# What makes a 'loser'?



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Note: I believe that the concept of people being empirically 'losers' is flawed and toxic in a society as it implies that worth is external etc. etc. etc. I would refrain from calling or thinking of anyone as a 'loser' in a real sense but this is a different matter. I am using the term casually and comparitively, not philosophically etc.

Anyway, thought this could be an interesting Enneagram question. What is a loser to you?

This subject came up as I was gossiping with my brother, who is a 3, and we realized that we had a very different definition of the word 'loser'. His definition seemed to be based more on competence while mine had more to do with an external, objective social appeal. For instance, we were looking at the show 'Friends' and he classified Rachel as a loser [because she was incompetent at her job in the first seasons, etc] while I considered her the least 'loser'ish of the bunch [also my least favorite character btw]. Thought it was an interesting difference.

[also ties into a light theory I have re: 2s and 3s - that 2s are more aristocratic and 3s more democratic/capitalistic, i.e. if they were going to be flashing around money a 3 would be more likely to want to emphasize how they worked hard for it and a 2 would be more likely to want to de-emphasize that, or a 3 is likely to have more gut respect for someone who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps while a 2 is likely to have more gut respect for someone who is naturally affluent - but other things affect that too, it doesn't seem to apply to social 2s so much and I think there are some 3s who tend more to the aristocratic mindset - like Gatsby]

Anyway, speaking from a perspective of *gut feelings* and categorizations, what makes a 'loser' for you? Is it competence, social affluence, romantic potency, life possibilities, etc. 

Again, I don't really think of people as 'loser's and I don't want to encourage that kind of thinking, but it's definitely a concept that is present, and it interests me to hear how different people might conceptualize it.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

I think for me it's based on humiliation, which I guess applies to all image types in a way but the idea of humiliation is probably quite different depending on type, subtype and such.

For me the most humiliating things are rejection, being ignored, treated like I'm not there and others not hesitating to point out my flaws, or some small things like what I'm saying being received like "Why are you saying these stupid/boring/useless things?  ", disrespect but not in professional sense, just everyday/social.

And I think that's what I classify as loser-ish, like someone who completely lacks qualities that would make them not get treated like that, someone who isn't valued at all by people
That's my gut reaction at least, I think I have much more to say about this topic and I think all image types have a lot to say about it but I can't think of more right now and a lot of it is hard to explain when it comes to more specific things, maybe other people's responses will help me.

Also for me personally your aristocratic/democratic theory definitely works, and I think it might be right in general but it's probably more obvious in some people.
But in me it's very obvious, maybe because I'm a Beta in socionics or because 2w3 with strong sx 3 influence, but tbh I can see very successful and competent people as losers or at least not 'winners' (in a way, don't use those words in my mind often)

(Ignore my signature and profile, still 2w3)


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

The Night's Queen said:


> [also ties into a light theory I have re: 2s and 3s - that 2s are more aristocratic and 3s more democratic/capitalistic, i.e. if they were going to be flashing around money a 3 would be more likely to want to emphasize how they worked hard for it and a 2 would be more likely to want to de-emphasize that, or a 3 is likely to have more gut respect for someone who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps while a 2 is likely to have more gut respect for someone who is naturally affluent - but other things affect that too, it doesn't seem to apply to social 2s so much and I think there are some 3s who tend more to the aristocratic mindset - like Gatsby]


I would be... frankly a little guilty showing any sign that I was wealthy. Like I didn't get that wealth from a massive combination of external luck and some of my own efforts. I think a lot of it was how I was raised (middle-to-upper-middle class family where it was paramount to be thankful for what we had; I didn't earn that kind of upbringing, so why should I be proud?). 

------------

The first thing that will always make me think "loser" is LAZINESS. Nothing screams loser to me like not doing anything to better yourself (notwithstanding some sort of obstacle like depression, etc.). I don't necessarily value success so much as trying. If you tried a lot of things, to me, you're cool. Even if you were terrible at all of them. That's how the most recent _Survivor_ winner won their season; they tried a LOT of things, and the other people in the game respected that even if so many of their attempts failed. So it is with life.

