My perception of the human race as a whole is hierarchy. I'm now going to explain in depth, how this hierarchy works, functions, what are the criteria to each group and section of this hierarchy and why I believe it to be so.

My hierarchy is laid out like this:

Lowest: Stupid people, who are anti-social. Anti-sociality is counter-productive and a waste of time and effort, and demands no respect. When linked with stupidity, it makes them the lowest of the hierarchy, of my perception of society.

Middle: Stupid people who are sociable, and intelligent people who are anti-social. Stupid people who are sociable can get somewhere. Sociability is needed to function properly in society, if you lack the brains to get ahead, it can get you where you need to go. Intelligent people who are anti-social are on the same level as stupid people who are social. They don't have the social skills that the stupid people in question have, but they have intelligence, and that is important too. Intelligence is not high test scores, intelligence is not mathematical skill or literary perfection, intelligence is when you are intelligent towards society and it's flaws, and how those problems can be solved. Getting on or connecting with people in the society you understand is not needed, but is helpful to get ahead. Intelligence is almost the be-all and end-all, but not quite.

Top: Smart, sociable people. These are the people who WILL succeed. Smart people with social skills can get anywhere with the ample amount of determination, and are the ones who society will always turn to for opinions and guidance.

Arrogance is anti-social. Egotism, and arrogance, are different. Those who lump egotism and arrogance into the same category are ignorant, ignorance is a by-product of stupidity, and is a flaw. Egotism is neccessary. Egotism, by my own definition, is a confidence in the belief that you are superior. A feeling of superiority and confidence are healthy, and needed to succeed. Egotism is fuelled by a need to stay superior, to be able to call yourself superior and believe it, but more importantly, for you to be able to call yourself superior, and for others to believe it too. One person's belief in himself is good, but is not what should be aimed for, all around confidence in you, from yourself and from others is what you should strive to attain.

Arrogance is not egotism. Arrogance is a feeling of contempt for the people that you feel are inferior to you. Contempt is anti-social, and bad for you and other members of society. Arrogance is a by-product of over-confidence, and over-confidence is when you are not aware of your place in the hierarchy. Being unaware of your place in the hierarchy is being ignorant to the way that the hierarchy functions. Ignorance is a flaw.

Egotism, or confidence, helps other people to strive for success. When you brag about something you have achieved to other people, other people either get jealous, or pessimistic. Pessimism is unneeded, and will be detrimental to success. Jealousy can be detrimental or be a useful tool for attainment. Jealously can get you to places where your own determination could not, jealousy FUELS determination, and as such should be embraced. However, jealousy can also lead to anti-socialism and ultimately to a dislike. Dislike is, in most cases, detrimental, but not always. Dislike can be used or taken advantage of, but usually is just anti-social and can lead to being consumed by a dislike. Dislike distracts from your goals and ambitions, and instead simply leads you to having contempt for a person or persons. This should be avoided where neccessary. Egotism should also be embraced.

Discrimination or hate is counter-productive. Humans are, primarily, a species. A species' goal is to succeed, and a discrimination against fellow humans is close-mindedness, ignorance, and stupidity. Discrimination is low on the hierarchy.

A belief in women being inferior is discrimination. Neither male nor female is inferior or superior, gender is irrelevant to superiority or inferiority, stupidity and anti-socialness are what decides superiority and inferiority. As such, feminism is embraced, but condemned when it is of the opinion that women are somehow superior. No sex is superior.

The people at the top of the hierarchy should be the ones given the most respect and freedom to make decisions. Being at the top of the hierarchy makes you the most successful, otherwise you fall into one of the other categories. Next comes the middle, and then the lowest. This elitistic train of thought is neccessary for full success.

People should always set themselves as part of the middle of the hierarchy. This leaves room for improvement, and improvement, and improvement, but also keeps you aware of the fact that you can move lower down in the hierarchy. Intelligence and sociability are NOT constants.

People who disagree with this hierarchical perception because they have a different point of view are intelligent, they are single-minded.
People who disagree with this hierarchical perception because they have a yearning to play Devil's Advocate are stupid and problematic.
People who agree with this hierarchical perception because it makes sense to them and their point of view are intelligent, because they also are single-minded.
People who agree with this hierarchical perception for the sake of agreeing or because they want to be liked by a believer of the theory are idiot sheep.

Please note that I feel no contempt for anybody, that is counter-productive. But I do, and will continue, to place people on this hierarchy depending on how they act or how I percieve their actions. This will not change. The people who are lowest are not disliked by me, I just feel that their opinion is not as valid, either because it is not original, or because when compared to my opinion, I disagree with it. When their opinion becomes valid, they move up the hierarchy.

Now that I have covered everything I could think of in my rambling, please feel free to ponder.

I can’t say I have much pondering to do here… I agree with a great many things you say, JCC. For instance, I will make the same judgments as you yourself make based on how people present themselves… if they show to be small-minded people, then that’s how I will perceive them until I see otherwise. I think it’s very important to judge people fairly and not be biased in anyway based on insignificant details.

In any case, in regards to your hierarchy of different human levels, I would have to say that things aren’t that black and white. I believe there is a set of circumstances that only an individual can understand – how people can only fully understand their own situation (but that doesn’t mean that they will). Furthermore, it’s because of that which leads me to think that I can be rather counter-productive; however, I do think that it is justified in its own little way. If say, I have made my judgments on people and decide that they aren’t really worth my time – and I become somewhat anti-social as a result, am I really to blame…?

Whatever the case may be, I do think that things can’t be measure so simply… and that there is always a reason and a circumstance behind things, thus, I can’t say that it’s fair to make a full judgment on people… but only from what we’ve seen from them – which I think may have been your point, anyway. Either way, the truth is, I am rather counter-productive in life… and I can accept that, but that doesn’t mean that I lack reasons for being the way that I am.

In addition, the hierarchy, to me, provides a sort of ‘false truth’ is that you can be at the top, but not succeed. I mean, we’re all told that sort of thing whilst growing up… but it isn’t really fact. A rather unfortunate situation could be the thing which is holding you back. I think the most that can be said is that it only increases your chances of becoming successful and what have you… but not making it a definite truth.

Anyway, that’s just what I think. Although, I really must say though, you have a great way of seeing life and the aspects of existence. I think you’ll go very well in life if you don’t slip into a “counter-productive state”. I really admire you… and to think – you’re only thirteen. ^_^


Sincerely,
Tamashi

By the way, my apologies if I have misinterpreted your point in anyway.

Obviously, there are circumstances that must be taken into account. But, I think it's part of a person's intelligence and strive to be able to justify egotism that makes them surpass their unfortunate circumstances. But yes, in some cases, cirumstances can impede progress or success. But, the people at the top of my hierarchy aren't neccessarily successful, they only have the criteria that should make it so, some things in the world work in mysterious ways, like people deserving of success not attaining it and vice versa. However, I feel that my theory, or perception, is relatively accurate when it comes to who succeeds, who fails, what drives them and what position they should have in society according to their personality traits.

Yes, unfortunately, success can be completely unrelated to talent or traits, which is up to circumstance. However, based on my own interpretation of what intelligence is or entails, from my perspective, when somebody is successful, they've managed to get to the top of the hierarchy. As always with a generalisation like this, there will be exceptions and loopholes.

And thank you for the reply. I won't do the "Sincerely, JCC" thing, because I lack the needed sophistication to pull it off properly. So instead:

Thanks, now get aht o' moy sight!,
JCC

B)