BurnedOut
Beloved Antichrist
Are there are particular rules for being accepted in a group ? Or does it depend on how 'other' you are perceived ?
It is obvious that it is both.
As per my experience (and some research) it is the average looking people who tend to get assimilated at a great level. Yes, it is an utterly reductionist argument but I have witnessed that too many times in both the genders.
There seems to be a certain criteria to be assimilated in almost any group:
1. Average looks.
In the male domain, this seems to work greatly. This is not to say that handsome men are rejected all the time but there is some magnetic factor that attracts the horde to a 'common man'. There have been researches regarding this and it explains why propaganda is carried by portraying an average man who forwards the propaganda. So, it is naturally about 'not being an other.'. However, it is also proven that good looks can have people perceive as more honest, less fallible and more intelligent. However, it seems that this works well when you are able to be quite assertive and highly charismatic. But then there is this factor of charisma being an uncommon natural trait.
2. The interpersonal communication in the group.
The interpersonal connections play a big role, in my opinion, in sustaining a group. A group which consists of more maturity tend to be more accepting and less liable to make judgements solely on the first impression of the new participant. As per my observations, this trait is increasingly difficult to find. In college, I have been more of a detached observer than a participating animal. The body language, the microexpressions, the tone of voice among the verbal communication has a tinge of insecurity in it. This is alright if a few people feel this. However, when it extends to everybody in the group, it quickly becomes a game of attempting to capture more influence. In toto, factionalism is rampant and very evident but an incomprehensible element of insecurity seems to keep the group intact for the purposes of status quo. Hanging out per se is attempting to bid for attention very consciously when this is supposed to be an unconscious and subtle element everyone is entitled to. When group members are considerate of emotions, conflicts are difficult to continue. However, in the supra mentioned groups, I have noticed that everybody is on the verge of being schismatic which is expressed by forming groups outside that group and in that group, seek to be the central figure. It seems that this balancing strategy is also one that keeps the unstable group away from being isolated for two reasons:
a) the uncertainty of not being a central figure in the other group
b) the uncertainty of being left out after the dissolution of the primary one.
The two uncertainties induce behaviors that are toxic and counterproductive for all the participants of the group I have been talking about. There is always a schism after a certain point when one by one, all the group members start departing due to having a more stable group outside of the domain of the one in question. The schism is itself subjected to further schisms and that results in the complete disposal of the group at the end.
In such situations, any outsider is forced to defect to a particular faction. Any degree of neutrality expressed usually ends up in the isolation of the outsider or mere exclusion from all the factions.
3. Lack of alphas.
The lack of an alpha seems to create more trouble than alleviate the problem. Without an inexorable figure, party politics emerge in a brutal manner. For an outsider, if ambitious is thwarted by the party politics as it is not possible to influence all the factions at once. If unambitious then forced to defect or stay neutral with the threat of exclusion.
4. History of interpersonal relationships.
This is an obvious thing.
My conclusion,
These groups are hard to penetrate and do not provide any particular stability to the persons involved or any other person that is admitted cursorily or seriously. The outsider is recommended to adopt a lackadaisical attitude and should have stable relationships. Only then he can thrive without anxiety.
Case Study,
BurnedOut is a relatively good looking man with a sports physique. He sports an attitude that is intense but is able to hide it in the guise of being an outsider who is innocent and unaware of any kind of party politics. He, however, has a friend who is a part of this group. The friend is disenchanted with the way things go and the constant kind of anxiety he feels due to unstable interpersonal elements. BurnedOut figures out that he has been assigned the role of a scapegoat and such a theory gets proved rather too quickly. BurnedOut wants to help the friend but the friend increasingly shows an utter reluctance to perform any kind of change that could possibly lead to his emancipation for the fear of being perceived 'other'. BurnedOut comes to terms with this and decides to adopt ignorance and continue socializing. BurnedOut in his journey notices contradictions and bouts of constant toxicity being spewed to and fro among everyone. However, this is not evident to his another friend as BurnedOut picks up apparently invisible cues that are felt by everyone and not perceived.
BurnedOut is puzzled and consults a friend (B). Friend B suggests ignorance as an ally. BurnedOut reluctantly accepts but is now in a precarious position because his association with the scapegoat has him labeled as someone staunch. BurnedOut tries to dissipate these feelings by actively following the maxims of conformity but they do not work. The supra mentioned friend is then warned by BurnedOut due to seeing him in pain one too many times, however, the friend accuses BurnedOut of overthinking. BurnedOut denies the allegations and attempts to make repairs to his perceived image but it does not work out for him.
BurnedOut is confused. BurnedOut seeks the counsel of the INTPs
Update:
19/8 - BurnedOut has detached successfuly. The reasons are too clear - the individuals of the groups are themselves so insecure among one another, BurnedOut found no point to even try genuinely. He visits them sometimes for some other reasons.
BurnedOut is not a misogynist but he has discovered that the epicenter of the storm is the female. A asshole is pugnacious (only personality-wise) enough to drive everyone away from her. She is some years elder to all of us but her behavior seems to be a characterization of the naive woman with multiple suitors from RomedyNow. To be utterly faithful to her character, she seems like a dimwit version of Portia from Merchant of Venice with Prince of Morocco antagonizing Bassanio.
