fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/04/85)
I'd like to return to the discussion about characteristics we look for in potential mates. Many netters wrote that they decide primarily on the basis of personality and character -- not looks. Most netters required only that the motas meet some "minimal standard of attractiveness." Since most people eventually do find SOMEBODY, I can only assume that most people do indeed possess at least some sex appeal. So why do homely men have so much more trouble attracting beautiful women? Why do homely women have so much trouble attracting desirable men? Why, with most couples, are both partners comparably good looking? If people really do choose their mates primarily on the basis of character and personality, why aren't the pairings more random with respect to looks? For many year I believed that people simply lied about what was really important to them (how cynical!). But recently, an article in Psychology Today explained the answer: When judging your personality and character, people are heavily influenced by how good-looking you are. Think about it. Here are a few examples: A beautiful woman who is assertive and willful "has a lot of spunk." An ugly woman who is assertive an willful is a "masculine, castrating bitch." A handsome man who is assertive and willful is "ambitious" or "on the move." An ugly man who is assertive and willful is "pushy and obnoxious." Someone both good-looking and brilliant is "a real winner." Someone ugly, but brilliant, is a "nerd" or a "grind." A handsome man who is stupid is "your average All-American boy". A beautiful woman who is stupid is "an ingenuous and innocent" Someone both ugly and stupid is "a real loser." A beautiful, sexually agressive woman is "modern and liberated." An ugly, sexually aggressive woman is "a cheap slut." A handsome man who makes indecent suggestions to you is "frisky." An ugly man who makes indecent suggestions to you is a "sick and perverted creep." See how easy it it? How do I personally choose my own dates, you ask? Why, I go on the basis of personality and character, just like you guys! Frank Silbermann
noemi@rochester.UUCP (Noemi Berry) (05/05/85)
***** This is long! If you're in a hurry, 'j' it now! ****** >Since most people eventually do find SOMEBODY, I can only assume that >most people do indeed possess at least some sex appeal. So why do >homely men have so much more trouble attracting beautiful women? >Why do homely women have so much trouble attracting desirable men? >Why, with most couples, are both partners comparably good looking? >If people really do choose their mates primarily on the basis of >character and personality, why aren't the pairings more random >with respect to looks? > .... > > When judging your personality and character, > people are heavily influenced by how good-looking > you are. > One interesting theory from social psychology has to do with people "matching" each other. That is, IN GENERAL, people have a pretty good concept of where they rate in attractiveness and tend to be attracted to those who are on about the same "level". This is an *extremely* broad generalization, but seems to hold true in many cases. I've rarely seen an awful-looking guy with a beautiful girl or vice versa, but one does tend to see a lot of average-looking couples or gorgeous couples or hideous couples. (Then again, we have Christie Brinkley and Billy Joel! :-) ) Perhaps "matching" explains only the initial attraction - naturally one's "matching" in looks might not be the best predictor in "matching" for personality characteristics. Or is it? People who are attractive are often percieved as socially adept, well-adjusted and happier (according to social psych). The theory is that because attractive people have always been TREATED as though they're OK, they ARE OK. Perhaps Blonds Have More Fun because people *believe* Blonds Have More Fun and therefore *treat* Blonds as though they Have More Fun, and therefore Blonds *DO* Have More Fun (again, this is VERY broad - there are many miserable blonds and many happy brunettes!)