I also tend to see bitterness as a "loser" quality. I just get sad seeing people who are uncharitable to their fellow man. I have a relative who has done a huge amount of awesome things in her life (fulfilling requirement 1), but she has such a low level of sympathy for other people that it truly diminishes that respect. Conversely, someone who doesn't do a whole lot with their life but is super nice about it can completely counteract my ambition criteria. Because, ultimately, I hate people who are human drains. Kindness boosts people up and _adds_. If you're an addition and not a subtraction, you're cool to me. 

The archetypal loser to me is the pot-smoking whiny kid who drifts through life and complains about THE MAN without doing a thing about it or benefiting anyone around them. *Typologically*, as a So-dom 6, I feel a heavy sense of social responsibility throughout my life. I love people who step up to the plate and disdain people who waste their time. Ambition, kindness, etc. are qualities that I've chosen to measure myself by, so it's only natural to measure other people with them too. I also think that my 3 fix comes out particularly strongly in this very image center-based question.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

I'm having some difficulty thinking of how to respond to this question. :frustrating: Even though I can definitely have gut feelings about this kind of thing, it's mostly based on what I find unattractive, which I also realize can be traits that make someone "strong" when you really think about it. Like someone who is emotionally open or vulnerable can feel like a loser in my eyes, even though there's arguably some strength in being like that. As an example. Can't think of how to explain it better... but think it often has to do with what I associate with lack of intelligence or ineptness (even if I realize that can be shallow). So on the other hand someone could be a coward, but I don't necessarily see that as something shameful, because that's often a smart or pragmatic way of being. roud:

There might be more to it, but I think that's the main thing if I'm going with my natural gut-reaction.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I think this is an interesting question in light of this theory I've always had, that the Competency and Image types are closely related. All 3 Image types either are, or have access to a Competency type. Some may come in and say that the "Competency" types aren't really more skilled or capable than the other types, which I agree with - but I've always felt that even the true link between 1, 3, and 5, which is to focus on task and information instead of emotion, is closely linked with how these types want to be seen (as right, successful, knowledgeable, etc).

Generally speaking, I consider a loser to be someone who has an elevated sense of who they are, and doesn't actually achieve anything as a result of their own efforts. Either they continually try and don't learn from their mistakes, or don't even try at all. Personally, I think of "achievement" more in terms of meeting work, material, and career goals and obligations but I've felt that way in the backdrop of romantic and social situations too. 

The funny thing is, I sometimes label people as losers even when they ostensibly "win." Obviously, there's the drug addict who was given a chance by someone who tried to help them, didn't take responsibility for themselves, and blew their chance on addictions. But I also have a very keen eye for situations where someone DOES "win" and takes credit for an accomplishment, when someone else actually did the legwork in the background for them and yes, I more often than not consider the so called figurehead a loser, or at least a scam (hello Corporate America). There's always that (albeit sometimes pitiable) loser who constantly tries to do something with him/herself to get more attention than they've earned, and just fails every time. Or, that guy who works hard and honestly, but fails to identify personal limitations (i.e. that "professional violinist" who works hard, but just isn't that great). Or, more personally, my own loser self that just doesn't didn't see something important coming, or just isn't far enough ahead with my finances or career, or is a step behind in the ideal life path, or just isn't lovable to someone important because of something I can't do as well as someone else.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Thinking about it some more, I actually think it has to do with who has the upper hand. (Of course, that's also subjective and not something static lol)


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

The Night's Queen said:


> Note: I believe that the concept of people being empirically 'losers' is flawed and toxic in a society as it implies that worth is external etc. etc. etc. I would refrain from calling or thinking of anyone as a 'loser' in a real sense but this is a different matter. I am using the term casually and comparitively, not philosophically etc.
> 
> Anyway, thought this could be an interesting Enneagram question. What is a loser to you?
> 
> .



