Why do people ____?

It's called Intrusive Thoughts, and apparently most people have these:

London psychologist Stanley Rachman presented a questionnaire to healthy college students and found that virtually all said they had these thoughts from time to time, including thoughts of sexual violence, sexual punishment, "unnatural" sex acts, painful sexual practices, blasphemous or obscene images, thoughts of harming elderly people or someone close to them, violence against animals or towards children, and impulsive or abusive outbursts or utterances.[6] Such bad thoughts are universal among humans, and have "almost certainly always been a part of the human condition".[7]

When I first read this, I thought "woah, that's kinda weird and worrying". Then I realised I do something similar. I sometimes rehearse violent confrontations in my imagination.

I've been involved in a few violent confrontations as an adult, and they're nothing like you imagine them to be. People like to imagine all the badass things they would have done in those situations, but when you suddenly find yourself in a brawl, your thoughts are generally "what the hell's going on here? Is this really happening?" I've heard accounts of highly trained martial artists experiencing the same thing. Even if you're physically prepared for a fight, you're not necessarily prepared for the social situation of a fight.

I assume that when I imagine violent first-person scenarios it's some sort of long-term rehearsal process where I'm psychologically preparing myself for conflict at some point in the future. I generally try and avoid situations which have a high risk of physical conflict, though, so my sample size is so small as to be useless when trying to figure out if it does any good.

I fantasize about horrific situations to subject fictional characters to. This I recently recognized as being due to my long-term work on decompartmentalizing new information. Essentially I find rules of the fictional realm, put them together in ways not intended by the original author, and get the small rush of self-congratulations for "taking an idea to its logical conclusion." This results in being "too realistic" for many fantasy settings. On the other hand, it is why rationalist fiction so pleases me - it reminds me of how I think!

The amateur psychoanalyst simulation I'm running would latch on to this:

It's very rare that I show anger, and I don't think I've ever punched someone as an adult.

Violence is just as much an inherent drive as sex for males. Violent narratives for entertainment are almost universal among human cultures.

I have a variant of imagining someone saying something annoying, and then trying to figure out an answer to it. I think the sequence is more likely to end with me giving up because the imagined annoying person just won't listen.

Fortunately, when I realized (after some decades of doing this) that it was a waste of mental and emotional cpus-- why am I inventing occasions to be annoyed?-- I found that I did a lot less of it, and could bail out of it quickly if I found I was doing it.

Why do people have it?

It's just an evolutionary ad-hoc story, but I think that in an ancient environment you would have real fights sometimes. An impulse to imagine fighting, even when you are not, is an opportunity to rehearse the techniques and learn from mistakes.

I remember reading some article that if some skill requires N hours of time, imagining the practice realistically with full attention, is almost as good as the real practice. This probably assumes that you had the real practice before, so your imagination is realistic enough. In ancient environment, your imagination of fight would be realistic enough.

Personally I don't fantasise about violence in itself as much as the exercise of power and control. Not sure how common that is, but possibly if you generally feel out of control the most obvious way for you to exer some seems to be violence (whereas for me its people doing what I tell them to).

Yes, I have similar thought patterns, though usually the angriness happens without or with only slight provocations (people not conforming to my asthetic norms, people loudly using their mobile in public). Fortunately, my fantasies are totally over the top, so I have a hard time taking them seriously or worrying about them - it's like watching a splatter movie inside my head. I don't feel guilty, worried or ashamed for watching those, so I don't worry if my mind produces them for free.

A friend of mine with schizoid personality disorder has similar thought patterns from time to time, however, it is a lot harder for her not to act on these thoughts, and far more stressful.

So, it isn't a thought pattern only you experience, but I'm afraid I can't answer why people have it.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this one, but it's often inappropriate to hang around with people while not engaging in whatever activity they're doing. Don't sit in the stands at a football game reading a book, don't watch TV while your friends are playing Dungeons and Dragons, don't have your headphones on while friends are having a conversation.

For many people, alcohol raises talkativeness and lowers inhibition, so you're more likely to say things you normally wouldn't (in vino veritas). Sharing private things is a friendship-builder (HPMOR 7), but it can also be embarrassing. Drinking is a pre-commitment to build friendship through potentially embarrassing interactions, and when you abstain, you're saying, "I'll hear your secrets, but keep mine, thank you very much," which is a suspicious and untrustworthy kind of stance.

