| Agreed. Yet~ >Let's define the term "jerk" here as someone who is both intentionally, and obnoxiously aggressive. Aggressive in their enforcement of their own opinions and dismissive of others'. Obnoxious in the frequency of unnecessary negative interactions with them. Intentional in that they understand their behavior is aggressive, and choose not to adjust it. Intent is impossible to prove (or so I've been told). He uses the implicit heuristic of, "They keep doing it." However, it (obnoxiously aggressive behavior) is in the eye of the beholder (or, often, in the appearance of the accused). What is "frequent" and "unnecessary"? By who's metric? What's the line between "opinionated" and "browbeater"? Does it shift depending on the identity of the individual? (Yes.) >Ultimately, you know you're dealing with someone who is acting like a jerk by how you feel after interacting with them. This criteria is just asking to be abused by people who hold prejudice. Some people are irrational or traumatized, and it's okay to sympathize with their take on an individual while also understanding that they're not being reasonable. Likewise, it's possible for a charismatic and energetic individual's behavior to be deleterious; coworkers don't necessarily walk away feeling overtly attacked, but their tendency to self-police to the bully's desire might be raised. Such jerks often also zero-in on "fair targets", leaving them as the only people to feel abused, while everyone else rationalises their treatment as deserved. IME, the best way to root out actual jerks is to focus on people with power (by however mechanism, they are able to get people to do what they want them to do, more so than those people are able to get them to do things) who are quick (within one or two negative interactions) to blackball others (maintains a sh*t list, ghosts, verbally harasses, particularly in a way that isolates the target). |