14 ms·

Why Envy Might Be Good for Us

160 points by anarbadalov 8y ago

a_d 8y ago
“Namibian hunter-gatherers deride those who stand out.“ It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to produce abnormal outsized returns: they likely come from standing out. Being somewhat contrarian against the tribe helps with finding new pastures - infact it might be the only way. If the goal is to maximize egalitarianism, which is a worth-while goal, then having mimetic/conforming attitudes would be a virtue. Envy is a by-product of our mimetic desires.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
robius 8y ago
Similarly, having grown up in a Socialist Republic with a Communist party, envy was a big motivator for crime against your neighbor. While some would never have a thought of harming another over perceived better off neighbor, most would take action as some form of irrational justice. And if they were found out or caught, the 'actual' justice would never be forgiven, despite all this being their own doing. Many leave this type of village environment for different cultures and more maturity.
- acrossthepond10 8y ago
  would love to read more about this if you have recommended resources
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    This [1] is perhaps not a source of the sort you're probably looking for, but it's insightful nonetheless. It's a list of various 'jokes' from Russia during the soviet era. The stories they implicitly tell provide a broad overview of many issues. The reason I think those 'jokes' are appropriate is because the stories they implicitly tell are ones I've heard spoken of innumerous times prior. I enjoy chess, which thrived during the soviet era. Consequently, I've found myself listening to and on occasion chatting with countless individuals who lived through these times. Even given the great privilege players were granted of the times (yeah, everybody is equal in #ism - some just more so than others), it is absolutely phenomenal to hear how abysmal it all was. These stories invariably come up, particularly given the complete ignorance of many on the topic today. One anecdote that stuck with me was Peter Svidler [2] recalling how much of a shift in culture there was when Donald Duck made its way to Russia. How the people, even grown men, became deeply fond of it - not as a character, but as a symbol of the opening of culture and the freedom of the people. It's a world that's even difficult to imagine, but I think that through an abundance of tales one can begin to at least somewhat grasp the society that their communism created, and more generally that communism seems to inherently create - as one might note the parallels between the Bolshevik Revolution, China's Great Leap Forward, and the numerous smaller tales that all seem to effect the same catastrophic result. [1] - http://johndclare.net/Russ12_Jokes.htm http://johndclare.net/Russ12_Jokes.htm [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Svidler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Svidler
    - acrossthepond10 8y ago
      That was insightful. Thank you.
- andromedaworld 8y ago
  Envy is deplorable and there are few to zero things that would justify it. It quite frankly is very strange to see it being somewhat justified or even outright glorified by some here. I'm of the opinion that egalitarianism is not a desirable outcome. Hierarchies (but not necessarily ultra-hierarchies as I like to call them) are much more preferable and have demonstrated to be the better pick for humanity.
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    The normalisation of envy as a means of social control is a key element in the socialist playbook. Without envy, there is no point to socialism; if I don't care what my neighbour has, why would I ask the state to enforce its redistribution? So, just be aware that what we're seeing in this article is a pro-socialist/-communist stance, broadly dressed up in anthropological mythos in order to make a political point, which seems to be "envy is a moderator of inequality", whereas there is a big point missed: not being envious of anyone, equalises everyone.
    - user5454 8y ago
      > not being envious of anyone, equalises everyone. This is a very 1st world sentiment. If you live on less than $1/day, you are not equalized even if you're too hungry to feel any envy.
    - ddnb 8y ago
      > Without envy, there is no point to socialism; if I don't care what my neighbour has, why would I ask the state to enforce its redistribution? I don't agree, you can ask for redistribution so the weakest in society are helped.
      - fit2rule 8y ago
        What do you personally gain from having a stronger society of individuals who are no longer weak? No longer afflicted with pity?
        8y ago
user5454 8y ago
> "For while a particularly spectacular kill was always cause for celebration, the hunter responsible was insulted rather than flattered." This seems to have the same purpose as the Law of Jante[1] we have in the Nordic countries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
- RugnirViking 8y ago
  As somebody who lives in the nordic countries but is a foreigner I think that the law is not really a specific thing to Nordic countries but just an amusing social commentary of certain types of society. It's the same nearly everywhere that 'boasting' is a bad thing and the most respectable person is the one who silently gets stuff done.
  - olavk 8y ago
    The "Law of Jante" is formulated in a novel by the Danish-Norwegian author Axel Sandemose. He explicitly states that the law is used by the proletariat to keep each other down, and that it is a universal phenomenon - just as strong in Brooklyn as in Jante, the (semi-fictional) Danish town of the book. A critical part of the book is his description of the "Law of Jante" among a dysfunctional multinational crew of sailors on a ship. (He ends up murdering one of the crew-members, and blames the "Law of Jante" for the murder!) It is rather interesting that it is more often interpreted as a national characteristic - something uniquely Scandinavian - than a characteristic of the lower classes, which was the intention of the author.
    - digi_owl 8y ago
      The only people i see claiming this as some national characteristic are foreigners and people that has already gotten slapped for being an asshole by society.
    - RugnirViking 8y ago
