Small Poppy Syndrome



Small poppy syndrome.

For those of you following the logical mayhem of the Barne Yarn, you will know, that I know, that you take some sort of enjoyment from the misfortune of others. I also know that you don’t care about those less fortunate than yourself. It was all written  here in this article about a study.  Basically to boil years of rigorous societal study into a couple of words,  people of higher standing ignore those of lower standing. Logically being of higher standing is in the eye of the beholder so I assume in certain situations everybody is looking down on everybody else, nerds on the dumb, popular on the socially inept, rich on the poor, manually capable on the cross threaders etc.

Ok so I’m going off an opinion piece written from somebodies understanding of a study the veracity of which I know very little (read nothing) about. If the study is right, then the opinion piece may have misinterpreted it and if they didn’t, I probably have.  But, What matters more than science  is that somebody did a study and somebody else wrote about it and when I read it, it confirmed my pre-held conceptions so I’m taking it as fact.

We will start at the easy to accept phase, you’ve no doubt been brushed aside by somebody more important than yourself so no doubt instantly agreed about those arrogant rich mongrel dogs being a bit too good for us. As I’ve mentioned in other rants we cheer the underdog or more accurately chop down the tall poppies, maybe we do that because they are always rude to us.

I thought I better check what the hell tall poppy syndrome actually means before I go too far down this road so I Wikipediad it. We all know the phrase when used today refers to taking down those who rise above the rest of us due to our envy of their success. There are a couple of stories that are said to be the genesis for the phrase, but basically some lacky gets sent out to seek council form some dude about stopping some ructions that have been bubbling along. The lacky returns from his mission with the story, that there was no advice offered beyond general banalities and the nothing conversation occurred while wandering around lopping the heads off all the taller poppies. The lacky reckons it was a bit queer given they were the best flowers and queried whether his man should really be seeking council from such a nutter.  The man with the issue took this strange behaviour as a way of subtly indicating that he should kill a few of the big noters. What I think happened was, the lacky wasn’t worth talking to so the poppy guy brushed him off, the lacky trotted off home to tell the boss who assumed the lacky was too dense to get the real meaning and took the slightest hint of evidence to support his original plan to kill some interlopers. Being a city dweller he didn’t realise you need to pull out the rogue plants when trying to develop a true breeding genotype.  

 So where was I? oh yeah the up themselves few definitely meet the criteria. If you despise them anyway it is easy to take, eg. If Alan Jones was rude to me I’d be happy with confirmation that he is a dud and will be cheering his next downfall… he seems to have a few but somehow always recovers. It is harder to take if somebody you worship gives you the cold shoulder.  I’ve often heard it said that you never want to meet your heroes because they will no doubt disappoint you. The conventional wisdom being that you have them on a pedestal and they will turn out to be more ordinary than you think. Following my study of the aforementioned study, I don’t  think it would be the ordinariness of my hero that would disappoint me.  I don’t idolise mediocrity. I contend that people are disappointed on meeting their heroes because heroes, quite rightly, see themselves as better than you and me. 

It does take a truly remarkable (or false) person to care (or convincingly act like they care) about those they see as plebs; which for those who are vaunted everywhere they go is everybody else. My advice (having never met a hero of mine) is take the approach of the besotted deluded few that remain convinced the  “Hello *insert location*, you’re the best audience I’ve had” was meant for you alone, and the elbow in the ribs as they brushed past was a nudge of friendship. The other alternative is to worship true heroes like the anonymous person who picked up all the broken glass that was left in my local park following the weekend exuberance of underage hoodlums. I’m at this stage in my life I’m no longer likely to be the cause of such damage, yet I’m not at the stage where I’m prepared to face the tedious danger of picking up jagged glass for the safety of others, when I could just take my weekend dog walk on a slight detour until the council fix it; but well done anonymous stranger.     

The harder to fathom part of the study is that it also suggests that you, reading this in the Barne Yarn, will do the exact same to those you see as beneath you. I know, I can hear you, you gave that bum a dollar, sponsored a child and talked to the smelly kid that one time at school, yeah yeah you’re a good salt of the earth, common touch, Ghandhi-esque character. However I know you also weren’t really listening at the party when the annoying bloke was banging on about his nothing life and you could see your real mates having a good time on the other side of the room. How long did you stand there listening to the drivel spouting from his pie hole? And if your answer was too long, what percentage of the conversation was spent listening vs. wondering how to get away?