To the extent the above is true, it's too bad, because

1. Some people really don't like drinking, and alcohol doesn't make them more sociable anyway
2. No one should need to self-handicap in this way to trust and be trusted
3. It's a pre-commitment, limiting your options

I think this is mostly the impression of moral superiority people get from non-drinkers. If you excuse yourself for medical reasons, or imply you're a recovering alcoholic, people will mistrust you a lot less.

I don't know, of course, but if my cohort regularly engages in a habit that leaves us at a physical and cognitive disadvantage, it really doesn't seem too surprising that we will also develop associated habits that prevent others who are not so disadvantaged from engaging with us.

Simple tradition, I expect. In many situations and cultures, consuming alcohol is simply the done thing, and not doing the done thing a surefire way of standing out. I'd also guess that people who drink in these situations expect everyone to know the social norms and agree with them (even if it's only an unconscious background assumption), and so they'll see not wanting to drink as wanting to stand out. And you know what that means.

Bonding among humans involves being vulnerable. Shared food gives them the chance to poison you. Comedy allows you to signal to each other which social norms you don't take seriously. Drinking involves loss of coordination and talkativeness about deep issues one has.

Drinking is a signal of agreeableness and extraversion, which are highly valued status-enhancing traits. Not drinking when the context calls for it signals a lack of compliance with group norms - and does not have a status-enhancing spin to it that can be sold as "cool rebellion."

Personally one of the reasons I enjoy social drinking is the mutual lowering of barriers. In everyday interaction people are routinely concealing their true feelings and intentions. Consuming alcohol forces them to reveal more of their true feelings and provides a social setting where this is acceptable. I find you trust and understand people better having been drunk with them.

Consequently, someone refusing to drink is implicitly trying to conceal their true feelings to a greater degree, which makes them seem less trustworthy/friendly.

For example, I recently asked a friend why she felt the need to buy a new dress for every 'special event' (galas, dances, etc.). After some thought, she said it's most likely because she will be looked down upon by other females if she is seen wearing something that she has previously been known to wear. I asked why again, and she said that sort of judgement has probably been inculcated in the majority of females; she clarified that she only bought new dresses so as not to be thought of as low status, and has no qualms wearing the same things around family.

Men have comparable status competitions and nastiness, it just isn't about clothes.

What age group are we talking about?

I read some long livejournal comment discussions (hundreds of comments, and sorry, I can't place it more accurately than that it was probably more than four years ago and might have been in theferrett's journal) about bullying by girls in school, and there was a lot of it. Almost all of it was social rather than physical.

One of the classics was pretending to be someone's friend, and then laughing at them for believing it. That can apparently cause longterm (possibly permanent) damage to the victim's ability to trust people.

The only incident from the threads that I remember in detail was from someone in a school where a particular pin was the thing the popular girls wore. She begged her parents for the pin, and eventually got one. When the other girls saw her wearing it, they took off their pins and threw them on the floor.

I have heard that some females play relatively cruel psychological games with each other when compared to male culture. Is this true?

I would say no. I'm with Konkvistador; the male and female games simply take on different forms. Still, on the psychological-physical axis of abuse, women tend toward the psychological more than men, so I'd expect them to be commensurately more adept at purely psychological abuse.

However, regarding the big picture, there's nothing "relatively less cruel" about being beat up or shoved around than with being given the silent treatment. I've wondered more than a few times at how often the psychological effects of physical interactions tend to be overlooked. Even aside from, say, the actual physical pain of losing a fight, there's still all the other stuff. It's not like the memory of a fight lost in front of everybody suddenly vanishes or is instantly overcome. Physical pains intentionally inflicted on you by others always come with corresponding mental counterparts, while the reverse is not true.

I'm not a female, but this seems to me an obvious competition within sexes. Assuming that most people are heterosexual, for a female a competitor is another female, just like for a male a competitor is another male. So the ability to put down members of the same sex is an evolutionarily selected trait. (Of course it is not the only evolutionarily selected trait; in other contexts a cooperation is rewarded.) Males and females use somehow different methods of putting down their competitor, probably the ones better suited to their comparative advantages: males will try to put down other males by physical attacks or threats, females prefer mental and social attacks.

However, a reason why some behavior is evolutionarily selected is not the same as a mental process by which it is started. (For example a desire to have sex is selected because it leads to reproduction, but we do it for pleasure.) A psychological trigger that starts the intra-sex competition may be a feeling of insecurity. Which, among other things, may be also triggered by a presence of a competitor.

