[inertia]

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.

After all that, what's your opinion?

[I wish]

I think that you need to have a lot of confidence in yourself to not care about what others think. The fear is that over-confidence can boarderline cookiness.

I think that in order to reach our potential, we need to have confidence in ourselves, but also constantly keep an open mind to look for ways to improve ourselves.

Set-backs have a way of slowing us down, but when we recover, we emerge stronger. Rejection can be a painful experience and can even make us doubt ourselves the next time around. So it's really important to build our self-esteem at all times so that we are in a better position to face life's obstacles.

Overall, interesting article.

[inertia]

I agree with your entire post. I'm not referring to only boyfriend/ girlfriend relationships, by the way. I think it would be ridiculous to completely overhaul your self-identity because you were rejected. However, certain "bad behaviors" you possessed in your relationship should never be overlooked in an attempt to spare your pride. For example, in the future I won't badmouth partner's friends (as much as I have in the past) because it will never be good for the relationship. Calling your gf's best friend a whore (no matter how accurate you are) will never land well.

I'm more interested to know where people draw the line. Sometimes it's good to push yourself into uncomfortable situations because you can only get better.

[inertia]

I think that you need to have a lot of confidence in yourself to not care about what others think. The fear is that over-confidence can boarderline cookiness.

Ok, this gets dangerous though. Think about how stupid those kids who get rejected from American Idol look when they sing horribly in front of the nation, get rejected by the judges, then walk out and say everyone else is wrong and they will never give up.

I don't think any of us want to be that "self-confident". After all, self confidence is generally an illusion based upon relative bias. The smartest kid of the family might still be the dumbest kid in school, but the sunshine blowing up his rear at home will always bloat his ego.

[I wish]

Ok, this gets dangerous though. Think about how stupid those kids who get rejected from American Idol look when they sing horribly in front of the nation, get rejected by the judges, then walk out and say everyone else is wrong and they will never give up.

That's why I said over-confidence can boarderline cookiness.

I should elaborate on that point. Cookiness can lead to arrogance; thus, the example that you provided.

In my second paragraph, I mentioned that it's important for people to strike a balance in life. Be confident, but always be open to criticism to improve ourselves.

[inertia]

Cockiness is not the same thing as delusional. Confidence itself is based upon self image. In order to build yourself image, you may "exaggerate" certain attributes you think you have in order to fill your jar. As I said, all things being relative, it's impossible to accurately measure yourself to others. Show me something you pride yourself on and chances are there is a room of people on this planet who possess that talent to a much greater extent. In that microcosm, how confident would you feel? At least after taking away any self talk like "well this room is unusually off balance". I personally believe that confidence is in of itself an illusion as well.

No person has experienced every experience or knows every fact. First definition for confidence on webster's dictionary: "a feeling or consciousness of one's powers or of reliance on one's circumstances". Power and circumstance are always theoretical and uncertain, therefore confidence is based upon unreliable information and therefore inherently flawed.

[inertia]

Well, an argument can be made for every relationship post to eventually move to mental health, then to personal growth. It's obviously an arbitrary decision made by "Mods". I have enough sense to post relevant topics in relevant forums, but what do I know? I'm just a casual poster, so my hand needs to be held (or forced) when my ignorance precedes me.

[Stringer]

In an attempt to put this back on track...

In my humble opinion, life's experiences culminate and in part result in personality traits and personal perception.

Stringer

[inertia]

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.

[inertia]

In an attempt to put this back on track.....

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.

[inertia]

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.

[inertia]

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?

[Stringer]

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 themselves 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&#37; showed improvement. The results however were skewered in that for the most part it was based primarily upon sales results.

Stringer

[talaniman]

I think we all come to a point when we have to decide what important, and what's 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. That's your best choice, can you live with yourself , despite what everyone else is saying and doing? I try to.

[inertia]

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.

[s_cianci]

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.

[Jake2008]

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.

