>Identify what irritates people the most in others—because this is probably the trait they dislike most in themselves. ... Cheaters always gripe that others are dishonest. The liar always accuses other people of lying.
I think the answer is more complicated. Why do security companies hire convicted black hat hackers to do security? Why does the government employ convicted scammers and fraudsters to investigate scams and fraud? Because the qualities that let you see something clearly are also the qualities that can make you vulnerable to it. Which is why integrity is so important.
I'm irritated (lol) by the implication that the person with no irritations is the one with no vulnerabilities. As if being tolerant and permissive of all things is the correct way to exist. That there is nothing worth feeling strongly against because it implies to others that you are guilty of it, and so if you don't want to "out" yourself, you must not feel strongly about anything.
EDIT>> I think I'm saying that "integrity" and "capability" are two dimensions of this idea, and that they are orthogonal. Low capability, high/low integrity = mostly harmless. Low integrity, high capability = hurts others. High integrity, high capability = helps others.
While I appreciated some of the thoughts in the essay, this is the one that jumped out at me as problematic as well.
I thought long and hard about this, and my biggest frustration is when people around me refuse to change their minds despite all evidence. This goes hand-in-hand with people who refuse to engage in a good-faith debate.
While I am certainly not perfect and need to keep improving, I've worked hard to cultivate these qualities in myself, and I think that hard work is partially why I am frustrated when I encounter the opposite in others.
For sake of argument, I'll assume the author is right, and one's frustrations are also one's own weaknesses. The author's test does not account for the people who have learned the most by recognizing these negative qualities in themselves and working to change them.
I found it to me more along the lines of 'thou dost protest too much', because otherwise it makes little sense. Why can we not be irritated by people who treat service workers poorly, for example? I used to be one, and I know what it is like. I am also a person so I know what that is like, and I don't like people who treat others poorly. That isn't because I am projecting, it is because I am empathetic.
However, if I think that everyone is out to cheat me, or that other people always value money over loyalty, and I express that to you and it seems kind of out of proportion to things that have actually happened to me, then you should look at me suspiciously because most likely those are traits I have.
Irritations can also be past weaknesses. Like you said, you’ve put in the work why don’t others? That’s irritating/frustrating in itself because it implies that they don’t think it’s worth the work which by implication invalidates your effort and that feels bad.
Wikipedia's[0]description of CG Jung's Shadow:
"an unconscious aspect of the personality that does not correspond with the ego ideal, leading the ego to resist and project the shadow. In short, the shadow is the self's emotional blind spot..."
I think the answer is more complicated. Why do security companies hire convicted black hat hackers to do security? Why does the government employ convicted scammers and fraudsters to investigate scams and fraud? Because the qualities that let you see something clearly are also the qualities that can make you vulnerable to it. Which is why integrity is so important.
I'm irritated (lol) by the implication that the person with no irritations is the one with no vulnerabilities. As if being tolerant and permissive of all things is the correct way to exist. That there is nothing worth feeling strongly against because it implies to others that you are guilty of it, and so if you don't want to "out" yourself, you must not feel strongly about anything.
EDIT>> I think I'm saying that "integrity" and "capability" are two dimensions of this idea, and that they are orthogonal. Low capability, high/low integrity = mostly harmless. Low integrity, high capability = hurts others. High integrity, high capability = helps others.