      Cultures tend towards believing that something they have is unique about them. I do not know why this is but I suppose believing in something such as a national identity presupposes that there is something distinct about that identity. As somebody from the UK it's strange that I find a certain source of solace from this kind of culture even though practically it doesn't seem to make sense to dislike those who are succesful.
waterhouse 8y ago
I've figured there's exactly one place where envy makes sense: If someone else has more than you because some authority is distributing things, and is supposed to do it one way but is doing it another way, then it makes sense to be mad... at that authority. It still doesn't make sense to be mad at the recipient of the extra stuff, unless they are in some way aiding and abetting the authority in its unfair behavior.
- andromedaworld 8y ago
  I think you should be mad at the whole disgraceful debacle. The expropriator and the recipient of expropriated goods/services are in a collaborative effort to harm you. They're both willing and delighted participants in your demise and the incentive structure created by these actions undertaken by both parties ensure that you continue to suffer in their collective hands. I honestly don't know where you're going with this and I'm not even trying to malign you.
  - waterhouse 8y ago
    > The expropriator and the recipient of expropriated goods/services are in a collaborative effort ... They're both willing and delighted participants in your demise This is an assumption, and I think it is manifestly not always true. Have you ever benefited from some piece of regulatory unfairness, which was set up without your knowledge or consent (possibly before you were even born)? For example, if you use services that are partly or fully paid for by taxes, are you aware of exactly where all the tax money comes from, and who is taxed more than you think is fair and who is taxed less? (I'll take it as a given that no one thinks the tax code is totally fair, though people disagree on what would be fair.)
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
The author's final conclusions take, as a matter of fact, that inequality is what drove revolutions of the past. It seems that the more precise cause of these revolutions throughout time has not been the lack of equality, but the lack of fairness. And these are two very different things. If we take 1000 people and give rewards in proportion to performance at some task, it will be extremely unequal - yet fair. If we take these 1000 people and instead give identical rewards in accordance with who a grand arbiter thinks would be somehow 'better', it would be radically unfair. Even if the final result in the distribution of rewards is the same, the general view and tolerance of such distribution would be very different. The example most commonly cited as a revolution of inequality is the French Revolution, yet the people did not protest because the ruling class enjoyed feasts of wine and meat while they ate grain and water, as had been the case since time immemorial. It happened because the masses were required to pay ever larger taxes to subsidize a government that was increasingly in debt with very little to show for it, all because of the actions of those that lived in luxury. And this happened at the same time that famine was sweeping the nation magnifying the absurdity of it all. Put another way, those in power were destroying their nation and demanding the poor pay for their failures. That's not about inequality, it's about unfairness. And I think this generalizes to the entire article. People do not generally seem to care about equality -- they care about fairness. The Waltons and Elon Musk are both billionaires, but they are perceived in vastly different ways. Imagine if we lived exactly as we do today, yet the vast majority of wealthy obtained their wealth and behaved in a fashion similar to the Waltons. The stability of this nation would be quite different.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > yet the people did not protest because the bourgeois enjoyed feasts of wine and meat while they ate grain and water, as had been the case since time immemorial. Well, no, the food crises immediately preceding the revolution meant that the people weren't even getting their expected grain and water. But the bourgeoisie (a class that was the middle class in the pre-capitalist economy of the time and which hadn't really existed “since time immemorial”) wasn't the target of the Revolution, indeed, while the masses and their discontent were powering it, the bourgeoisie was largely leading the Revolution.
adityapurwa 8y ago
I was taught that it is okay to be envious, what isnt okay was to wish that someone will lose the things we envied about. When I see someone bought a new car, I will pray “I hope his car is useful and he can benefit from it, I hope that someday I will have a car like his or even better”. While it might be hard in practice, so far it helped me stay positive to everyone.
- _Microft 8y ago
  In the german language there are the two words Neid and Missgunst. Both could be translated as enviousness but have a slightly different meanings. While Missgunst is definitely negative and maybe even destructive, Neid does not need to be negative and can have the meaning like in the example you gave.
  - user5454 8y ago
    Interesting, in Swedish we have two (main) words too. The most common word, avundsjuk, even though it has sjuk in it (meaning sick or ill), doesn't necessarily have to be negative. E.g. "I'm so avundsjuk on your vacation to the Bahamas but I hope you have a nice trip." Missunnsam (sounds related to Missgunst) OTOH means that you refuse to let someone enjoy the object of envy. "I guess you must do some pretty heavy tax-evasion in order to afford that trip to the Bahamas."
  - henrikschroder 8y ago
    Same in Swedish, there's one word for "You have it, and I also want it" (avundsjuka), and one word for "You have it, but I don't want you to have it" (missunnsamhet).
  - mepian 8y ago
    This distinction also exists in Russian, though not in single words: белая зависть translated literally as "white envy" and черная зависть i.e. "black envy".
    - henrikschroder 8y ago
Nokinside 8y ago
