Throughout my adult professional life, I’ve encountered people who have a (to me, at least) very curious way of interacting with other people. They look at individuals as ‘resources’ and relationships as ‘transactions’. Picture a spider’s web of contacts where ‘Bob’ is replaced with ‘has tools I can borrow’ and ‘Melissa’ is replaced with ‘can get me into my favorite club without a cover charge’.
I’m trying my best to articulate this. It’s like these people only create relationships based upon what material gains it can offer them. They aren’t really interested in the PEOPLE so much as the ADVANTAGE a relationship with them affords. Does that make sense?
Now to me, this is very bizarre. I just don’t think this way, but I’m told that it’s quite common - almost ‘the norm’. Is this true? If so, I’m really bewildered by it. What do y’all think?
You must log in or # to comment.
Yeah I’ve met people like that. I believe they’re normally called “psychopaths” for short. They tend to be concentrated in particular places and occupations and of course they will all tell you that it’s perfectly normal and that everyone else is also like that and just hiding it.
What’s the old saying? A monster cannot imagine someone better than themselves.
That’s why they project all the time.
Sociopath is more the clinical designation these days, but that’s assuming they lack certain emotions, or have the capacity to turn them off. OP could also just be describing highly transactional, self-interested people who’ve shut down their empathy in the quest to rise upward. There are some narcissists here, but there are also just a lot of assholes with no real pathology.
Opportunists? It’s how Danielle Smith in Alberta, Canada is often described.
Sales and Marketing seems to have a ton.
I would describe this behavior as being a sociopath
MBAs
That can be everything from narcissists to sociopaths or regulars underdeveloped or issues with the moral compass.
I think it’s most common to call it a “transactional” personality – and the way of thinking is often called “transactionalism”, although that’s kind of unfortunate since that’s also the name of an approach within philosophical pragmatism. I’ve heard “instrumentalism” as well, which is also unfortunate in that it shares the name of a sort of pragmatist philosophical approach.
The latter term has been used some in discussions about kindergarten policy here in Norway, to criticize perspectives that only consider kindergartens, and childhood, to exist for the sake of adulthood or adult society.
I saw a clip from an interview with a “looks maxing” influencer. He was explaining how a date wasn’t really worth it unless he could stream it. The interviewer asked him “what about just hanging out with the girl and getting to know her”?
“where is the ROI in that”? 😱
Clavicular on Channel 5. Yeah, that was quite an interesting watch. You can tell that Clavicular has the foundation of someone that could actually be intelligent, but his brain is so rotted away we’re left with that.
Narcissism.
oh, do you mean basically anyone from LA? As it is so far the only group of people i have had the displeasure to run into anywhere on earth who will only talk to you if you have something to offer and take no social interest otherwise.
fuckin bizarre. I always have to work through a few trust issues after meeting someone from LA. I’ll have to do a few normal-human VS LA excersises so i can fit in with my own crew again. Otherwise my friends are like ‘no im legitimately interested in how your day went today, lets go grab a coffee and work through this. i legitimately like your company’ kinda reassurance. Remind myself ‘kindness’ actually exists as a fundamental human trait and isnt just a ploy.
aweful tribe over there. one place i will never visit on earth for my own sanity.
This is how children see the world.
Usually, people develop beyond this and see the utility of having relationships that are defined by their social depth, shared experiences and values, and aesthetic qualities.
Look also at Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. (Sorry for the Wikipedia article link. But, still, it’s a start. If I can find a different resource, I’ll edit.)
The people youre describing are stuck at stage 2.
As someone with a 5-year old, please define “children,” because that is definitely not how they see their friends. They had one other child at 2.5 years, in preschool, who they both just naturally GRAVITATED to each other - not because they were getting anything out of it than mutual friendship. That friend has since moved away, devastating, and they do have other friends, but all other friendships pale in comparison. It’s been amazing to watch how true friendship will just blossom randomly in the world.
Friends, sure, and hopefully family, are different. We are a social species. Beyond that, it sounds like you have a lovely child and some wonderful kids in their orbit.
Below is a long winded way of getting to this point: people stuck at Kohlberg’s stage 2 are not behaving maturely, they’re behaving like children. This arrested development helps to explain why a person would put people into their phone contacts as transactional arrangements rather than as humans with names. Its jerkyy, childish behaviour
Notably, however, in an intensely transactional world, such behaviour is REWARDED. As such confers a selective advantage. So does throwing a well-timed tantrum, playing dumb, lying, flattering, and being intensely selfish.
That said…
Watch your children closely. Mind their interactions. The more people they know, the more they realize they dont know everyone, and as they see more interactions and develop a wider array of desires, some people will become a means to an end.
Taking Kohlberg’s view, children are pre-adolescent. The next stage of moral development takes place during adolescence. For some it’ll be earlier. For some, later or never.