! Does this sound like an infinite loop? So, if the matching theory holds up, one might meet more people who are "matched" in attractiveness, thereby increasing the chances of winding up with someone matched in attractiveness, even though the final factors may have nothing to do with attractiveness (directly). >See how easy it is? How do I personally choose my own dates, you ask? >Why, I go on the basis of personality and character, just like you guys! > > Frank Silbermann Yes, you probably go on the basis of personality and character that may have been shaped partly by going through life as an attractive or unattractive person! [I certainly feel my personal life would be a lot different if I was 30 pounds heavier. I suspect my personality (often confident and friendly) would be different if I went through life perceiving myself as unattractive. For a long time I DID perceive myself as unattractive - that kind of perception is acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. I guess I ACTED unattractive and hence MADE myself unattractive. Now I feel I am judged on the basis of personality characteristics, many of those shaped by confidence developed from being perceived as attractive (well, cute).] Everything said here is largely hypothetical and reflects some ideas from social psychology. Please don't mail me telling me I'm completely wrong because you're gorgeous and your SO isn't! These are broad generalizations and suggestions!!! (Incidentally, what exactly IS an "MOTA"?) -Noemi Berry ------------- "Some people make people happy wherever they go; others make people happy WHENever they go!" UUCP: ...!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!noemi ARPA: noemi@rochester.arpa ------------- -- ------------- "Some people make people happy wherever they go; others make people happy WHENever they go!" UUCP: ...!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!noemi ARPA: noemi@rochester.arpa
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/06/85)
In article <rocheste.9484> noemi@rochester.UUCP (Noemi Berry) writes: >>Since most people eventually do find SOMEBODY, I can only assume that >>most people do indeed possess at least some sex appeal. So why do >>homely men have so much more trouble attracting beautiful women? >>Why do homely women have so much trouble attracting desirable men? >>Why, with most couples, are both partners comparably good looking? >>If people really do choose their mates primarily on the basis of >>character and personality, why aren't the pairings more random >>with respect to looks? >> .... >>Conclusion: Assuming people REALLY choose their SO's on the basis >> of personality and character -- then when judging your >> personality and character, people are heavily influenced >> by how good-looking you are. > One interesting theory from social psychology has to do with > people "matching" each other. That is, IN GENERAL, people have > a pretty good concept of where they rate in attractiveness and > TEND TO BE ATTRACTED TO THOSE WHO ARE ON ABOUT THE SAME "LEVEL". Psychology Today's explaination was that people choose their partners to be AS GOOD LOOKING AS POSSIBLE. It is only to avoid pointless frustration, disappointment and rejection that they settle for the best they can get, i.e. someone whose looks are comparable. > I've rarely seen an awful-looking guy with a beautiful girl > or vice versa, but one does tend to see a lot of average-looking > couples or gorgeous couples or hideous couples. (Then again, > we have Christie Brinkley and Billy Joel! :-) ) Occasionally wealth, power, fame or good social connections will substitute for good looks. MORAL: If you are dissatisfied with the men/women who've been available to you and want to increase your drawing power, one of the most effective things you can do is to become better-looking. Frank Silbermann
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (05/07/85)
In article <147@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > >For many year I believed that people simply lied about what was really >important to them (how cynical!). But recently, an article in >Psychology Today explained the answer: _Psychology Today_ is not exactly an authoritative source. Their articles are typically about 5 years behind the state of the art and, as far as I know, they aren't refereed. A more accurate title might be _Popular Psychology_. I'm not necesssarily criticizing the article Frank is citing, but I'd want to see a lot of bibliography and coroborating evidence before I took PT's word for anything. It's very easy to crank out something like this that _sounds_ plausible. It also sounds plausible that a 10 pound weight falls ten times as fast as a 1 pound weight. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
miles@vax135.UUCP (Miles Murdocca) (05/07/85)
> (Incidentally, what exactly IS an "MOTAS"?)
MOTAS = Member Of The Attractive Sex.
Seriously, I believe it means "Member Of The Any Sex". It is intended
to include all relationships, and not just MOTOS (Members of the Opposite
Sex.)