> Everyone jealously scrutinised everybody else all the time – something easy to do when all social life was conducted in a public space. They took careful note of what others ate, what others owned, what others received or gave as gifts, and whether or not they were sufficiently generous in return. This was typical small village behavior in Nordics less than 100 years ago. When your survival depends on the village coming to your help when you are in trouble, you pay for it by giving up some freedoms. Social control is used to keep everyone in line. Economic historians have noticed how egalitarian small village farming limited the innovation in agriculture. You could not adopt new crop or radical new technology easily unless everybody was on board even if everyone was farming their own piece of land (you need to come together for investments, risk sharing and emergency work). In contrast, independent big landowner changing something was just one man doing the decision. What is the best socioeconomic system depends on the circumstances. For long term survival purposes conservative, cohesive and close willage/tribe and demand sharing/palace economy is probably the best.
- Senderman 8y ago
  I found your comment quite enlightning, and I thought it ended well with an open-ended "What is the best socioeconomic system depends on the circumstances." But you then pick out a specific socioeconomic system as "probably the best" without specifying those circumstances - unless you mean "long term survival" to be those circumstances? If so, survival of what? Village/tribe systems? The problem seems circular, put this way. I'd even suggest that circularity is the root of the uncertainty in your "probably." I hope I don't sound like I'm picking a fight; my reaction is just what springs to mind, and you're touching on a topic I find important.
  - Nokinside 8y ago
    I did specify it "long term survival purposes". Maybe I should have been more specific. In a environment where survival is uncertain survival values and system that maximizes survival is the best. Innovation and individuality succeed in a systems where basics are covered and system can be trusted to work. Example of wrong system: preppers with single family bunkers loaded with weapons and food. If the society collapses the best way to guarantee your survival is to join into tight group with shared values who take care of their own (like Amish). in Mad Max situations conservative evangelical communities with medieval values would wipe the floor with roaming biker gangs.
ttoinou 8y ago
Those interested in this topic should read Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour by Helmut Shoeck
dm319 8y ago
The title is easily misunderstood - the article describes a type of envy in Namibian hunter-gatherers which resulted in a behaviour that is not usually seen as ok in most Western societies. They would insult and demean whatever windfall or wealth the person got, and also demand some of it. This meant that those who were successful hunter gatherers didn't start believing they were superior or more deserving than their fellow tribesmen: > just as the humility shown by good hunters and others with something to brag about was ascribed to “embarrassment.” The article goes on to say how this behaviour has discouraged members of this group taking on higher management and political roles, which mean this community are under-represented on a national level, and also still very poor. I found it a thought-provoking article. I seem to remember a time when the rich I met were somewhat embarrassed about their money, whereas I feel like at the moment people seem to be showing off their wealth a lot more. But maybe that is more to do with my social circles, or the facebook effect, or a different time in my life. Personally, I find envy to be a very toxic emotion, which sways me and others to make life-choices that don't necessarily increase our happiness. I find I'm starting to avoid people who seem to care too much about their own and other's financial (and other) types of achievement. Maybe I should take a leaf from the Ju/Hoansi and start insulting people's bragging rights. 'My! That is a shit bathroom you've got! And to think you spent that much...'
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
oytis 8y ago
> For while a particularly spectacular kill was always cause for celebration, the hunter responsible was insulted rather than flattered. Regardless of the size or condition of the carcass, those due a share of the meat would complain that the kill was trifling, that it was barely worth the effort of carrying it back to camp, or that there wouldn’t be enough meat to go around Seems to me, a lot of people in modern society still excercise this ritual.
- cinspicuous 8y ago
  Yes they do. Perhaps the insulting was ritual in the sense that an airport check-in person asks if you packed your own bag today. They're listening to the tone of your reply rather than the words. Similarly, if the insulters of the successful hunter are truly envious then there will be a different tone to their insults. Then a problem is exposed. Note that this ritual isn't encouraging envy (which is a harmful emotion). Rather it is helping to expose any envy that may have arisen, in a safe manner. The flipside is that some people try to arouse envy in others. In modern times by conspicuous consumption, bling, expensive shoes, super-yachts, bragging on social media, etc. Such people deserve to be mocked until they've updated their idea of success. Yet we are morally obliged to differentiate between them and those who've made original contributions: artists, inventors, innovators, problem-solvers and so on. Our survival in the long term actually depends on the latter group. After all we shouldn't be aiming to thrive for an 'extraordinarily long period of time', but indefinitely, just as the Ju/’hoansi would no doubt have preferred to.
  - gowld 8y ago
    > Perhaps the insulting was ritual in the sense that an airport check-in person asks if you packed your own bag today. They're listening to the tone of your reply rather than the words. Are you sure that's not just checking to see if honest innocent victims might have been conned by a criminal?
    - cinspicuous 8y ago
      Good point. Tone + words.
JunaidBhai 8y ago
Feeling envious might be good as long as it enforces you to take a positive change in your life. Feeling envious for someone who has purchased a new house, a new car or established a new business would make you strive to have one for yourself would be regarded as a positive influence of envy.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  That sounds more like aspiration than envy to me.
vfc1 8y ago
Also known as the Crab Effect, where the other crabs in a bucket will pull an escaping crab down if he tries to escape - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality There is a lot of this in the West too, although to a lesser degree and in a less open way. Its one of those ancient behaviors and systems of values that we keep applying today that don't make much sense anymore. We don't live in small villages anymore, doing hunter-gathering or communal agriculture. In today's society, everyone should feel free to try new things, learn and achieve their full potential, without having to deal with this constant social pressure that leads us to be as average as possible, in order to avoid standing out from the group and get punished for that. It's not clear if this pull to be as average as possible is something embedded in our genes or if its purely cultural.