What business is it of your's to judge anyone else?

why can't you celebrate differences instead of tearing someone else down? What is the point? Seems like a huge waste of time to me.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Figure said:


> I
> 
> Generally speaking, I consider a loser to be someone who has an elevated sense of who they are, and doesn't actually achieve anything as a result of their own efforts.


You judge others from your pedestal?

And you get to define "achieve", not them, right?

So, because you get to define "achieve", you can't be a loser, but anyone else can be.


----------



## 99thRedBalloon (Dec 12, 2016)

My idea of a loser as someone who is both incompetent and has no social appeal. People who are undeniably 'losers' in my view are neckbeards, so-called 'nice guys' and those who describe themselves as 'involuntarily celibate' taking out their sexual frustration on the entire female sex and howling about 'normies.'

Oh, and reactionaries


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

drmiller100 said:


> You judge others from your pedestal?
> 
> And you get to define "achieve", not them, right?
> 
> *So, because you get to define "achieve", you can't be a loser, but anyone else can be.*


I'd disagree with this notion. I _definitely_ fail my own standards for myself sometimes.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> You judge others from your pedestal?
> 
> And you get to define "achieve", not them, right?
> 
> So, because you get to define "achieve", you can't be a loser, but anyone else can be.


Not really. I think you and I are talking about very different groups of people. You're talking about "others" and "anyone else" in extremely broad terms, and I'm talking very specifically about people who think they are the most amazing thing ever and try to compete in areas I compete.


----------



## Scarlet Eyes (May 15, 2015)

I agree that we shouldn't categorize the majority as "losers," as that depends on our personal perception of what makes one. 

For me, a "loser" is defined as someone who bemoans on and on about their situation but does nothing to improve it. Awareness is only half the battle. Sure, lamenting gives you something to do. But in the long run, it won't help you eliminate your problems. I think it's better to suck it up and try to change your situation.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

I have no business judging how other people lead their lives, lazy or not, whiny or not. People only become losers when they are manipulative and hurtful towards OTHER people, in my book. Do whatever you want with your own life without hurting anyone else, and that's your own problem; I have no issues with it. 

Going around judging EVERYONE as losers and not-losers also seems to be rather bitter and narrow-minded, tbh. As long as the person isn't hurting anyone else they don't deserve that judgment for making their own choices with their life.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> What business is it of your's to judge anyone else?


It's fun for me 


> why can't you celebrate differences instead of tearing someone else down? What is the point? Seems like a huge waste of time to me.


As I noted, I don't like the concept of 'loser'. I think when you look at the way we judge people things can fall apart pretty quickly - the difference between some noted genius who is applauded for his eccentricities, and a homeless man who has the exact same habits and is reviled for them might just be the difference between fame and misfortune. And the qualities that make people popular are not really the same qualities that make people good people. Likewise, there's always situations where for instance you hear someone say a joke - no one laughs - someone else repeats it - everyone laughs - things like this happen all the time in life, and I'm not sure that there's much rhyme or reason to it. 

But even though I don't think this concept has much _inherent_ meaning - and my belief is that it is important to break free of this way of seeing people and ourselves, and see people as God sees them - it's still a concept that is pretty powerful in terms of society and individual psyches. I think a lot of people have an idea of what a 'loser' is [they might not use that term lol] and I think that may say something about what they value or the core things they are afraid of letting go of.

Particularly, I think it's an important driving concept for image types, who I think are essentially haunted by the knowledge that there are 'losers' and 'winners' and are likely to deal with that in different ways. I was imagining that image types might have a somewhat different construction of what makes a loser - while non-image types might have a more internal idea of what it means - failing a real goal - while image types might have a more nebulous and layered idea of the term. 

