What is the WORST, most dislikable personality trait a person can have?

Colour Scientist

Troll the Respawn, Jeremy!
Jul 15, 2009
4,722
0
0
Actually, I have another one.

People who are so insecure that you need to prove how much you love/like them all of the time.

I've experienced it with a couple of friends where they expect you to bend over backwards for them, not talk to the people they don't like, respond to all of their texts/calls immediately and invite them to absolutely everything you do because, if you don't, it's some sort of betrayal and you clearly don't like them any more.

Thankfully, I cut one of those people out of my life and the other has completely grown out of it.

I can understand people being insecure but it becomes a burden when it gets to the point where you need to constantly reassure them of how great they are and how they come before everyone else, including yourself. Usually, in my experience, the level of reassurance and commitment they require is rarely reciprocated to the same degree.
 

TheMadDoctorsCat

New member
Apr 2, 2008
1,163
0
0
WouldYouKindly said:
Willful ignorance. It's one thing to just not know any better. It's quite another to not know any better and be determined to never learn.
I was going to say something similar, but I think you've put it better than me. Nonetheless, I'd say a combination of arrogance and ignorance.

Arrogance when it's backed up by competence isn't annoying to me. I see nothing wrong with someone stating their positive points when they can back them up.

Saying you're the best when you CAN'T back it up, though - especially when you're determined to believe that you are the best, regardless of the facts of the matter - annoys me to no end.
 

AnarchistFish

New member
Jul 25, 2011
1,500
0
0
I don't mind rudeness too much. Over politeness can get annoying and often I can't be bothered with it.


I hate arrogance in ignorance. Close minded people, who won't even consider another viewpoint or idea or that their own perspective may be twisted.
 

Eddie the head

New member
Feb 22, 2012
2,327
0
0
WouldYouKindly said:
Willful ignorance. It's one thing to just not know any better. It's quite another to not know any better and be determined to never learn.
I find that ignorance, willful or otherwise, is far better then the illusion of knowledge.
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
I've just completed a rotation in mental health, and we had to deal with the following unpleasant personality disorders:

1: Anti-social personality disorder. These people were not too unpleasant to deal with from a treatment perspective, since they knew that you were unlikely to believe a word they said so they usually didn't bother with the lies, and two, that security were going to come down on them if they did anything "funny", so they generally didn't. But they were still just unpleasant to be around. Anti-social types have little empathy or regard to others, act impulsively, steal, and do things to purposefully annoy people. They weren't a threat to the staff, but they were annoying as hell to other patients. The worst thing about them was their shifting of blame - when anything went wrong in their life, on the ward, or with their health, it was always someone else's fault. "My wife left me because I was a drunkard and I was gambling away her money? What a *****!", or "My friend kicked me out because I was stealing his money to buy drugs? How dare he! He's not a true friend!" or "I somehow managed to consume a bottle of wine when I was on leave to get my things from my apartment? That's your fault, doc, for letting me leave!" Jesus Christ, they were forever blaming everyone else for their problems.

2: Border-line personality disorder. The psych wards are full of 'em, and most of them shouldn't be there. Borderline patients have extreme emotional-instability and severe abandoment issues. Funny thing is, their personality actively drives people away. They are hypersensitive to criticism, they are always worried about people leaving them and worst of all, they engage in "splitting" - splitting is where the patient will divide people into two camps: "All Good" or "All Bad", and treat people accordingly. Did one thing bad to a Border-line patient? Then you're total scum in their eyes and they'll treat you like that. Whenever they hate someone, suddenly the hate must become all encompassing and total. They also switch out who is "bad" and who is "good" in their eyes, seemingly at random. They drive people away with their ridiculous behaviour, with their tantrums and screaming matches and then moan that "nobody cares about me!". There's nothing more annoying than dealing with a Borderline Patient because it's obvious to every single person around them that it's their own behaviour that drives people away, but they never ever realize it. They get into the psych wards because they self-harm to get attention or to emotionally blackmail people. They always threaten to kill themselves, and we always have to admit them, but they aren't really suicidal. It's part of their act - they act like their lives are Oh-So-Dramatic and that they are the TRAGIC HERO in their own fantasy reality. You know that Song "Someone Is Crazy" by Jonathan Coulton? - that describes a Borderline-Patient to a Tee.