- megablast 8y ago
  What an odd site to link to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
  - vfc1 8y ago
    Indeed LOL :-) fixed, did not notice that huge ebook thing at the bottom.
- hi41 8y ago
  Wow. I did not know that there was such a thing as crab effect! I thought was anecdotal similar to the story of frog doing because of water heating slowly. Would you know if the frog story is true or anecdotal?
- gowld 8y ago
  Likening it to crab buckets misses a key point: That "status" has value, and is transferable. Pulling a "human crab" isn't a purely destructive act, as it prevents a peer from gaining status and power that could be dangerous to the one pulling down. Even among crabs (where the wikipedia page doesn't provide source to back up its claims as to the crab's intent), pulling another crab down creates a stepping stone opportunity for another crab to climb out. In the absence of clear trusting coordination (like you see in army ants, ignoring the fact that many ants sacrifice their lives toward a goal), crab-bucket fighting maximizes individual survival chance.
Waterluvian 8y ago
My experience is that envy when you have nothing can be really demoralizing. But envy when you're comfortable but others a thriving can be motivating.
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  Nobody ever truly has nothing. You still have something most people that have ever existed in the world don't, life. You can respond, learn, and grow. No matter how far you've gone down a path, you can always turn back. We can only ever trick ourselves into believing we truly have nothing.
  - wruza 8y ago
    Whether you can learn and grow depends on various factors, actually. Some people can’t learn and grow due to internal and external issues, living relatively crappy live until death. And by ‘some’ I mean many. You may have a potential but may not see a way to discharge it. >trick ourselves In a way a broken engine tricks itself into not working. “You’re 300HP, just start, dude!”
    - vinceguidry 8y ago
      People aren't engines. They don't just break.
      - mercer 8y ago
        It's true that people aren't engines, but it's also true that people break, and often in ways that are much more difficult to diagnose and fix (or even notice). I think depression, suicide, and much of the time addiction are clear signs that humans can break and not have the strength to 'turn back', at least not with a ton of help.
        vinceguidry 8y ago
        Help can be asked for. From people or from God. It's when we choose not to ask, choose not to avail ourselves of the many many resources that society has to offer, that people fall into deep holes. They may feel very very far from making the choice to ask for help, but a choice it remains and it never goes away. Asking for help from God in these situations and opening your heart to the possibility of salvation can be extremely powerful. I've met people with severe, debilitating depression that immediately lifted upon setting foot in a church, never to return. It's a lot more common than you'd think. The religious angle should not be overlooked. Nobody is so broken that they can't be fixed.
naveen99 8y ago
Suppose you are playing go and losing. You can see in the future and know you will lose. Now imagine go is life. Pray for reincarnation, to play again.
DannyB2 8y ago
Envy might be a virtue? Virtues of a software developer: 1. Lazyness. Lazyness is the first step towards efficiency. Why was the dishwasher invented? 2. Impatience. Impatience is the first step towards performance optimization. 3. Being Anti Social. This allows hyper focus. 4. Pride. The desire to strive ever harder for better code, simplicity, maintainability, more features, etc.
Kemet 8y ago
I don't see how envy can be good. It can be a motivation booster (to do better, to go further, etc.), but not a positive one by far. When one envies another, there is at some level a certain misunderstanding of the whole concept of someone being that good, which makes this person (maybe even involuntarily) think of himself better or worthier.
asdfman123 8y ago
Yes, I believe all of our emotions probably serve some evolutionary purpose. Does that mean they're useful in modern society? Not necessarily. Being anxious might have helped my ancestors prepare for unexpected famines. Being aggressive might have helped them lock down the resources they needed to survive. Do those emotions help me as an adult software engineer in Houston? Heck no. Anxiety and aggression just get in the way of a well-lived life.
- leeeeech 8y ago
  That does sound anxious (and one could read aggression into it, too). But there are so many more emotions below and on top, that maybe they serve at least some coordination effort. Here you exaggerate the emotion for display, but you virtue signal that you are concerned and signal the concern itself, not to be anxious. So it's a reflexive emotion. Such things remind me all too often of the fix point combinator and what not. But I'm anxious to miss the point, because at some point logical reasoning doesn't work anymore and leads into a trap, e.g. in case of greed.
- adnzzzzZ 8y ago
  That's a very misguided view of things. Aggression will help you fight for higher wages for yourself more often than if you weren't as aggressive. Anxiety will drive you towards actions that will decrease your anxiety, and those actions will generally be useful for you and sometimes the people employing you. I think you're not really in touch and being honest with yourself if you don't think both aggression and anxiety play a crucial role in your life. Or maybe you just have different definitions of those words than I do.
  - asdfman123 8y ago
    You can seek out your best interests without powerful emotions that cripple your sense of well being. For instance, rather than worry constantly about impending doom you can just calmly go about preparing for worst case circumstances. Same result -- perhaps a better result -- and far less suffering. We should all seek to calmly and rationally seek the best interests of ourselves and people around us, without having to be paralyzed by fear, anxiety and other negative emotions.