It is obvious that it is both.
As per my experience (and some research) it is the average looking people who tend to get assimilated at a great level. Yes, it is an utterly reductionist argument but I have witnessed that too many times in both the genders.
There seems to be a certain criteria to be assimilated in almost any group:
1. Average looks.
In the male domain, this seems to work greatly. This is not to say that handsome men are rejected all the time but there is some magnetic factor that attracts the horde to a 'common man'. There have been researches regarding this and it explains why propaganda is carried by portraying an average man who forwards the propaganda. So, it is naturally about 'not being an other.'. However, it is also proven that good looks can have people perceive as more honest, less fallible and more intelligent. However, it seems that this works well when you are able to be quite assertive and highly charismatic. But then there is this factor of charisma being an uncommon natural trait.
2. The interpersonal communication in the group.
The interpersonal connections play a big role, in my opinion, in sustaining a group. A group which consists of more maturity tend to be more accepting and less liable to make judgements solely on the first impression of the new participant. As per my observations, this trait is increasingly difficult to find. In college, I have been more of a detached observer than a participating animal. The body language, the microexpressions, the tone of voice among the verbal communication has a tinge of insecurity in it. This is alright if a few people feel this. However, when it extends to everybody in the group, it quickly becomes a game of attempting to capture more influence. In toto, factionalism is rampant and very evident but an incomprehensible element of insecurity seems to keep the group intact for the purposes of status quo. Hanging out per se is attempting to bid for attention very consciously when this is supposed to be an unconscious and subtle element everyone is entitled to. When group members are considerate of emotions, conflicts are difficult to continue. However, in the supra mentioned groups, I have noticed that everybody is on the verge of being schismatic which is expressed by forming groups outside that group and in that group, seek to be the central figure. It seems that this balancing strategy is also one that keeps the unstable group away from being isolated for two reasons:
a) the uncertainty of not being a central figure in the other group
b) the uncertainty of being left out after the dissolution of the primary one.
The two uncertainties induce behaviors that are toxic and counterproductive for all the participants of the group I have been talking about. There is always a schism after a certain point when one by one, all the group members start departing due to having a more stable group outside of the domain of the one in question. The schism is itself subjected to further schisms and that results in the complete disposal of the group at the end.
In such situations, any outsider is forced to defect to a particular faction. Any degree of neutrality expressed usually ends up in the isolation of the outsider or mere exclusion from all the factions.
3. Lack of alphas.
The lack of an alpha seems to create more trouble than alleviate the problem. Without an inexorable figure, party politics emerge in a brutal manner. For an outsider, if ambitious is thwarted by the party politics as it is not possible to influence all the factions at once. If unambitious then forced to defect or stay neutral with the threat of exclusion.
4. History of interpersonal relationships.
This is an obvious thing.
My conclusion,
These groups are hard to penetrate and do not provide any particular stability to the persons involved or any other person that is admitted cursorily or seriously. The outsider is recommended to adopt a lackadaisical attitude and should have stable relationships. Only then he can thrive without anxiety.
Case Study,
BurnedOut is a relatively good looking man with a sports physique. He sports an attitude that is intense but is able to hide it in the guise of being an outsider who is innocent and unaware of any kind of party politics. He, however, has a friend who is a part of this group. The friend is disenchanted with the way things go and the constant kind of anxiety he feels due to unstable interpersonal elements. BurnedOut figures out that he has been assigned the role of a scapegoat and such a theory gets proved rather too quickly. BurnedOut wants to help the friend but the friend increasingly shows an utter reluctance to perform any kind of change that could possibly lead to his emancipation for the fear of being perceived 'other'. BurnedOut comes to terms with this and decides to adopt ignorance and continue socializing. BurnedOut in his journey notices contradictions and bouts of constant toxicity being spewed to and fro among everyone. However, this is not evident to his another friend as BurnedOut picks up apparently invisible cues that are felt by everyone and not perceived.
BurnedOut is puzzled and consults a friend (B). Friend B suggests ignorance as an ally. BurnedOut reluctantly accepts but is now in a precarious position because his association with the scapegoat has him labeled as someone staunch. BurnedOut tries to dissipate these feelings by actively following the maxims of conformity but they do not work. The supra mentioned friend is then warned by BurnedOut due to seeing him in pain one too many times, however, the friend accuses BurnedOut of overthinking. BurnedOut denies the allegations and attempts to make repairs to his perceived image but it does not work out for him.
BurnedOut is confused. BurnedOut seeks the counsel of the INTPs
Update:
19/8 - BurnedOut has detached successfuly. The reasons are too clear - the individuals of the groups are themselves so insecure among one another, BurnedOut found no point to even try genuinely. He visits them sometimes for some other reasons.
BurnedOut is not a misogynist but he has discovered that the epicenter of the storm is the female. A asshole is pugnacious (only personality-wise) enough to drive everyone away from her. She is some years elder to all of us but her behavior seems to be a characterization of the naive woman with multiple suitors from RomedyNow. To be utterly faithful to her character, she seems like a dimwit version of Portia from Merchant of Venice with Prince of Morocco antagonizing Bassanio.