I work for a fashion company, marketing high-end designer goods to both men and women, and can assure you the phenomenon your friend is describing is very real.

On the broader subject of cruelty, I think you're on the right lines with insecurity, but that's still not an answer. Why do people experience insecurity (i.e. why do feelings of insecurity exist in human beings)?

After some thought, she said it's most likely because she will be looked down upon by other females if she is seen wearing something that she has previously been known to wear. I asked why again, and she said that sort of judgement has probably been inculcated in the majority of females; she clarified that she only bought new dresses so as not to be thought of as low status, and has no qualms wearing the same things around family.

Wow, I (a man) never had the slightest inkling that this pressure existed.

she thinks other females constantly judge each other based upon their wardrobe

In doing so, they evaluate others' taste (mental abilities / fitness) and ability to afford many new dresses (resources).

Why is this an example of special cruelty to others? As long as you have status at all, you must have constant appraisal of others' status. This isn't even an attempt to deliberately lower someone else's status, this is just straightforward competition at raising your own.

       |                 | Projected Monetary | Projected Opportunity     |
       | Available Funds |  Cost of Attending | Cost of Not Attending     | End Result
-------+-----------------+--------------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------
Friend |            $600 |               $600 | Unknown (Possibly Nought) | Known loss of monetary funds
       |                 |                    |                           | - unknown opportunity cost
-------+-----------------+--------------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------
Other  |          $3,000 |             $1,200 | Lifelong Saudade          | Worthwhile expenditure of
       |                 |                    |                           | time & funds
-------+-----------------+--------------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------

       |                 | Projected Monetary | Projected Opportunity     |
       | Available Funds |  Cost of Attending | Cost of Not Attending     | End Result
-------+-----------------+--------------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------
Friend |            $600 |               $600 | Unknown (Possibly Nought) | Known loss of monetary funds
       |                 |                    |                           | - unknown opportunity cost
-------+-----------------+--------------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------
Other  |          $3,000 |             $1,200 | Lifelong Saudade          | Worthwhile expenditure of
       |                 |                    |                           | time & funds
-------+-----------------+--------------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------

Disclaimer: these are only the reasons I go to bars. In no particular order.

1. To exploit alcohol deals -- it's sometimes possible to get alcohol at a bar cheaper than retail price (including tip and cover). Presumably it's a loss leader for something else, or the bar is exploiting some sort of bulk discount.
2. I've observed plenty of mating/courting behavior at bars, but since the bars in my area are mostly not-gay bars, I don't go to bars to find mates.
3. To enter a kind of disassociated, free-flowing mental state brought on by the right combination of dancing, inebriation, and music. It's quite cathartic when the stars all line up correctly.
4. To sing karaoke and not feel self-conscious about it.

I don't drink, don't like trying to hold a conversation over loud music, and don't like starting conversations with strangers if I don't think we'll have anything in common. Why the hell do I go to bars?

1) Everyone else is there. It's a Schelling Point for non-specific social activity.

2) It's public. There are a whole host of complicated hospitality / power dynamic / pragmatic considerations that come with inviting people to your home, or being invited to someone else's. Bars take responsibility for all the trappings of hospitality.

3) It's a ubiquitous venue. In an urban area you'll always be able to find a bar in walking distance, whereas you can't say the same for a park or a museum.

4) It's a designated area for social interaction. If I did want to talk to a stranger, this is permitted in bars, whereas it's prohibited in most other venues. (Your mileage may vary here; The UK is a lot more staid about these things than the rest of Europe and North America.)

I go to bars to:

1. Hit on girls.

2. Dance.

3. Drink and hang out with friends.

"Drinks + talking to people = fun" has observably held true across cultures and time. The drink relaxes people and makes it easier to talk and easier to listen. YMMV of course.

I'd never understood how the whole bar-mating thing is supposed to work (among my fellow straight people, at least). I could never get it to work, probably because I never particularly wanted to. Am I the only one ?

Reasons I go to bars:

1. To hang out with alcohol in large groups of acquaintances (often: groups of fellow graduate students, many of whom don't know one another well enough to go to each others' home)
2. Dancing
3. To meet someone, say from OKCupid, on neutral socially lubricated ground

80+% of the time, I'd guess it's to meet or hang out with friends or acquaintances. Bars are this social space where it's totally normal to sit and talk with people for an hour or two.

