Jannah 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'll have to think about that in more depth and see if I can link it to individuals I know in real life who fit that exact description. On the flip side - I know twin males in real life, who fit the description you wrote above - but BOTH appear to be equally confident. I didn't grow up with them in their environment, so personally, I do not know what has and does attribute to their sense of self.
hydorclops Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Star Gazer is doing a good job of modeling the kind of thinking that leads to security and inoculates against insecurity. I'd say Insecurity is fear. Uncertainty can be rational and appropriate. Insecurity is mostly irrational and causes problems and suffering. Being rational and using good critical thinking to challenge logical fallacies is a way to learn better habits and become more secure. "You goofed up that report." "I always make mistakes." vs. "Oops, I'll fix it. I very rarely goof up." "You're ugly." "I'm ugly." vs. "She thinks I'm ugly. Many others don't" You don't have to make up happy ****, but you can discard the irrational **** that leads to insecurity.
zengirl Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 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. I do think that they could make a conclusion about themselves as a person, especially based on continuous feedback. That's how we change, secure or insecure---primarily, the secure people are more capable of change. Now, a secure person wouldn't accept ALL feedback. The secure person would filter, investigate, and decide what to accept and change. But only an insecure person would need to reject valid feedback or say it doesn't really apply to them in a core way, I'd think. A secure person wouldn't take that feedback and conclude, "I'm a horrible and evil perso !" or "I don't deserve this job!" Agreed, those are extreme. And likely, feedback that says things like that is not worth regarding. However, if a secure person's boss tells them that recent work has been sloppy, and it HAS, the secure person would accept that they had been doing sloppy work ("I am someone who has been doing sloppy work" does not = I am horrible, I am incapable, etc). If a secure person gets a D on a math test, the secure person would accept that he had done poorly, and if he studied and sincerely tried, he would accept that his efforts have fallen short. What he does with that feedback, and HOW he incorporates it into his core matters a lot -- it might indicate math is not a strong suit, especially if it is consistent over time -- but a secure person can deal with that, get past it, try to fix what can be fixed, and move along. I consider myself a secure person, but I can certainly acknowledge my failings and flaws. Secure, to me, does not equal happy with every aspect of yourself -- it means accepting who you are, even the ugly parts, changing what you can, and being the guardian of your own happiness and health. 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." Right. These can still be core assessments, especially in the case where the feedback is consistent over time, even with trying to change the outcome. Sometimes a person has a major issue or even a minor one that is just an area where they are lacking. Maybe it is even unfixable. Secure people can accept these areas. Insecure people freak. 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? I guess it depends on what you consider 'feedback.' The actual feedback received rarely says these horrible person, terrible employee, not lovable, etc. That's what the insecure person might warp it to, but I've found that feedback rare in the world. The actual feedback is more like "You're not doing the job we need" or "I don't feel like I could fall in love with you" or "You argue with me all the time, and I'm just tired of it--it's exhausting." Twisting those things into "I'm a horrible person!" is of course insecure and unproductive but seeing where you contributed to the problem is not.
Recommended Posts