Miles Murdocca, 4B-525, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Crawfords Corner Rd,
Holmdel, NJ, 07733, (201) 949-2504, ...{ihnp4}!vax135!milesee163ahe@sdcc13.UUCP (VICTOR ROMANO) (05/08/85)
In article <158@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >MORAL: If you are dissatisfied with the men/women who've been available > to you and want to increase your drawing power, one of the most > effective things you can do is to become better-looking. > > Frank Silbermann OK, explain how one goes about doing THAT! I don't mean the obvious, like an overweight person losing pounds (easier said than done) or removing of any ugly characteristics (e.g. acne). I mean, what does one do if he/she is just "plain"? Victor Romano ----------------------------- What did you dream? It's alright, we told you what to dream. -The Screaming Abdabs
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (05/09/85)
> I'm not necesssarily criticizing the article Frank is citing, but > I'd want to see a lot of bibliography and coroborating evidence > before I took PT's word for anything. Um... we're dealing with PSYCHOLOGY here, a social science in which essentially conflicting theories coexist, usually with substantial corroborating evidence. Not that I disagree with your criticism of Psychology Today, though. I must admit that I agree with Frank (for once :-)). My observation is that the majority of people, particularly younger ones who have not spent a large portion of their time attached in some sense to one person, attempt to approach their SO-selection [or whatever you wish to call this process] with noble intent, looking for a long list of higher personal attributes; but whatever they are looking for, their JUDGEMENT of these attributes is heavily biased by their emotional perception of people, which tends to be influenced by the person's appearance. The problem being that people do expect some emotional reward for an interpersonal relationship with another person of the "MOTAS" category; and they can escape from this physical attractiveness bias only when their perception of other, nonphysical but emotionally-moving attributes become the primary ones. This is why I said "younger people, and those ... one person". People who have had lasting attachments with one person tend to make these emotional judgements by transferrence (seeing properties of another person that remind them of the person they knew before, which suggests to them in a subconscious way that this person is in many ways like this other person), and thus are subject to another kind of bias. -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
gts@wjh12.UUCP (G. T. Samson) (05/10/85)
> > (Incidentally, what exactly IS an "MOTAS"?) > > MOTAS = Member Of The Attractive Sex. > > Miles Murdocca I thought it meant Member Of The Appropriate Sex. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: G. T. Samson Quote: "No matter where you go...there you are." -- B. Banzai Other_Quote: "You speak treason!" "Fluently!" -- The Doctor ARPA: gts@wjh12 [preferred] OR samson%h-sc4@harvard USMail: Lowell H-41, Harvard U., Cambridge, MA 02138
eopd@nvuxb.UUCP (P J Carstensen) (05/10/85)
of course, there is also the theory that when people have reached a certain age, a certain amount of their personality is reflected in their appearance. (classic case is the generally sulky person...) I suspect that is one reason that I care less about "classically good-looking" (except as sort of an academic pleasure of "just looking" *grin*) and more about "nice eyes" and overall "happy aspect".... Patty
noemi@rochester.UUCP (Noemi Berry) (05/10/85)
In article <235@sdcc13.UUCP> ee163ahe@sdcc13.UUCP (VICTOR ROMANO) writes: >>MORAL: If you are dissatisfied with the men/women who've been available >> to you and want to increase your drawing power, one of the most >> effective things you can do is to become better-looking. >> >> Frank Silbermann > > OK, explain how one goes about doing THAT! I don't mean > the obvious, like an overweight person losing pounds > (easier said than done) or removing of any ugly > characteristics (e.g. acne). I mean, what does one > do if he/she is just "plain"? > > > Victor Romano Like yourself!! Smile!! One's attitude and carriage has as much to do with attractiveness as facial features or other characteristics. Get into shape physically and your confidence will improve. A positive self-image and a confident air are ESSENTIAL components of "attractiveness". TRY to imagine Richard Gere shuffling along, slouching. It just DOESN'T work! Noemi Berry -- ------------- "I'm young, I'm in college, I'll get over it!" - Roxanne Wilkerson UUCP: ...!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!noemi ARPA: noemi@rochester.arpa
jeff@utastro.UUCP (Jeff Brown the Scumbag) (05/11/85)
[-bleeg-] > Like yourself!! Smile!! One's attitude and carriage has as > much to do with attractiveness as facial features or other characteristics. > Get into shape physically and your confidence will improve. A positive > self-image and a confident air are ESSENTIAL components of "attractiveness". I've seen several cases where a *physical* change wasn't necessary. As some of my acquaintances have approached the end of their thesis work here -- by which I mean they've solved the "big problem" and are in the stage of writing -- suddenly MOTAS seem to zero in on them (despite their having less time to spend on extracurriculars due to frantic writing) for no "discernable" reason. We cooked up two hypotheses, the first being that the psychological lift makes one more attractive; the second was more cynical (that MOTAS are evil enough to try drain off one's time which should be spent in trying to get done!). Probably the former is the case though you never know (:-)) Just the suggestion "Like yourself" won't do it for you, I'm sure: you need a *reason* to gain your own approval. That makes things much more difficult. Jeff Brown the Scumbag ...utastro!jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------ It's hard to be insulted when you're able to accept the core fact that you're an asshole. -- Harlan Ellison
dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (05/13/85)
In article <73@utastro.UUCP> jeff@utastro.UUCP (Jeff Brown the Scumbag) writes: > >Just the suggestion "Like yourself" won't do it for you, I'm sure: >you need a *reason* to gain your own approval. That makes things much >more difficult. Which kind of pie do you prefer--apple or cherry? Whichever kind you prefer, what is the reason for your preference? An argument can be made that the most important reason is simply that your own choice to prefer what you prefer. The same argument can be made about self-esteem. If I'm going to choose to like myself because I satisfy some set of external criteria, then I won't be able to like myself if I ever fail to satisfy those criteria. The ideal reason for liking oneself would be "I like myself because I CHOOSE to do so". Or, if you want a different reason, "I like myself because I enjoy life more when I like myself." "I like myself because I choose to do so" may seem kind of arbitrary--but what external criteria are there that aren't just as arbitrary? -- Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (05/13/85)
>I mean, what does one do if he/she is just "plain"?