When I want to gather friends together and don't feel like hosting, it's usually going to be on an evening; that rules out a lot of options already. The only things that are ubiquitous and comparable to bars for those purposes are restaurants, but it's a hassle asking everyone to have dinner at the same time, waiting for everyone to show up before ordering, etc. (Plus they're more expensive, and I'm more likely to have a friend who can't find anything there they'd like to eat.) So I default to bars.

I have had someone tell me they would go out drinking alone to make friends.

All of the above (if by “drunk” you mean ‘tipsy’ -- people who want to get hammered buy spirits in supermarkets because it's much cheaper, and by “chill” you mean ‘hang out with friends’.) Plus, live music, karaoke, playing darts...

For me, usually some combination of dancing, alcohol buzz, socializing with friends and strangers, a novel atmosphere, meeting new people, hitting on strangers and watching sports with company or when my television doesn't get the game I want to watch.

I have frequently stopped responding to people because I failed to respond immediately, and then forgot that the conversation existed. I have no idea how common this is.

It's been my experience that people who want a reason for disengagement primarily want that reason so they can argue it is incorrect or can be overcome.

To answer this more generally, instead of in example form people often have anxiety around social interactions particularly those they anticipate to be uncomfortable, conflict-ridden or dramatic. In a dating context (which is usually when this sort of thing happens, in my experience, but maybe you have something different in mind) it is usually a way to cease dating or flirting with someone without having to explain to them that you aren't interested. It avoids the tension involved in waiting for the person to react, the drama of any fallout and the awkwardness of spending any time interacting with them after you've dumped them.

I guess I'm volunteering to answer these things, heh. Well, other people need to answer these things too, right?

Well, so I did stop talking to my most recent ex-boyfriend. The thing was that after our relationship ended many of my friends confided in me that he and I were of vastly different social statuses, and that our relationship had lowered their opinion of my status.

Then, some months later, he returned some of the things he had of mine, and during that meeting he was exceptionally creepy. I realized that talking to him further would only increase the creepiness, and so I stopped talking to him altogether. Most recently, he replied to a throwaway tweet of mine, and I intend not to respond to it because it's still clear that he's still seeking a relationship I'm no longer interested in.

Few people respond positively to being told something like that. At best, maybe you'd get a crestfallen "oh... okay." Otherwise, they might try to talk you into changing your mind, or get angry, or act out to try to get your attention, or try to save face by discrediting you behind your back. Given those possibilities, why would you give an explanation?

Has anyone here ever purposefully stopped talking to or responding to someone they know? Can you describe the the thought process behind it?

Not everyone finds it easy to say "No." (See here, for instance.) If someone has been hinting at something long enough and the other person just doesn't get it, silence may be the last recourse out of an unpleasant situation without actually coughing out some straightforward denials.

Also, the process of rejecting someone outright and in clear terms can be hurtful for both parties; if the rejecter doesn't particularly hate the rejectee, they may well wish to avoid being the direct cause of that pain. That may be a case of washing their hands with some omission bias, but it's not obviously-and-universally-true-in-all-cases that failing to respond is never any better than playing mute.

In short, the thought process may be as simple as wanting to spare someone pain. "I'm not interested in seeing you any more" is the painful directness that many want to steer clear of, while "Sorry I can't make it I'm busy" is an example of a hint that other people may not get. Some people have no problem making the connection that "Sorry I can't make it I'm busy" means "No", but others do, and they'll see it as essentially the same as "Sorry I can't make it I'm busy but how about tomorrow," which is a fundamentally different response. I don't remember when I realized the difference myself, but I think it was an "A-ha!" of a decent size.

Communication has become casual now. You need to think of it more like a suggestion, or like a tweet, where the person is under no obligation to reply. Communication is no longer a rare or difficult thing and social conventions have come to reflect its ease and ubiquity. Unfortunately, for some people, this is also true of dating.

I have purposefully stopped talking to some people I know. One such situation is in failed romantic relationships. None of mine have been by mutual agreement - on some situations I have been the one to end it, and others I would have preferred to continue. Either way this sort of power imbalance leads to a situation where the best choice seems to be strict avoidance - whether the aim is to avoid lowering one's status by appearing desperate in pursuit when the end has been made clear by the other party, or to avoid giving any possibility of signals that a continued relationship is still possible (similar to the point paper-machine already made).