160 points by anarbadalov 8y ago

a_d 8y ago

“Namibian hunter-gatherers deride those who stand out.“ It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to produce abnormal outsized returns: they likely come from standing out. Being somewhat contrarian against the tribe helps with finding new pastures - infact it might be the only way. If the goal is to maximize egalitarianism, which is a worth-while goal, then having mimetic/conforming attitudes would be a virtue. Envy is a by-product of our mimetic desires.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

robius 8y ago

Similarly, having grown up in a Socialist Republic with a Communist party, envy was a big motivator for crime against your neighbor. While some would never have a thought of harming another over perceived better off neighbor, most would take action as some form of irrational justice. And if they were found out or caught, the 'actual' justice would never be forgiven, despite all this being their own doing. Many leave this type of village environment for different cultures and more maturity.

acrossthepond10 8y ago
would love to read more about this if you have recommended resources
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  This [1] is perhaps not a source of the sort you're probably looking for, but it's insightful nonetheless. It's a list of various 'jokes' from Russia during the soviet era. The stories they implicitly tell provide a broad overview of many issues. The reason I think those 'jokes' are appropriate is because the stories they implicitly tell are ones I've heard spoken of innumerous times prior. I enjoy chess, which thrived during the soviet era. Consequently, I've found myself listening to and on occasion chatting with countless individuals who lived through these times. Even given the great privilege players were granted of the times (yeah, everybody is equal in #ism - some just more so than others), it is absolutely phenomenal to hear how abysmal it all was. These stories invariably come up, particularly given the complete ignorance of many on the topic today. One anecdote that stuck with me was Peter Svidler [2] recalling how much of a shift in culture there was when Donald Duck made its way to Russia. How the people, even grown men, became deeply fond of it - not as a character, but as a symbol of the opening of culture and the freedom of the people. It's a world that's even difficult to imagine, but I think that through an abundance of tales one can begin to at least somewhat grasp the society that their communism created, and more generally that communism seems to inherently create - as one might note the parallels between the Bolshevik Revolution, China's Great Leap Forward, and the numerous smaller tales that all seem to effect the same catastrophic result. [1] - http://johndclare.net/Russ12_Jokes.htm http://johndclare.net/Russ12_Jokes.htm [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Svidler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Svidler
  - acrossthepond10 8y ago
    That was insightful. Thank you.
andromedaworld 8y ago
Envy is deplorable and there are few to zero things that would justify it. It quite frankly is very strange to see it being somewhat justified or even outright glorified by some here. I'm of the opinion that egalitarianism is not a desirable outcome. Hierarchies (but not necessarily ultra-hierarchies as I like to call them) are much more preferable and have demonstrated to be the better pick for humanity.
- fit2rule 8y ago
  The normalisation of envy as a means of social control is a key element in the socialist playbook. Without envy, there is no point to socialism; if I don't care what my neighbour has, why would I ask the state to enforce its redistribution? So, just be aware that what we're seeing in this article is a pro-socialist/-communist stance, broadly dressed up in anthropological mythos in order to make a political point, which seems to be "envy is a moderator of inequality", whereas there is a big point missed: not being envious of anyone, equalises everyone.
  - user5454 8y ago
    > not being envious of anyone, equalises everyone. This is a very 1st world sentiment. If you live on less than $1/day, you are not equalized even if you're too hungry to feel any envy.
  - ddnb 8y ago
    > Without envy, there is no point to socialism; if I don't care what my neighbour has, why would I ask the state to enforce its redistribution? I don't agree, you can ask for redistribution so the weakest in society are helped.
    - fit2rule 8y ago
      What do you personally gain from having a stronger society of individuals who are no longer weak? No longer afflicted with pity?
      - 8y ago

user5454 8y ago

> "For while a particularly spectacular kill was always cause for celebration, the hunter responsible was insulted rather than flattered." This seems to have the same purpose as the Law of Jante[1] we have in the Nordic countries. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante

RugnirViking 8y ago
As somebody who lives in the nordic countries but is a foreigner I think that the law is not really a specific thing to Nordic countries but just an amusing social commentary of certain types of society. It's the same nearly everywhere that 'boasting' is a bad thing and the most respectable person is the one who silently gets stuff done.
- olavk 8y ago
  The "Law of Jante" is formulated in a novel by the Danish-Norwegian author Axel Sandemose. He explicitly states that the law is used by the proletariat to keep each other down, and that it is a universal phenomenon - just as strong in Brooklyn as in Jante, the (semi-fictional) Danish town of the book. A critical part of the book is his description of the "Law of Jante" among a dysfunctional multinational crew of sailors on a ship. (He ends up murdering one of the crew-members, and blames the "Law of Jante" for the murder!) It is rather interesting that it is more often interpreted as a national characteristic - something uniquely Scandinavian - than a characteristic of the lower classes, which was the intention of the author.
  - digi_owl 8y ago
    The only people i see claiming this as some national characteristic are foreigners and people that has already gotten slapped for being an asshole by society.
  - RugnirViking 8y ago
    Cultures tend towards believing that something they have is unique about them. I do not know why this is but I suppose believing in something such as a national identity presupposes that there is something distinct about that identity. As somebody from the UK it's strange that I find a certain source of solace from this kind of culture even though practically it doesn't seem to make sense to dislike those who are succesful.

