Star Gazer Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 That's a good point but emotions are inextricably tied to sense of self. It takes a massive amount of self-control to separate the two to any meaningful extent. That being said, I think it is possible. I'm not sure I agree, particularly because of the constantly changing nature of our emotions. Someone can be angry, sad, hurt or devastated in the moment, and still be secure in who they are. That same someone can also be happy and jovial in the moment, and be very insecure in who they are.
810 Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 OP, excellent thread! You spend time alone. That's right, alone. I don't mean a few weeks, I mean months if need be. How many of you have ever tried to do that? Not many is my guess. You cant be involving someone else in your life when you don't even know your own-self. Too many people get caught up in the trend of getting into a relationship without ever really identifying who, they themselves, are. This breeds insecurity. I think first and foremost - you have to locate the source of where the insecurity comes from.... Not just what triggers it, but the actual source, i.e. starting point. What triggers it, is also an important identification, because it helps to understand the source and also provides us with a better understanding of our own reactionary behaviors. Certain insecurities may be so deeply ingrained and can become permanent fixtures if they remain unnoticed by the individual himself/herself and/or they remain covered up by ignoring altogether and continuing with behaviors that support it and contain it. How do you correct it? By identifying the source and trigger points. I think once we've identified those key items - we can then begin to pluck at the roots and implement strategies to rebuild from within. This i totally agree. and by doing what joe said, a person can be well enough to identify the areas that need improvements as jannah's mentioned. those two go hand in hand. a person needs to examine his/her life and asks if s/he likes their own company. Self awareness and vigilance are the most important components to diffusing naturally insecure reactions and constructing a stronger personal foundation. there's a fine line between understand and being comfortable with you who are and the bitter-self-proclaim you are the best out there. self-awareness is a need and not a want. I agree with Zed. Lately, I have had horrible insecurity about my worthiness for an LTR. I have actually shed tears over this. But what seems to help is to remind myself that my life is basically good and sound. I need not stir up drama through negative thinking. Cee, thank you for this. i felt the same way when my relationship with D failed. By and by, I took time to heal and refocus on myself. The negative thoughts we have are the habits we give ourselves. It's like the insecurity. It's a trained behavior and experience. If we know and understand ourselves, we know our strengths and the things we can improve on.
Star Gazer Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Alright, I'll play along. Not sure why you see this as a game. Don't you have somewhere to go? In the relationship/dating context, the playing pieces are other people. They become the ball and the basket, and you as the 'player' observe social interactions just as much as you observe the ball going into the basket. Watching someone's reaction to you on the street, or assessing someone's interaction with you on a date, or analyzing the progression of a relationship is no different from watching the ball go in the hoop. Social interaction inherently must involve people. Staying in the dating realm, let's say you go on a date with someone, but you're on one side of a two way mirror. They can see and hear you, but you can't see or hear them. You have no external feedback at all, and have to rely on what you think internally. What result? It's a very extreme hypo, but I'm just illustrating that external feedback in dating is no different from external feedback in anything else. The external feedback in a dating context should be this: You behave a certain way. They respond a certain way. The takeaway from their response should only be "They like me" or "They don't like me," NOT "I'm worthy" or "I'm not worthy." Do you see the difference? Sure, external feedback tells you something about the other person and how they feel. But, it should never tell you something about yourself. How you feel about yourself comes from you, and only you. They cheat? Means they are selfish, arrogant, cruel, etc. It doesn't mean you're not lovable. They ask for your hand in marriage? It means they don't want to spend a day without you. It doesn't mean you're the ultimate being of the universe. Any other scenario is the same. A job interview. They hire you means, "They thought I was the best candidate." They don't hire you means, "They didn't think you were the best candidate." It doesn't mean/not mean that you're an ace attorney and very accomplished in your own regard.
