"Be the bigger man" - Quote :
- The phrase "be the bigger man" is a colloquial expression that suggests someone should take the high road or act in a more mature and responsible manner, especially in the context of a conflict or argument. It's not necessarily about physical size but rather about displaying emotional maturity, self-control, and the ability to rise above a contentious situation.
When people use this expression, they are encouraging someone to rise above the negative emotions and behaviors associated with the conflict. It implies that the "bigger man" is the one who can set aside personal feelings, avoid escalating the situation, and perhaps even seek resolution or compromise. It's a call for emotional intelligence and a willingness to diffuse tension rather than perpetuate it.
In many conflicts, taking the higher ground can lead to more positive outcomes, such as improved communication, better understanding, and the potential for resolution. It acknowledges that sometimes the most constructive response is to disengage from a heated argument and find a more peaceful or productive way to address differences.
Do you agree that "the bigger man" is the one who gives in first? Or is this some kind of a method to put certain people with talent or inherited advantages, to their places?
I've worked briefly as a school attendance assistant to the elementary school students. I didn't have any kind of authority there, so I didn't have any major influence on the children and their behavior. One thing I noticed though, is that the more gifted children had to apologize a lot to other kids, and this demand came from authorities such as class teachers. Of course I'm not talking about the snotty and vile bullies here; but the children who clearly had higher IQ and many times some advanced physical capacities in relation to their age and size. I remember one time the kids were lifting their school bags from behind their neck with one arm (so basically a bicep muscle exercise). One boy could not lift a single rep while the other could do many repetitions easily. The boy who couldn't perform a single lift, made an excuse: "Well I have an injury in my arm" and the other boy just said: "Yeah, right". Then this weaker boy went to the teacher, said that this other boy is bullying him and even explained to the teacher that the only reason he couldn't do what the stronger boy did, was because he suffered from an injury. And as a result this teacher yelled to the stronger boy: "Well don't you understand? This boy wasn't a match for you because his arm hurt. Apologize!"
We see this also from time to time in media scandals in Western world when someone has said something "wildly inappropriate" even though he has substantiated his claims well. There are cases when this person has indeed criticized... and yes, sometimes even offended someone. If this "someone" who is offended is part of some "minority group", have you realized that the offender is demanded to apologize to many other people in addition to that person who he originally offended, even though they were not offended, but they were sympathizing with the one who was offended?
By apologizing, the individual who crossed the line (sometimes this crossing can be just by existing and representing some qualities) is made seem equal to those he apologized to. But have you noticed, the majority of the people never apologize for anything, nor are they demanded to?
So while it might be true that it is indeed the "bigger men" who ever apologize in the first place and that it is only "bigger men" who are demanded to do so, the process of apologizing seems to be a pursuit of putting him into his place. This is especially apparent when he is demanded to apologize even to the people who had no personal involvement in the case.
One of the problems is of course that our society doesn't have class division anymore. The more intelligent people are forced to interact with people with significantly lower IQ's. And the worst part is: the intelligent people are demanded to take lower IQ individuals seriously.
Actually, my experience of these children lifting the schoolbags is a good example of something I'm about to point out. Notice that it was first the weaker child who was making excuses and thus creating the case for himself. The stronger boy didn't really offend him in any way (at least not in my opinion), he just replied sarcastically "yeah, right..."
So you don't even have to be particularly aggressive to be considered the offender. You just have to ignore what less intelligent individuals say in order to be considered the offender. So you are forced to consider and even value all the excuses of people who are less able. Normally you wouldn't even wish to encounter them, but this is possible in the modern Western world.
Have you noticed in the media industry, if we are presented a character whose ability is in the high level, the character is usually considered evil? There are exceptions, one of which is The Matrix. Neo's abilities are beyond understanding, but he is considered good only because he uses all his abilities to help others who are less able. So he is using literally all his time and energy to save Zion, in the end he even gives his life for Zion. It depends on your worldview if Neo is wasting his potential or using his full potential for something fruitful...