3: Paranoid Personality Disorder. The worst thing about a paranoid personality is the narcissism that's part of their toxic mix. Everything is about them. Every comment you make, is somehow about them. Every glance, every off-hand comment, every single action has something to do with them, because gosh darn it, they spend so much time thinking about themselves that they assume everyone else does. I don't like paranoid people for that reason - they think they're so damn special. The vast majority of paranoid people are NOBODIES. They are not special, they are not important, they are boring. But they think they are so special to warrant all this attention and all these plots arrayed against them. Please - we have other things to do than think about you or plot against you. You just want to scream at some of these paranoid people: "You think you're so special!? Nobody cares about you! You're nobody! You're nothing! These plots you think exist are just some stupid fantasy you've concocted to give meaning to your insignificant existence! YOU. ARE. INSIGNIFICANT! No one is spying on you! You're NOT WORTH SPYING ON!" Of course, you don't say this to the patient, but damn it you really want to sometimes.

Paranoid is probably the worst to have, simply because it can be so incredibly hostile. At least with the Borderline patients, sometimes they can be nice, especially if they put you in their "good" camp. The Anti-Social types can be superficially charming at times (although watch out for that, some are very good liars) but are fairly straight forward and blunt in their approach to you. It's the paranoid types with their constant "Scanning" for threats that are a chore to deal with, since they are willing, ready and absolutely waiting to misinterpret everything you say, fix their minds on the worst-outcomes and misinterpret everyone's intentions. They can be so hostile, so toxic in their opinion of everyone else, that you just don't want to be in the same room as them.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
I can say that the type of person I hate more than anything else is people who make a big deal over nothing, particularly if what it is they're getting pissed about isn't a problem in and of itself but only a problem because they decided to get pissed to begin with. These are the kind of people who if something breaks around the house will spend 15 minutes whining and complaining about it and blaming everybody they can think of for it instead of shutting up, getting off their asses, and doing something about it. Or the kind of people who if somebody is doing something that wouldn't affect them in any way whatsoever, like someone cutting through their yard for 10 seconds daily not bothering anybody or causing damage for example in such a situation will walk right up to that person and chew them out for it.

My parents are both textbook examples I'm sorry to say.
 

PsiMatrix

Gray Jedi
Feb 4, 2008
172
0
0
Obsession or devotion.

In small grades it can be tolerable; liking a show to the point of never shutting up about it for example. You're passionate about what you love.

But when it becomes your ENTIRE LIFE to the detrement of yourself and others; that's when it can get sickening. Playing online games till you or your children starve, staying with that piece of crap who doesn't treat you with basic human rights or worshipping a celebrity or organisation when any criticism spurs vitriol from its followers even when it's valid.

By all means; be passionate but temper it.
 

Eliam_Dar

New member
Nov 25, 2009
1,517
0
0
mmm, not sure if this is a valid point, but I can't stand people who does not look at me when they speak to me. I am not talking about someone not looking at you because they are doing something, but someone who cannot look into your ayes when directly speaking to your. I don't trust people who does that, which is a problem since my brother in law (and then my sister) do that often.
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
NoeL said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
Your attempt to discredit his analogy is missing the most important parts:
Ooo! I know I'm not part of the convo but I'd like to jump in here.
Ihateregistering1 said:
"Person 1: well I'm still sick of Vanilla...its all they serve! I want chocolate mabye banana. Oh, and the ice cream shop is racist/sexist/homophobic for not having the ice cream I want"
Except people don't say that (well, the ones that do are few and far between, and idiots). You're misunderstanding the source of the outrage. People don't claim sexism/racism/whateverism because their group isn't being catered to, they claim it for reasons that are actually sexist/racist/whateverist. To use the most recent example, people weren't outraged that Nintendo didn't allow for same-sex couples in their sim game, they were outraged at Nintendo's 1) choice to patch it out when a bug introduced it (this was largely misdirected outrage given the actual circumstances), and more importantly 2) painting the issue as a matter of "social commentary" and implying same-sex relationships have no place in fun and whimsical worlds.