As a keen student of the Gruen Transfer and it’s spin offs, I occasionally train my well-honed pop psychology insights, that some universities peddle as marketing theory, to work out what Todd and Russell would make of the thinking behind the ads. I have come to the conclusion that company and advertising executives are miles out of touch and arrogant with their ham-fisted attempts to trick the great unwashed into buying their dubious products. There are couple of ripping ads on telly at the moment, that really demonstrate the need for the high and mighty execs to pay more attention to droolers like me at parties.

My favourite is from Tom Waterhouse, the son and grandson (and probably then some) of racing royalty, who has no doubt taken the money, but never taken a second glance at the underlings in the racing industry. Tom told me to “ Get some skin in the game” one night. All I was doing at the time was stupidly watching the footy, without mortgaging the house in order to cash in on some of Tommy’s easy money. “I  know what punters want”, I was then reliably informed. Shut the front gate! Everyone knows what punters want, it starts and ends with $. Unfortunately for punters I’m pretty sure any bookies business model wants to avoid giving punters what they want. Punting is one industry where clients and service providers have clearly conflicting goals. I’m not wanting to bet with people that know what I want, to be effective Tom needs to say “I’m new to this business and I’m not sure how the scoring/handicapping works just yet”. But being the son of a bookie and trainer that won’t wash so maybe something like, “We are going to paint a good horse to look like a bad one enter the race under the name of the bad one and smash the field. Get on board but with some other bookie, that will be $$ for the tip off”.

Tommy and family have had mud flinged at them regarding information, odds, injuries and framing markets, even without talking about painted horses. For me the revealing quote from the most recent brouhaha  was the dismissive categorisation of a hard luck jockey that his mother was reported to have expressed. His Dad was of course implicated in the painting horse fiasco known as the Fine Cotton affair (thankfully the newspapers didn’t opt for Waterhouse-gate). So I’m guessing the apple does not fall far from the tree and Tom has got a very low opinion of the racing public which is borne out in the ads which to me are saying; “I know what punters want and I think you’re too stupid to realise you’re not going to get it from me!”. I’d love to say they are underestimating those they believe are beneath them, but, punting and pokies losses would suggest otherwise so my point must be; Tom has a very low opinion of us and seems to be on to something.

Wow that got a bit messy perhaps the ad that will make my point better is the Austar/Foxtel ad. Apparently the brains behind the ad think the dribbling masses on tight incomes will view an expensive subscription to pay for ads and a few extra stations is a good financial move. The argument tended is if you buy the subscription you can stay home and watch TV instead of going out and spending your moolah. For God sake, TV is not a choice you make instead of doing other things it is a bloody safety net for when you have nothing to do. The Lemonheads were not proffering lifestyle advice when they sang “I can’t go with you on a rock climbing weekend, what if some things on TV and it is never shown again”. Unfortunately for my argument, the ad has now been rehashed with a different scenario but same premise, so apparently it does work. Take a drive in a poor area and look past the weeds and car bodies and note the number of dishes on rooves, the idiots obviously hook it up and I’m guessing from their tracky dacks  they can’t afford it.

So Tom, Austar and other rich and powerful company execs actually do understand the target market, so my point is lost. Actually I’ve fooled you (dopey) in pretending  to show you at the start of this train of thought that “they” don’t understand “us”, I’ve made the point that I and hopefully through my extremely influential writing you, believe the idiots below us on the pecking order are somewhat deranged. By extension when talking to these zombies we know we won’t get anything of value out of the exchange, so need to be a good actor or cut to the chase and blow them off. But that is only when talking to the truly deranged, the run of the mill guy or gal is still worth respecting.  I’d like to think that while we may not be above this behaviour on rare occasions, we are generally better than that and at least give the person a few nice words before the subject turns to cats and you have to walk away.

So while we do exhibit this behaviour on rare occasions,  I reckon it is mostly only when talking to a real crack head, so how can the study find it happening to just normal regular people? Do some in society believe they are that far above me? Well I put it to you that Superman is a bastard of a bloke. O.k he might save the world if he has to but can you ever imagine him not getting his way as a child? You don’t have to go far to see what an over indulged child turns into as an adult. Fortunately most kids/adults eventually learn or get held to some level of societal norms by peers, employment or legal consequences, but who is going to make superman wait in line, pay for his groceries and be respectful to his elders? Superman, Kim Jong-un and *insert google search result for little known dictator here to make me look smart*are the result of normal people (well not Superman) not having to be answerable or cow-towing to anybody, perhaps society functions well when everybody has somebody who looks down on them.