waterhouse 8y ago

I've figured there's exactly one place where envy makes sense: If someone else has more than you because some authority is distributing things, and is supposed to do it one way but is doing it another way, then it makes sense to be mad... at that authority. It still doesn't make sense to be mad at the recipient of the extra stuff, unless they are in some way aiding and abetting the authority in its unfair behavior.

andromedaworld 8y ago
I think you should be mad at the whole disgraceful debacle. The expropriator and the recipient of expropriated goods/services are in a collaborative effort to harm you. They're both willing and delighted participants in your demise and the incentive structure created by these actions undertaken by both parties ensure that you continue to suffer in their collective hands. I honestly don't know where you're going with this and I'm not even trying to malign you.
- waterhouse 8y ago
  > The expropriator and the recipient of expropriated goods/services are in a collaborative effort ... They're both willing and delighted participants in your demise This is an assumption, and I think it is manifestly not always true. Have you ever benefited from some piece of regulatory unfairness, which was set up without your knowledge or consent (possibly before you were even born)? For example, if you use services that are partly or fully paid for by taxes, are you aware of exactly where all the tax money comes from, and who is taxed more than you think is fair and who is taxed less? (I'll take it as a given that no one thinks the tax code is totally fair, though people disagree on what would be fair.)

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

The author's final conclusions take, as a matter of fact, that inequality is what drove revolutions of the past. It seems that the more precise cause of these revolutions throughout time has not been the lack of equality, but the lack of fairness. And these are two very different things. If we take 1000 people and give rewards in proportion to performance at some task, it will be extremely unequal - yet fair. If we take these 1000 people and instead give identical rewards in accordance with who a grand arbiter thinks would be somehow 'better', it would be radically unfair. Even if the final result in the distribution of rewards is the same, the general view and tolerance of such distribution would be very different. The example most commonly cited as a revolution of inequality is the French Revolution, yet the people did not protest because the ruling class enjoyed feasts of wine and meat while they ate grain and water, as had been the case since time immemorial. It happened because the masses were required to pay ever larger taxes to subsidize a government that was increasingly in debt with very little to show for it, all because of the actions of those that lived in luxury. And this happened at the same time that famine was sweeping the nation magnifying the absurdity of it all. Put another way, those in power were destroying their nation and demanding the poor pay for their failures. That's not about inequality, it's about unfairness. And I think this generalizes to the entire article. People do not generally seem to care about equality -- they care about fairness. The Waltons and Elon Musk are both billionaires, but they are perceived in vastly different ways. Imagine if we lived exactly as we do today, yet the vast majority of wealthy obtained their wealth and behaved in a fashion similar to the Waltons. The stability of this nation would be quite different.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> yet the people did not protest because the bourgeois enjoyed feasts of wine and meat while they ate grain and water, as had been the case since time immemorial. Well, no, the food crises immediately preceding the revolution meant that the people weren't even getting their expected grain and water. But the bourgeoisie (a class that was the middle class in the pre-capitalist economy of the time and which hadn't really existed “since time immemorial”) wasn't the target of the Revolution, indeed, while the masses and their discontent were powering it, the bourgeoisie was largely leading the Revolution.

adityapurwa 8y ago

I was taught that it is okay to be envious, what isnt okay was to wish that someone will lose the things we envied about. When I see someone bought a new car, I will pray “I hope his car is useful and he can benefit from it, I hope that someday I will have a car like his or even better”. While it might be hard in practice, so far it helped me stay positive to everyone.

_Microft 8y ago
In the german language there are the two words Neid and Missgunst. Both could be translated as enviousness but have a slightly different meanings. While Missgunst is definitely negative and maybe even destructive, Neid does not need to be negative and can have the meaning like in the example you gave.
- user5454 8y ago
  Interesting, in Swedish we have two (main) words too. The most common word, avundsjuk, even though it has sjuk in it (meaning sick or ill), doesn't necessarily have to be negative. E.g. "I'm so avundsjuk on your vacation to the Bahamas but I hope you have a nice trip." Missunnsam (sounds related to Missgunst) OTOH means that you refuse to let someone enjoy the object of envy. "I guess you must do some pretty heavy tax-evasion in order to afford that trip to the Bahamas."
- henrikschroder 8y ago
  Same in Swedish, there's one word for "You have it, and I also want it" (avundsjuka), and one word for "You have it, but I don't want you to have it" (missunnsamhet).
- mepian 8y ago
  This distinction also exists in Russian, though not in single words: белая зависть translated literally as "white envy" and черная зависть i.e. "black envy".
  - henrikschroder 8y ago

Nokinside 8y ago

> Everyone jealously scrutinised everybody else all the time – something easy to do when all social life was conducted in a public space. They took careful note of what others ate, what others owned, what others received or gave as gifts, and whether or not they were sufficiently generous in return. This was typical small village behavior in Nordics less than 100 years ago. When your survival depends on the village coming to your help when you are in trouble, you pay for it by giving up some freedoms. Social control is used to keep everyone in line. Economic historians have noticed how egalitarian small village farming limited the innovation in agriculture. You could not adopt new crop or radical new technology easily unless everybody was on board even if everyone was farming their own piece of land (you need to come together for investments, risk sharing and emergency work). In contrast, independent big landowner changing something was just one man doing the decision. What is the best socioeconomic system depends on the circumstances. For long term survival purposes conservative, cohesive and close willage/tribe and demand sharing/palace economy is probably the best.