But this is not the only circumstance I've stopped talking to people I know - I do the same thing for some extreme zealots, whether their cause is religious, political or (gasp) even "rational". Here's one (intentionally vague) example from my recent experience. one of my longtime friends has beome very interested in a particular movement, and now has nothing else to say on any other topic. He feels this topic is so important that everyone needs to know the details (and presumably act upon them in some way, although this point is never reached). Clearly it is a subject he feels passionate about, and he feels so well informed that he expects others to immediately update on the force of his arguments. And if they fail to do so he makes it clear that he has won the debate. Whether he is truly well informed or not, he is not being effective in producing attitude change in others, or appreciating what others are hoping to get out of a conversation. In other words, highly visible low status behaviour of failing to recognise one's audience and not negotiating a conversation acceptable to all parties. When he came out and asked me why I was avoiding him, my answer was "Because you only talk about (topic) and I don't think this is productive". Unfortunately this led to another round of haranguing, and the same old arguments about why (topic) is the most important issue and I'm a fool if I don't see it. Which didn't exactly convince me I should continue talking with him in future, I felt it would be the same issue again and again. But it can be hard to come out and say "Your topic doesn't interest me" to someone who considers that subject of ultimate importance - it can easily be construed as a personal attack rather than being directed at the topic itself.

I've rambled a while already but there are still other situations where I stop talking to someone, especially concerning calls/texts/IMs rather than face to face conversations. These are harder to define because they fall into the category of "falling out of contact", for no clear reason. Perhaps I'm too busy when a message comes in, stick it in an ineffectively managed "to reply" box and forget about it. Or perhaps I have nothing to say at that moment, etc. If that person then comes out and asks me "why aren't you replying to my messages", my initial reaction may be embarrassment and apology. But other times the "why aren't you talking to me" is presented as a challenge, as if I am intentionally doing so. I would likely respond more assertively in such cases (or avoid responding to avoid causing further unintentional offence, I am certainly imperfect in reading some social cues).

*I intentionally avoided saying what my friend's obsessive focus was about, because I think it applies to many situations - but thought I should mention that in this case it was the old classic "Jesus died for your sins and you should accept him as your personal Saviour". If this example gives you a serious UGH enough to discount my discussion above, please replace this quote with "911 was an international conspiracy", "GM crops should be banned" or "everyone should be cryopreserved upon death".

Sometimes I stop talking to people because I don't think there is anything interesting to say.

Sometimes it's because I have to say something that's long/complicated, and I can't find enough time to write/say it.

And sometimes it's because I see no use for talking to the other person, so I just ignore them. (But I don't do this if they are expecting me to reply.)

It is frequently advantageous to stop communicating with someone, whether as social punishment, avoidance of feelings of awkwardness, or to dissociate yourself from low-status friends. People want these social advantages, but many people prefer not to undergo a "breaking-up" conversation, even when in a non-romantic context. (For obvious reasons: it's likely to be a conflict-ridden conversation, and their motivations often do not sound noble when explicitly stated.)

Dropping that person like a hot potato is a way to get the social win without the corresponding awkwardness.

[deleted]

1. It's fun to boo. Expressing public displeasure with someone in a totally safe and one-sided fashion Is something people love to do: See forums.

2. Doing the same thing as the crowd around you is very thrilling. If some people start booing other people are likely to join in.

3. People actually DO get angry at performers. People tend to have strong senses of entitlement in these kind of situations and if they're disappointed they will be upset. Not everyone is crass enough to boo but surely you've felt ripped off in the past by a performance that was worse than what you expected?

Not particularly referring to your experience, but instead drawing from a few dozen rock festivals I've been to in the past decade.

You gain nothing from booing them, except possibly you signal...what? Being loud and opinionated? Being in a position of judgement and therefore high-status?

This is the main reason, for what I saw. Booing an act puts you on a higher level than the people who like it, and have therefore bad taste. In addition, it could also signal the membership to a different fan group.

Even assuming there's a signaling explanation, I cannot figure out the thought process that leads to booing. Like, they somehow get angry at the performers? Or is it morbid curiosity, and they wonder if it'll get even worse if the dancers get flustered?

