3 ms·

I don't think that them being "full of themselves" is necessarily true. Apology serve a purpose - to communicate to another person that we acknowledge the mist

I don't think that them being "full of themselves" is necessarily true. Apology serve a purpose - to communicate to another person that we acknowledge the mistakes we have made and commit to not doing them again, in order to assure them not to break the relationship (be it romantic, business, friendship or any other kind). So a lack of apology could also mean that a person either doesn't care whether the relationship continues or not, or is confident that the person needs him more and will not break the relationship regardless of an apology.

scaramanga 5y ago
Yeah, it's just that normal people don't consciously perceive this is a rational transaction. They see that they've hurt the other person and realise that perhaps damage can't be undone, which feels terrible, but they can at least give the other person the feeling that their suffering is at least visible, and matters, which is often the best that we can do. So we apologise. Then there's the other kind of person, who sees other people as pawns to be used for their own ends. Everything is a transaction, sure they might apologise to you if you can do something for them, but if you can't do something for them, then they can devalue you to where no apology is needed, in order to make themselves feel superior, in that way, they can extract something (self-esteem) from you regardless. In this case the wronged person has insult added to injury, since not only were they wronged, but the wrong can't even be acknowledged, which can feel quite invalidating, and can have the effect of gaslighting people into questioning whether or not THEY were the bad person in this scenario.
- bheadmaster 5y ago
  I don't think there is a black-and-white distinction - it is possible to feel the things from your first paragraph, yet understand the purpose of the very feeling. It doesn't take a psychopath to analyze human behavior. > Everything is a transaction, sure they might apologise to you if you can do something for them, but if you can't do something for them, then they can devalue you to where no apology is needed, in order to make themselves feel superior, in that way, they can extract something (self-esteem) from you regardless. I don't think this would be rational behavior, but rather pathological behavior. Rationally, it would be in one's interest to keep good relationships even with the people who don't "serve a purpose" at the moment, because it is impossible to know when one might need them, and "they serve a purpose" again. The only reason one would devaluate others is that they feel some kind of irrational need to feel superior, even if that feeling costs them good relationships.
  - scaramanga 5y ago
    > I don't think this would be rational behavior, but rather pathological behavior. That's exactly right. I am describing cluster B personality disorders. > it is possible to feel the things from your first paragraph, yet understand the purpose of the very feeling. Yes, and when someone is apologising to you, you would do well to try and analyze and understand whether the person is doing so for the first set of motives or the latter (it can be hard to tell). And doing so would be quite rational if you don't want to become prey to a sociopath :) Edit: > The only reason one would devaluate others is that they feel some kind of irrational need to feel superior, even if that feeling costs them good relationships. man, you really hit the nail on the head here :) Anyway, it works well for all manner of CEO's, politicians, heads of state, frauds, tinder swindlers, and the like. In other words, it doesn't seem to impair someone's prospects as much as one might imagine!
strokirk 5y ago
An apology doesn’t necessarily need to involve committing to never doing the action again.
- paskozdilar 5y ago
  Well, if someone apologizes for the actions they do, but they keep doing them intentionally, their apologies would quickly become meaningless.

scaramanga 5y ago

Yeah, it's just that normal people don't consciously perceive this is a rational transaction. They see that they've hurt the other person and realise that perhaps damage can't be undone, which feels terrible, but they can at least give the other person the feeling that their suffering is at least visible, and matters, which is often the best that we can do. So we apologise. Then there's the other kind of person, who sees other people as pawns to be used for their own ends. Everything is a transaction, sure they might apologise to you if you can do something for them, but if you can't do something for them, then they can devalue you to where no apology is needed, in order to make themselves feel superior, in that way, they can extract something (self-esteem) from you regardless. In this case the wronged person has insult added to injury, since not only were they wronged, but the wrong can't even be acknowledged, which can feel quite invalidating, and can have the effect of gaslighting people into questioning whether or not THEY were the bad person in this scenario.

bheadmaster 5y ago
I don't think there is a black-and-white distinction - it is possible to feel the things from your first paragraph, yet understand the purpose of the very feeling. It doesn't take a psychopath to analyze human behavior. > Everything is a transaction, sure they might apologise to you if you can do something for them, but if you can't do something for them, then they can devalue you to where no apology is needed, in order to make themselves feel superior, in that way, they can extract something (self-esteem) from you regardless. I don't think this would be rational behavior, but rather pathological behavior. Rationally, it would be in one's interest to keep good relationships even with the people who don't "serve a purpose" at the moment, because it is impossible to know when one might need them, and "they serve a purpose" again. The only reason one would devaluate others is that they feel some kind of irrational need to feel superior, even if that feeling costs them good relationships.
- scaramanga 5y ago
  > I don't think this would be rational behavior, but rather pathological behavior. That's exactly right. I am describing cluster B personality disorders. > it is possible to feel the things from your first paragraph, yet understand the purpose of the very feeling. Yes, and when someone is apologising to you, you would do well to try and analyze and understand whether the person is doing so for the first set of motives or the latter (it can be hard to tell). And doing so would be quite rational if you don't want to become prey to a sociopath :) Edit: > The only reason one would devaluate others is that they feel some kind of irrational need to feel superior, even if that feeling costs them good relationships. man, you really hit the nail on the head here :) Anyway, it works well for all manner of CEO's, politicians, heads of state, frauds, tinder swindlers, and the like. In other words, it doesn't seem to impair someone's prospects as much as one might imagine!

strokirk 5y ago

An apology doesn’t necessarily need to involve committing to never doing the action again.

paskozdilar 5y ago
Well, if someone apologizes for the actions they do, but they keep doing them intentionally, their apologies would quickly become meaningless.