The Truth About Confidence
- Thread starter Nocturnal
- Start date
I disagree. The incorrect mindset is not as simple as "I am better than you." A man who adopts this particular mindset is not better than the man to whom he compares himself -- and he knows it. Abstract belief in "betterness," when reality belies such belief, is a classic sign of insecurity and compensation for perceived shortcomings.
Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with believing you are better than another man -- if you are better. To deny the reality that you are better than another man is to supplicate yourself to his shortcomings, and will not allow you to take pleasure in your accomplishments. Taken to an extreme, such denial may cause you to question whether you are, in fact, better than him, and thereby undermine your confidence.
Being "happy as I am and with who I am" is a noble belief that, for the most part, exists only in the abstract. Happiness with onesself is often an excuse lesser men use to justify their inadequacies to men who are their betters. In better men, happiness with onesself often leads to complacency, thereby stifiling the betterment process.
sting, you cant possibly mean to say that there are only extremes, that is that you're either happy or you aren't?
i don't think absolute happiness is possible (at least not on this planet), given that humans almost always want more. they set their current lifestyle as the standard to them, and the standard is never seen as the best. did bill gates ever stop trying to make money? does anyone? he certainly has enough money already, why does he still bother to work and try to earn more? it's a challenge. a million dollars might seem like a lot to some people, but then again what is a few hundred million to a billionaire?
now, material things might be an exception in some ways, but emotionally people are always left wanting more. thus it can be said that one of the reasons humans evolved to the point they are at is because of the desire to want more, and to be better/important. competition. did we stop at simply using basic tools such as knives and spears to hunt? no, there were bows, and eventually guns (despite the fact that i think they were invented for fighting purposes originally).
no matter how happy someone is, if they're human, they aren't going to have complacency as you put it.
why do elder people seem so complacent? because they feel they have passed their prime, they have reached the top and now are moving away from it, even if they are going downhill. when you're unable to progress, thats when the desire to become better fades.
theoretically, you would be correct. however, you really have to think "is anyone really truly happy"??
thecraftylefty
Senior Don Juan
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 417
- Reaction score
- 7
Crossposted from mASF
Happiness isn't a state. It's not even a mindset. It's something much more. Happiness is in a category all by itself. It's independent of instantaneous emotion. Happiness can be seen as a function of time. Your overall happiness is attributed (proportional) to the sum of all actions you create and those actions you are indirectly involved with over some period of time (your life). Your direct association with the actions you do have control are just as important the outside factors you have no control over.
Now everybody obviously has times when they feel really great. Take me for example, I feel really good after running. I like the rush it gives me. The adrenaline is really like a drug. But when I get done I come down from the high I experienced during my run and return to my normal state.
OTOH, when you're down in the dumps it doesn't feel quite so good. For me, that would be equivalent to receiving a bad grade on a test. Or, more dramatically, even having a family member pass away. Sure you'd feel bad, but only temporarily. The pain and anger dissipates with time. You gradually return to normal.
So let's define normal. The biological definition states: functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies. In this way normal correlates to being a natural process. Something that is common, aka the norm. That's easy to relate to. Everybody has a time each day when they're acting normal. Taking a **** is normal. The process requires no thought whatsoever (unless your totally drunk and need to hold it in, but that's another story) and everybody does it.
So where am I going with this? What I'm trying to get across is that happiness is whatever you make of it. If you're happy when you watch the football on Sundays, then do it. If hunting makes you happy, by all means, hunt. If PUing chicks makes you happy, then do it. But wasting time takes away from your happiness. That's common sense.
But that doesn't mean you must be up-beat 24/7 to live a fulfilling life. Being happy all the time does detract from life. We as humans have developed the ability to feel many different emotions and sensations. Here's a quote from Jim Valvano.
"To me, there are three things we all should do every day. We should do this every day of our lives. Number one is laugh. You should laugh every day. Number two is think. You should spend some time in thought. Number three is, you should have your emotions moved to tears, could be happiness or joy. But think about it. If you laugh, you think and you cry, that's a full day. That's a heck of a day. You do that seven days a week , you're going to have something special."