A classic festival example that I personally witnessed. A few years ago I was at an heavy metal festival, with many groups performing the same day. There were a few extreme metal groups (Obituary, Slayer and Stormlord IIRC), and a very noisy group of extreme metal fans. Unfortunately, sandwiched between those acts, the organizers inserted Lacuna Coil (a roughly gothic metal group, much softer, with a wider fanbase outside of the metal community, including a fair share of teenage girls). Needless to say, the extreme metallers completely ruined the performance with boos, and at some point started launching plastic bottles. They were clearly trying to show which was the dominant group, and if you didn't boo, then you weren't part of such group.

I'm guilty of booing sometimes, and to me the thought process seems to be:

1) The bad performance makes me feel bad.

2) The crowd is similar to me, and is my in-group in the situation.

3) Therefore, the bad performance is making everyone else in the crowd feel bad.

4) I empathise with the crowd more than the performers, since the crowd is a constant in-group I can identify with through the entire event, while the performers are fleeting and on average neutral.

5) Therefore to signal my anger on behalf of the crowd's suffering, I boo at the bad performer, who has slid from neutral to Enemy.

A part of it is people's expectations are raised for stage performances.

I'm part of a circus, and I've found that if I just do something with a friend in public, people will be impressed, but it takes a lot more to get people to cheer when I'm on stage.

So even decent acts aren't viewed as good when they're in front of an audience.

I think Cthulhoo had the best answer so far, but let me throw in my two cents. The (unconscious) thought process behind the boos, as I guess it, is: "I am watching a bad performance, and thus I am becoming associated with it. An observer who saw the situation now would think I am the kind of person who likes this kind of performance, which would lower my status. To reaffirm my status against this threat by dissociating myself from the performers, I boo them."

Volunteering to perform is a huge status move.

"Get off the stage" is a commonly shouted "boo". In this case it wouldn't matter very much but... if you don't particularly want to see the dancing, would you have wanted there to be even more teams volunteering? I imagine that part of the reason to "boo" is to get the current performer to end their act prematurely and to discourage future bad performances.

See also: Vaudeville Hook

Don't you think that most teams would prefer that organizers would not have this idea? If so, booing all the volunteers is making it costlier to participate in the stupid (in my the booer point of view) thing that is slightly unpleasant for me to have to observe.

I am paying to learn about something from someone who knows more about it than me. If I need something clarified I'm going to ask.

I'm a high school student. I ask a lot of questions in classes, especially math and discussion-based classes like "Science and Religion". In math, this is an unwillingness to miss something and to back to it later--if I fail to understand one part of a lesson, it makes understanding the other parts hard. In "science and religion", I ask loaded questions that disrupt the class by turning it into a complicated debate between me and the teacher. This is because I have little respect for the (boring) subject matter, believe I'm smarter than the teacher, and would rather entertain myself and my classmates by defeating the teacher in battles of wits than sit with a book and listen to the teacher explain that god's existence is inherently un-investigatable.

TLDR: I ask questions to improve my understanding; I disrupt class because I'm arrogant and competitive.

In a classroom setting I sometimes have the opposite problem. I sometimes forget I am in a social situation entirely and think no more of stating something in a huge room of students than simply thinking it within my own mind.

So there's one answer for you, obliviousness and impulsivety.

I was "that guy" through most of my undergraduate career, and the answer is that verbally sparring with the instructor over the material was the only way I could learn it. (Also, as Incorrect notes, impulsivity.)

Why do people not punish useless status-seeking behavior?

They do, whenever such behavior seems like it's bound to fail. However, when it looks like it will succeed (and thus bring high status to whoever is practicing it), an attempt to punish would mean a declaration of war against someone of high status, which is usually not a smart move.

Do they assume that swaggerers might have social clout to match their personalities and are afraid of having them as enemies?

Often yes, as explained above, but it's usually not done consciously. Most status-related behaviors are instinctive, and the conscious mind only invents rationalizations for them (which can be of many different kinds).

Because, believe it or not, it's often hard to tell the difference, especially if you know about mind projection fallacy. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Plus most people avoid creating a confrontation because that also could put them in a negative light. (Not only do you have to think what the other person is doing is bad, but the majority of other people have to think that as well, for you to get any value out of the confrontation.)

How ought I distinguish telling entertaining stories (which, on your account, is a productive activity that I would be right to respond warmly to) from bragging (which, on your account, is a valueless activity uncorrelated with productivity that I would be right to be annoyed by)?

In a tribal environment lying about status carries higher risks.