Ihateregistering1 said:
Oh, and this part:
"Person 1: I didn't say that...I just think the ice cream store would do well to offer more falvours.
Person 2: You do know the ice cream store has people on staff whose full-time job is to find out what flavors people would like and be most likely to purchase, and then advise the management, right?
Person 1: I know better than all of them."
I'm sure you've heard the stories about pasta sauce and or coffee, yes? Long story short, what people think they want isn't necessarily what people do want. Secondly, this kind of reasoning assumes/asserts that the full-time market research team is reporting that the inclusion of a particular flavour on their menu makes their ice-cream business less popular, which is unintuitive enough as to warrant some kind of supporting data. It's like someone saying "I really want some vanilla ice-cream, and they have it here but these jerks also serve chocolate so I'm going elsewhere for my fix." While I'm sure there's some sexists/racists/whateverists that will actively avoid any game that's inclusive of "the other guys" I'm not prepared to assume those numbers are greater than the number of people that would appreciate (with their wallets) being included.
"Except people don't say that (well, the ones that do are few and far between, and idiots)."
That might be true, but idiots always make the most noise. Likewise, with this "Tomodachi" thing, this was the opening sentence of Nintendo's statement: "We apologize for disappointing many people by failing to include same-sex relationships in Tomodachi Life." Not "we apologize for saying the words 'social commentary'". The game didn't have same sex relationships, and instead of people just saying "well then I'm not gonna buy it", they took to the internet to complain and call Nintendo bigots (an article on this website used that very word). So ok, it might only be a handful of people, but when you scream that loud you tend to drown out the sensible folks.

As for the marketing part, this was mostly in response to this argument, which I've seen a dozen times on this website:

Person 1: "Companies should make more games with _____________ (insert minority group here) characters."
Person 2: "Why?"
1: "Because there are a lot of people who want more ____________ characters."
2: "Don't you think if there really was this huge untapped market of people who want more ___________ characters, these billion dollar companies who exist primarily to turn a profit would realize they could make a lot of money implementing this?"
1: "Clearly they don't get it/they are _________-ist/it's all the COD players fault/etc.

This is ridiculous for 4 main reasons (and I use "you" in the general sense here):
1: It assumes that these multi-billion dollar companies haven't figured this out yet, but you, random internet poster person, have.
2: These companies have access to far more research data than you do.
3: Sure, people are fallible and make mistakes, but that means you do too.
4: It's not YOUR money or job on the line. If EA pumps $500 million into some new IP starring a black lesbian woman, even though their market research showed that the game would likely be much more successful with another cookie-cutter brown hair 30-something white guy protagonist, and the game is a complete flop, your life doesn't change in the slightest, not so much for EA employees and investors.
 

ClockworkPenguin

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2012
587
0
21
I can forgive passive aggressiveness. A lot of the time it comes from someone trying to deal with a situation that stresses them out in a polite manner, but not succeeding due to aforementioned stress, or just lack of awareness of the tone in which they may be perceived. It's annoying, but it's a hell of a lot better than actual aggressiveness.

Actually, gonna go with that. I can't be around aggressive people. People who try and get their way by being the loudest or most confrontational, who get defensive before you've even said anything.. I just can't deal with them. They stress me out too much and I have no idea how to resolve issues with those people. They are why people are passive aggressive. Because you can have to tiptoe around those people without giving them a target to flip at.
 

sebashepin

New member
Dec 25, 2009
22
0
0
People who with or without knowing disregard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor . Pretty much people who are unable to put themselves in the position of others.
 