Try developing style. I realize this is difficult and do not say this from
the position of one who thinks they have a lot of style, but at least I try to
look/act in a manner that is distinctive to me and consistent with the
"person" I want to be.
There is a lot more to attractiveness than the shape of your nose and the
heigth of your cheekbones.
PBbrower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (05/14/85)
In article <158@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >Occasionally wealth, power, fame or good social connections will substitute >for good looks. > >MORAL: If you are dissatisfied with the men/women who've been available > to you and want to increase your drawing power, one of the most > effective things you can do is to become better-looking. > > Frank Silbermann Or obtain wealth, power, fame, and/or good social connections.
bmg@tekecs.UUCP (Barbara Gniewosz Theus) (05/14/85)
>>MORAL: If you are dissatisfied with the men/women who've been available >> to you and want to increase your drawing power, one of the most >> effective things you can do is to become better-looking. >> >> Frank Silbermann > > OK, explain how one goes about doing THAT! I don't mean > > Victor Romano > >----------------------------- Frank was close, but not exactly right. You don't have to BECOME better looking - you have to THINK you are better looking. (There are many self-help books to help you do that). I used to work with a guy who many of us felt was less than attractive. He often bragged about his good looks! He honestly felt he was a perfect 10. His dates were usually models, beauty pageant winners, etc.
noemi@rochester.UUCP (Noemi Berry) (05/14/85)
>> Like yourself!! Smile!! One's attitude and carriage has as >> much to do with attractiveness as facial features or other characteristics. >> Get into shape physically and your confidence will improve. A positive >> self-image and a confident air are ESSENTIAL components of "attractiveness". > > > >Just the suggestion "Like yourself" won't do it for you, I'm sure: >you need a *reason* to gain your own approval. That makes things much >more difficult. > > Jeff Brown the Scumbag OF COURSE you need a reason! Or a few. I never meant just go out and suddenly like yourself - I for one most certainly know it can be a long and difficult process. But the final result is often a *component* of attractiveness!! >I've seen several cases where a *physical* change wasn't necessary. I've seen MANY! But a physical change is only an example. I know that when I'm low on self-esteem, often a good workout and knowing that I can rely on my body and my health helps. Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes doing something else that I feel is unique and that I like about myself helps (e.g. I'll start a new knitting project!!) But not always! FINDING those reasons to like oneself, and then using them *can be* important to self-esteem maintenance. The point is, there are no absolutes; there is no formula that can be applied with success to all people!! All I meant was that in general, I have found that people with positive self-images and who **in general** are happy with who they are, tend to be happier AND this **tends to** reflect in MCTAS *. Liking yourself is *one* aspect of attractiveness over which one DOES have a measure of control! (Is it my imagination or is this subject kinda boring? DON'T answer that, please!!!!) -Noemi * (Matters Concerning The {Appropriate, Alternate, Attractive} Sex) [Many thanks to the 30-some-odd people who replied to my naive question: What exactly IS an MOTAS?] -- UUCP: ...!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!noemi ARPA: noemi@rochester.arpa
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (05/15/85)
>Just the suggestion "Like yourself" won't do it for you, I'm sure: >you need a *reason* to gain your own approval. That makes things much >more difficult. Look at it this way: you're the only self you'll ever have. Better get used to it! To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you'll only be as happy--or unhappy-- as you make your mind up to be. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
noemi@rochester.UUCP (Noemi Berry) (05/15/85)
In article <1017@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) writes: >>I mean, what does one do if he/she is just "plain"? > >Try developing style. I realize this is difficult and do not say this from >the position of one who thinks they have a lot of style, but at least I try to >look/act in a manner that is distinctive to me and consistent with the >"person" I want to be. > >There is a lot more to attractiveness than the shape of your nose and the >heigth of your cheekbones. > >PB Exactly. noemi -- UUCP: ...!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!noemi ARPA: noemi@rochester.arpa
