Fine Art America - Art - Prints - Canvas Prints - Framed Prints - Metal Prints - Acrylic Prints

Every purchase includes a money-back guarantee.








Fine Art Discussions

Keyword Search  | Main Menu

Search Discussions


Elitist; Bye By Definition.

Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/19/2013 - 12:00 PM

In my study of human nature, language style is one the main characteristics that is observable. When someone is reading something they can come to what is known as a "trigger word" that sets them into a certain zone or ego state that colors the rest of what is being said. "Distortion filters" go up and also block out what the true meaning of what someone is saying is. I've noticed that certain words trigger entirely different meanings in different people. In this thread I'd like to know what the word "ELITIST" means or triggers in you? What is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word ELITIST?


Oldest Reply

Posted by: Angel Ortiz on 01/19/2013 - 12:28 PM

a group of stuck up people he. he.


Posted by: Vivian ANDERSON on 01/19/2013 - 12:29 PM

I love words !

Elitist = Snob

First reaction


Posted by: Janice Drew on 01/19/2013 - 12:35 PM

Someone who thinks he/she is superior.


Posted by: Gregory Scott on 01/19/2013 - 12:36 PM

Elitism has negative connotations, but there are positive modes to it as well. The wise and the gifted, are perhaps by definition, a small minority. It's good when leaders are wise, and when teachers are gifted. We generally don't give our children the right to make all their own personal decisions, so there is an "adult" elite, as well.

I think the issue is when an elite group demands their perquisites as rights, and look at others as their slaves or as subhuman. All men are created in the image of God, and have the same intrinsic rights. So elitism is the sin of an elite class that have forgotten the golden rule. Everyone deserves a measure of love and respect, at the very least until they throw it away. (Even a member of an elite group of people, for example.)


Posted by: Camille Lopez on 01/19/2013 - 12:37 PM

A false sense of superiority


Posted by: JC Findley on 01/19/2013 - 12:40 PM



Posted by: Robert Kernodle on 01/19/2013 - 12:42 PM

Elitist = first, someone who believes that all people and all principles are NOT equal,
second, that certain people and certain principles ARE, in fact, superior to others,
third, that he or she or his or her principles ARE indeed in the superior category.

My first impression? - I am not an elitist, and I am absolutely certain that I am right. (^_^)


Posted by: Mark James Perry on 01/19/2013 - 12:44 PM

I don't mind being a elitist at all It simply means some are better at whatever the task is. Better trained or schooled. What they do is worth more..............


Posted by: Jeffery Johnson on 01/19/2013 - 12:52 PM

Elitist = Delusional


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/19/2013 - 12:52 PM

I will try and keep up with this but let me throw this out as well, What comes to mind if someone was to say to you, " She went to a very elite school, or he is part of a very elite military guard"?
Also gregory wrote" All men are created in the image of God, and have the same intrinsic rights" true but does that mean we are al equal in society? I don't mean aristocracy but rather do you believe the world is or should be an equal playing field?


Posted by: JC Findley on 01/19/2013 - 12:56 PM

People who are in elite military units are rarely elitists. People that go to elite schools MAY be.


Posted by: Marcio Faustino on 01/19/2013 - 1:00 PM

Elitist comes from Elite.
Elite is characterized by select people.

In politiques the Elite, or select people, are who has persuasion power because they have more money, tecnology or essential resources to trade.
In Arts, is characterized by artists who are picked by dealers, or artists who have archived such skill, creativity, knowlodge or/and vision that makes people place him above other artists.
In the academic world are those who have better understand about some questions and so on.
Etc, Etc,

And the Elitists are those, from the elite or not, who support this kind or classification which divides ordinary people and people to be venerated.

The meaning of everything will depends on the contexts where if is placed.

To me, depending on the context, it will mean that something is made targeting riches, or will mean that the person or object is pretentious (pretending to be something which is not: better than the it actually is.).


Posted by: Janice Drew on 01/19/2013 - 1:05 PM

As my son once stated, "You don't define a person's worth by their class rank."


Posted by: JC Findley on 01/19/2013 - 1:05 PM

If you are ever in a bar or online and someone is bragging about being a Navy SEAL, they aren't.


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/19/2013 - 1:07 PM

Jc, you associated the military elite with mostly (mostly because of course you know there are always exceptions) non elitist, yet the academic elite you say maybe... Do you see what I mean about distortions based on personal experience?... Have you not seen a military man walk through a crowd like a rooster?


