in his life
(as long as those things don't threaten the egos or agendas of the Controllers).
For Jeff personally, that all translates to having less freedom of expression within the group (people don't feel bad about criticizing him or shutting him down, it's already accepted that it's 'okay' to do that to him), less freedom of movement, and not JUST a lack of support for other things he does in his life, but an increase in disrespect, fault-finding, and even blocking or sabotage. People are not worried about consequences for treating Jeff poorly, and they don't see a REWARD for themselves for treating Jeff with common courtesy, support, or even fair respect.
This whole scenario can be applied to anything; who gets to be the "Artist" in a group, and who's artwork gets ignored, dismissed, or criticized~Who gets to be the "Cook" and who's cooking ability gets diminished and swept aside~ Who gets to be the "Wise One" and who gets treated with blatant disrespect~ Who gets support, praise, positive attention and "respect" for practically anything they say and do, and who gets treated like a fool, an ignorant, an incompetent, unstable, or a "born loser" no matter what they say or do?
It's all about control, ego, and agenda. In a stable, non-issued, agenda-free group or region, each person would get supported, socially respected, and treated with fairness and courtesy in whatever they're doing as a matter of general principle; there would be no "cherry picking" of human beings.
Why do so few people seem to notice the disparity in the way one person is treated compared to another, and why do they FIGHT AGAINST looking at it objectively?
~
Why don't people like to talk about this stuff?
(Because it's embarrassing to find out that you've been taken for a ride...
because a lot of people feel like talking about human behavior is the same thing as getting blamed or accused...
and last but definitely not least, those who are magicians, cons, and manipulators don't want their tricks exposed.)
~
So how come when Scott tells a joke, any joke, everyone laughs and acts like he's so funny, but when Jeffrey tells the same joke, people ignore him, don't listen to him, or ridicule him?
If you ask anyone, they'll all say something like "Scott's just a funny guy!" or "Jeff's just not funny..." or "Scott has that way about him", or "Jeff's just doing it for attention..." Maybe they'll say it's "Chi"...
Here's the thing... it's not about SCOTT or JEFF, really, it's more about the people around them.
If you took Scott and put him in a different crowd of people, the chances of them laughing at his every joke go right down the tubes. Ask any professional comedian about it. The reason everyone in Scott's group is laughing at his every joke, but treating Jeff like he couldn't make a baby laugh if he tickled him, is because everyone in that group WANTS SCOTT to be the "funny guy" in that group. They DON'T WANT JEFF to be a "funny guy", because that would wreck the way the group is "set up".
Scott being the "funny guy" is part of the illusion of SOCIAL STATUS and Hierarchy in that particular group. It's a "position" that seems earned, and Scott has probably learned tricks and cues about making certain people laugh, but that's only half the picture.
In another group, JEFF is the "funny guy". They wouldn't even like Scott very much, never mind laugh at his jokes. The people in that group aren't stupid, or crazy, or ignorant, so what's the reason they make Jeff the "funny guy" in their group, but not Scott?
In the group that makes Scott the "funny guy", the REAL "leaders" inside of that group don't feel threatened by Scott. They don't MIND that he gets more laughs than they do, or that people like him, because it doesn't MESS UP the "Hierarchy" that they already have in place. Now if Scott was exactly the same but of a different race, or if he was a "SHE", or even if he had a different body type or height, the story would almost certainly play out differently. Scott FITS IN with the illusion of hierarchy that is already SET UP, his popularity does not change the hidden "power" positions of others. But Jeff does NOT fit into the current "hierarchy", so everyone is GUIDED AWAY from supporting and respecting him!
IN OTHER WORDS... the Controllers in the group are AFRAID that if people started liking JEFF, they would STOP liking THEM, or allowing them to have their control and hierarchy.
Over time, that same group stops treating Scott with the same approval and respect... did Scott change so much that now he doesn't "deserve" it anymore? Or could it be that someone in the group is jealous of him, or worried that he's not falling in line anymore with their ever present agendas? Did Scott do something "crazy" like stick up for someone else, or show that he's not really aligned with the whole "social hierarchy" thing?
The first thing to know about human group behavior is that you don't have to make EVERYONE laugh, or approve of you, support, respect, or like you; you only have to get the "Controllers" to accept and like you. Other people will FOLLOW THEIR LEAD. If the "Controllers" laugh, so will most of the others. JUST LIKE when one person points to the sky on a crowded street and everyone looks up. It goes from there; the other members in the group learn and follow along with "what the Controllers think is funny". Anyone who DOES NOT follow is just ignored and treated like they DON'T FIT IN, like they're "weird" or "uncool".
The underlying truth is, those in the group who have Control and Status Issues only "allow" certain people to be graced with positive attention, respect, and support. Those certain people don't threaten their ego or agenda, they fit in with the Control and Ego motivations of those people.
Sometimes a person is "allowed" to get positive attention (even a Leadership position) because they're just easier to manipulate, they make good chess pieces. The others in the group just go along with it, and don't really question or look at it in any depth.
It's because of the different status, power, and hierarchy agendas in each group, and WHO has ego and control issues, and how DEEP and FAR those issues and agendas go. Only certain KINDS of people, and certain individuals, are "allowed" to get positive attention and support in a given group. Others are "kept down" with all kinds of social signals, controls, blocks, and interactions.
With Scott and Jeff, everyone laughs when Scott jokes, which sends the message that "We Like Scott" "We Let Scott Be A Leader". Everyone NOT laughing at Jeff's jokes, and making critical or demeaning comments at him sends the message "We Don't Take Jeff Seriously", "We Don't Really Respect Or Support Jeff", "We Don't Allow Him To Be Important". All of that ALSO sends the message of: "You Have To Agree With Us If You Want To Be Part Of Our Group".
~
For Scott personally, that all translates to having more freedom of expression (people won't criticize him or shut him down, they're afraid of embarrassment or social consequences), freedom of movement, and more approval, support, and respect for OTHER things he does in his life
(as long as those things don't threaten the egos or agendas of the Controllers).
For Jeff personally, that all translates to having less freedom of expression within the group (people don't feel bad about criticizing him or shutting him down, it's already accepted that it's 'okay' to do that to him), less freedom of movement, and not JUST a lack of support for other things he does in his life, but an increase in disrespect, fault-finding, and even blocking or sabotage. People are not worried about consequences for treating Jeff poorly, and they don't see a REWARD for themselves for treating Jeff with common courtesy, support, or even fair respect.
This whole scenario can be applied to anything; who gets to be the "Artist" in a group, and who's artwork gets ignored, dismissed, or criticized~Who gets to be the "Cook" and who's cooking ability gets diminished and swept aside~ Who gets to be the "Wise One" and who gets treated with blatant disrespect~ Who gets support, praise, positive attention and "respect" for practically anything they say and do, and who gets treated like a fool, an ignorant, an incompetent, unstable, or a "born loser" no matter what they say or do?
It's all about control, ego, and agenda. In a stable, non-issued, agenda-free group or region, each person would get supported, socially respected, and treated with fairness and courtesy in whatever they're doing as a matter of general principle; there would be no "cherry picking" of human beings.
Why do so few people seem to notice the disparity in the way one person is treated compared to another, and why do they FIGHT AGAINST looking at it objectively?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)