The Cruelty Incentive: Belittling others to appear intelligent
It is about an innermost illness that the person has low self-confidence tries to humiliate others so that he himself feels better.
Have you ever encountered people who criticized the way you did things to make it appear that they were more competent than you? Some people feel the need to have a higher intellectual status. To achieve that, they attack others. We will explore what is behind this type of behavior.
An inescapable fact in the world today is that many work environments are like jungles. They are complex scenarios inhabited by the strangest animals. While you might meet some great colleagues and inspiring leaders, you'll also find competitive and deceitful people, the occasional narcissist, and maybe even the odd incompetent individual who goes out of his way to appear otherwise. We will focus on this last category, people who know they are not as skilled as others but want to survive at all costs and even reach positions of influence. We will take a closer look at the so-called cruelty incentive.
The fewer skills these people have, the more aggressive they are. This is a defense mechanism, a rather nasty strategy that tends to attract our attention.
Social research claims that people who engage in criticizing or abusive behavior often seek power or want to appear more intelligent. In fact, the "aggressive executive" lives on in many work environments. It's like old dinosaurs that are hard to get rid of.
Those who practice verbal violence at work try to gain power over others. It is a type of behavior that should not be allowed.
Making a negative assessment of someone is a strategy to show the audience a great deal of determination and false competence.
.jpeg)
today there are many different types of abuse through families between women and men.
verbal attack.
psychological verbal attacks. etc
people all equal value no one who can change more if people want can learn a lot of things today there is information about everything
The incentive of cruelty
It is very likely that at some point you have experienced the following type of situation. You are part of a work team where you have to come up with innovative ideas and original approaches to achieve the goals of your team/company. You make a suggestion and shortly afterwards someone criticizes it harshly. The person then proceeds to reject all your ideas.
Although critical perspectives can be enriching, this type of person devalues you. It's like you're a piece of paper on the floor that they're stomping on. They are cruel and contemptuous. They seek to reinforce their own image as one of determination and authority before others. They also want to appear competent.
It doesn't matter how good your ideas are. These people can reject them with the strangest of arguments. They simply want to give the impression that they know more than you and that your suggestions are ridiculous. The cruelty incentive defines this aggressive and demeaning behavior that one individual inflicts on another, in order to appear more brilliant.
The incitement to cruelty is a phenomenon that often appears on social media.
Machiavellian and in search of recognition
It was Stanford University doctor Teresa Amabile who first coined the term cruelty incentive more than forty years ago. Thanks to her various investigations, she showed that insecure people in work environments often try to put others down in order to gain intellectual status.
In fact, these individuals negatively judge anyone who demonstrates greater skills or competencies to invalidate them. They want to acquire a certain reputation in the environment. In addition, they want to be seen as charismatic. Dr. Amabile believes that this form of Machiavellianism in some cases gives an image of false brilliance.
These are undoubtedly extremely twisted situations. But unfortunately they continue to occur. They exemplify the CEO of a company who attacks an employee's performance to enhance his own power. It may seem like sensational behavior, but it has a cost, both in the long and short term.
The incitement to cruelty is a frequent phenomenon on social media
This phenomenon seems reminiscent of another era. Of a time when business leaders and managers exhibited authoritarian leadership. But if there is an ideal territory for the cruelty incentive to manifest itself, it is on social media. In fact, on these platforms almost daily we see people judging, trolling and criticizing other people's comments and posts.
In fact, when someone with authority in a certain field of knowledge publishes news or provides data, a whole horde of aggressive comments soon appear. While we must reiterate the point that informed and respectful criticism is useful, these people often try to belittle and vilify the experts in order to gain authority for themselves.
We saw this behavior during the pandemic. Suddenly, users appeared on social media who seemed to know more than the researchers. In fact, it happens at every current event. Whether it is economic events, natural disasters or war, the number of people willing to attack continues to increase.
the space incentive prevails in scenarios dominated by fixed mindsets that block their own growth.
Anyone who devalues others just to gain power deteriorates the work environment.
With aggressive behavior, we all lose
The incentive of cruelty lies behind the voice of the authoritarian father who raises his children with fear. They are the type of people who want to exert control and undermine the self-esteem of others in order to emphasize themselves. Unfortunately, it is usually taken for granted that the person who shouts the most and puts the most sticks in the wheels for others, achieves greater success in the work environment.
However, the reality is different. In fact, this is a more dangerous behavior than the Dunning-Kruger effect (people with little knowledge acting as if they were experts). This is because in this case these people not only act violently, but they also slow down the growth of companies.
Creativity stops flowing when attacks and belittling occur. Progress and goals are not achieved when individuals go on the attack for their own personal benefits. They are the "bad apples" that must be discarded in organizations.
Conclusion
People who obstruct and who are aware of their low skills and try to put others down in order to stand out, have always existed. Their behavior is a problem in scenarios that allow or perhaps even value it. These are environments with a fixed mentality that are doomed to fail. In addition, they are strenuous work environments.
This type of behavior is neither logical nor ethical. Organizations only succeed if they foster a good work climate based on respect, coexistence, innovation and good doses of emotional intelligence.
Samuel Qu
samuelkubkub@gmail.com
for more information about these reports visit my blog #psychologie-analyses.
0 Comments