Posted by: Robert Kernodle on 01/19/2013 - 1:09 PM

"What comes to mind if someone was to say to you, " She went to a very elite school, or he is part of a very elite military guard"?"


She went to a school that prizes excellence and caters to high intelligence and high mental performance standards. He is part of a military outfit that prizes genetic athletic talent and top physical performance standards, training the biggest, baddest, most dangerous, skilled martial artist "muhthus"possible.


Posted by: Janice Drew on 01/19/2013 - 1:10 PM

My former boss was a Navy SEAL. I'm not joking either. He did carry himself well.



Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/19/2013 - 1:12 PM

This is happening fast..Janice you said he "carried himself well" ... I like that, how did others react to his presence?


Posted by: Penny M on 01/19/2013 - 1:13 PM

I have a 1953 dictionary that says this; "n. The choice or best part, as of a body or class of persons; the active army of Switzerland."
The New Century Dictionary copyright 1927 to 1953 by the Century Co

has no reference to elitist or elitism

Looks like the meaning has changed over time...


Posted by: JC Findley on 01/19/2013 - 1:13 PM

Every time there is a mirror when I walk through a crowded room.

Yes, to be specific, MANY F-15 pilots are elitists, they are taught to be elitists in training. It kind of goes with their mission. When talking special forces bad-a$$es I have almost NEVER seen a single one of them act elitist. Academia is a different world. I have seen many elitists come from elite schools while I have seen many from elite schools that are not.

It would also be wrong to confuse self confidence with arrogance and elitism. Virtually ALL elite military men and women exude self confidence but arrogance is less common.


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/19/2013 - 1:15 PM

Yes Penny, that is the primary point I'm looking at...


Posted by: JC Findley on 01/19/2013 - 1:16 PM

@ Robert, even when talking about the hard core military schools it has virtually nothing to do with athletic prowess, though that is a by product in the end result. It is ALL mental and a refusal to quit that gets those guys through.


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/19/2013 - 1:19 PM

Jc, are you sure they are not kidding themselves because they are told arrogance is a bad thing? I've known plenty an arrogant military man ..


Posted by: Janice Drew on 01/19/2013 - 1:23 PM

He was a commanding figure. He went into regional politics. Very long-winded and wanted the floor and was always on the radio. Behind that exterior though, we could tell there was a time-bomb ready to explode. He got long better with women than the males. Most likely,the males sparred because all these politicians had huge egos. I was a department head and never had a problem with him. As recently as last summer, I wrote to him about our insurance benefits, and he listened and was kind enough to respond to several emails.


Posted by: Gregory Scott on 01/19/2013 - 1:24 PM

Of course we are not all equal in society. Some people will create more, some less. And what they create varies as well. It is not elitism, for example, to think that some work deserves more pay than others. Some work is easier, some is harder, some can only be performed by a very few, and other work can be performed by virtually anyone. But that does not bestow a "class" on the person, an entitlement to a lifelong role as a ruler, or a fate to ask "would you like fries with that" after each business transaction.

Big Skip

This is a very popular discussion with 153 responses.   In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts.   Everything in the middle has been skipped.   Want to read the entire discussion?   No problem: click here.


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/21/2013 - 10:25 PM

An example......our principal may be talking to a whole lot of staff....I suddenly find something he is saying interesting. And I agree, but when I look around I see that many people are disagreeing, I need to know why, as they may have a good reason, I worry that I ay be way off the mark, it's the wrong situation to ask everyone why they reacted how they did, I will never know, Ihave too many questions and not enough a one to one sit...more questions and learning is achieved, I feel, there seems also more depth, more reasons for further discovery, that's my comfort zone..I suppose


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/21/2013 - 10:26 PM

sounds like one on one SX that wants to get the group SO to work together.. I may be wrong,I have limited information, the best thing to do is try it on for size for a while and see how it fits before being sure...


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/21/2013 - 10:31 PM

Sx is what and so is what?


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/21/2013 - 10:34 PM

SX= sexual or one on one....SO= social


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/21/2013 - 10:39 PM

I,m assuming that weare not talking group


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/21/2013 - 10:43 PM

we have 3 instinctual drives
1 SP self preservation
2 SX sexual or one on one
3 SO social


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/21/2013 - 10:47 PM

So the sexual is so named because one on one conversations, let's say, are more intimate, though not necessarily nature....


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/21/2013 - 10:48 PM

right .. it's not just about sex ..


