Personality of cool people!

Post Reply New Topic

Am I the only one who thinks a lot of 'cool' people have really arrogant/haughty personalities?

I am what society would label a 'nerd' so I ain't cool.

More to the point lots of lots cool people tend to be real douchbags so why is being cool such a good thing to be labeled as?

A truly cool person is not arrogant, but has enough confidence not to try to seem "cool."

Well I notice sometimes the stereotypical cool people do seem that way, however I don't really find those people all that cool. I am pretty much a metalhead as I listen to lots of metal as much as I can, wear metal t-shirts, go to concerts I don't just listen to it I immerse myself in it. I am interested in other things to but that is the most obvious, most people I hang out with aren't the type to get along with those sorts of 'cool' people either.

People say I am cool. That I'm charismatic and full of that "good stuff" in which others are drawn to.

On the internet, I am deemed arrogant or douchey. That's typically a preconceived notion from a first impression or because I actually know what the f**k I'm talking about, otherwise I don't post.

Effs for emfasys.

Many 'cool' people are conformists - they regard it as important to fit in with peer group approved aesthetic and attitudinal standards, though I suppose there are always a few genuine mavericks. Even the word annoys the hell out of me, as when one is having a conversation with someone, who responds to certain statements simply by saying "Cool".

It's possible that many people who are considered "cool" are also "douchy".
I don't know.

I've once met a guy who was so hot he could get any girl, yet he was far from being an as*hole. In my mind these are the real cool guys, who know they don't have competition and have to prove nothing.

Fear.
The "cool" person got that status by putting down others, most people will follow that person and call them "cool" not because of anything of substance but merely because they don't want to become a target.

We're still apes. And it seems that as a species we don't quite fit the gorilla social model, nor the chimp one nor bonobo. It would appear we are a mix of them, as if different strains of early hominids intermixed. So my guess is that the arrogant guys are classic Alphas & there is some percent of mainstream culture that also buys into that structure. Just...keep in mind that even in apes with pure Alpha hierarchies, the top ape is only on top for a few years and then typically dies an early death. He's also running full cortisol & adrenaline - in other words, totally stressed about maintaining that position. Meanwhile in those troops the straight Zeta males - plural - each tend to have as much reproductive success as the Alpha - they just do so without the social status & power. Should tell you something about the (straight) females in such troops, and who they actually prefer, no?

But how can I possibility become cool without trying? Nothing is accomplished without effort.

Unless I pretend I'm not trying to be cool while trying really hard and also trying to not look like I'm trying.

i.e. trying to look like I accomplished much without expending any effort when really I put in a lot of effort.

Very high correlation between cool and douchebag. Not absolute, but certainly appears to be the norm.

Most cool people are just major conformists and very trendy.

All popular people at my previous high school were this.

Skateboarding is really popular here and the popular males like it, as is teen bodybuilding and again, the popular males workout.

One of the most popular guys in school is a pop-rock musician and local semi-celebrity for our town and performs a variety of gigs.

He likes all the major trends common among teens today.

He's generally a very friendly and welcoming guy to anyone including me and others, but he's also clearly very egotistical and arrogant.

Back at high school all the time he could boast about his musician skills and show them off to others, he was skilled yes, but liked the attention it got him too much. He was very outspoken and would always interject his opinion on many subjects and always have his story heard.

He would say a lot after high school he wants to travel on the road with his band and hopes to make it big, and even expects the school will call him one day to go back and speak to them or perform for them.

Like I said, big ego. He's ambitious but blindly idealistic unfortunately.

As an electronic musician as of current obscure and in the underground, I realistically know music can rarely help you get anywhere and massive success is rare.

A lot of other popular people were known for their successful athletic feats, being the school leaders, or acting in frequent school productions.

I'd like to think the negative stereotypes of popular people aren't always true.

These are people that are hardworking in many aspects of life (academic, sport, community, etc.), generally friendly and welcoming, tolerant of nearly all kinds of people, confident and charismatic, and physically attractive.

Popular people are popular people, of course they're going to be.

At a young age though, they do tend to be very disrespectful and poorly behaved to teachers and other students, and they're only really popular because they're 'funny' even if they're a55h•les.

Otherwise I only think about 50% of popular people would be a55h•les, the other half are genuinely alright people, even if they live shallow lives where they follow all trends and conform significantly, and consume pop. culture significantly.