COMaestro

Vae Victis!
May 24, 2010
739
0
0
So many options to choose from. One trait that annoys me to no end is when a person always thinks they are right. I have an aunt who is like this. You can show her physical proof that what she just said is wrong and she'll just ignore it. It makes you WANT to prove her wrong every time she says anything, which is bad because sometimes she IS right. It's not that I want to prove myself smarter or more knowledgeable than her, it's just I want her to see that SHE CAN BE WRONG ABOUT THINGS!!

Then there's the husband of my wife's friend. I don't even know how to describe the trait, other than I feel the world would be a better place without people like him. He seems completely self-centered when it comes to relating to his wife or those he considers "beneath" him, but will re-invent himself to match people he considers "above" him. So, for instance, he met his wife due to his interest in anime, but just a couple of years later he considers it all to be stupid and pointless because that's how people he respects sees it. He has considered other things stupid or worthless before, but then changed his tune to liking these same things all because someone "above" him likes them. So, that's how he reinvents himself, by having no opinion of his own, but only an opinion to match those of people he feels are better than him.

The way he treats his wife though. She was having trouble with some classes in school. Most husbands would do their best to support their wife in a similar situation. HE, on the other hand, takes her wedding ring and says he doesn't want to be married to a failure. She got it back later, but damn, I know I would have left him if I were in her shoes. There was also the time he expected her to work and pay all the bills so he could go overseas on vacation for a month, when to my knowledge the only income HE had been providing for a while was from unemployment.

He's like this with everybody "beneath" him. When they were at our place for a party, he asked if there was anything to drink. I listed off water, milk, a couple of fruit juices, and multiple soda flavors and his only response, "I asked if there was anything to DRINK." It was just so rude. We aren't big on alcohol at my house. Don't care if people drink it, but we aren't providing it. He then proceeded to leave and either walk or drive to the closest store for beer or something, because when he got back a while later he was clearly intoxicated, and also smelled like he had been smoking weed, and things only went downhill from there, both in his behavior at the party, his consideration towards others and his treatment of his wife, but it's too much to go into here.

So I guess I don't like asshats. That may be the simplest way of stating it.
 

Hafnium

New member
Jun 15, 2009
418
0
0
People who don't feel responsible for their misdeeds. Such as not replacing something of yours that they broke, or are just refusing to be accountable for the crap they do.
 

EnlistedRanks

New member
Jun 7, 2010
4
0
0
I dislike intolerant people - especially the ones who are casually so and see nothing offensive in their views. Now, if you're a standup comedian who makes a living by spinning exaggerated parodies of stereotypical minorities... you're probably Jeff Dunham, but I don't think he actually hates anyone based on skin or sexuality. It's just his style. No, I'm talking about adults who never grew out of that phase where calling someone "gay" was the worst burn imaginable and everyone was defined by judgements based on race. The way I see it, intolerance combines a lot of negative traits - arrogance/entitlement, closed-mindedness/ignorance, and aggression in extreme cases. Not very likeable people, to be sure.
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
Gonna go with rude and obnoxious, as I've had quite the day of dealing with obnoxious bellends at work ranting at me (not to mention not having any manners) about trivial nonsense, AND calling me a liar on top of it.

Since y'know, you ruled out my defacto "being a nazi".
 

