The subject of leadership and management came up at work and someone made the claim that behind the drive toward leadership was envy. I didn't quite buy the argument, but couldn't articulate why. Being as I'm deeply broken inside, I had no recourse but to begin dissecting the emotion of envy and examining what it is.

First, I started writing down a list of emotions that are often conflated with envy; jealousy, admiration, resentment, egalitarianism, ambition, and greed. Then I set about understanding how to distinguish each from envy.

I noticed that these emotions shared a common set of attributes. Each seems to have a subject (the person feeling the emotion), a rival (the person in possession of the thing in question), and an object (the thing in question).

Jealousy, it seems, can be distinguished from envy by virtue of the focus of the subject. If the focus of the subject is the rival, then it's envy, but if the focus is the object, it's jealousy. Put differently, if you have the attention of a beautiful girl and I want that attention for myself, I am jealous. If I'm just unhappy that you are getting that attention, it's envy.

Admiration can be distinguished from envy by virtue of what would satisfy the emotional need. If a copy of the object would suffice to make me happy, then it was admiration. If I won't be happy without having the original, then it was envy. For example, if you have a great job and I work hard so that I can get a great job, too, then I admired you. If, instead, I would only be happy if I got you removed from the job and took your place, then I was experiencing envy.

Egalitarianism is often called another name for class envy or wealth envy. While I think a lot of people hide their envy behind an egalitarian mask, I don't believe they are the same thing. I posit that if the subject would be more content to see both him and his rival without the object, then is is legitimately egalitarian. If, however, he would be equally or more content if he possessed the object instead of his rival, then his egalitarianism is a charade. The latter is envy. So, if you have a mansion and a limo and I would prefer that no one have such things, then I am thinking as an egalitarian. If I complain about your mansion and limo, but would secretly like to have one myself, it's simple envy.

On reflection, I found that resentment, ambition, and greed are not dichotomous with envy. One can have a resentful envy, a greedy jealousy, or an ambitious admiration. These emotions don't sit beside but separate from envy and the like, but instead enhance or modify them.

This brought questions to my mind:

1. Does a desire to challenge oneself have a rival and an object?
2. Does a desire for power inherently have a rival?
3. Does envy harm the subject to feel it?
4. Does envy harm the rival who is made aware?
5. Is envy localized to perceived competitors?
6. Does focus on rival or object modify admiration in a meaningful way like it does for envy and jealousy?

None of this really directly addresses the question that was originally posed, but now I'm more confidently able to discuss it.

And yeah, I'm a weirdo. Deal with it.

Ever heard of the Fundamental Attribution Error? It's that little inner voice that tells you that when others do things it's because they have personalities that drive them toward that behavior, but when you do things it's due to situational necessities.

Bob was angry? Well, of course he was. He is an unhappy grump of a man. I was angry? Well, of course I was. It was a tough day.

This sort of cognitive bias makes self-criticism difficult. It is the bugbear that says to you, "He just wants to irritate me!" and "Why's he so mad?  I didn't do it on purpose!."

I don't have any great insight to offer here. It's just something that's on my mind lately. It's worth keeping our biases on the top of our minds lest we forget that we are not always the protagonist in other's minds and those we see as our antagonist's do not often see themselves in that same light.

Approach the world with a little humility and watch the difference it makes.

• Defying Gravity (shoeshrink.com)
• Fundamental Attribution Error and Progressive Economic Policies (themoderatevoice.com)

Probably more due to my Asperger's than anything else, I can't rely on the intuitive understanding of body language that others can. I don't naturally read facial expressions and I don't naturally empathize with emotive gestures. Thankfully, I've learned that being able to do that is important and I've worked hard on it. I often get called out for the odd way in which I read body language rationally rather than emotively. That's fair. I studied it as best I could. It was the only way I was going to get anywhere in life. Because people are always asking me what a gesture, look, or tone means, I figured it might be worth putting some of that in my blog.

Hands are telling. People who keep their hands still while talking are often being reserved. A person who is gesturing with their palms up are generally receptive and open to the discussion or activity, whereas the palms down indicates an aggressiveness or controlling attitude toward the situation. Pointing is often called rude. Well, it can be if it's excessive, but done subtly and without rigid or quick motions, pointing at a person makes them feel important to the speaker.

A firm handshake matters. It's not just a wives' tale. It gives the receiver the impression of self confidence. Cutting motions with the hands are a sign that the speaker is trying to explain a detail, dissect a problem, or clarify a nuance. On the flip side, the same motion is often perceived as aggressive and even hostile, so be careful in using it. People who position their hands oddly in photos are generally insecure with their bodies. You may think that tossing up a faux gang sign is funny or a peace sign is cool, and you are probably right, but when you do it a lot, you are telling the world that you want them seeing the humor you present and not the person presenting it. Luckily for you, most people don't know that, so your (perhaps subconscious) secret insecurity is safe. Fidgeting with your fingers is, as most people know, a sign of boredom. That said, it's less corollary than you might think. It is also a sign of physical discomfort, social uncertainty, and just excess energy. So, don't assume the guy listening to you while drumming his fingers on the desk is bored. Likewise, avoid fidgety fingers. It is almost universally interpreted as a bad thing, even when it's not. Getting agreement is easier if you use your hands as well. If you want someone to say yes, start with subtle up and down gestures. Perhaps cycling your hands in front of yor chest while explaining something. It will be interpreted as you saying something already apparent and will have the listener predisposed to giving an agreeing nod at the end. Avoid side sweeping motions, as that will hurt your chances for agreement.

I could go on, but you get the idea. There's a lot that most people take for granted in non verbal communication. Knowing what those details are can help. Especially for someone like me who just can't get it normally. Yes, it does suck being me. Maybe I'll post something about reading the eyes another time. They are far more expressive and telling than hands. :-)

View My Full MyPersonality.org Profile

Openness

93%

Conscientiousness

44%

Extraversion

55%

Agreeableness

60%

Neuroticism

43%