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (05/17/85)
noemi@rochester.UUCP (Noemi Berry at U. of Rochester, CS Dept.), writing about "Jeff the Brown Scumbag"'s comments on how to be more attractive, says: > I know that when I'm low on self-esteem, often a good workout and knowing > that I can rely on my body and my health helps. (This is only one example of several such comments on the subject). -------- My, my! Philosophies of the "me" generation. Whatever happened to the old traditional way, to go out there and do good deeds? That way, you may also be attractive because you are a nice person. Of course, you could take the subliminal advice of the popular family of me-oriented [women's] magazines you see at the checkout counter in the grocery store, and wear blue-green contact lenses... -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 Gel guvf nznmvat rkcrevzrag! Gnxr n znfxvat gncr ebyy vagb n qnex ebbz. Jnvg sbe lbhe rlrf gb nqwhfg. Chyy bss fbzr bs gur znfxvat gncr. Jngpu pybfryl juvyr qbvat fb.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/17/85)
In article <tekecs.5317> bmg@tekecs.UUCP (Barbara Gniewosz Theus) writes: > >Frank was close, but not exactly right. You don't have to BECOME better >looking - you have to THINK you are better looking. (There are many >self-help books to help you do that). > >I used to work with a guy who many of us felt was less than attractive. >He often bragged about his good looks! He honestly felt he was a perfect 10. >His dates were usually models, beauty pageant winners, etc. One excellent book on becoming "better looking" through change in attitude is INNER LOOKS published by Symphony Press. I don't remember the address of this firm; I posted it several weeks ago in an earlier article. Symphony Press usually places ads in Psychology Today (and also in some of the better "men's magazines"), so you can write for their catalog. Frank Silbermann
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/18/85)
In article <fortune.5269> brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower) writes: > > >Occasionally wealth, power, fame or good social connections > >will substitute for good looks. > > > >MORAL: If you are dissatisfied with the men/women who've been available > > to you and want to increase your drawing power, one of the most > > effective things you can do is to become better-looking. > >Frank Silbermann > >Or obtain wealth, power, fame, and/or good social connections. Good point! It is very difficult to dramatically improve any single attribute. So, if you want to become more attractive to women, you should attack the problem on ALL fronts. Nevertheless, the best results come from improving your looks. If a woman is attracted to your looks, she'll probably assume that she is in love with you. Should you later lose your looks, she will still think of you the way you looked when she fell in love (in lust?). But if she is attracted to your wealth, power, fame or good social connections, she will probably be cynically aware of exactly what she is doing. Should you lose these attributes, you'll probably lose the woman, as well. Talk about being kicked when you're down! If she marries you for your money, she may begin scheming of ways to get rid of you, but still keep your money (ask Johnny Carson about this). As a final note, always remember: A good character,a loving personality and other INTERNAL attributes will earn you a long and happy relationship, provided you have the EXTERNAL attributes to attract the woman in the first place. Frank Silbermann
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (05/20/85)
> >Frank was close, but not exactly right. You don't have to BECOME better > >looking - you have to THINK you are better looking. Yes, but you must be careful here. There is a fine line between self- confidence and conceit. Conceit turns people off. I'm curious: just how does one walk this line? Having been, at various times in my life, totally lacking in self-confidence or conceited, I'd really like to know what is the difference? --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY "...I may not be right but I've never been wrong It seldom turns out the way it does in the song..."
