Scum

[rowyn]

"What are you talking about?" I asked the co-workers who were chatting near my cubicle.

The two women laughed. "Jerry* asked us a question, but he doesn't like our answer."

Jerry looked at me. "How many men would you say -- just in general, not specific ones you know -- are scum?"

I considered. "I dunno ... 5%?"

The other women giggled, while Jerry gestured to me. "See, there's an optimist."

"I said 50%," Michelle told me.

Lee offered, "65%."

I stared. "Really?"

"I'd say about the same for women," Michelle added. Lee's estimate on women was a bit lower, 50% or so.

"What about you, Jerry?" I asked him.

"I don't know. 30%? Hmmm. Maybe 2 in 10," he decided. "For both sexes."

*

I'm not sure if the wild variations in our estimates are because I'm generally kinder in evaluating people (it is awfully hard to make me feel like a person is actually bad or malign) or because they had a different idea of what was meant by scum. What about you -- how many people do you think are scum? And what qualifies a person as scum or not?

* No real names used here.

Comments

[mrw42.livejournal.com]

I know very few people I would classify as scum. 1%, probably less...

There are people that I don't like, and people that I don't trust, but there are very few people who have the completely lack of redeeming qualities necessary for me to classify them as scum.

[rowyn]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I only went as high as 5% because I was thinking that there's some selection bias in the people I know well enough to make any kind of judgment on. (For example, I don't know any people in prison, where the ratio of scum would be, I hope, considerably larger than outside). And I think I'd be less likely to know about bad things people have done than good, just because the former are more likely to be hidden. :/

[telnar.livejournal.com]

I don't have a good feel for how strong the selection bias is, but I can't name anyone who I'd be willing to call "scum."

US laws are badly enough designed that I wouldn't assume that even half of the 2.3 million Americans currently in prison are "scum", so I'll guess a low number like 1%.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

I think 100% of people are scum, 1% of the time.

[rowyn]

Hee! I'll grant there's truth to that, though I do think that some people are considerably more likely than others to do scummy things.

I admit I am also uncomfortable applying the word "scum" to people, rather than things people do.

[circuit-four.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, this. I think it varies to something more like 0.1 - 25% depending on the individual, but it averages out to something like your rule of thumb. That's why I love quoting this line from the old Murphy's Law books: "Everyone is someone else's asshole."

On the other hand, let's face it, I still take a pretty dim view of a lot of human ideology and neurology. You take the top off that, and you see some pretty ugly things. See Milgrim. Or Maxim.

Some people are more committed to these nasty, dehumanizing ideas than others and some people -- while every bit as flawed -- are making an active struggle against them. I do try to be a good pseudo-Buddhist and remember that's not necessarily malice or "bad character" -- it's ignorance, fear, and frustrated desire, and those are best treated like technical problems.

But I do get uncomfortable when people, in an admirable effort to be charitable, talk as if everyone's at the same level of progress. We're not, and it makes a real difference; it's just ultimately nothing to get hostile over, barring the occasional need to holler when our toes get stepped on. :)

[verminiusrex.livejournal.com]

I think it's more of a sliding scale, so most people aren't scum all the time, but a percentage of the time. Then the question becomes, just how much scum can a person be before you consider them a full time scum? Or what level of scum when they are actively being scummy would make them full time scum to you?

You can also have limited interaction with some people that may be considered scum, but avoid the scummy parts of their life. There are people that I know but wouldn't party with, because that means binge drinking and drugs.

And the definition of scum varies too much. Llike I once said, there is a difference between a slacker and a loser. A slacker will get a job when there are no other options, a loser won't. Some people would label both as scum, whereas I see scum as something more vile that you would rather see run over by a bulldozer than continue to exist.

Now you have me pondering the definition of "scum" way too much. I suspect it will become a topic of conversation at a future social gathering.

[rowyn]

I've been thinking of doing another post about what I think of when I think of 'scum'.

[postrodent.livejournal.com]

This is an interesting question, but I think perhaps it's the wrong one. I need to know what makes someone scum, and where's the dividing line, and I think it's worth asking whether saying "X is Y" is really the most useful way to consider this. My thought is that it's really more like a gradient than a simple binary distinction.