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/21/2013 - 10:52 PM

Good.....I would have lost interest if the outcome was all downto sex.....but obviously there are connotations of the need for intimate conversations, even about art, say, can have their roots in maybe someone's sexual appetite or lack of ....are we on the same page......that's the important thing...


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/21/2013 - 11:10 PM

If one to one discussions are more in my comfort zone, then I need to understand why, and how to go about developing a wider audience, all of whose opinions I don,t need to fully understand, I need to accept that many inthat audience will go unheard, Ihave to accept that that is ok, maybe I need to understand and acknowledge the individuals,because that's what indeed......just opening up the reasoning......I meant to say that's what I need .....I'm practising on an iPad and couldn't get back to my spot


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/22/2013 - 1:21 AM

Maria, having a sx /so instinctual drive will have that dilemma of speaking one on one and to the group wanting to satisfy both needs. Don,t take all this new information too literally but chew on it and see what surfaces. I am not a master of the material but I do know it takes time and a lot of inner work to get to the bottom of ourself. You personality as I said earlier manifests these instincts differently from person to person. social instinct can show as having your finger on the pulse of society often on the pop culture and the who's who in the world and also can be self conscious caring what the group thinks. I,m also using new iPad right now.


Posted by: Paul Cowan on 01/22/2013 - 2:52 AM

Robert said ....

"paul anti-elitist people could merely be non-judgemental,

once they are against elitists or anti-elitists they have passed into the realms of judgmental, the old pattern of judging the judgmental, especially as described in your own definition

Elitists are those who believe that having a particular skill, ability or attribute (even down to skin colour) conveys superiority upon you.

Which doesn't really fit for me because here an assumption is made as to how someone who is labeled the elitists thinks, I would define the character in this definition as someone suffering from false pride. But elitists can be great people yet extremely flawed and false pride is not something they are immune to but is not something that qualifies them either"

I didn't mean that elitists are racists, I meant that the range of attributes they consider elite could in some cases include skin colour. There are as many different kinds of elitist as there are different kinds of elite: political, artistic, sporting etc. with all their sub-divisions, clubs and parties. An elitist doesn't necessarily believe he or she is elite but admires those who are. Football fans are elitist and their teams are the elite whom they admire, but they may have no aspirations to kicking a ball themselves.

I am an elitist: I believe it is good to strive for excellence in your chosen speciality and I try to do that myself. And because I want to be excellent at what I do I am dogged by doubts about my ability and my achievements, so I am always willing to learn from those who have more skills than I.

The problem with trying to be elite is that the individual can only achieve what is, for himself or herself, normal. You can't know you are elite until you get the badge - whether it is a football shirt, a military shoulder patch or some other form of recognition. And, even then, there will almost always be a higher level of achievement beckoning. You might have made it to the summit of Mont Blanc, but can you do the same with Everest? And though Everest is highest, isn't K2 even harder?

..... Yeah, I was wrong to say anti-elitists could be non-judgemental. Non-elitists can be non-judgemental, but that might be even harder to distinguish from apathy.


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/22/2013 - 3:13 AM

Paul you have managed to put a very positive slant on the meaningofelitist.....close to what I was thinking....I think describing yourself as elitist after giving your interpretation. Is somucheasier to see itina more positive light I think I maybe elitist too then...:)

Thanks Robert I will beobservingmyself a bit more closely as tommy language and social drives.....I enjoyed the banter


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/22/2013 - 11:13 AM

Maria this might help understand it better;

"sp/soc: The most straightfoward in language, with relatively little trills and embellishments. Points made directly and from personal experience. Business-like. Clear. Cynical. Lacking in internal experience compared to other stackings."

"sp/sx: Comes out as somewhat heavy and gloomy, or cool and detached. Often gives out a suffocating and insular vibe, as if their internal world is wrapped around by an impermeable membrane. Strong sensory impressions designed to awake sexuality. Makes one want to linger on one or two lines forever."

"soc/sp: Tangential. Lots of details and analysis. Very in-their-head and intellectual, and lacks sensuality. Comes across as level-headed and unspontaneous, but also with personal warmth. Their written works often require a great deal of mental concentration from the readers."

"soc/sx: The word "fantastical" comes to mind. Lots of virtuosity and trills, and often removed from the real world. One is whirled away by the dazzling fairies of their colorful imagination. Can be too rich in imagery for their own good. Sustained dramatic power due to their knowledge of interpersonal dynamics."

