Self-Confidence

[silverchris9]

My self confidence varies wildly. One minute I consider myself a king, then next a rouge and peasant slave (It is I. Hamlet the Dane). Is this because:

a) I am a woman (according to John Gray, Author of Men are from Mars...)
b) I am bipolar
c) I am an IEI, or,
d) No one factor accounts for human experience, and if we could reduce things to first principles, it would be that irreducible essence that is the soul, and that innumerable set of occurrences that is history, and since both are unexplainable (the first for its simplicity, the second for its complexity--and both too many parts and too few make for difficulty in explanation), any response to this post would be an answer to an improper question, and as such the choosing of any of the proffered options would be intellectually dishonest.

On a related note, should I consider myself a god? I'm moderately attractive, intellectually gifted, as assured of a decent job or grad school option after I graduate college as one can be without being an engineer or finance major, and possessed of a variety of artistic talents, some of which are even sexually attractive. Don't worry, I'm not really this conceited: I have bad dreams.


NOTE TO MODS: The last paragraph of this post is justified as a "Is it Type Related" question as opposed to an "Anything Goes" post insofar as it is an example of the sort of mood swings I'm talking about, and that I'm genuinely interested in seeing the type relatedness of. One minute I think that I'm Hamlet himself, and the next I'm justifying myself to moderators on an internet forum. And that said, maybe you should move this post to Anything Goes. Maybe depending on what sorts of responses people give?

[Words]

I don't know if i've got confidence, I just do stuff more or less, if that makes sense.

[squark]

Well, seeing as you're not a king, and not a lowly worm either, it's not about self-confidence. Self-confidence is when you see yourself clearly, and act accordingly, not with grandiose notions of being the best, or sniveling whimpers of being the worst. You're neither the best nor the worst, so you're not seeing your SELF at all, and it's not your self-confidence that's jumping all over the place, but merely your self-image. The image that you project (even to yourself) in place of the reality.

and yes, I think that can be type-related.

[07490]

Well, seeing as you're not a king, and not a lowly worm either, it's not about self-confidence. Self-confidence is when you see yourself clearly, and act accordingly, not with grandiose notions of being the best, or sniveling whimpers of being the worst. You're neither the best nor the worst, so you're not seeing your SELF at all, and it's not your self-confidence that's jumping all over the place, but merely your self-image. The image that you project (even to yourself) in place of the reality.

and yes, I think that can be type-related.

, that is what I exactly have in mind, nice going with the description.

[golden]

Although I think self-confidence in itself probably isn't type-related (or type-restricted), and I agree with previous responses, I do wonder if lack of self-confidence, or its stability, or the areas in which it most often manifests could be type-related. Anyone have thoughts on that?

I'll keep considering that, but another thought comes to mind. My self-image, self-confidence, and/or self-esteem (not sure it's helpful to me to distinguish these without coming up with some extremely precise definitions) wax and wane on two levels: the micro and the macro. I experience fluctuations on a daily, hourly, and weekly basis, feeling great about myself or shitty or inhabiting a gray zone in the middle. And more broadly, as I move through life, various experiences greatly affect my sense of who I am, my value, my abilities, my agency.

I think what I have often grappled with is a tendency to locate my worth outside myself. Not just to value myself in the eyes of a lover, a partner, various groups, "society" writ large, but to subtly identify so strongly with a particular skill I possess or role I play that I lose touch with what Thomas Merton called "the true self."

Many of my most traumatic experiences come down to failing in a particular role, losing that role for whatever reason, and then being faced once more with the self I had neglected and undervalued in its favor.

To tie these thoughts back into the question of type-relatedness, is this particular way of losing face connected to my type, or does it rise above that/lie beneath it? Or is it simply that whatever we attach ourselves to might be type-related, and every type will experience the pain of losing whatever they believed they had gained or possessed--and experience that pain in their own manner, and move past it in their own way? Would every type even identify this as "pain"?

Is this kind of struggle just a condition of western modernity? 'Cause I probably just need to meditate or something, lol. Or get some nice Se flowing into my life regularly--that seems to help with the daily ups and downs.

[DirectorAbbie]

I have a self-confidence problem.
Too much.

[Simon Ssmall]

Most people think I am very self-confident, but I am not.

[Saoshyant]

a) I am a woman (according to John Gray, Author of Men are from Mars...)

What does this mean?

[DirectorAbbie]

What does this mean?

IEIs are sissies.