Senderman 8y ago
I found your comment quite enlightning, and I thought it ended well with an open-ended "What is the best socioeconomic system depends on the circumstances." But you then pick out a specific socioeconomic system as "probably the best" without specifying those circumstances - unless you mean "long term survival" to be those circumstances? If so, survival of what? Village/tribe systems? The problem seems circular, put this way. I'd even suggest that circularity is the root of the uncertainty in your "probably." I hope I don't sound like I'm picking a fight; my reaction is just what springs to mind, and you're touching on a topic I find important.
- Nokinside 8y ago
  I did specify it "long term survival purposes". Maybe I should have been more specific. In a environment where survival is uncertain survival values and system that maximizes survival is the best. Innovation and individuality succeed in a systems where basics are covered and system can be trusted to work. Example of wrong system: preppers with single family bunkers loaded with weapons and food. If the society collapses the best way to guarantee your survival is to join into tight group with shared values who take care of their own (like Amish). in Mad Max situations conservative evangelical communities with medieval values would wipe the floor with roaming biker gangs.

ttoinou 8y ago

Those interested in this topic should read Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour by Helmut Shoeck

dm319 8y ago

The title is easily misunderstood - the article describes a type of envy in Namibian hunter-gatherers which resulted in a behaviour that is not usually seen as ok in most Western societies. They would insult and demean whatever windfall or wealth the person got, and also demand some of it. This meant that those who were successful hunter gatherers didn't start believing they were superior or more deserving than their fellow tribesmen: > just as the humility shown by good hunters and others with something to brag about was ascribed to “embarrassment.” The article goes on to say how this behaviour has discouraged members of this group taking on higher management and political roles, which mean this community are under-represented on a national level, and also still very poor. I found it a thought-provoking article. I seem to remember a time when the rich I met were somewhat embarrassed about their money, whereas I feel like at the moment people seem to be showing off their wealth a lot more. But maybe that is more to do with my social circles, or the facebook effect, or a different time in my life. Personally, I find envy to be a very toxic emotion, which sways me and others to make life-choices that don't necessarily increase our happiness. I find I'm starting to avoid people who seem to care too much about their own and other's financial (and other) types of achievement. Maybe I should take a leaf from the Ju/Hoansi and start insulting people's bragging rights. 'My! That is a shit bathroom you've got! And to think you spent that much...'

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

oytis 8y ago

> For while a particularly spectacular kill was always cause for celebration, the hunter responsible was insulted rather than flattered. Regardless of the size or condition of the carcass, those due a share of the meat would complain that the kill was trifling, that it was barely worth the effort of carrying it back to camp, or that there wouldn’t be enough meat to go around Seems to me, a lot of people in modern society still excercise this ritual.

cinspicuous 8y ago
Yes they do. Perhaps the insulting was ritual in the sense that an airport check-in person asks if you packed your own bag today. They're listening to the tone of your reply rather than the words. Similarly, if the insulters of the successful hunter are truly envious then there will be a different tone to their insults. Then a problem is exposed. Note that this ritual isn't encouraging envy (which is a harmful emotion). Rather it is helping to expose any envy that may have arisen, in a safe manner. The flipside is that some people try to arouse envy in others. In modern times by conspicuous consumption, bling, expensive shoes, super-yachts, bragging on social media, etc. Such people deserve to be mocked until they've updated their idea of success. Yet we are morally obliged to differentiate between them and those who've made original contributions: artists, inventors, innovators, problem-solvers and so on. Our survival in the long term actually depends on the latter group. After all we shouldn't be aiming to thrive for an 'extraordinarily long period of time', but indefinitely, just as the Ju/’hoansi would no doubt have preferred to.
- gowld 8y ago
  > Perhaps the insulting was ritual in the sense that an airport check-in person asks if you packed your own bag today. They're listening to the tone of your reply rather than the words. Are you sure that's not just checking to see if honest innocent victims might have been conned by a criminal?
  - cinspicuous 8y ago
    Good point. Tone + words.