So it is good if people are looked down on by someone? It might not be pleasant but occasionally it might stop you becoming a megalomaniac. I’d like to think it is the need to feel part of the community and be generally liked that stops our in built dictator coming out. So perhaps if you ignore the advice of your mum and hang out with the wrong crowd this trait will lead you down the path of arsehole-dome. This brings me to a line of thought I often come to, we like to be involved, which at times means excluding others, perhaps the study all boils down to the “tribal” instincts we have, us good them bad and the baffling outcome of not caring about your fellow creatures.

Showing a blatant disregard to those below them currently is the US parliament or congress or whoever the hell it is that shutdown that country. I bet the shutdown would be fixed quick smart  if you took the bastards wages until they sorted it out, but that proves self-interest not disdain for the minions. However, can you imagine what would happen if the shutdown looked like stopping one of their big business buddies/backers making a truckload of dosh for even a minute? Try taking the money off anyone with power and see how far you get. I’ll bet (love making bets no one can collect on) no one in power would keep their job if a high powered mogul had to skip a payment on his yacht due to a political bunfight. Even if the mogul didn’t wield that kind of power since congress would be kicking one of their own tribe the protests would not be so easy to ignore. At this point though, no one that the congress need to care about is affected and the only reason they could remain so blind to the disdain of the masses is a distinct lack of ever noticing the backs of the broken they stand on to get to their current position.  I think this is starting to sound like a left wing rant so I should qualify that it is often a trait exhibited by people at the top of any field, corporate big wigs and lefty union powerbrokers. You tend to seek out likeminded people to converse with so logically the more extreme your views then the more vigour with which you ignore, dismiss and lampoon opposing views. If you have a high opinion of yourself and very extreme views it stands to reason you ignore and even despise a great majority of people. This also means you attract likeminded minions into your tribe and the more likely you are to push yourself up the food chain in a chosen field or pursuit. What we are left with is the top of left and right leaning organisations is the worst type of people. Moderate people can see the grey areas, the nutters of both persuasions can’t so act decisively and sometimes get ahead while filling their followers with confidence.

So why do we hear so much about the tall poppy syndrome when the fact (well what I’m claiming as fact) is the small poppies are getting trampled on all day long? Again I put it down to the personality type that tends to push themselves forward and disdain others. What a sting in the tail it is for the superior being when they get brought asunder by someone inconsequential. The superman thought they were just coasting along barely registering the small poppies being stomped into the mud as they wandered through life, then whack, down they go. The expected reaction of course is they then want to kill that little bastard who got in their way. It goes on all the way up the food chain and the bigger the poppy the more chance they will moan longer and louder about having to wipe you off their shoe. On the flipside the more trodden flora there is in their wake the more that will be cheering the fall…but not too loudly in case they notice you laughing and come back to rip you out by the roots. Both outcomes lead to plenty of talk about the tall poppy going down and since some of us will idolise the tall poppy, the rude mongrels will not just have their cronies but some of us small poppies feeling sorry for them.

I assume most of us are what I’ll call political minimalists, that is don’t care about most of the rubbish that seem to fill political discourse at every level of life and field of pursuit. Not caring does mean the vacuum of power is often filled not by the fair minded expert but by the passionate extremists who do care and care very much.  These power hungry crazies are not generally making fact based rational decisions but seeking to get revenge for previous perceived misdeeds while trying to steer the ship toward their extreme world view, filled with absolute rights and wrongs with no middle ground. That is not a bad thing, they have the energy and passion for it and as a minimalist we can sit back with a stubby and watch the show. The nutters are seemingly so unaware of opposing views or to ensconced in their own cheering parade they see no irony in calling for hangings one week and spitting invective about being held to the same standards the next. While the extremes are ripping into each other about the latest perceived outrage, 99% of which are of no consequence, we can coast along alright providing no one side takes a significant advantage. So what is the moral? ignore the nutters they are no doubt ignoring you and feel free to get passionate when it actually matters, it will be fun for the rest of us to watch.