NoeL

New member
May 14, 2011
841
0
0
Ihateregistering1 said:
"Except people don't say that (well, the ones that do are few and far between, and idiots)."
That might be true, but idiots always make the most noise. Likewise, with this "Tomodachi" thing, this was the opening sentence of Nintendo's statement: "We apologize for disappointing many people by failing to include same-sex relationships in Tomodachi Life." Not "we apologize for saying the words 'social commentary'". The game didn't have same sex relationships, and instead of people just saying "well then I'm not gonna buy it", they took to the internet to complain and call Nintendo bigots (an article on this website used that very word). So ok, it might only be a handful of people, but when you scream that loud you tend to drown out the sensible folks.
I don't think the idiots are making more noise, I just think you're mistaking people with legitimate criticisms for idiots. You're heard one or two dumb arguments so you assume all similar arguments are just as dumb, which isn't the case.

Nintendo's apology was a step in the right direction, and pledging to include same-sex couples in future installments shows that they don't think same-sex relationships have no place in their wacky world (or are at least listening to criticism, which is also good). That's why most people were satisfied with the apology.

Again, people were throwing around the "bigot" label because Nintendo removed same-sex couples - not because they failed to include them (yes, I know this isn't what actually happened and I don't defend those that went in guns blazing without doing any research themselves, but patching out inclusivity begs the question why).

Ihateregistering1 said:
As for the marketing part, this was mostly in response to this argument, which I've seen a dozen times on this website:

Person 1: "Companies should make more games with _____________ (insert minority group here) characters."
Person 2: "Why?"
1: "Because there are a lot of people who want more ____________ characters."
2: "Don't you think if there really was this huge untapped market of people who want more ___________ characters, these billion dollar companies who exist primarily to turn a profit would realize they could make a lot of money implementing this?"
1: "Clearly they don't get it/they are _________-ist/it's all the COD players fault/etc.

This is ridiculous for 4 main reasons
The first being that it's a pretty big strawman.

People are pushing for better representation in the triple A market not because they see a huge market and want publishers to make more money, but to make gaming and gaming culture more mature, get some more diversity in the triple A market and hopefully see some more games that don't insult them. There is a HUGE bigotry problem amongst gamers and people are crying out to other gamers to recognise it, and crying out to developers to not reinforce that. It's a push to better ourselves, not a push to further line the pockets of publishers. Now, I still firmly believe that publishers can make more money through inclusivity, but that's not why people are pushing for it.

Ihateregistering1 said:
1: It assumes that these multi-billion dollar companies haven't figured this out yet, but you, random internet poster person, have.
2: These companies have access to far more research data than you do.
3: Sure, people are fallible and make mistakes, but that means you do too.
4: It's not YOUR money or job on the line. If EA pumps $500 million into some new IP starring a black lesbian woman, even though their market research showed that the game would likely be much more successful with another cookie-cutter brown hair 30-something white guy protagonist, and the game is a complete flop, your life doesn't change in the slightest, not so much for EA employees and investors.
Those four points can be boiled down to one thing: big companies want to play it safe. And no, I don't blame them for that at all, but the thinking of modern big-budget publishers is out of whack. By focusing only on big-budget, high risk games they're FORCING themselves to play it safe, which is why we end up with so many generic military shooters all trying to out-CoD CoD. Rather than focusing on refining new and interesting mechanics their approach is "People liked it in CoD, so we should do it like that." Yes it's less risky to do that, but you ultimately end up as a stale company rehashing the same bullshit time and time again because that's what worked in the past. What EA should do instead of sticking a black lesbian protagonist into their new $500 million IP is stick a black lesbian protagonist into their new $10 million IP. If you're sinking a ton of money into titles of course I understand you need to play it safe, but the solution isn't to ONLY play it safe, the solution is to not ONLY focus on big-budget titles. Spread some focus to smaller, innovative, niche market titles, and if you happen to strike gold with one of them you can move onto something bigger (and if it tanks people aren't out of a job). Take Portal as an example - it was a small game road-testing an innovative mechanic, people loved it, and that allowed Valve to expand it into the big-budget Portal 2 with far less risk.

But on top of that there's a crapton of little things companies can do to increase inclusivity without hurting their bottom dollar. Did Minecraft's sales take a plunge when they replaced the masculine grunts with gender-neutral bone-snapping sounds? Do you think Brink would have been less popular if they included female avatars? Would Mass Effect 4 be more popular if they ditched Femshep?