JunaidBhai 8y ago

Feeling envious might be good as long as it enforces you to take a positive change in your life. Feeling envious for someone who has purchased a new house, a new car or established a new business would make you strive to have one for yourself would be regarded as a positive influence of envy.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
That sounds more like aspiration than envy to me.

vfc1 8y ago

Also known as the Crab Effect, where the other crabs in a bucket will pull an escaping crab down if he tries to escape - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality There is a lot of this in the West too, although to a lesser degree and in a less open way. Its one of those ancient behaviors and systems of values that we keep applying today that don't make much sense anymore. We don't live in small villages anymore, doing hunter-gathering or communal agriculture. In today's society, everyone should feel free to try new things, learn and achieve their full potential, without having to deal with this constant social pressure that leads us to be as average as possible, in order to avoid standing out from the group and get punished for that. It's not clear if this pull to be as average as possible is something embedded in our genes or if its purely cultural.

megablast 8y ago
What an odd site to link to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
- vfc1 8y ago
  Indeed LOL :-) fixed, did not notice that huge ebook thing at the bottom.
hi41 8y ago
Wow. I did not know that there was such a thing as crab effect! I thought was anecdotal similar to the story of frog doing because of water heating slowly. Would you know if the frog story is true or anecdotal?
gowld 8y ago
Likening it to crab buckets misses a key point: That "status" has value, and is transferable. Pulling a "human crab" isn't a purely destructive act, as it prevents a peer from gaining status and power that could be dangerous to the one pulling down. Even among crabs (where the wikipedia page doesn't provide source to back up its claims as to the crab's intent), pulling another crab down creates a stepping stone opportunity for another crab to climb out. In the absence of clear trusting coordination (like you see in army ants, ignoring the fact that many ants sacrifice their lives toward a goal), crab-bucket fighting maximizes individual survival chance.

Waterluvian 8y ago

My experience is that envy when you have nothing can be really demoralizing. But envy when you're comfortable but others a thriving can be motivating.

vinceguidry 8y ago
Nobody ever truly has nothing. You still have something most people that have ever existed in the world don't, life. You can respond, learn, and grow. No matter how far you've gone down a path, you can always turn back. We can only ever trick ourselves into believing we truly have nothing.
- wruza 8y ago
  Whether you can learn and grow depends on various factors, actually. Some people can’t learn and grow due to internal and external issues, living relatively crappy live until death. And by ‘some’ I mean many. You may have a potential but may not see a way to discharge it. >trick ourselves In a way a broken engine tricks itself into not working. “You’re 300HP, just start, dude!”
  - vinceguidry 8y ago
    People aren't engines. They don't just break.
    - mercer 8y ago
      It's true that people aren't engines, but it's also true that people break, and often in ways that are much more difficult to diagnose and fix (or even notice). I think depression, suicide, and much of the time addiction are clear signs that humans can break and not have the strength to 'turn back', at least not with a ton of help.
      - vinceguidry 8y ago
        Help can be asked for. From people or from God. It's when we choose not to ask, choose not to avail ourselves of the many many resources that society has to offer, that people fall into deep holes. They may feel very very far from making the choice to ask for help, but a choice it remains and it never goes away. Asking for help from God in these situations and opening your heart to the possibility of salvation can be extremely powerful. I've met people with severe, debilitating depression that immediately lifted upon setting foot in a church, never to return. It's a lot more common than you'd think. The religious angle should not be overlooked. Nobody is so broken that they can't be fixed.

naveen99 8y ago

Suppose you are playing go and losing. You can see in the future and know you will lose. Now imagine go is life. Pray for reincarnation, to play again.

DannyB2 8y ago

Envy might be a virtue? Virtues of a software developer: 1. Lazyness. Lazyness is the first step towards efficiency. Why was the dishwasher invented? 2. Impatience. Impatience is the first step towards performance optimization. 3. Being Anti Social. This allows hyper focus. 4. Pride. The desire to strive ever harder for better code, simplicity, maintainability, more features, etc.

Kemet 8y ago

I don't see how envy can be good. It can be a motivation booster (to do better, to go further, etc.), but not a positive one by far. When one envies another, there is at some level a certain misunderstanding of the whole concept of someone being that good, which makes this person (maybe even involuntarily) think of himself better or worthier.

asdfman123 8y ago

Yes, I believe all of our emotions probably serve some evolutionary purpose. Does that mean they're useful in modern society? Not necessarily. Being anxious might have helped my ancestors prepare for unexpected famines. Being aggressive might have helped them lock down the resources they needed to survive. Do those emotions help me as an adult software engineer in Houston? Heck no. Anxiety and aggression just get in the way of a well-lived life.

leeeeech 8y ago
That does sound anxious (and one could read aggression into it, too). But there are so many more emotions below and on top, that maybe they serve at least some coordination effort. Here you exaggerate the emotion for display, but you virtue signal that you are concerned and signal the concern itself, not to be anxious. So it's a reflexive emotion. Such things remind me all too often of the fix point combinator and what not. But I'm anxious to miss the point, because at some point logical reasoning doesn't work anymore and leads into a trap, e.g. in case of greed.
adnzzzzZ 8y ago
That's a very misguided view of things. Aggression will help you fight for higher wages for yourself more often than if you weren't as aggressive. Anxiety will drive you towards actions that will decrease your anxiety, and those actions will generally be useful for you and sometimes the people employing you. I think you're not really in touch and being honest with yourself if you don't think both aggression and anxiety play a crucial role in your life. Or maybe you just have different definitions of those words than I do.
- asdfman123 8y ago
  You can seek out your best interests without powerful emotions that cripple your sense of well being. For instance, rather than worry constantly about impending doom you can just calmly go about preparing for worst case circumstances. Same result -- perhaps a better result -- and far less suffering. We should all seek to calmly and rationally seek the best interests of ourselves and people around us, without having to be paralyzed by fear, anxiety and other negative emotions.