When your 5-year old, or 15-year old, hates you and screams at you for not being the means to their achievable end, that’s stage 2. Same when a 45-year old berates a server for getting their drink order wrong. Or, when people are reduced to their functions: If they’re using you for your pool and trampoline, and refuse to learn your name, that’s stage 2.
Keep in mind also there are overlapping theories of development, some of which describe behaviour better than others in similar situations. Hence, “theory” and not “law.” Eric Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development, Lev Vygotsky’s theory of social development, and more are out there.
As the parent of two kids under 10, as a teacher to approximately 5000 variously-aged children in the past 19 years, and as a former sales and customer service rep, all people are capable of behaving like “ones who are not psychologically, physically, socially, or legally mature enough to be held responsible for their own actions.” There are adults with diminished capacity, or who can be held not criminally responsible under this definition. However, for the most part, it will serve.
-
Psychologically mature: ability to regulate internal emotional states while simultaneously interacting with exterior stimuli including others’ psychological states; affected by physical, social, and emotional conditions moment to moment.
-
Physically mature: let’s go with 21 for this one. For legal reasons. 24 for Montessori reasons. 25 for insurance reasons.
-
Socially mature: able to let go of the “main character” perspective and recognize that society is made of many main characters. Sonder, as defined by the Dictionary of Obsucre Sorrows, is not a problem for socially (and psychologically) mature people.
-
Legally mature: follows from most of the above, but still affected by the previous statements about “diminished capacity, or … be[ing] held not criminally responsible”.
Any of these immaturities can be problematic. All of them together is the license we give children as they develop. If, by adulthood (25 at the OUTside), they’re really struggling to exhibit maturity in more than one of these, I’d wonder what happened in childhood to cause that. Anti-social or asocial? Sociopathy risk. Psychologically immature? Risking psychopathologies.
This is a long winded way of getting to this point: people stuck at Kohlberg’s stage 2 are … wait, I moved this section up top. But the next part bears repeating:
Notably, however, **in an intensely transactional world, such behaviour is REWARDED. As such confers a selective advantage. So does throwing a well-timed tantrum, playing dumb, lying, flattering, and being intensely selfish. **
The world is broken we just live in it.
They are using people as a means to an end; **selfish narcissists with diminished capacity for empathy, responsibility, and reason who want what they want when they want it **— and will kick, scream, cry, yell, and engage in spite until you give in and they give nothing in return. Like a newborn would. We don’t blame newborns.
(And, I don’t really think newborns engage in spite. It’s just funny to think it. After the fact, of course. Because, as you know, when you have a newborn, you might think they pooped three times in three diapers in three minutes, and once on the floor, out of spite. You’d be wrong. But you wouldnt be faulted for the thought.)
The first book I ever read about psychopaths and narcissists is still my favorite. My partner struggles with her narcissism. She gave me the book. It’s probably why we’re still together. It bugs me, still. But, since I’m an introverted masochist who has first-daughter tendencies (exampled by this very post), challenge accepted.
-
When i was young, we called them leeches.
There’s a difference between people who are great to know because of their utility and being their friend because of it. That being said, in business it often is reduced to that. I think lots of business folks blend the line too much with the salesman approaches, playing golf, celebrating client milestones, etc. In some ways the people around you are your pool of potential friends, so it’s not that weird, but anyone with a checkbox for a mechanic, an electrician, an accountant, etc, Is just a user.
I work around a lot of talented and knowledgeable people, many of them are masters of their craft, and it spans white collar and blue. It’s a great place to learn and have enthusiastic conversations as a hobbyist or novice to a master. I think us all helping each other out is kinda beautiful in its own way, but if I felt they didn’t enjoy helping me for free then I wouldn’t ask.
Please allow me to clarify - I’m not talking about people who help and share with each other as the regular course of a friendship. That’s perfectly normal and should be encouraged - that’s how community is supposed to work. What I’m talking about are the people who are like…um…well, professional ‘gold-diggers’, if you will. Their ONLY interest lies in what they can get out of you. ‘Users’ might be a better term, I guess.
In my whole 800+ org, I can probably only think of 3 or 4, but they definitely meet the description you prescribe. It’s mostly people who burn through departments, friends, and patience of their coworkers.
“I’ve got friends I haven’t even used yet.”
business major
Presidential
As a teenage, I could sense some people only hung out with me because they could speak about certain interests they have. I was hoping it’d be different in adulthood
I’ve noticed that kids become adults, and a lot of them stop growing emotionally just after puberty, I have a fake face book profile that I occasionally check up on the people I grew up with, every one of them is exactly the same as they were at 18, they even were the same clothes. The only thing that has changed is there is a lot less hairspray and several of them are dead. They even all meet up every 4th of July, they invite me to it at every funeral I attend.