"sx/sp: Intense, often a stab-in-the-chest sensation, leaving me in tears without knowing why. Fantastical but much more concentrated in a few inner images. Can be abstract, animating dead objects into their field of contemplation. Embodiment of another human, thing, or idea is common in their writings."

"sx/soc: My impression of their writing is "fire-and-ice", as if one is to experience the extremes of heat and coldness at the same time. Often abstract, spilling one inner vision after another like a dream-sequence. Seems particularly in touch with the core meaning of life and death."


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/22/2013 - 5:43 PM

Thank you Robert. I really appreciate you posting that, yes, it's all much clearer, I can identify with all of them, now I have to figure out if they are in balance within my personality, or rather when, who and where do I use one or two in excess, and maybe unnecessarily, preventing better communication, and understanding of what I am reading or hearing. Hope someone else found this interesting too. Thank you for being so communicative and not throwing the towel in :)


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/22/2013 - 8:09 PM

My pleasure Maria,

It's interesting to me that in personality typography the type that is most often associated with the romantic artist is also given the elitist title, yet there seems to be an awful lot of disdain for them here on an art site.. an overwhelming majority of famous artists fall into this personality type..

The haughty military type that struts is more about security, the strut or rigid posturing is subconsciously designed to ward off possible threats, like a force is a fear based issue..

the haughty artistic attitude is about image and how they see themselves and want others to see them,.it is shame based

While the fear based is looking for threats to security the shame based is looking for what is missing and this also plays out as an intense longing or searching mostly looking for what is missing inside..It's that search that can be profound


Posted by: Philip Sweeck on 01/23/2013 - 7:39 AM

sp/soc, etc... remind me of the Myers-Briggs test and Jung's personality typology. This is a basic Myers-Briggs test to see which type one falls under :

I've always scored as INFJ ( Introverted Intuitive Feeling Judging ). It's one of the rarer types with only 1 to 2% of the population having that type, apparently. I hope that doesn't make me elite.


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/23/2013 - 10:16 AM

yes i would guess you to be infj , you're an elitist underdog Philip.....I'm infp ... perceiving


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/23/2013 - 7:39 PM

Philip, I think I have done this one before but can't remember those results, the results from the one I have just done are INFP
.Introvert(44%) iNtuitive(62%) iNtuitive Feeling(38%) Perceiving(44)%
You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion (44%)
You have distinctive preference of Intuition over Sensing (62%)
You have moderate preference of Feeling over Thinking (38%)
You have moderate preference of Perceiving over Judging (44%)

The percentages may vary greatly from one INFP to another.


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/23/2013 - 7:47 PM

Myers Biggs is good at gauging how we interact, learn and experience the world... It falls short for me because it doesn't take into account motivational patterns and mind sets


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/23/2013 - 7:58 PM

I really enjoyed the further reading of INFP's...I could identify with it very well, but I don't think this reveals the whole personality, people are just too complex to be nailed down. But I am very much like an INFP, a lot of the time....but not all of the time...either. It is interesting reading though. I loved the description of a passage from anne of Green gables about the skin horse....I would turn my nose up at the very name Anne of Green Gables...that's the elitist in me...tiny though it is..haha. All of the authors who are INFP's on the list have begun to rouse a curiosity in me.
I know that I am indulging in one to one here....see, I recognise it!!! But I would love you both to read a chapter of a book that I have been writing for a long time, what do you think? I would expect two very different reviews!! One from an INFP and an INFJ
Robert it would be a good exercise in looking at my language.


Posted by: Philip Sweeck on 01/23/2013 - 8:55 PM

Sure, I would love to read it, I'm curious now what the book is about!


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/23/2013 - 8:58 PM

Philip I will message you.


Posted by: Philip Sweeck on 01/25/2013 - 10:23 AM

From The Red Book



Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/25/2013 - 10:56 AM

Philip, this sounds like what was later called active imagination writing. I had trained myself many years back to write while a sleep, go into a trance and write down what the voices said. At first it was just a few lines scribbled down and after a while I could write several pages.. I called it personification of alter egos, there were everything from old black slaves to wounded soldiers to children. It was very helpful and helped me sleep, it also for told many a prophetic event in my life and world events..It would get scary at times and I would have to back off. I've also been trained in hypnosis and many years of mediation and hands on healing work while living in Indonesia.. There has been lots of work done since Jung..


Posted by: Maria Disley on 01/26/2013 - 6:34 PM


Posted by: Robert James Hacunda on 01/27/2013 - 9:41 AM

Jonathan Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach was said to be written under active imagination...


This discussion is closed.