Another thing I was thinking was that perhaps people would tend to view 'losers' as people who fail to meet their [the judger's] type's goals. Which is the sort of thing which I can imagine can give people perspective - that who someone consider's a 'loser' probably has more to do with the first someone than the 'loser'. One of the things I find valuable about Enneagram. 

For instance, I was noting that for me the thing that really protects someone from being a loser in any sense is being loved really deeply and constantly by someone - dumb example but I was thinking about the show Frasier and noticing that I couldn't even conceive of Daphne as a loser because _Niles loves her_. That may be common, but it might show some 2 influence - whereas maybe a 9 would think of someone as being protected from being a loser if they are content and at peace with themselves, etc. - I'm not really sure.

Just to explain more my intentions with this thread. I was tired when I made it so I didn't go into so much detail.

_____________________________

Been enjoying reading the responses so far!


----------



## Luckyshot (Dec 13, 2016)

Loser is someone who lacks metaphorical balls, someone who does not believe in ones ability to get whatever they want out of life.


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

me


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

no_id said:


> me


['thank' of amusement, not agreement ]


----------



## Watchtower (Aug 20, 2015)

I see losers as people who have completely given up on themselves, who don't believe in themselves to get up when they've been knocked down, when there's only stagnation. A bit of self-pity and lamenting is absolutely fine, and may even be necessary for a while to gather oneself after some kind of a negative ordeal, but if there's no effort to strive towards something, some goal towards progress (whatever that may be for them), no matter how small, then I see these people as the real losers in life. It's not anything external, it's a mindset.


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

Watchower I somewhat beg to differ. I'm myself too attached to my goal and that's sometime an annoying part of me but that I finally value sometime, but my brother have abandonned all - his philosophy is even "there is no point having goal in life" and he's now doctor with applause of jury with a probably really great scientist carreer coming.

What you see on people is the superficiality, I mean someone who said like my brother said is sometime a way to make ambition outside consciousness in order to actually accomplish them (or at least "something" -We never go so far that when we do not know where we are going- like Freud said)


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Figure said:


> Not really. I think you and I are talking about very different groups of people. You're talking about "others" and "anyone else" in extremely broad terms, and I'm talking very specifically about people who think they are the most amazing thing ever and try to compete in areas I compete.



Nice of you to go ahead and judge and tell me what I'm talking about. If you want to make it a personal thing, defined by YOU, about specific people, Ok. 

Again, you get to judge individual people, and label them losers based upon your personal criteria. 

Do you tell someone they are a loser to their face? Do you talk about losers to other people?

Once you have defined someone to be a loser, what happens then?

Have you defined me to be a loser? I think I'm pretty amazing, and doubt I meet your criteria in any competition which is judged by YOU. 

The OP was about how different enneagram types define "losers." Well, I'm an 8w7, and I react to judgmental people who try to tear someone else down by labeling them losers.

I think rather than define "losers", perhaps we look into WHY people choose different paths than we do. Perhaps a person doesn't want to compete. Perhaps a loser doens't have the skills I do in certain areas, but wants to improve. Perhaps a loser is lonely, or wants attention, or needs validation. 

Perhaps a person is simply immature, and thinks they are the center of the universe, and because they are so young, and so smart, they get to judge everyone else based upon their experience set, and they demand attention, and they have the "right" to make definitions. 

That is healthy for a teenager. Most grow out of it.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

The Night's Queen said:


> Anyway, speaking from a perspective of *gut feelings* and categorizations, what makes a 'loser' for you? Is it competence, social affluence, romantic potency, life possibilities, etc.
> 
> Again, I don't really think of people as 'loser's and I don't want to encourage that kind of thinking, but it's definitely a concept that is present, and it interests me to hear how different people might conceptualize it.


To myself, I recognize losers, as "Social Rejects" .. or the [obviously], _socially-rejected_; for the most part. To me, "loser" just means _dysfunctional_.

