At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Interesting psychology article. Am I the only one confused?
I just read an article in Psychology Today which posits that it is healthy to consider others' opinions of you in order to increase self awareness and emotional growth. Basically, it is a good idea to listen to or even solicit outside opinions from friends, lovers, coworkers and family pertaining to your personality (strengths, weaknesses and quirks). What about you is annoying, comforting, humorous, aggressive or passive can be entirely different than your own perspective. The article went on to say that most of us rate our looks and intelligence a bit higher than how others would rate them.
I'll give my opinion first. How many of us know of people or are even guilty ourselves of saying "I don't care what people think of me"? It's kind of seen as a sign of strength isn't it? I mean a bit too much and you cross the line into arrogance, but I would suspect a life of essentially "people pleasing" is counterproductive to a strong sense of self. However, there are several aspects of my personality that I know (through others constantly complaining) are obnoxious or irritating. I consider myself incredibly self-aware, in fact to a point where I'm a bit sensitive to criticism. However, in an effort to prove I don't care, many times I may even increase my annoying behavior to prove that I don't care. Then, on my own time, in my own way, I adjust myself. Having said that, if someone were to address my social "setbacks" in a caring and nonjudgmental way, I may be more prone to listening. Therefore, that is how I address others when I am irritated. At first, I may be extremely subtle, but I gradually increase the poignancy of my intentions (that is, when I care to inspire change in someone). My own subtle nature leads me to over analyze other people's sometimes innocent remarks. It is all quite confusing. Obviously, when I have reached my limit with someone I become as blunt as a sledgehammer, but that is only after serious aggravation.
I'm not as neurotic as I sound and I certainly don't contradict myself this much in public, but is this pretty much the same dilemma most people face? Is this also why it hurts so much to be dumped? Long term relationships are generally so intimate that when the other party chooses to leave, they are rejecting you as a person for sometimes well known weaknesses and sometimes brand new ones that they surmised about you while getting to know you. I think in our effort to be "socially conscious" we open ourselves up to more pain through rejection, but I can't imagine congealing with other humans any other way.
Like I said, if you have any suggestions on where and why a thread should be, then feel free to post your explanation and one of the moderators will see your suggestions and consider it.
Well here's my suggestion. Relationships.
Here's my explanation. Relationships by definition mean : the state of being related or interrelated <studied the relationship between the variables>.
Now, assuming the relationships section of this forum is strictly referring to interpersonal relationships, my topic addresses relating to others and perceiving how they relate to you.
If you want to then assume that relationships refer to "romantic relationships", then you can review the question in my original post regarding "getting dumped" and the joyride of feelings that accompany "getting dumped". After all, isn't that when most of us question ourselves the most?
Perhaps, instead of subjectively moving topics to forums that receive less traffic, the mods can remove redundant topic choices or reorganize the topics with more specific titles.
Finally, your justification for moving threads is, at the most, wishful thinking. I posted a question under anthropology almost a year ago and still haven't gotten a response. I'm not the webmaster, but I guarantee the relationships topic is the main attraction of this site.
In my humble opinion, life's experiences culminate and in part result in personality traits and personal perception.
Stringer
Yes, but that's oversimplifying things a bit. If someone is self aware enough, they can control how their experiences do shape their perception and personality. For example, PTSD and other disorders are the result of lacking the proper coping skills to deal with certain experiences. Hence, therapy seeks to reverse or traverse certain perceptions PTSD victims may hold. Two people can can experience the same event and perceive the world in two completely different ways.
My point here, is that our self identity is an illusion we construct based upon feelings and bias. Whatever you hold onto to ground your confidence, can be ripped out from under you. If you choose to ignore the missing floor, then you are simply lying to yourself in order to avoid losing your confidence.
I know this is all wonderfully insane and I appreciate folks indulging me. Fortunately, I'm far too busy most of the time to focus on these things, but I still wonder. If I could see myself through someone else's eyes, what would I see? The bad pictures of myself? The good ones? When you hear your own voice recorded or you see yourself on a video camera, don't you sometimes cringe?