Lovelybird Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 (edited) External factors don't necessarily mean exclusively other people, but also feedback that dictates success. To go back to the basketball analogy, seeing the ball go into the basket is an example of external feedback. It's not necessarily someone telling you you're a great or terrible basketball player, but reinforcing your abilities through some sort of external feedback mechanism. Imagine trying to get better at basketball if all you could do is shoot the ball, but you weren't allowed to see whether the ball went in the basket... What result? I found that behind your this line of thought is perfermance value system. Sooner or later this will trap you also. But many people do define or value themselves by their perfermances. There is better way to define one's value, such as the peace they get when they know they are trying their best, the peace they feel when they gain a peaceful and reconciled relationship with the world, the universe, and God. The success they gain is just a side-effect of their higher purpose and dedication, the success itself is not ultimate goal, in this way you will see failures as valuable lessons to learn instead of your enemy Edited January 23, 2011 by Lovelybird
hydorclops Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Star Gazer: Insecurity stems focusing on external influences. I don't think security does. Security comes from within, from a strong sense of self. Thing is, if you rely on external factors to build you up, then it necessarily follows that they can just as easily tear you down. Thus, it would serve everyone to not rely on them to develop a strong sense of self and self-esteem. Secure people are confident in themselves no matter what the external factors may be. Bold is very wise. It fits the CBT approach I wrote about earlier. Insecurity might result from rejection, if you interpret rejection inaccurately. For example, thinking that rejection will always happen, or that "I should never be rejected", and so forth. This can cause insecurity. An alternative is to say, "She rejected me, I don't know what others will do", or "Even good people get rejected sometimes". With better reasoning even lots of bad experiences won't cause insecurity.
krz12 Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 There were a lot of good thoughts and ideas raised, and I want to take the time to address all of them. Unfortunately, I'm a little short on time right now, so it'll have to wait... Of course failure hardens one's character, but doesn't the principle of this commercial assume that one has a baseline of success? Failure would merely be a minor speedbump in life, since Jordan knows he's absolutely capable of success and knows it's simply a matter of time before he returns to that baseline. Was that true of the Michael Jordan who got cut from his high school team?
Star Gazer Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Failure would merely be a minor speedbump in life, since Jordan knows he's absolutely capable of success and knows it's simply a matter of time before he returns to that baseline. See? Jordon knows he's absolutely capable of success regardless of any external factors or outcomes.
LeaningIntoTheMuse Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 If you have a talent, or a trait that defines you, you can be secure in that and define that as definitely you. I can define my positive traits as: I'm an exceptionally kind person, and try to treat others with respect and kindness I have a great sense of humor I'm at least average or slightly above average looking I'm a musician and songwriter, and damn good at it! I have a great singing voice I have an extended knowledge of all types of music, and love all types of music I'm well read and intelligent I have an extended knowledge of movies and popular tv shows I am somewhat fashionably dressed I am accepting of all genders, sexual identities, and races I love animals, especially cats In that way, I am very secure within those things. And I can see how a girl would be attracted to that. However: I have bad teeth, and need to get them fixed I have a beer belly, that needs to be lost I have bad eating habits at times I sometimes get irrational and lose my temper at times I am a virgin I am shy around girls I am a quiet person in general As you can see, there are more attributes than flaws. However, recognizing that you have more positives than negatives is what leads you to "knock out" the negatives. I already feel better, now that I made that list. I'd highly suggest you making a list like that. It does help make you feel more secure.
threebyfate Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Insecurities begin somewhere. You can pretend to overcome insecurities by wearing a facade or being in denial. Or you can keep digging until you find the source. Once you find the source, you can with much work, overcome them. On the otherhand, if these insecurities aren't debilitating, you can accept them as part of yourself. There isn't one person on this earth who isn't retarded, who doesn't have at least one insecurity.
dispatch3d Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 So from this response, and a lot of the responses thus far, would it be safe to say that insecurity and security generally stem from external influences? To break it down to the simplest terms, positive feedback creates security while negative feedback creates insecurity? I would say a person is either secure or insecure. Secure people don't really think of a failure in the same context you think of failure (or even to a certain extent I see failure). Basically a failure has no emotion attached to it, it's just something that happened. If you're secure, the failure has no emotional effect on you. You just look at it as is, and try to assess it. Assuming you have at least a LITTLE insecurity, there may be an emotional reaction. But, if you're self aware enough the reaction doesn't bother you. I'm sure the next level from having the reaction is no reaction at all. Alright, I'll play along. In the relationship/dating context, the playing pieces are other people. They become the ball and the basket, and you as the 'player' observe social interactions just as much as you observe the ball going into the basket. Watching someone's reaction to you on the street, or assessing someone's interaction with you on a date, or analyzing the progression of a relationship is no different from watching the ball go in the hoop. Social interaction inherently must involve people. Staying in the dating realm, let's say you go on a date with someone, but you're on one side of a two way mirror. They can see and hear you, but you can't see or hear them. You have no external feedback at all, and have to rely on what you think internally. What result? It's a very extreme hypo, but I'm just illustrating that external feedback in dating is no different from external feedback in anything else. Humm the way I see the basketball analogy. Jordon goes out one day and