Nobody is expecting EA to stick a black lesbian into a new big-budget IP, because in all likelihood it's not going to sell as well as it would with a white, brown-haired man. People get that, and that's not what we're asking for. We're just asking for little things that won't hurt publishers, like gender-neutral sound effects or avatars for both genders or gay/female characters that aren't offensive. Nobody is going to say "I would buy this game, but its gays aren't mincing enough, God damn it!" And maybe experiment a bit with lower-budget stuff - let's have a black lesbian protagonist and see what the public reaction is. If people like it then why not give that black lesbian a big-budget game?
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
COMaestro said:
Then there's the husband of my wife's friend. I don't even know how to describe the trait, other than I feel the world would be a better place without people like him. He seems completely self-centered when it comes to relating to his wife or those he considers "beneath" him, but will re-invent himself to match people he considers "above" him. So, for instance, he met his wife due to his interest in anime, but just a couple of years later he considers it all to be stupid and pointless because that's how people he respects sees it. He has considered other things stupid or worthless before, but then changed his tune to liking these same things all because someone "above" him likes them. So, that's how he reinvents himself, by having no opinion of his own, but only an opinion to match those of people he feels are better than him.
Sounds like this guy you're talking about would make a perfect politician, or sociopathic serial killer, or both.

People who are two faced hypocrites who love to kiss the ass of everybody better than them while treating everybody else like crap is a pretty big no no for me too.

COMaestro said:
The way he treats his wife though. She was having trouble with some classes in school. Most husbands would do their best to support their wife in a similar situation. HE, on the other hand, takes her wedding ring and says he doesn't want to be married to a failure. She got it back later, but damn, I know I would have left him if I were in her shoes. There was also the time he expected her to work and pay all the bills so he could go overseas on vacation for a month, when to my knowledge the only income HE had been providing for a while was from unemployment.
Sounds like he's pretty verbally abusive, I hope he isn't physically abusive too.
 

Elvis Starburst

Unprofessional Rant Artist
Legacy
Aug 9, 2011
2,732
719
118
I'm gonna make a mesh, cause it relates to someone I used to know.

Controlling. Manipulative. Emotionally manipulative. And someone who apologizes after the fact, cause he acts like an ass and says that he can't control himself very well. Yeah, this guy knew exactly what he was doing >.>
 

pearcinator

New member
Apr 8, 2009
1,212
0
0
People who don't listen.

Not sure if it's a personality trait but I don't know what else it could be. There are people who just nod and say 'yep' without actually listening to what I said is so very annoying because they often ask the same questions again after I had already given them an answer several times. It just goes in one ear and out the other.

I have several friends that are good in small bursts but if you hang with them for hours or most of a day then they really start to irritate me because they always ask about things that we've already discussed before. You have ears! You asked the question but you didn't listen to the answer/discussion! We aren't going through this shit again.
 

Not Lord Atkin

I'm dead inside.
Oct 25, 2008
648
0
0
I hate, hate, HATE confident, well-adjusted and likeable people. Stop smiling. Stop talking to me. STOP BEING HAPPY! WHY SHOULD YOU BE HAPPY!

In all seriousness though, the one thing that I've had an issue with ever since I can remember is the lack of critical thought and reasoning. The kind of people who subscribe to the 'because I said so' school of thought, who assume incredibly far-fetched things based on ludicrous mental links, who often accuse you of pretty much anything they can think of and do not listen to reason even if you have incontrovertible proof that the thing they are accusing you of is physically impossible. The kind of people who will stick to one flawed argument, repeating it ad infinitum no matter how much and how thoroughly you deconstruct it.

Generally the kind of people who dominate any discussion by shouting and poo-flinging rather than using actual words.

Oh, and I have a zero tolerance policy against emotional blackmail.