Since status is zero sum, why aren't other people more proactive in noticing, being annoyed by, and socially punishing such behavior?

Prisoner's dilemma/tragedy of the commons. Deflating X's status seeking benefits everyone (except X and his allies), but the costs of doing so are born by the person doing the deflating.

If someone has a negative effect on a social interaction through frivolous status games, I'll: A) leave, if I can't stand it, and don't want to embarrass my friend who has a connection with the someone, or realize challenging them will have more negative an impact; B) tough it out, if challenging them will discomfort my friend(s) or have more of a negative impact; C) challenge them on their behavior by inquiring after why they are engaging in the frivolous behavior. Often I'll decide challenging them won't be worth it for me, as I'll find it unlikely the someone's response to my challenge will sufficiently entertain me.

I think some might have a latent association of either high-status or extremely low-status with such people, and are either intimidated or don't find them worth wasting time on. I base this thought on experience and answers to questions that I can't remember in detail.

Lowering someone else's status is 1/150 as good as raising your own.

Why is malice addictive?

I'm talking about malice which goes way beyond anything which could be expected to raise status or improve the odds of reproductive success.

There's probably a whole syndrome of things that contribute to this, including but not limited to:

1. "Improving the odds of reproductive success" is for the long term and for the ancestral environment. Online trolling and abusing one's kids in the privacy of one's home are products of an environment radically different from our evolutionary one. There's simply no good and noble reason for them, just the same old cognitive reflexes playing themselves out in unnatural surroundings.

2. Humans have the tendency to blame the victim. You treat someone like trash long enough and you'll start to buy into the idea that they deserve it and it's for the best. "I'm not unreasonable or cruel - if only he weren't such a lazy, thick-headed idiot..." Rinse and repeat long enough until all feelings of guilt go away, and possibly until all feelings of any kind go away and the abuse continues simply out of habit.

3. Trolling and lashing out at people online (and off-line) is a way to assert oneself. For people with low enough social skills and off-line status, it may be the only way of doing so. The harsher one acts, the more likely it is to produce an effect, which leads to vicious trolling being viciously enjoyable.

4. Malice isn't the only thing that's addictive - power in general is addictive, and that also goes for ways of exerting it. And, of course, since the other person is still an idiot who has it coming for being so thin-skinned, why not have a bit of fun?

For parents, that could be possibly explained by the parent being abused by their own parents: that behavior is acceptable, or they think they're being "good parents" because they aren't beating you with a hockey stick. And also, the parent could have a pre-conceived notion of what that child should be (athletic, or a certain GPA, prettier, you name it) and blame it on the child.

Of course, then there's plain old status, too. Especially if the abuser is being put down themselves. They might feel the need to exert power in the only capacity that they know how.

For example, some people put huge numbers of hours into trolling, and while some people are in troll sub-cultures so there's local status to be gained, I don't get the impression that's a large fraction of trolling.

A common answer might be: For the lulz. That is, they're addicted to something similar to schadenfreude, and so they cause the conditions that lead to someone else experiencing misfortune.

Hypothesis: to enable malice in the quantities where it does "raise status or improve the odds of reproductive success", evolution made it a psychologically rewarding behavior (as well as plugging into socially rewarding circuits when it succeeds at raising status). And reward in the brain is implemented such that any rewarding behavior has a danger of self-reinforcing into an addiction.

Do we see more malice than this generic explanation can explain?

As for self-hatred, I don't get the sense that it's the same experience or drive as malice. Of course they could still reinforce one another due to overlapping brain signalling, etc. How do you see them relating to one another?

It's fun and incredibly easy to rationalize.

One aspect - many find it enjoyable to exercise control over others.

The set of comments to this post are what I consider another example of the relative social(?) weaknesses the typical population of Less Wrong has compared to the general population.

If this question was asked of a college humanities class, a subset of the answers would be much better than these and the class as a whole would be better at identifying the answers that are more correct.

There are some answers below that are fine, but they're not said with enough confidence, and the 'ev psych' answers are not reliable. Not because ev psych can't hit upon an answer that might be correct, but because it seems that those that rely on them are not able to compare the hypothesis with a lifetime of experience for general plausibility. [On second thought, I retract this last comment to the extent people were explaining petty malice, which was indeed the first and main question of the initial post, rather than abuse of dependents. The difference being the extent to which there is absent verses perverted empathy.] I still think the answers would be better if we quizzed a random population of college students -- the academic setting just to avoid answers like 'people are evil'.