shoots a ****ton of hoops. He pays attention to his form, the way he shoots, how often the ball goes in the net, whether he's hitting consistently, yadayada. If his progress is bad, he practices some more, or tries to figure out where the deficiencies are. The (likely) reason he's very good at shooting is he goes from bad->good very very fast. Meaning he sees his mistakes immediately/faster than most people and corrects them quickly. So in the dating world, mj would go out and ask a bunch of girls out. He would focus on what he says, the way he says it, etc. He would then presumably learn quicker where he messed up, where he misstepped, etc. etc. He wouldn't take one shot at the basket, see failure, and giveup. Or he wouldn't go out, (necessarily) be successful, and then become awesome. Whether he missed his first 5 shots, 10 shots, 100 shots, chances are that mj still would have been mj, and would still be awesome at basketball. Just like if this supposed dating person hit on 20 girls and failed every time, in a (relatively) short period of time they would become much better than most. No, I agree that his ability to handle failure is what made him so special on the court. Even if he missed an important shot, or had a bad game, or did poorly over a stretch of games, he was able to turn that failure into success. However, where does one temper his or her ability to handle and overcome failure? You say that he has superior abilities; but how does one assess their abilities, whether it's on the court or in a social atmosphere? Isn't ability based on success and positive feedback and reinforcement? Jordan would not be good unless he scored points and made key plays for his team day in and day out. His superior abilities were evidenced by his success. Now let's take that into a social context. Wouldn't it be analogous to basketball in that one's sense of their superior ability is dependent on their social success, that is, external feedback and reinforcement? I don't see failure as something that's overcome. I see it as something that happened or happens, and we respond to, analyze, and deal with. There is no overcoming, since failure just happens. As in if I was "perfect" I would still fail, and if I didn't fail, it would just mean I couldn't see my own failures (ie. I ignored them). Idk we are looking at this differently.
Isolde Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 (edited) external feedback tells you something about the other person and how they feel. But, it should never tell you something about yourself. How you feel about yourself comes from you, and only you. They cheat? Means they are selfish, arrogant, cruel, etc. It doesn't mean you're not lovable. They ask for your hand in marriage? It means they don't want to spend a day without you. It doesn't mean you're the ultimate being of the universe. Any other scenario is the same. A job interview. They hire you means, "They thought I was the best candidate." They don't hire you means, "They didn't think you were the best candidate." It doesn't mean/not mean that you're an ace attorney and very accomplished in your own regard. And yet for most people, it is very, very difficult to see things this way. When we are in a relationship with someone, is it really reasonable to not see their actions as some degree of a reflection on us? After all, a relationship is a joint effort. I certainly don't think a partner's bad behavior should make you doubt your self-worth, but it's only natural that negative feedback, and I'm not saying cheating here but maybe even just emotional distance or arguments, will make you wonder if you are doing something wrong in the relationship. And that's not always a bad thing. When you are in an R and your partner is unhappy, you're naturally not going to be happy with yourself until you get to the root of the problem. With a job interview, it's completely different since you haven't built a working relationship with the people at that company/organization. In situations where you have built such a professional relationship, a performance appraisal or similar will affect how you feel about yourself to at least some extent. Of course, "feedback" should never make you feel unduly badly about yourself, but IMO it's kind of idealistic to think that you can wholly separate your sense of self from it. Edited January 23, 2011 by Isolde
Questionis Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Insecurity is just a natural reaction to something that you have doubt about. People tend to label you as insecure when you seem to have alot more doubts than usual. Best way to eradicate this is to work away at each problem in detail till you can understand the problem or what is causing it. Easier to write than it is to do but working towards a better understanding is the best way to rid yourself of this label.
Star Gazer Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 And yet for most people, it is very, very difficult to see things this way. I totally disagree. I think those who find it difficult to think that way are the insecure folks of the world. I don't believe that most people are insecure about who they are at their core or have a poor self-esteem. (And you can't use LS as your demographic to prove otherwise; it's not an accurate cross-section of the world.) I'm not saying cheating here but maybe even just emotional distance or arguments, will make you wonder if you are doing something wrong in the relationship. And that's not always a bad thing. When you are in an R and your partner is unhappy, you're naturally not going to be happy with yourself until you get to the root of the problem. What?! If my partner is unhappy, why does that mean I'm automatically not going to be happy with myself? Quite honestly, if my partner is unhappy, I don't assume that it's me or that I'm doing something wrong. It's something about the way HE feels. Sure, it's possible it's about me. Perhaps it's about something I'm doing. But that's still very different than what I'm suggesting. Recognizing you may be doing something wrong is very different from deciding that there's something wrong with you. With a job interview, it's completely different since you haven't built a working relationship with the people at that company/organization. In situations where you have built such a professional relationship, a performance appraisal or similar will affect how you feel about yourself to at least some extent. Again, I disagree. A performance appraisal is someone else's evaluation of my performance. Someone else's thoughts, opinions, views. Might they make me happy or sad? Sure. BUT, I have confidence and security in my abilities, irrespective of what ANYONE says, including my bosses. So regardless of what's said during my performance appraisal, it's not going to affect how I feel about myself. Of course, "feedback" should never make you feel unduly badly about yourself, but IMO it's kind of idealistic to think that you can wholly separate your sense of self from it. Then call me an idealist, because that's precisely what I do.