Although, to elaborate further, social rejects, are not *just* _rejected_ — but they are also dysfunctional of that of normal capacity, and lacking in social-awareness (&) etiquette due to indifference. (e.g., unhygienic, socially "stumped", incompetent), or _lacking_ in *the basics*. That is, standards of living and/or socialization to achieve basic "acceptance" and self-care/well-being.

These 'losers' are usually seen in the poor, (i.e. those that are in adulthood), those with some degree of _social-malfunctions_, that makes them innately _dysfunctional_ to themselves, and some forms of treatable illnesses, I will say, as well.

I personally, do not recognize losers of those that have "fought the game," and lost; or those that are "not winners", and in the most pragmatic identification of a loser, hitting "rough patches" during the terrain run — but rather, those that cannot get past _the tutorial_, while acquiring a certain amount of capacity to do so.

The question that arises to my mind is, _what's wrong_ with being a loser .. (?) Superficially, nothing at all.

However, there is surely nothing _good_ about suffering, is there?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Catwalk said:


> "Social rejects" .. or the [obviously], _socially-rejected_.
> 
> 'Social-rejects', however, are not just _rejected_ — but they are also dysfunctional of that of normal capacity, and lacking in social-awareness (&) etiquette due to indifference. (e.g., unhygienic, socially "stumped", incompetent), or _lacking_ in *the basics*. That is, standards of living and/or socialization to achieve basic "acceptance" and self-care/well-being.
> 
> ...


"Socially stumped." Indeed. Is that like intellectually stunted, except different?

Fascinating. So you define losers as those who don't give a fuck about socially getting along. They don't spend the effort, nor time, nor energy kissing asses and being popular. 

I guess I qualify for that. 

How am I suffering?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

drmiller100 said:


> "Socially stumped." Indeed. Is that like intellectually stunted, except different?


No. The "intellectually" stunted -_ lack capacity_. My post elaborates on those who acquire _the capacity_; but in turn, do not utilize it, and thus, are socially dysfunctional; so much so, _self-care_ (&) _well-being_ deteriorates. And thus, _decreases _the functionality (&) well-being of surrounding parties, as well from their own "laziness". This usually results in expulsion.



> Fascinating. So you define losers as those who don't give a fuck about socially getting along.


Some are; but _not all_. There are plenty of "functional" individual(s); that do not fit "norms"; but are rather socially-functional. Your _reactivity_ cloud(s) my post; as I have already elaborated :: 



> I personally, do not recognize losers of those that have "fought the game," and lost; or those that are "not winners", and in the most pragmatic identification of a loser, hitting "rough patches" during the terrain run — but rather, those that cannot get past the tutorial, while acquiring a certain amount of capacity to do so.


[HR][/HR]





> They don't spend the effort, nor time, nor energy kissing asses and being popular.


No. You can be "_socially-functional,_" (e.g., attending to the basics / taking care of yourself), without acquiring popularity; nor favoritism. :numbness:





> I guess I qualify for that.
> 
> How am I suffering?


It depend(s) on the degree of how "dysfunctional" one is; and to what degree of unnecessarily suffering persists. 

I think; for the most part [based off your posting history] - you are rather _socially-functional_ - assuming you still are _caring for yourself,_ properly.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Catwalk said:


> - assuming you still are _caring for yourself,_ properly.


what would that look like?


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

Looser are sad. 
Winner are happy.

(trolltest)


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

drmiller100 said:


> what would that look like?


That is, _attending to your *character;*_ (Well-being). This starts in and is _rooted in_, early childhood development and socialization. (e.g., social-functionality). 

"Losers" let '_personal values_' conflict with their overall well-being and self-care; demonstrably, not showering for 10 days results in _repulsion_, and _social rejection_ and discomfort of surrounding parties dependent on locality.

That is why I say, "social rejects" aren't *just* _rejected_ — they are almost always, _dysfunctional_ in some way. (e.g., poor hygiene / standards of living, sufficiently lacking in the basics of social etiquette), and "losers" usually have the acquired capacity to change this.