ehenjum@udenva.UUCP (Jack Lindsey) (05/20/85)
In article <> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >> >Frank was close, but not exactly right. You don't have to BECOME better >> >looking - you have to THINK you are better looking. > > Yes, but you must be careful here. There is a fine line between self- >confidence and conceit. Conceit turns people off. I'm curious: just how >does one walk this line? Having been, at various times in my life, totally >lacking in self-confidence or conceited, I'd really like to know what is >the difference? > >--Greg >-- One way to view conceit is as a substitute for substance. "Real" self-confidence does not foster illusions about self, and does not demand that external reinforcement be sought (see: humility). Conceit is sometimes a coverup for insecurity. "Conceit is the finest armour a man can wear" -- Jerome K. Jerome Then, sometimes it's not: "I am the greatest." -- Muhammed Ali -- -- ================== Jack Lindsey University of Denver UUCP ONLY: {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!ehenjum or {boulder, cires, denelcor, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!ehenjum []
seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) (05/23/85)
> >Frank was close, but not exactly right. You don't have to BECOME better > >looking - you have to THINK you are better looking. And Greg responds with: >Yes, but you must be careful here. There is a fine line between self- >confidence and conceit. Conceit turns people off. I'm curious: just how >does one walk this line? Having been, at various times in my life, totally >lacking in self-confidence or conceited, I'd really like to know what is >the difference? As I see it the difference between conceit and self-confidence is attitude. If you around telling people how wonderful you are, they are not going to appreciate it. If you are competent and self-assured, people will see that you have confidence in yourself, and you won't have to tell them how wonderful you are. You don't want to hit people over the head with your self-confidence. Walking around saying "I'm just such a wonderful person" is not going to win you friends nor impress anyone. If you attack life with enthusiasm, and resist the human temptation to crawl in a hole and avoid all setbacks, the people around you will react to your behavior positively. You could say you're giving them a subliminal message that you are self-confident and a fun person. Sharon Badian ihnp4!mtgzz!seb
annab@azure.UUCP (A Beaver) (05/24/85)
>References: <147@unc.UUCP> <rocheste.9484> <158@unc.UUCP> <235@sdcc13.UUCP> <9572@rochester.UUCP> <73@utastro.UUCP> <206@tove.UUCP> <2482@randvax.UUCP> > Look at it this way: you're the only self you'll ever have. Better get > used to it! > > To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you'll only be as happy--or unhappy-- > as you make your mind up to be. > > -Ed Hall Well put. For some people it seems to be very difficult to even approach the fact that one's own world is shaped by ourselves and not others. The reality of this is denied by seemingly large group of people. The fact of the matter is that none of us get out of here alive, so we might as well do the things that make us happy while we are here. Annadiana Beaver A Beaver@Tektronix
moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (05/24/85)
In article <> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >> >> Yes, but you must be careful here. There is a fine line between self- >>confidence and conceit. Conceit turns people off. I'm curious: just how >>does one walk this line? Having been, at various times in my life, totally >>lacking in self-confidence or conceited, I'd really like to know what is >>the difference? >> >>--Greg The difference, as I see it, is where one's attention is. A self-confident person is secure enough to share the attention with others, perhaps to the extent that the majority of the time it is off of him/her. A conceited person is actually quite insecure, and therefore requires the attention to bolster confidence. Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (05/24/85)
[ What a novel concept! Speaking about the subject of the Subject line!
(either stick to the subject, or edit the subject line, otherwise you waste the
time of people who *thought* they were interested in reading your message) ]
It seems to me that what people *really* look for in another person is
themselves.
That can be interpreted two ways:
You look for another person who knows who they are.
Successful relationships depend on truthfullness of representation.
You look for yourself in another.
"Opposites attract", I hear you say. There is that aspect, and
certainly the differences contribute to the all important growth
of each individual, but it's the sameness which keeps the two
together at all.