zengirl Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I'm with Star Gazer on this one--- I may feel happy or sad, because of events or the actions of others, but their opinions of me or actions towards me rarely make me feel badly about myself. The exception would be that I do feel badly about myself when I realize I have actually done something I'm unhappy with; i.e. when I get snappish with my students, and they are complaining about me being grumpy, I feel bad---because they're right, and I'm wrong to be snappish because I'm in a bad mood. But if someone else mistreats me, or just doesn't like me, or whatever. . . I don't go looking for things that are "wrong" with me. Not everyone is my cuppa, and I'm not everyone's cuppa, and I've given up trying to be long ago. If I make someone unhappy, that makes me think---and if I decide that yes, it was a failing on my part, I feel badly about it and then fix it. No wallowing in self-pity or insecurity. I think once you develop a sense of self and self-love, you just see the world differently. I don't need validation from others to feel loveable. However, the funny thing is, that those who've never gotten the proper validation (especially those who had bad family lives, all bad romantic experiences, etc) are the ones least likely to have the tools they need to love themselves, I think. So, there's the vicious cycle. I learned a whole lot about loving myself by teaching Korean and Japanese kindergarteners, because they love everybody. I'd certainly loved and been loved before in many ways -- by family, by friends, by romantic partners -- but it wasn't until I worked with young children that I ever really saw love cast a wide net. That opened my eyes up to a new level. And it made me think, Love -- not just romantic, but familial, friendly etc -- is the best teacher of love. I think you can learn to love yourself no matter what, but it's a lot harder if you don't understand what love even is because you've not had enough positive experiences.
Star Gazer Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) Yup, zengirl gets it...all of it. This is not to say I don't have occasional moments where something someone says or does hurts and makes me pause, but at the day, it doesn't affect how I feel about myself. And of course there are occasions where I'm upset with myself because I decide/recognize I've done/said something I'm not proud of. But I don't let treatment (good or bad) from others affect my self-concept. Edited January 24, 2011 by Star Gazer
Isolde Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) This is not to say I don't have occasional moments where something someone says or does hurts and makes me pause, but at the day, it doesn't affect how I feel about myself. And of course there are occasions where I'm upset with myself because I decide/recognize I've done/said something I'm not proud of. But I don't let treatment (good or bad) from others affect my self-concept. I do agree with this. I do think that we need to have a solid core. I haven't been arguing with that at all. I think it's possible to deep down, think you're awesome but still be prone to self-doubt. I've been told it gets better as you progress further into adulthood. You learn to trust your life choices more. Edited January 25, 2011 by Isolde
Author USMCHokie Posted January 25, 2011 Author Posted January 25, 2011 Then call me an idealist, because that's precisely what I do. Yet it's unacceptable for someone else to do that regarding feedback that you provide...?
Star Gazer Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Yet it's unacceptable for someone else to do that regarding feedback that you provide...? Huh? I thought you didn't want to make this personal? Changing the rules and definitions at your whim again? I asked you not to engage me like this so that your threads could be kept general for everyone to learn from, and because several folks have indicated they don't like watching personal conversations like this. Also because we obviously have a huge disagreement about whether you are a secure person or an insecure person. But I think the subject matter of your threads, including this one, speak for themselves. You own it, then deny it. Back and forth, back and forth. To answer your question above, I expect secure people to separate my feedback about their behavior from the way they feel about themselves. Strong, secure people listen to my feedback and agree or not, basically do with it whatever they wish. On the other hand, I am not surprised when insecure people are unable to do this. You felt the way you felt and feel about yourself (insecure and unhappy, just read your own threads) long before you ever received my feedback. Feedback you have received and continue to receive from women impacts how you feel about yourself. You've said it yourself. Just gotta read your threads.