In essence we do have methods and the means to change those things about ourselves that are identified as negative. I believe that our personalities and even beliefs are formed by 'outside' affects, feedback and information flow.
The primarily cause of change is...fear.
One of my early seminars in management concerned evaluation of employees. It was said that people 'live in a bubble.' This bubble is their method/form of protection from what they didn't want to face or deal with. My job was to make them understand how they 'fit in' with the company's expected progress AND how they were perceived personally not only by management but also by the other workers. When these things were addressed of course their self defense mechanisms kicked in. The purpose was to encourage 'a sales solution' attitude and think/feel outside yourself and 'see' your customer's wants and needs. Especially since purchasing is for the most part an emotional decision. There is a need for empathy and the ability to sincerely feel it for others.
Did it work? The results at the next six month review; 2% showed improvement. The results however were skewered in that for the most part it was based primarily upon sales results.
I think we all come to a point when we have to decide what important, and whats not.
Circumstances dictate whether you need major changes, or just small adjustments, but it seems it always comes down to what you want for yourself, and how you go about getting it.
For that you better be pretty honest with yourself, and be able to see reality, no matter what everyone else is talking about.
To some extent we all have to deal with our own realities, and have choices to make how it relates to what we do, and want of ourselves.
Maybe you can't please everyone, but you better be happy with the choices and decisions you make.
Lets face it, nobody really cares if your happy or not. Just you. Thats your best choice, can you live with yourself , despite what everyone else is saying and doing? I try to.
Yeah, but many people are happy stealing. I'm a libertarian, so I am of the mind set that people should be able to live any way they want as long as it does not interfere with how someone else lives. However, a little math will show that there are limited resources. So we have to compete with each other for said resources (whether it be sex, money, food or gasoline). Morals being a relative thing, this competition is regulated according (in theory) to majority rule. However, black letter law doesn't deal with all human interactions. The individual (generally speaking in western culture) gets to choose how to date, marry, invest, purchase, etc. We also get to choose how we interact with other human beings on a personal level. Many of us face situations where our choice may benefit ourselves while hurting others. In a bidding war, the individual with the most resources (and a desire) will ultimately win. Now, if we are talking about a painting, who really cares. If we are talking about food, things become less black and white.
Certainly there's room for self-improvement in all of us. It's common for people to become judgmental or arrogant when pointing out others' "faults" or "weaknesses". And I do believe that that's counterproductive because being overly critical just puts one on the defensive and becomes an obstacle, rather than an encouragement, to self-improvement. After all, nobody likes to be treated as a robot or as putty in everyone else's' hands where having any sense of self whatsoever is illegal. So while it's important to consider other peoples' views and perspectives it's equally important to consider one's own as well. And I put the words 'faults' and 'weaknesses' above in quotes because often such standards are purely subjective. What one person might consider as a fault or weakness might be seen by another as a strength or asset. So it's always a balancing act between considering the needs and feelings of others while at the same time being free to be comfortable in one's own skin.
If you think there is a problem in how you are perceived by others, then there probably is.
If they tend to go silent when you are around, or don't invite you out to the pub after work on Friday, or if you get the cold shoulder from your girlfriends parents or friends, then you might want to see if you can figure that out.
If you mingle well, have lots of friends, a good social life, and harmony at work, then you probably don't have a problem with how people perceive you, it may be more to do with confidence, or self esteem. You don't see yourself as you are in other words.
People live in bubbles at work because they know that this 'self improvement' is manipulation for the bottom line. It promotes conformity by intimidation (in not participating), and resentment in false sentiment (that it is for your own good to be a better person because we say so). I should think the lack of results also indicate that not only did it not matter much in the bottom line, but, what you don't see is that the bottom line would have been likely better without the intellectual and emotional programming by the execs.
I don't think the whole concept is confusing. Essentially if you treat people well, and expect the same, and if you are honest and fair, showing respect for everybody you contact in your life, there would be fewer unhappy, insecure people in this world.
Linear Mode