On the one hand, it might be said that everyone is scum at some point -- on their worst days, when they've lost or been kept from one of the things that make life worthwhile for them, and they don't feel they have it in them to give anything more. Even people who you love and admire and who love and admire you have a significant chance of doing you some evil at some point, when they're weak or angry or just somehow close to the edge. And then on the other hand, I think it's likely that even the most wretched people have had some moment where they achieved something like grace -- gave something of themselves, were decent to somebody when it was really needed -- at some point in their blackened lives.

I can't deny, though, that there exist people who are at the deep dark end of that gradient. For whatever reason, they consistently make choices that wound and degrade everyone around them. Some are sociopaths or otherwise neurologically incapable of empathy. It's hard to know what to do with these guys except to push them into the woods, keep them the hell away from anyone they could hurt.

On the other hand, there are those people who could have been decent human beings, but just got broken and twisted beyond repair at some point in their lives. I have very few good ideas about what to do to help these types, and looking at how this society deals with them, it's obvious nobody else does either. We pretty much pursue the containment angle, as we do with sociopaths. I don't really want to get into the question of how effective this is.

What I think is important, though, is to find out how they get that way -- we already have some sense of how that works -- and somehow stop it from happening. But beyond the few basic measures we have in place, like making child abuse illegal, I'm not sure what to do. But I do think we should be putting more energy into this as a society. It would just save so many resources down the line, and, ahem, it would probably give us a certain edge over other societies who were dragged down by having to manage and contain all those liabilities.

Urf. Excuse me, I've rattled on enough for now.

[postrodent.livejournal.com]

Or to put this more succinctly, "what Pyat said".

[rowyn]

Hee! Pyat did put it pretty well. But I think the "gradient" quality is significant. It's not "roll d100 and on a 1 anybody will do the scummy thing". :)

[circuit-four.livejournal.com]

This too.

[octantis.livejournal.com]

Well, there are a LOT of truly reprehensible people out in the world. I think we don't see a lot of them because we happen to be in relatively good positions and also make decisions not to be around people who would hurt us or take advantage of us. We might have a different point of view if we happened to live someplace rougher and closer to the edge, with more desperate people.

[rowyn]

I was kinda thinking that, too. That, and that I'm very lucky to live in America. Not because the people here are innately better, but because my society encourages considerably less abuse than many others. :(

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

I honestly want to believe the percentage of scum is relatively low - and by scum, I mean people who are genuinely mean to others in general. Being an optimist can be good!

[level-head.livejournal.com]

There is a key thing in what you just said, I think.

If you look for "scum people" you can find them easily; I know folks who are quite skilled at the search. But it seemed to me that they were filtering out bits of reality to leave only a caricature -- and then being able to say "Aha! I found what I was seeking!"

It occurred to me then that perhaps they shouldn't look so hard. As you said, being an optimist is good!

You know the old story about the visitors to a town, finding what they expect.

===|==============/ Level Head

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

I think the term "scum" is just a derogatory word used in a moment of frustration, rather than a meaningful classification. I can't think of any statistical answer that I could give that would have any utility on any level I can think of.

[circuit-four.livejournal.com]

And this... It's pretty much a synonym of the word "stupid." When you cut someone off in traffic, it's an unfortunate passing lapse of judgement. When someone cuts you off in traffic, it's 'cause they're scum. When you take too long in a checkout line fumbling for your checkbook, it's because you're distracted. When anyone else does it, it's 'cause people are just plain stupid. It's a built-in neurological tendency and I really don't like it, especially when I catch myself doing it. -.-

[rowyn]

Mmmm. I hear "stupid" and "obnoxious" and so forth in that sort of context a lot. "Scum" -- in my experience -- requires a greater degree of perceived abuse. Not necessarily accurate then either, of course.

[jurann.livejournal.com]

I'd say it can't really be more than 10%... I mean, the world would be a much more fucked-up place if more than 10% of it were scum. Of course, "scum" is a pretty loose term, you could make it mean almost anything. When I think of scum, I think of people who are okay abusing others and neglecting the needs of society for their own personal greed, profit or satisfaction.

[rowyn]

Yes! That's what I was thinking of, too. Not necessarily people who are outright criminals (and I suspect a high percentage of people who've committed crimes are not scum), but more people who do a lot of scummy things -- selfish, meanspirited, bullying, that kind of thing.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Clinical sociopaths make up about 2% of the population. High-functioning sociopaths seem kind of normal, but... well, they're scum. q:3

[rowyn]

Wow, I didn't know sociopaths came in high-functioning capacity. 2%? Eep!