Can Rudeness Be "intelligent"? 13 Tricks From The Arsenal Of The "intelligent" Cad - Society

Rudeness is rude behavior towards the interlocutor, violating his psychological boundaries and causing negative emotions. The main target emotion of boorish communication / relationship is humiliation. The victim of a boor must feel his complete insignificance and failure. In turn, the one who is rude, asserts himself, increases his self-esteem, demonstrates a "high" social status

History

Just a couple of centuries ago, rudeness was a social marker of the lower class. According to the dictionary of V. Dahl: "Ham, hamuga, hamovshchina - offspring, an abusive nickname for lackeys, slaves or servants." In fact, these people were slaves who were afraid to enter into open conflict with their masters, but behind their backs they were ready to commit vile deeds.

See also: 6 ways to protect yourself from a boor. How to react and respond without losing dignity

The boorish "prowess of a slave" consisted in contradicting everything that was important for the aristocratic masters. Are they well-mannered and polite ?! Yes, we sneeze from a high bell tower in their manner! Are they educated ?! Yes, we do not need your science, we already have our own opinion on everything! Are they for cleanliness and order ?! And we already have a good life, why else should we clean up after ourselves? Will they ask us politely? But, if this is not an order and no one is standing next to the whip, then we will send them somewhere far away!

Rudeness is the antipode of culture, good breeding, intelligence. A world-renowned scientist, culturologist Yuri Lotman in his lecture “Culture and Intelligence” very accurately noted: “If you ask all of us what intelligence is, we will probably say that it is politeness, emotional sensitivity, the ability to suffer not only from physical pain …

What is opposed to intelligence? … I think that the concept opposed to intelligence is rudeness … What is psychologically behind this? … If we talk about the psychological basis of rudeness, it is the psychology of a slave … This is the psychology of a person who was humiliated, who therefore does not respect himself and seeks to compensate for his inner disrespect by humiliating other people …”.

Modern world

In the modern world, there seems to be no division into estates, there are no obvious "aristocrats" and "slaves". The border between them is not external, but internal, psychological. Anyone can face humiliation and injustice; it is important how he will react to this. “Aristocrat” will increase his self-esteem, improving himself and doing something valuable for other people, making a useful contribution to culture and society. "Ham" will assert itself through unpunished destruction, violence against the weaker, the satisfaction of their selfish whims.

The modern world is also the reality of simulacra, "deceptions". The role of "aristocrats" today is claimed by one-day media stars: political leaders, film actors, famous athletes, oligarchs, scandalous journalists, popular bloggers. How well-mannered and intelligent all these characters are is a big question … But conflicts have always been the recipe for popularity in the media, therefore, media characters will always be rude to each other and assert themselves at someone else's expense.

Since the simplest censorship in the media still persists (and outright rudeness is discouraged), this gives rise to a style of behavior that can be called “intelligent rudeness”

It has already been said above that intelligence and rudeness are two opposite concepts, therefore the phrase "intelligent rudeness" is meaningless. But how, then, can we better define this behavior? In psychology, it has long been known as " passive aggression ". An open boor can use the means of direct verbal aggression: insults, profanity, threats, negative evaluative labels, offensive nicknames, direct accusations and claims, demands and orders.

Arsenal of "intelligent" boor

The "intelligent boor" (passive aggressor) uses more veiled means to aggressively invade other people's psychological boundaries and destroy someone else's self-esteem.

1. Ignoring thoughts, feelings and arguments (the interlocutor is made to feel that he is "empty space", his words are passed on deaf ears).
2. Lack of answers to questions, not listening to the end of the interlocutor's words, interrupting.
3. Irony, translation of the interlocutor's words into a joke (even if they are extremely important and serious), mockery of the interlocutor and his words.
4. "Whipping up status" (when instead of a dialogue, in essence, he begins to compare himself with the interlocutor; the purpose of the comparison is to demonstrate the factors of superiority - education, seniority, experience, thereby belittling the interlocutor);
5. Constant "slipping", moving away from the main topic of conversation (imposing one's own "agenda", which the interlocutor is not ready and does not want to discuss).
6. "Mind reading" (attribution of thoughts, feelings and motives to the interlocutor, as a rule, unethical, negative and hostile).
7. Inconsistency (with one and the same statement I either agree or disagree), evasiveness in answers (according to the principle "yes … but …").
8. Ambiguity (for example, giving a dubious compliment that can be perceived as both praise and ridicule).
9. Devaluation of the words and ideas of the interlocutor (excessive criticality, fixation only on the weaknesses of what the interlocutor does or asserts, any constructive is denied).
10. Allusions to "secret knowledge" (arguments are based on some information that the interlocutor supposedly does not know, but this information itself is not clearly voiced), which may relate not only to the subject of the dispute, but also to the interlocutor (for example, knowledge of "compromising evidence" about him).
11. Demonstration of distrust to the interlocutor (including evasive answers about their goals, needs, feelings).
12. The role of the "offended" and "misunderstood" (unfounded accusations that the interlocutor exerts pressure, does not listen, etc.).
13. Uncertainty of the result, lack of a firm decision (does not express a firm agreement, says something like "we'll see", "you can try", "maybe").

Surely these are not all tactical means in the arsenal of "intelligent boors". But no matter what they use, one thing remains unchanged: the interlocutor has a clear feeling that the conversation turns out to be strange and ineffective, "is marking time", mutual understanding is difficult.

We want to get out of the swamp of misunderstanding, and at first we ignore the communicative hairpins that the passive aggressor adds to the conversation. But all our efforts are in vain, and we feel not so much humiliated as discouraged and disappointed. There is a strange feeling of wasted time: "And what was this conversation about ?!" But for an "intelligent boor" our confusion is quite enough to feel like a winner in this situation. He won this conversation / argument, which means he asserted himself, won a moral and intellectual victory over us.

As final conclusions

1. Intelligence and rudeness are incompatible.

2. "Intelligent rudeness" is an unfortunate name for manifestations of passive aggression.

3. Such a demeanor can be a mask for media persons, a temporary defensive reaction on the part of normal people in uncomfortable communication situations, but also a manifestation of more serious psychological problems.

In the latter case, it is necessary to consult a psychologist, and in the first two it is quite a feasible task for self-education - to replace passive-aggressive behavior with a more intelligent, etiquette and confident one.