Star Gazer Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 I do agree with this. I do think that we need to have a solid core. I haven't been arguing with that at all. I think it's possible to deep down, think you're awesome but still be prone to self-doubt. I've been told it gets better as you progress further into adulthood. You learn to trust your life choices more. I don't disagree that even the most secure person has moments of self-doubt. I think the difference, after receiving negative feedback, is this: The insecure person receives negative feedback, and concludes: "I suck at life." The secure person receives negative feedback, and if persuasive enough, finds themselves in a moment of self-doubt and asks him/herself, "Are they right?" but then concludes on their own, based on how they feel about themselves and what they've demonstrated for themselves, that the feedback giver is wrong. I also agree with you that it gets better/easier as you get older and learn these things on your own. Honestly, it's one of the reasons you couldn't pay me to re-live my 20's.
zengirl Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 The secure person receives negative feedback, and if persuasive enough, finds themselves in a moment of self-doubt and asks him/herself, "Are they right?" but then concludes on their own, based on how they feel about themselves and what they've demonstrated for themselves, that the feedback giver is wrong. Sometimes the feedback giver is right, though. No matter how secure or awesome the person, I promise they're not awesome all the time or in every way. So, I think the secure person also accepts when the feedback giver is right. In fact, I think it takes a lot of security to do so, and not get defensive, and not get sullen, but push through, and fix the things that need fixing. Insecure people are more likely to wallow or get defensive about it. In fact insecure people may very well never hear negative feedback because it would open up that whole well of pain, insecurity, and self-doubt. Being able to be self-investigative without beating yourself up is the mark of a secure person.
Star Gazer Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) Sometimes the feedback giver is right, though. No matter how secure or awesome the person, I promise they're not awesome all the time or in every way. So, I think the secure person also accepts when the feedback giver is right. In fact, I think it takes a lot of security to do so, and not get defensive, and not get sullen, but push through, and fix the things that need fixing. Insecure people are more likely to wallow or get defensive about it. In fact insecure people may very well never hear negative feedback because it would open up that whole well of pain, insecurity, and self-doubt. Being able to be self-investigative without beating yourself up is the mark of a secure person. I think there's confusion about what I'm saying. You can certainly acknowledge the accuracy of feedback without letting it have an impact on how you feel about yourself. A secure person might agree with a feedback giver about some feedback, say, "That wasn't very nice of you," or "You didn't do a good job on this project." But I don't think a secure person, even accepting that feedback as completely accurate, would turn it around to make a conclusion about themselves as a person. A secure person wouldn't take that feedback and conclude, "I'm a horrible and evil perso !" or "I don't deserve this job!" Rather, the takeaway would be, "Yup, I could have said that in a nicer way, I know I have it in me to say something similar more tactfully next time" or "Yeah, my performance on that project kinda sucked, and I know I can do better than that." So when a secure person has a moment of self-doubt about who they are at their core, when it comes to negative feedback, I kinda think they have to answer the "Are they right?" question with a resounding no. What secure person thinks they're a horrible person, a terrible employee, a lousy friend/lover, not lovable? Edited January 25, 2011 by Star Gazer
Jannah Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 External influences absolutely contributes to one's self-confidence. But, it is ONE source. Having said that - think about your background and the present.... Present knowledge, attitude and actions are influenced by....childhood, education, social background which include everything you learned from your parents, from family, from school, from college and work; people you met and events you participated in. All those aspects would have influenced you and molded your current perceptions and character. Unless of course, a person was born on a deserted island and subjected to solitude for most of their life. Our thoughts and actions change....not people...partly by being less rigid in our thought patterns and open to new ideas and concepts that differ from our own. It can be difficult for us to contend with because we can be so set in our own views and perceptions. Letting go of those views and perceptions can sometimes be scary.
Star Gazer Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Jannah (and others! ), what are your thoughts about two siblings, same gender, close in age, same parental household, same physical and academic and career achievements, where one sibling is insecure and the other is quite confident. What do you think makes one person in that scenario secure and the other not, if all the primary external influences are the same? Honest question.
january2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Jannah (and others! ), what are your thoughts about two siblings, same gender, close in age, same parental household, same physical and academic and career achievements, where one sibling is insecure and the other is quite confident. What do you think makes one person in that scenario secure and the other not, if all the primary external influences are the same? Honest question. I have a similar dynamic in my family. Though if you asked us who was the insecure one or who was the confident one, I think we'd point at each other. Going back to your question, even if everything seemed the same, in my experience, there are always subtle differences that lead to different personality outcomes.
Recommended Posts