But their taste in entertainment and lifestyle says nothing about their personality and character.

I never understood this. It's all subjective depending on which group you talk to anyway.
Take school for example, where this sort of consideration seems common or important. From my experience, the group that thought of themselves as "cool" or "popular" at school were only thought of as such by people within that group. No one else outside of it regarded them in that way at all. Indeed, one of the groups I bounced between were girls, and called this group "the b!tches." Only other "b!tches" thought they were "cool." It's all very inconsistent.
Plus how is this defined as one grows up? What is "cool" at 20, 40, 60? Does it even matter to your average adult how "cool" they are? Most people I speak to are between 35 - dead, and they don't care. They do their own thing. Usually, they have others around of similar interests or people they work with, and this set personality type of cool just disappears. I think it becomes more attributes people wish they could cultivate - being confident, smooth, self-accepting, compassionate, assertive, successful, etc. Trying to be "cool" in any way is looked upon as juvenile and silly, a sort of illusion that kids believe in when they're still forming up much of their identities. An adult who still believes in a "cool" personality type, something fixed to comform to, might appear to be a bit immature.

My only question is: do the dead ones talk back?

My school worked a little differently. There were different cliques and groups and the people within these groups usually had a high number of friends also a part of the group.

The popular kids were clearly visible as the 'largest' group.

So, for example, a group I would hang out with was the 'nerds/geek' group. Out of the 12th graders, they were split into two and hung out at two different areas, but would join up on occasions and members from each of the two groups were friends with members from the other. This was around 10-30 people in size though I only associated myself with fewer.

Some 'groups' were smaller than others, and there was plenty of soloists or 'drifters' (move between groups), but this was generally the structure.

Like I said, the 'largest' group was clearly the 'popular' group - the most friends, the most attractive students, the most social and charismatic, the trendiest, the most liked, etc.

Now imagine this not just in senior year but all the grades at school.

And I think 'coolness' may still matter a bit to young adults, though much less so. Because it's the age where people begin to stop feeling so pressured to be something they're not, and live a bit more liberally, albeit with still behaving appropriately when the situation calls for it.

But considering places like Forever 21 and some adults still adhering to their 'swag' look, I think some do still care a little about how they come across.

Once you're past 30 though and/or have kids, it seems to all go out the door, I agree. And thats a good thing.

My experience is that people think that the 'rebel' or 'non-conformist' is cool. And, there is that element of danger that also draws people. Not, killer dangerous, but that 'gonna buck the status quo and do it my way' kind of dangerous rebellion.

Can't tell you how many times I've heard people say "I gotta stop going out with (fill in the blank)...I need a 'nice (man/woman)' for a change. But, they never go for the boring, safe, stable person because they are not exciting. Instead they go for the excitement and then feel burned when they find out that rebellion is nothing but an excuse to misbehave, or they realize that 'cool' isn't cool all the time.

Or, in my case, they think I'm rebellious because I do and see things differently, but get disenchanted when they find out I'm a real homebody and actually quite boring. That's complicated because I do everything differently and that's not fun for other people. And, they really get disenchanted when they find out the public mask is not real. I'm just not that guy that's on display and I'm really just a schlub.
I have Schoolhouse Rock going through my head now:
"I'm just a schlub, yes I'm only a schlub,
waiting for some capital, bub..."
That'll be going through my head all day, getting stuck on joke lyrics for the song......Looping, looping, looping......sighhhhhh.......

No.

But I only say no for a semantic reason. I disagree that instinct demonstrates preference. Even if it did, if Alphas and Zetas have equal success (you say "as much reproductive success") then that clearly does NOT demonstrate a preference. It would demonstrate the absence of preference.

If we use that templates for humans that means that just as in other primates, we do not have one overriding preference. There are a variety of individual preferences we have that work toward the goal of continuing the species with a gene pool that is able to maintain enough genetic diversity (for long-term resilience).

I do think the model holds true in general for humans. Social pressure makes the females desire the "cool" breeding member. The females will be very competitive for the attention of the dominant male. They are competing with other females for that, though.

Your less cool males will be able to get the low hanging fruit, as it were, the less successful females. Be careful how far we follow this analogy, though, because with that line of thinking it doesn't take much for people to start saying those zetas are unfit specimens, and they are making the species genetically inferior. Then we really would be just another animal.