Living a life of pure bliss is ignorant. You must value the entire spectrum of life to truly appreciate it. --end post--
It's about what happiness means to YOU. There are endless possiblities.
"If your rap is strong it can't go wrong."
thecraftylefty
Happiness isn't a state. It's not even a mindset. It's something much more. Happiness is in a category all by itself. It's independent of instantaneous emotion. Happiness can be seen as a function of time. Your overall happiness is attributed (proportional) to the sum of all actions you create and those actions you are indirectly involved with over some period of time (your life). Your direct association with the actions you do have control are just as important the outside factors you have no control over.
Now everybody obviously has times when they feel really great. Take me for example, I feel really good after running. I like the rush it gives me. The adrenaline is really like a drug. But when I get done I come down from the high I experienced during my run and return to my normal state.
OTOH, when you're down in the dumps it doesn't feel quite so good. For me, that would be equivalent to receiving a bad grade on a test. Or, more dramatically, even having a family member pass away. Sure you'd feel bad, but only temporarily. The pain and anger dissipates with time. You gradually return to normal.
So let's define normal. The biological definition states: functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies. In this way normal correlates to being a natural process. Something that is common, aka the norm. That's easy to relate to. Everybody has a time each day when they're acting normal. Taking a **** is normal. The process requires no thought whatsoever (unless your totally drunk and need to hold it in, but that's another story) and everybody does it.
So where am I going with this? What I'm trying to get across is that happiness is whatever you make of it. If you're happy when you watch the football on Sundays, then do it. If hunting makes you happy, by all means, hunt. If PUing chicks makes you happy, then do it. But wasting time takes away from your happiness. That's common sense.
But that doesn't mean you must be up-beat 24/7 to live a fulfilling life. Being happy all the time does detract from life. We as humans have developed the ability to feel many different emotions and sensations. Here's a quote from Jim Valvano.
"To me, there are three things we all should do every day. We should do this every day of our lives. Number one is laugh. You should laugh every day. Number two is think. You should spend some time in thought. Number three is, you should have your emotions moved to tears, could be happiness or joy. But think about it. If you laugh, you think and you cry, that's a full day. That's a heck of a day. You do that seven days a week , you're going to have something special."
Living a life of pure bliss is ignorant. You must value the entire spectrum of life to truly appreciate it. --end post--
It's about what happiness means to YOU. There are endless possiblities.
I think the better question to be pondered is, "what is stopping you from becoming truly happy?"
"If your rap is strong it can't go wrong."
thecraftylefty
Okay, this post was good.
However, it concerns me that it took a post like this to bring this point to attention.
I thought the idea of actually being a DJ, rather than emulating DJ-like behavior, was something we all understood as common sense. I guess I was wrong.
In that case, I'll say again that this was a good post.
However, it concerns me that it took a post like this to bring this point to attention.
I thought the idea of actually being a DJ, rather than emulating DJ-like behavior, was something we all understood as common sense. I guess I was wrong.
In that case, I'll say again that this was a good post.
I strongly disagree with the entire paragraph. If you are not happy with yourself - if you need to be better than others to make yourself happy - then you simply need to modify your character, for you have not yet found who you truly are. I'm telling you, once you start to compare yourself to others, there is no end. And genuine people - the people who truly can give you something in a relationship - will see through you when you start considering yourself superior to others. Unless you're a good faker. But what's the point of faking it, when you can also be genuine?
You see, people don't justify their inadequacies by being happy with themselves. On the contrary, they basically have no inadequacies. If they like something, they are passionate about it, because that is a part of them - so being passionate about it will make them happy. You see, EVERYBODY has inadequacies (that's right, even you) but people who are happy with themselves don't care about their inadequacies - and when they don't pay attention to it, neither will anybody else! They become the true leaders, because they respect not only themselves, but people around them as well. In my mind, if "being happy with yourself" only exists in abstact, then so does the term "being a DJ"!
I REFUSE to take myself as a "superior" person. I REFUSE to accept that only me being superior will make me happy. So, should this make me unhappy? I'm telling you, after I stopped taking life as a competition, I've felt a LOT happier than before. And I know that the happiness is genuine when I get what I've always wanted to get - wether it's good grades, our beautiful babes.
Just a few days ago I posted a thread about why not to take life as a competition... so I think I won't write more than this about the subject here.
Anson, what you seem to be denying is the reality that all human progress is based upon competition. Without the desire to be stronger, faster or smarter, evolution itself would stagnate. Primitive as it may sound, self-competition is a degree of enlightenment not yet achieved in man's current state of evolution. Consequently, to deny the reality that competition is still an essential part of human evolution is to avoid acknowledging an essential part of yourself.
How can you explain your claim that all human evolution is based on competing, Sting? There are two kinds of evolution, biological and cultural. Let's look at biological at first: Animals look after themselves the best they can. If they are the fittest, they will survive. Do they compare themselves with other animals? No. They do not have the intelligence to do so. Therefore, they can't get the feeling of being superior. And yet, they do evolve. So biological evolution does happen without conscious competition. Some species do go away, yes, but they don't go away because other species's would WANT to become the superior species.
I think that this whole "competition" thing is a cultural thing, not a biological. It's not a biological need. Culture has just tought us to always think what other people think of us. I don't want to always think what other people think of me. They can think whatever they want, I don't care! Therefore, I have no need to prove myself or my talent to anyone but me. I don't have to feel superior to others, because I don't have to think about others when I'm working on self-improvement, when I'm working on my passions.
For animals, "looking after themselves" means finding something to eat. But of course humans are different. Now, some people might say that humans have "evolved" (I'm not talking about biological evolution, but cultural evolution) so fast because of their willingness to compete. I disagree with this. In my opinion, humans have had fast cultural evolution because of their willingness to find passions. Passions outside of finding food to eat and mating! Do scientists make inventions to be better than other scientists? Maybe some of them do. But notice, that they do not think about this while they're doing their research. Because that destroyes the concentration. Even athletes who compete can't really think about the competition or the winning: they just have to concentrate on getting the best result possible. And that does require total concentration. There are many examples on how concentrating into competing instead into the result itself will actually sabotage your result. There is even a term for it - "choking" just before the big competition.
But when you have a passion towards something, you don't have to compete - you become soooo good at it anyway, and thus, you bring forth the (cultular) evolution. That has nothing to do with being superior to other human beings. Of course there are people who's passion is compiting, but even for those the competition should be only a way to being happy with who they are. It should not be the purpose of all their actions.
Why not? Because, as much as I can remember back from my old AFC days, it leads into a terrible and vicious circle. You will never be the best - there will always be someone better than you in all categories of life, and there's nothing you can do to it. So, when you start to take "fitting in" as a competition - that's what leads into AFC'ness. AFC's think ALL THE TIME how to win the competition. They get afraid, because there is so much pressure on them. For them, winning the competition is the same as getting approved by everyone. No rejection. Ever. There are no AFC's in animal kingdom, because there is no real, conscious competition either. Everyone just tries to live their life to the fullest.
So, am I denying a part of me when I try not to think myself as superior to others? Maybe I am, who knows. All I know is that I don't want to compare my life with others's - I don't want to live my life through the eyes of others. And once I've started to follow that, I've been feeling that my life has gotten better. I've became actually better at those things where I'm good at. At least that's how I feel. So if I am indeed living in denial, then it's a sweet, sweet denial
Try it out and see for yourself!
I think that this whole "competition" thing is a cultural thing, not a biological. It's not a biological need. Culture has just tought us to always think what other people think of us. I don't want to always think what other people think of me. They can think whatever they want, I don't care! Therefore, I have no need to prove myself or my talent to anyone but me. I don't have to feel superior to others, because I don't have to think about others when I'm working on self-improvement, when I'm working on my passions.
For animals, "looking after themselves" means finding something to eat. But of course humans are different. Now, some people might say that humans have "evolved" (I'm not talking about biological evolution, but cultural evolution) so fast because of their willingness to compete. I disagree with this. In my opinion, humans have had fast cultural evolution because of their willingness to find passions. Passions outside of finding food to eat and mating! Do scientists make inventions to be better than other scientists? Maybe some of them do. But notice, that they do not think about this while they're doing their research. Because that destroyes the concentration. Even athletes who compete can't really think about the competition or the winning: they just have to concentrate on getting the best result possible. And that does require total concentration. There are many examples on how concentrating into competing instead into the result itself will actually sabotage your result. There is even a term for it - "choking" just before the big competition.
But when you have a passion towards something, you don't have to compete - you become soooo good at it anyway, and thus, you bring forth the (cultular) evolution. That has nothing to do with being superior to other human beings. Of course there are people who's passion is compiting, but even for those the competition should be only a way to being happy with who they are. It should not be the purpose of all their actions.
Why not? Because, as much as I can remember back from my old AFC days, it leads into a terrible and vicious circle. You will never be the best - there will always be someone better than you in all categories of life, and there's nothing you can do to it. So, when you start to take "fitting in" as a competition - that's what leads into AFC'ness. AFC's think ALL THE TIME how to win the competition. They get afraid, because there is so much pressure on them. For them, winning the competition is the same as getting approved by everyone. No rejection. Ever. There are no AFC's in animal kingdom, because there is no real, conscious competition either. Everyone just tries to live their life to the fullest.
So, am I denying a part of me when I try not to think myself as superior to others? Maybe I am, who knows. All I know is that I don't want to compare my life with others's - I don't want to live my life through the eyes of others. And once I've started to follow that, I've been feeling that my life has gotten better. I've became actually better at those things where I'm good at. At least that's how I feel. So if I am indeed living in denial, then it's a sweet, sweet denial
Try it out and see for yourself!
The Dominated1
Don Juan
You do not have to be better than anybody else.
Just be better than you were yesterday. The knowledge that you are improving will give you confidence.
Just be better than you were yesterday. The knowledge that you are improving will give you confidence.
fragmentor
Senior Don Juan
fvck me, this is so true.
Great Post MadSkater (I'm an oldie)
Great Post MadSkater (I'm an oldie
)
This is a true statement. However, my original post was not about focusing on competition because that is how the vast majority of society functions. Rather, my focus was on accepting the reality that competition drives most people -- and using the competitive drive of other people to further your own agenda.
I'm sorry, but history speaks volumes that competition for resources has been the primary driving force behind cultural evolution. Competition for resources has nothing to do with "passion," but everything to do with survival and expansion.
This is a defeatest attitude, and is contrary to the idea of "competitive spirit." Taking your belief to its extreme, sporting events should be considered unevolved expressions of competitiveness.
I think you may misunderstand what drives an AFC. "Fitting in" is not a competition, but rather an aspect of survival. One could even compare "fitting in" to the ancient practice of forming tribes. Tribes were the earliest form of society, and they competed for resources with other tribes. If you did not belong to a tribe, and in particular the strongest tribe, you often died. There has never been a "self-improvement" tribe.
It's been written on this board that a DJ doesn't compete with other men. A DJ is his own man, and if a woman doesn't recognize a DJ for the desirable man that he is, it's her loss. Yet being so self-absorbed is a critical mistake. Approaching women is part of the game -- and the game is a competition.
Yes, you are. Self-confidence comes from *knowing* you are the best man; that you are, in fact, superior to other men. It is this degree of confidence and self-awareness that separates you from other men. The attitude of superiority does not come from *comparing* yourself to other men, but rather from *knowing* you are superior. The insecure man, the man who does not know whether he is superior (or knows he is not) will never get past the comparison stage of the analysis. Such a man will invariably compare himself to other men and find himself lacking. Yet rather than take such deficiency as a signal for self-improvement, he wallows in self-pity, or even worse, mentally, verbally or physically tears down the men that knows are superior to him to avoid confronting the truth of his own inferiority.
Your life will always be subject to the scrutiny of others. Denying how others view you closes you off from one of the best ways of ascertaining that you need to change your life. Of course, you must always consider how others view you through the prism of your own goals and dreams. Yet if the adulation of others is what you want, then superiority is the key.
I disagree. Even though competition for resources has sometimes been a factor, sometimes even a big factor, culture has often evolved without it. It is not a necessity. Look at the individuals that have brought forth the cultural evolution: Shakespeare, Edison, Einstein, just to name a few. They were all driven by passion - not the will to be superior to others, but passion. And passion is, I believe, also the force that drives DJ's forward in their life. Think about Picasso; he was a poor guy, and he never expected that people could ever consider him superior to other painters. But he didn't want that; if that was what he wanted, he would have chosen another profession, where he would have made money. But being a poor painter, he could express himself the way he wanted. It was never about others, it was always about him.
The only difference is when a country wants to compete with other countries. They give money to individual scientists, so they will make greater discoveries. They also throw money on weapon research. This kind of evolution is, I agree, based on competition. But it is still not a necessity: those scientists could make great discoveries even without government supporting them. Look at Galileo Galilei; he was definetly not supported by his government, when the church put him on inquisition!
Competition can indeed bring forth the cultural evolution somewhat. But it is not the real reason that truly drives the evolution forward. Passion of individuals (and small groups) is.
I think that sporting events should be considered as what they are: Fun ways to spend time, to get your adrenaline and testosterone rolling. And perhaps for some people who are really good at it, it can even become a profession. Sporting event is not, however, about being superior to other beings, or to others participating in the event. I personally like a sporting event: I like to run because when I run, I feel really good (and that has nothing to do with being superior to anyone). When me and my friends play ice hockey, we have fun, I enjoy the competition. And three days later nobody even remembers who won. Of course if you play in College team or something, winning becomes more important. But even then you shouldn't concentrate on winning; that way you'll screw everything up. Yep, I'm once again talking about the "choking" effect in sports. That doesn't happen when you practice, now does it?
"Competition? I see hockey more as an art form, a way to express myself" -Wayne Gretzky
"Those players who concentrate on self-improvement instead of winning will become the truly succesful professionals. They are so good because they don't think about it; they don't think about the winning, and they even hardly think about the competition, either. They just do the thing they feel is right to do. That's what makes them so good." -Alpo Suhonen, the most succesful Finnish hockey coach ever.
I already said before that there are competitive people and that is not a bad thing. Competition itself is not a bad thing. You just have to know when to compete, and more especially, what is the real spirit of competition. Is it about being superior to others, or winning the others? Some might say it is. But I believe that in the end, the true spirit of competition is in the competing process itself! THAT is what gets your adrenaline pumbing. If you concentrate on THAT, then there's no stopping you! Same goes in real life: concentrate on what makes you feel good instead of what is the result of it, and you'll feel much better. But if you concentrate on being superior to others, you're just fooling yourself. Because you never are superior to others. You shouldn't compete in that way. If you consider yourself that, then you're just lying to yourself.
But it becomes a competition once "survival" is no longer necessary, as it isn't - not in the western countries, at least. Back from my AFC days, I remember thinking that fitting in was a competition. Even after finding this site, I considered it a competition - which actually held me back.
There is no game. Approaching women is part of life. A fun part. Once it becomes a "game", it isn't genuine. How can you have an LTR with anyone, if neither side is genuine, if both of you are playing games? For me, genuinity is the key here. Of course I use some of the DJ "tactics" to attract a woman - I see it just as being in control of the situation. And when I'm in control of the situation, I feel even better about myself and the things I can do, and the things I can get.
Like I've said before: that is not a genuine way to think. Because you are NOT the "best man". The fact that you know how to attract beautiful women does not make you superior to other men; same way as being good at maths does not make you superior. If you tell yourself that it does, then you're just lying to yourself. And I've noticed (yes, I know people who think like this, I even used to think like this myself) that people who are intelligent and genuine will see through this kind of arrogance. For it is not a strenght to see yourself superior; it is a weekness. It portraits insecurity. If you can hide it well from others, at least it will portrait insecurity to yourself.
That is why I left that kind of thinking behind; it was one of those things that I wanted to "self-improve".