[Stringer]

I realize Jake that my example of the seminar was narrow in the scheme of things. But the workplace is a considerable part of most of our lives and we spend a lot of time there.

Was it 'conformity, intimidation or manipulation'? I suppose it depends on your perspective. The effort was to increase the business, yes, but that's certainly not an evil thing. After all, he/she would benefit directly and in more ways than than just the larger paycheck. Otherwise, they could possibly fail, would that be a benefit. Not all businesses, are like the BIG BAD ones that you read about in the news.

I own three businesses, and I try to do a lot 'extra' for my workers. I help with college classes, I bonus, I offer crises management for personal problems, I am assessable, I try to go out of my way to help where ever and when ever I can. And at a considerable cost, that extra money would be going in MY pocket since I started and sacrificed to get the companies going. But I realize that competent, happy and educated employees are a benefit to the company. Payback to those who have worked hard in this case is a good thing. I have been to more weddings, christenings, wakes for my employees and their families than I could count and I am the Godfather of some of their children.

So in a sense possibly it isn't that the negative things mentioned above apply to all companies trying to help their employees and the company in turn. Would it be easier to not do anything but what you must for your employees and when they possibly fail just fire them? I am not that kind of person, never have been, and there are a lot of us around. I have never seen a failure give a man a job.

I am sorry to turn this a bit, but I get frustrated. When people take the chance, start a business and also try their best to do the right thing and then have to deal with what seems to be a blanket attitude of it's you against us.

I am proud of what I have accomplished and proud that I have given the opportunity to many of my employees (211 in total) to possibly enrich their lives in some small way. By the way, 16 employees who happen to be minorities now have a college education. That in it's self has enriched their lives and that of their families.

Am I looking for any congrats? NO, when I go to their graduations... that is enough. And when we have seminars that makes everyone think... think about improving their lives and I see their reactions, I also benefit because I gain more pride in them and how hard they worked for it.

Ok, I'm finished, sorry Inertia.

Stringer

[Jake2008]

When this was said,

" 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 themselves 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."

... that was what I was referring to. The psychological bubble is a place where most of us are, because it is a workplace. Where you work involves an entirely different set of skills, in order to do expected tasks, for the bottom line. I am the type of worker who doesn't need to be motivated artificially, as I have a very high work ethic. I don't need to be taught how to be empathetic or how to be sincere in order to be effective.

I was not aware how you run your business, you sound like a great boss. But, this so called 'science' of workplace psychology, where no matter how good you are at what you do is always seen as an opportunity by your employer for you to do more, just doesn't sit right with me. Not all, but many run this way.

To open yourself up is to risk rejection, as far as relationships go, and any interpersonal relationship as far as that goes. I have been blinded by obvious faults in people, and have been deeply hurt by their actions. I don't know if anybody ever gets good enough at understanding relationships to a point where they don't get hurt when they end.

I'd say we are all generally insecure as to how others perceive us to be. You could get all the positive vibes and cues coming at you, then realize that it was not sincere, and you read that particular person all wrong.

But, how I wish I had the courage to answer someone when they asked me if they were doing anything wrong, or why people avoided them. I would like to think that I would muster the courage if I was asked flat out.

But even knowing yourself well, any time you put your thoughts and actions out there, you take a risk. You can do tweaks here and there, but there is no avoiding living through the doubt caused about yourself, when relationships break up. Even if you had nothing to do with it.

[inertia]

I personally think rejection is far less threatening than being taken advantage of. If I put myself out there and I am flat out rejected, I believe I have enough confidence to bounce back pretty easily (whether I need to make some personal modifications or not). However, to be taken advantage of means the other party didn't even care about my well being.

Betrayal is the ultimate crime (hence Dante) and I find that those who can do so without remorse are missing something very important to our humanity.

Personally, whenever I get burned, I question my intelligence and wonder if I have been cursed with some sort of childish naivety. I've been sitting on the fence of cynic and dreamer for a long time and I fear my inner cynic is going to win. That poor dreamer just can't catch a break.