[CloudCuckooLander]

My self confidence varies wildly. One minute I consider myself a king, then next a rouge and peasant slave (It is I. Hamlet the Dane). Is this because:

a) I am a woman (according to John Gray, Author of Men are from Mars...)
b) I am bipolar
c) I am an IEI, or,
d) No one factor accounts for human experience, and if we could reduce things to first principles, it would be that irreducible essence that is the soul, and that innumerable set of occurrences that is history, and since both are unexplainable (the first for its simplicity, the second for its complexity--and both too many parts and too few make for difficulty in explanation), any response to this post would be an answer to an improper question, and as such the choosing of any of the proffered options would be intellectually dishonest.

On a related note, should I consider myself a god? I'm moderately attractive, intellectually gifted, as assured of a decent job or grad school option after I graduate college as one can be without being an engineer or finance major, and possessed of a variety of artistic talents, some of which are even sexually attractive. Don't worry, I'm not really this conceited: I have bad dreams.


NOTE TO MODS: The last paragraph of this post is justified as a "Is it Type Related" question as opposed to an "Anything Goes" post insofar as it is an example of the sort of mood swings I'm talking about, and that I'm genuinely interested in seeing the type relatedness of. One minute I think that I'm Hamlet himself, and the next I'm justifying myself to moderators on an internet forum. And that said, maybe you should move this post to Anything Goes. Maybe depending on what sorts of responses people give?

B, C, or D (potentially A as well, seeing as how I haven't read John Gray's book - but I somehow doubt it), seeing as how I'm the exact same way. One minute I think I'm Perfection Incarnate, a sort of physical embodiment of the highest Platonic ideals. Then moments later, I'll see myself as an incompetent sack of shit who can never accomplish anything or get anywhere in life.

[golden]

Coincidentally, there's a translation of a Reinin book posted 'round here:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post704252

and over on the ... ahem, sister site, and in it Reinin discusses the HA--freaking hell as the "place of self-appraisal":

This is the function by which a person estimates him/herself. Psychology has a concept of a reference group - a group of significant people in one's life (first of all parents, then – other respected people) who evaluate him: “you are good” or “you are bad”. Thus he receives energy from the society. Gradually interiorization takes place, i.e. a kind of virtual 'transfer' of the reference group into the psyche. Psychologically this group of important adults turns into one of the blocks of one's evaluation thinking, the self-estimation block. When it becomes a part of our consciousness, there is no place to hide any more.

People subconsciously organize their behavior in order to secure positive feedback on this function. Positive self-appraisal is an enormous energy source for a person. When an individual perceives himself as “good”, he or she gets enough enthusiasm, inspiration, and energy for further performance. Function number three provides reasons for good or bad attitude to oneself; therefore it can become a source of various neuroses and psychosomatic disorders (self-justification neuroses in particular). In short, it is a double-edged social weapon.

This area can be labeled 'the zone of problems'. It is of great significance to a person and therefore it is a problem. Here people do not understand humor, they are simply not ready to joke about these issues. As a rule, these jokes cause somatic reflex of autonomic nervous system, frustration, and stress. People tend to simplify and clarify to the maximum a situation when possible. There is no place for taking risks. Usually situation is made clear through simplification: better “in a minus” but clear. Simplification of situation according to function number three is a psychological shield, which compensates lack of discernment in this sphere. Here people are very attentive, they demonstrate increased uneasiness. In this sphere conflicts are not infrequent; petulance is often demonstrated because according to the third function people need freedom and assurance of psychological safety. Impacting a person through the third function as a rule causes inadequate (in others' opinion) behavior.

People constantly protect their third function; each person has his own strategy. There are two kinds of protective devices: "in plus” and “in minus”. Thus, answering a question regarding one's health someone can say: “I am absolutely healthy” or, on the contrary: “I am so unwell, it is a surprise I can still walk”. If external relations prevail on the third function, the negative defense may look as follows: “Yes, I am bad, I am even worse than you think”. It is at least clear: “I am the worst”. Positive defense is displayed when a person basically could not stand any exacerbation and tries to sort out attitudes: “Do you love me?” or, “Did I offend you? I did not mean to. Let's sort it out. I am a good person worthy of your love”. People put a lot of effort in putting up a defense around vulnerable areas. If the logic of the objective world prevails here then I should know precisely whether this territory is mine or not, whether this job is mine or not, i.e. to know definitely where the borders of the social structure are.

Worth checking out.

[golden]

P.S.

Do you think that with PoLR, it might be especially hard to be objective about oneself? I know that when I was down on myself, my -leading ex would enumerate a lot of objective facts about me and my accomplishments to try to make me feel better. Lololol. He meant well, and sometimes it did help.

But I certainly shy away from objectively valuing my life, and sometimes I even refuse to enter into constructs that are intended to evaluate me objectively, even though I never really fail at those. I just find them sort of ... awful.

[silverchris9]

I think what I have often grappled with is a tendency to locate my worth outside myself. Not just to value myself in the eyes of a lover, a partner, various groups, "society" writ large, but to subtly identify so strongly with a particular skill I possess or role I play that I lose touch with what Thomas Merton called "the true self."

Many of my most traumatic experiences come down to failing in a particular role, losing that role for whatever reason, and then being faced once more with the self I had neglected and undervalued in its favor.

Agreed. Someone said that your actual self is the self that watches you go through all these changes. Which is a very Romantic notion, but just because an idea appeared or was emphasized at a particular point in time, doesn't mean it isn't true.

But yeah, I relate to this a lot. I identify with roles I play, totally. And it does involve having... not so much an external locus of control or whatever, but wanting some proof, at least it does for me. You know, I don't trust my own opinion of my self-worth, precisely because it does change so much. So I want someone or something else to prove to me that I am worthwhile and so a skill or activity that wins praise consistently becomes a pretty good thing to peg the value of my currency to, if that makes sense.

Well, seeing as you're not a king, and not a lowly worm either, it's not about self-confidence. Self-confidence is when you see yourself clearly, and act accordingly, not with grandiose notions of being the best, or sniveling whimpers of being the worst. You're neither the best nor the worst, so you're not seeing your SELF at all, and it's not your self-confidence that's jumping all over the place, but merely your self-image. The image that you project (even to yourself) in place of the reality.

Sure, but my actual self is even more extremely paradoxical: "What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?" I'm an angel and a demon and all that jazz. So shouldn't I impose some sort of self image on myself? Don't I have to, of necessity, until I'm smart enough to understand the "I am Mother Teresa/I am ******" paradox inside human nature?

But point taken, although like Golden I do think the self-image/self-confidence distinction is a little facile. I should have a more balanced image of myself. But for some reason I'd rather think of myself as an angel or as a demon than as a man (and if that doesn't sound like an E4, nothing does). Extremes are more interesting, if nothing else.

[CILi]

Coincidentally, there's a translation of a Reinin book posted 'round here:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post704252

and over on the ... ahem, sister site, and in it Reinin discusses the PoLR as the "place of self-appraisal"

He's completely thrown me for a loop too with the way he ordered functions, but I think his reference to a "Place of Self-Appraisal" (or "Function Number Three") is Model A's Mobilizing Function (HA), rather than the PoLR.

If I mixed that up, deservedly chew me out for it.

[squark]

He's completely thrown me for a loop too with the way he ordered functions, but I think his reference to a "Place of Self-Appraisal" (or "Function Number Three") is Model A's Mobilizing Function (HA), rather than the PoLR.

If I mixed that up, deservedly chew me out for it.

No, you're right. I was just going to point that out. The +3 function is the HA. It's the -3 that is the model A poLr, "problem solving" as reinin puts it.

He uses the Kalinauskas' steering wheel model, which personally I like better than model A, though it describes the same functions obviously.

[golden]

Ohhhhhh! Well, I only just started reading it. My bad!!!!!!!!!!

I fixed the previous post. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rr.

[Trevor]

Is this because:

It's because you have no long-term memory. If you had you wouldn't let momentary success trick you into thinking you're not a loser.

Or (unlikely though): you wouldn't let short-term failure trick you into thinking you're not a success.

[xerx]

On a related note, should I consider myself a god? I'm moderately attractive, intellectually gifted, as assured of a decent job or grad school option after I graduate college as one can be without being an engineer or finance major, and possessed of a variety of artistic talents, some of which are even sexually attractive. Don't worry, I'm not really this conceited: I have bad dreams.

Challenging the gods is one of the original uses of the term hubris. And yes it's probably related to Ni.

[silverchris9]

Challenging the gods is one of the original uses of the term hubris. And yes it's probably related to Ni.

What about identifying one's self with the gods? What about demanding that the gods recognize you as one of their own, from the same cloth cut and of the same number?

[golden]

What about identifying one's self with the gods? What about demanding that the gods recognize you as one of their own, from the same cloth cut and of the same number?

In my experience, the gods will very happily tell you that as a human being, you are also divine, and they will recognize you as one of their own. I know, it's horribly New Agey to say such a thing, and it's not even what I necessarily believe, but ... there ya go.