I don't respond to this question because formulating any kind of reductionist answer frames my perspective in a way that is unsettling. However, I'd be happy to identify a more correct answer when I see it. Psychology, generally, is the aspect of science where we've made the least progress with respect to reductionist explanations.

I do it because I love variety and thus value having more possible pleasant experiences to have.

Do you expect everything that's possibly enjoyable to be enjoyable immediately?

Some things I decided to like (when I was young) in order to "be more grown up." (Liquor, coffee, classical music, opera)

Or because cool people or people I admired were doing it (smoking a tobacco pipe, philosophy, math).

Some things to add variety to my life, just like MixedNuts. For example, learning to appreciate and distinguish between different types of wine, teas, cheeses, classical music.

Some because I thought they were good for me, so I might as well like them. (Yogurt, sushi)

"More money than they could ever use" seems like the wrong part there. I have uses for arbitrarily large amounts of money - feel free to refer me if they need tips.

For example, for several billion dollars you could surely get another season of Firefly.

People consistently choose more money over increased leisure. So it's not unique to this situation. I think the assumption is that the option for leisure will always be there but the option to make lots of money won't be. This is colloquially known as "get while the getting's good." Though I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

You may also be poorly calibrated on how much money one can use.

Here's a partial explanation - a contributing element.

Do they have an option for working shorter hours at the same hourly rate? I suspect not (employers will much prefer those willing to put in long hours once the tradition is in place). So people who want to make a lot of money have to work hard now and plan to switch to a lower paid job once they've saved enough. But switching to a lower paid job (or stopping working for profit if you're rich enough) is psychologically unpleasant and culturally discouraged, and people will keep putting it off. Or it may be hard psychologically to live modestly while making a lot of money.

I have a colleague who worked in the City for a few years (programming, not finance). The money was great, but eventually he looked around at the people he worked with, saw exactly what you've seen, and got out.

They have commitments to their families, a million a year feels like poverty after you're used to living on two million, and every day they add another thread to the ropes holding them in place.

If it's a highly sought-after high-status job, there may be oodles of takers for every getter. The sheer amount of competition may force their hand, and the "it's a job" may be simply a case of this.

Another possibility is the sunk cost fallacy. If the job requirements are strict enough and the people who eventually get the job have had to sacrifice enough getting there, that alone may be enough to get them to stick with it. Add some social pressure for spice as desired. Stir with self-deception and serve with verbal rationalizations.

I don't work in finance because I'm currently in university, but I may work in finance after I graduate. I might get a CFA charter and work at a hedge fund. One draw of working in finance is the earning potential.

For me, the appeal of a lot of money seems to be three things: I want enough money so that (1) I never have to worry about my own personal financials, (2) I can do a lot of optimal philanthropy, and (3) can fund my intellectual goals, like writing and publishing a book.

Those are the top three that come to mind. Given all we know about introspection, it's very unlikely those three are the whole story. But I think it's at least somewhat accurate.

Also, as thomblake points out, I can certainly find uses from arbitrarily large amounts of wealth. I suppose there's a theoretical limit at which the marginal utility of an extra dollar is less than the marginal utility of the time I give up to earn it. But I certainly haven't reach it yet. If your friends have, I want to know where they work so I can apply.

I don't understand why people work ridiculously long and hard hours in Wall Street or the City for more money than they could ever use.

My brother works long hours on Wall Street. He says that most people in finance retire significantly earlier than the rest of the population. He also says that people working in finance generally value money more than time, and that this is a self-reinforcing system. People not willing to work long hours for a high hourly rate don't find the jobs attractive, and the people already hired prefer not to have extra help; the money to hire each extra person would, essentially, come directly out of their own salaries.

Perhaps they simply enjoy the work ?

1. Sports is fun to watch for the same reason watching any other form of skilled competition can be fun.

2. Identifying with a far removed team is a way to join a tribe, and get all the fun results thereof. It doesn't matter that much that you're identifying with a bunch of players who are hired by an organization that is nominally affiliated with a location far away from you. People subscribe to really tenuous group membership all the time: they feel affiliated with faraway centers of government, ideologies that have no geographic location, etc. What does matter is being able to find people, preferably nearby and in person, you can signal your group affiliation to.

I have a notion that people stay attached to losing teams in part because they anticipate how good it will feel if the team starts winning.