Sunny
--
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (05/25/85)
> Rather, my complaint is with a subtle shift in personal philosophy that has > occurred in the past 10 years or so. In the popular psychology, the idea > that self-esteem is beneficial to one's well-being has led to a pervasive > attitude of self-centeredness. You see books with titles like "Looking Out > for #1", "How to be Your Own Best Friend," etc. ... > However, people when they are born are inherently self-centered, and it is > only through their socialization that they come to view others as important ... > I think the current attitude tends to ... to a certain extent, simply serves > to promote self-centeredness. I'm not sure that is good. On those same ``self-improvement'' shelves is a somewhat older book ... a book called ``How To Win Friends and Influence People.'' It's a remarkable exercise in well-spoken common sense, and good reading by any standard. If you think you don't need it, you probably do. It's one of those books that everyone should read at least once. It's quick enough to read that it won't waste your time, and it's not boring. For those that don't know, the author is Dale Carnagie, and the book's main theme is that you have to give the people you deal with the things they need most, and doing that requires respect and consideration, properly followed. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
annab@azure.UUCP (A Beaver) (05/26/85)
>References: <147@unc.UUCP> <rocheste.9484> <158@unc.UUCP> <235@sdcc13.UUCP> <9572@rochester.UUCP> <73@utastro.UUCP> <9621@rochester.UUCP> < <1108@uwmacc.UUCP> > Regardless of your negative impressions of the so-called "me generation," > a person with low self-esteem seems less attractive than he/she could be. I > know this from personal experience, from both sides of the problem. Most > recently, I've spent the last 20 or so months constantly trying to convince > somebody (both verbally and otherwise) that she really is a desirable person, > but I'm *still* not sure she believes it. It's *extremely* frustrating at > times, especially since she would be perfect if not for this problem (-:). > -- > - joel My personal experience has showed me that sometimes professional assistence is the key. It is a LOT more difficult for an untrained person to assits a friend in such feats. Overcoming many years of reenforcement is no easy task. (took me 3 years, once a week) ~l /l /5l\ / 0l \ Annadiana Beaver / 5 l \ A Beaver@Tektronix /____l___\ ,,,,\__,,,_/,,,, "I'd rather be sailing" wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
annab@azure.UUCP (A Beaver) (05/26/85)
>References: <147@unc.UUCP> <rocheste.9484> <158@unc.UUCP> <235@sdcc13.UUCP> <9572@rochester.UUCP> <73@utastro.UUCP> <9621@rochester.UUCP> <950@peora.UUCP> <1108@uwmacc.UUCP> <968@peora.UUCP> > Rather, my complaint is with a subtle shift in personal philosophy that has > occurred in the past 10 years or so. In the popular psychology, the idea > that self-esteem is beneficial to one's well-being has led to a pervasive > attitude of self-centeredness. You see books with titles like "Looking Out > for #1", "How to be Your Own Best Friend," etc. > Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos > Have you taken a look at who spends money on those books? Some of those people that lost themselves in the well-being of others at an early point in life. Maybe you are overlooking the fact that there is a delicate balance which EACH of us has to locate for ourselves. Granted, it would be great if they could just teach you in school with everything else. But we have to realize, there is a REASON that grown people have problems with self-esteem. Annadiana Beaver A Bever@Tektronix
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (05/29/85)
>For those that don't know, the author is Dale Carnagie, and the book's main >theme is that you have to give the people you deal with the things they >need most, and doing that requires respect and consideration, properly >followed. No. I am not an environment generator, out to make you happy, so I can "win" your friendship, or "influence" you. I definitely have many things I believe strongly, some of which you may vehemently differ with. Now, I have good friends who differ strongly with my opinions; but they are strong people, who do not "need most" anything from me. Others of my friends are not so strong; the are what Ms. Mallison called "insecure" a few articles back, maybe; yet perhaps I do give them something they need most, but it is what I believe in, and what I am, not what I perceive they need. Miss Manners makes this point well, in fact. You must distinguish between your business relationships and your personal ones. I think Mr Carnegie's book is a quite good one for a salesman; I do not like it as something a friend of mine would base his or her behavior upon, however. Why do these self-help books exist? Why do you need a formula for living? Only a handful of books in the self-help and psychology section of the book- store are really worth reading; and some of those, I am not so sure of. "The Farther Reaches of Human Nature," I have mentioned before. "Love and Limerance," by Dorothy Tennov, is also a good book. Sometimes I think the book "Pairing," by some person named Bach, is also good, though it takes a certain frame of mind and state of life for it to say much. Oh, how could I forget "Walden". After you have done that, you can read literature; especially Southern Literature, if you ask my opinion; and when you find you enjoy fiction that is not set in outer space and dealing with alien races, then you will begin to feel good about humanity, your fellow humankind. [Avoid books with titles printed in metallic ink.] -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "V'q engure or n puvgva, jerfgyrq va n frrq bhgjbea, Naq urne byq Rora, jvaqvat n fvyrag ubea."