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

Strange.. Personnal value have a social side too. I mean, not showering for 10 days is a part of personnal value, contrary is more like lack of awareness

There is possibility of conflict of things like hygiene and personnal value ? I mean this is ridiculous

Loser is probably not only about that


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Catwalk said:


> That is, _attending to your *character;*_ (Well-being). This starts in and is _rooted in_, early childhood development and socialization. (e.g., social-functionality).
> 
> "Losers" let '_personal values_' conflict with their overall well-being and self-care; demonstrably, not showering for 10 days results in _repulsion_, and _social rejection_ and discomfort of surrounding parties dependent on locality.
> 
> That is why I say, "social rejects" aren't *just* _rejected_ — they are almost always, _dysfunctional_ in some way. (e.g., poor hygiene / standards of living, sufficiently lacking in the basics of social etiquette), and "losers" usually have the acquired capacity to change this.


For some reason "intellectually stunted" sticks in my craw. 

So losers don't shower for 10 days. I've gone 10 days without showering. Ergo, I'm a loser.

I can prove I have no social etiquette. I offer this thread as proof. Again, a loser I am.
@Figure says I'm a loser if he decides my arguments don't meet his standards. He quit responding, so either I'm a loser, or he's a quitter.

I think I feel pretty good living in loser land by both of your standards. 

Interesting isn't it where we value such different things.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

no_id said:


> Strange.. Personnal value have a social side too. I mean, not showering for 10 days is a part of personnal value, contrary is more like lack of awareness
> 
> There is possibility of conflict of things like hygiene and personnal value ? I mean this is ridiculous
> 
> Loser is probably not only about that


So much "emphasis" / approximation .. none of my post(s) are _about_ hygiene nor do I state anywhere, "personal values" are separate from social context.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

drmiller100 said:


> For some reason "intellectually stunted" sticks in my craw.


OK.



> So losers don't shower for 10 days. I've gone 10 days without showering. Ergo, I'm a loser.


No. I do not recognize "loser" as a permanent state; but a _consistent _ practice. 

"Hygiene" is only a small portion of social-malfunction(s), that demonstrably not only harm the _practicer_; but causes discomfort to surrounding parties. 

You are reducing the entirety of my post, to a sub-example of "social etiquette,". Although, I _should not_ have to lecture (functional) agents; on the importance of hygiene. To address it more broadly, I will utilize simple "health" (e.g., well-being). Lack of attending to "health" makes (X)-individual _dysfunctional_; or brings in negative-reinforcement from such a practice. Of course, "social health" exists in so far as we are, indeed, a _social species_. Personal refusal to comply, usually results in negative social-stigmas; to which I am not against, dependent on which. 

_Btw_; I see _you have _showered since then. :bwink: 


___________

My main post simply says; "losers" are those that acquire _the capacity _to attend to one's well-being; but do not do it. In turn; they are usually _socially-rejected_, due to their indifference. If they are dysfunctional — those that _interact _with them; likely will be as well. As for how you "personally" feel about washing your ass; having no appropriate mannerism when it calls for it, or respect for others, I haven't _a 'personal' care_ whatsoever. :numbness: .....

But if you are e/affecting others in a way that makes them _dysfunctional_; this does rationally call for a _conduct_ judgment. You call them "people; criminals; or teenagers," .. I call them losers; _big whup_. 

Losers are those that "refuse" to complete _the tutorial_; but still use, distract, or "resent" the gamers. 



> I can prove I have no social etiquette. I offer this thread as proof. Again, a loser I am.


_What for _.. (?) It doesn't need to be "proven"; only demonstrated. There are plenty of loser(s) [to my terms], running around. The grown adult lacking the "basics"; but acquiring the capacity, decreasing the well-being of those they mooch off, would be an example.




> @Figure says I'm a loser if he decides my arguments don't meet his standards. He quit responding, so either I'm a loser, or he's a quitter.


He hasn't "quit" anything — because there was no "competition", (none of your posts are _arguments_; but merely_ reactive _assertion(s) - and to my post, extraneous questions); perhaps he's just simply _withdrawn_ from the discussion. 




> I think I feel pretty good living in loser land by both of your standards.
> 
> Interesting isn't it where we value such different things.


Then _what's the issue_ .. (?) ... I haven't mentioned any of my "values"; only my impression of what a "loser" entails - or to which is consistently referred to as.

Losers can be _happy being _losers; and can conjugate around other losers, in the same way "_murderers_"; can be apart of a team.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

When he wants to be a winner.

Because in winning, it takes a lot of losing before you achieve something. 

You must become a loser first to be a proud winner


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Catwalk said:


> Losers can be _happy being _losers; and can conjugate around other losers, in the same way "_murderers_"; can be apart of a team.



maybe everyone on this site is a loser!!! 

would it bother you to be considered a loser?


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Well, thinking of someone as a loser is a form of social control through shame. It's a show and a warning to others to not be/act like the so-called loser or else... social ostracism. It's to protect the group from acts that are deemed harmful to its social cohesion, which oftentimes are nothing but phantasms, but still. There is an intelligence to it.
On an individual level I'd say it's a way to control self-worth in areas where one is insecure. If someone is deemed a loser, then it follows that some other is deemed a winner. And if you are the one to deem others to be losers, it allows you to think you are winning just by the mere fact of being able to call out that someone else isn't. Being "on top of the game," giving you altitude above the rest, your view on top of the mountain allowing you to see the flaws of others. Exaltation of the self by diminishing the worth of another. Of course, putting others down doesn't actually increase one's own worth, it merely lowers the barrier of success in order to feel "better than". It's cutting corners so one doesn't have to put in the work.



The Night's Queen said:


> I am using the term casually and comparitively, not philosophically etc.


Ah shoot. :laughing:

I sure would consider the areas we think of in terms of "loser" vs "winner" as potentially indicative of type. As there is no need for such categories unless the ego feels threatened somehow, and type is all about that vulnerable and oversensitive ego!



> Anyway, speaking from a perspective of gut feelings and categorizations, what makes a 'loser' for you?


It's funny really, if you would catch me off guard with this question, my impulse would be to say that I don't view people in these terms - to a fault. This isn't true of course, but I do think it betrays my type. It's the egalitarian approach. No competition, no hierarchy, no status... which means no conflict. The 9 resisting the inner 3, the line of integration, while having some of that 6 paranoia of standing out. It's resisting "being part of" and being present.
What has helped me is recognizing how (healthy) competition can make for excellence and skill. How it can propel us forward and how allowing oneself to shine doesn't have to mean creating conflict or creating an imbalance. In fact, balance wouldn't ever be achieved by stagnation and mediocrity.

If I am more honest with myself, I can say that I tend to think of those who don't take risks for their dreams as losers. Those who are too afraid to shake up the status quo to really live up to their potential. Stagnancy is death. Settling is giving up. Allowing life to dull is defeat.
Do you see a theme here? It's the other side around the 9-3(-6) pivotal motion. This is the 3 condemning the 9. It's a self-criticism projected outward, because I know just how much I have the tendency to do exactly what I deem as "losing" here. I know it's my trap, and I fear it with all my being (or so my ego tells me), yet it's so easy to be lulled into sitting in comfort by life.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

- If you criticize others for something you cannot do yourself, you are a loser.
- If you look for someone to blame for your ongoing problems instead of looking inward, you are a loser.
- If you project your idea of others onto them, and don't even _try_ to see them for who they actually are, but claim to "love them," you are the ultimate loser.
- If you mistake voluntary weakness for vulnerability - in yourself or in others - you are a loser.



Everyone has done these things at one time or another, myself included. But you are what you do. And making habits out of these things instead of confronting them makes you a loser. That said, losers can transform into winners through reflection, changing habits, and genuinely having interest in improvement. I tend to see people as losers because they lack the _intent_ to grow, rather than, because they make mistakes.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

A person comfortable with losing. As a famous coach said, show me a good loser and I will show you a loser.

Letting other people decide you lost. I judge if I am winning or losing. I don't know what fuckin game everyone else is playing but I am winning mine. lol.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Figure said:


> The funny thing is, I sometimes label people as losers even when they ostensibly "win." Obviously, there's the drug addict who was given a chance by someone who tried to help them, didn't take responsibility for themselves, and blew their chance on addictions. But I also have a very keen eye for situations where someone DOES "win" and takes credit for an accomplishment, when someone else actually did the legwork in the background for them and yes, I more often than not consider the so called figurehead a loser, or at least a scam (hello Corporate America).


It's interesting. While I can think that what you're saying makes sense, if I'm being honest it's different from how I actually feel. Even if I can think that they don't _deserve_ it, I still recognise them as a winner, and someone more honest might be a sucker... but then I think that's in-line with what I said before. 

And if I think about it enough, I think I could say something similar to @*Vixey* for example (because if you're valued by others that can give you the upper hand, and also why I agree Rachel from Friends (though it's been a while since I watched that) doesn't come across as much of a loser), but feels like I approach it differently too.


----------



## Solar Angel (Dec 18, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> A person comfortable with losing. As a famous coach said, show me a good loser and I will show you a loser.
> 
> Letting other people decide you lost. I judge if I am winning or losing. I don't know what fuckin game everyone else is playing but I am winning mine. lol.


I agree. You're only a true loser if you choose to be. It's a state of mind you allow yourself to have, not something somebody thrusts upon you.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

drmiller100 said:


> would it bother you to be considered a loser?


By people _here_? No.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> Nice of you to go ahead and judge and tell me what I'm talking about. If you want to make it a personal thing, defined by YOU, about specific people, Ok.
> 
> Again, you get to judge individual people, and label them losers based upon your personal criteria.
> 
> ...


Dude, relax. Nobody here, including myself, is "judging" you. I highly doubt you were on anyone's list of quintessentials when they thought of what would make a "loser" on this thread.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

deleted.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

The Night's Queen said:


> Note: I believe that the concept of people being empirically 'losers' is flawed and toxic in a society as it implies that worth is external etc. etc. etc. I would refrain from calling or thinking of anyone as a 'loser' in a real sense but this is a different matter. I am using the term casually and comparitively, not philosophically etc.
> 
> Anyway, thought this could be an interesting Enneagram question. What is a loser to you?
> 
> ...


A loser is simply someone with achievable goals yet unable to achieve them due to a lack of X Y and Z, stereotypical examples include motivation, dedication, diligence, intelligence etc... Some key words which are associated with the term loser are generally lazy, unmotivated, burden to society and others, useless, stupid, cowardice, weak mentality/willed.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

I suppose the people I have considered losers in my personal life are those who manipulate others for their own gain. That's actually the only common thing I can think of between them.


----------



## fr1cti0n (Dec 5, 2014)

Unfortunately, upbringing plays a huge role in the success of a person. Some people are "losers" because of a lot of decisions made by their parents.


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

Watchtower said:


> Your brother has passion/ambition, and that, in essence, is alike having a goal. It doesn't really matter if you put it into words or not, what matters is action vs inaction. He hasn't abandoned anything but obsessing over goals.


I didn't say this or I expressed it the bad way. Like you said "internally" he have abandonned nothing. But superficially if you ask his moral POV about that, it's like he have. I bet there is psychologically more to lose if you have "fight moral" + "high 'voiced' ambition" than "pseudo cool moral" and "almost unconscious mega ambition". It's how I see the thing, I can mistake


----------