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (05/29/85)
In the discussion about self-attitude in attractiveness, several netters
have mentioned not to confuse self-centeredness, conceit, etc. with
self-assuredness, self-esteem, etc. Some netters have treated traits of
of SELF-ATTITTUDE as if the bad ones (e.g. conceit) were just extreme
cases of the good ones (e.g. self-assuredness). After thinking aobut
it awhile, I think there is a QUALITATIVE distinction. What follows
is probably a third bullshit and a third confusion,
but I maybe on the right track ...
At first there appears to be a merely QUANTITATIVE distinction, depending
upon the degree that one mentally attends to oneself. One extreme
is the person who UNDERattends to her or himself, and appears
overly humble, self-effacing, etc. The other extreme is the person who
OVERattends to him or herself, and is inconsiderate, condescending,
insensitive, unawares of others, etc. And in the middle is the balanced
person who attend to him or herself and to others in a well-proportioned
way. This is the approach I think many recent articles on this topic have
adopted.
I suspect that there are QUALITATIVELY different attitudes between
that last extreme and other positions on the scale.
In fact, I can think of two distinct sort of attitudes that could
lead someone to be in the OVERLY-SELF-ATTENTIVE extreme:
1. One is an attitude that quite consciously devalues many or all
other people. This often leads to inconsideration and
rudeness by COMMISSION.
2. The other is a preoccupation with oneself. This preoccupation
drives out the ability to be sensitive to others and to be aware
of how one is coming across. This often leads to inconsideration by
OMISSION.
It is ironic that sometimes the latter trait, preoccupation with oneself,
can accompany LOW self-esteem; I see in myself often that preoccupation
with myself sometimes results in low self-esteem, and other times in
inflated self-esteem.
--
Rob Bernardo, San Francisco, California
{nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob
_^__
~/ \_.\
_ ~/ \_\
~/ \_________~/
~/ /\ /\
_/ \ / \
_/ \ _/ \
\ / fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/30/85)
In article <peora.990> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: > Miss Manners makes this point well, in fact. You must distinguish > between your business relationships and your personal ones. > I think Mr Carnegie's book is a quite good one for a salesman; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I do not like it as something a friend of mine would base > his or her behavior upon, however. > > Why do these self-help books exist? You answered your own question before you asked it. Dale Carnegie's book is quite a good one for a salesman. Let's face it, we're all salemen some of the time. > Why do you need a formula for living? Everyone has formulas for living. The lucky ones discovered them for themselves or their parents taught them at an early age. Others grew up without understanding the unspoken social customs of our society. These self-help books give the latter group a second chance. Frank Silbermann
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/03/85)
>You answered your own question before you asked it. >Dale Carnegie's book is quite a good one for a salesman. >Let's face it, we're all salemen some of the time. Yes, but nowadays people are too MUCH salesmen. I see this conducting job interviews. People think that if they are just good enough salesmen, their personal attributes will be overlooked. This is not true. -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "V'z bss gb gur Orezbbgurf, gb jngpu gur bavbaf na' gur rryf!" [Jryy, jbhyq lbh oryvrir Arj Wrefrl?]
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (06/04/85)
> It is ironic that sometimes the latter trait, preoccupation with oneself, > can accompany LOW self-esteem; I see in myself often that preoccupation > with myself sometimes results in low self-esteem, and other times in > inflated self-esteem. > -- > Rob Bernardo, San Francisco, California I don't find this very ironic. In either case, you're keeping your awareness focused internally, allowing incongruencies to form bewteen what you see of yourself and what other people see of you. An extreme case of this sort of thing is Anorexia Nervosa, where the focus on this internal self-concept is so strong that even what a mirror shows is questioned. Some (unsolicited) advice (note that I am using the generic ``you'' in the following, speaking mostly to people who get preoccupied with themselves--people like me, or like Rob says he is): Something that might be more effective is to watch your effect on other people. I don't mean concern yourself with what other people think of you--that is nothing but more self-obsession. I'm talking about non-critical listening, and honest reactions to what you hear. It's amazing how much more relaxed and how much better you feel about yourself once your focus shifts outside yourself. (And though I said ``watch your effect on others,'' the ultimate result is that you'll end up interacting person-to-person, shifting the focus even more outside yourself.) Just a thought... -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall