Are "male losers" doomed forever?

S_Spartan

Well-known member
So that's it, then? It's either evolution (easily defined as whether you pass on you genes by raising offspring who manage to reproduce) or "societal conditioning" (rather a vague term)? There is no point where you can see with your own eyes that you've become good at something? No free will? Everything pre-decided and leaves you powerless?

You can't realize that you've become an amazing chef, or multilingual, or write stories than many people like to read? You can't figure out that you're a renowned artist or brilliant programmer or that you make the best chairs that anyone has ever landed their buttocks on?

Funny, that. :thinking:

My point was that someone had to create all those things to be good at and in order to be good at them someone had to define what "good" is.

We are born into this world using other people's standards to define what is valuable and what is not.

There is nothing wrong with being good at something and striving but I think the individual should understand that the thing is not their life. Their life is their life. THIS is where people mess up and they let their whole self worth ride on some external thing or things.

Basically I'm arguing the old philosophical quote "existence precedes essence" which asserts that the fact you exist is greater than your actions.

When you look at life through that lens there aren't any winners or losers but people just "are".
 

Pacific_Loner

Pirate from the North Pole
Just being doesn't have to mean sitting around and doing nothing but rather starting from a different point. It's a perspective.



Well thanks for sharing your definition of "just being". Which wasn't the same as mine. I'm sure there is a lot more of those out there. :p
 

Bronson99

Well-known member
Not sure what I said that makes you think I meant that, but no, I don't think you need to be good at something to exist. I don't think everyone has a clear ability in one or more areas (I don't know anyone who does). In fact I think most of us are born mediocre and need to work hard to become good (or even average) at something.

This is not existential, and it's not talking about people with "clear gifts" in one or more areas. We are talking just being "slightly good" in one area, at least. Which I believe I am not.

So the question is more if you know anyone else, besides me, who wasn't good at school, athletics, or social skills. The guy in the other forum I mentioned earlier said he never knew anyone like that.
 

Bronson99

Well-known member
I really doubt that a deer stands in the woods and thinks "my life is going nowhere, I need to read some self improvement books or attend a seminar to be the best deer I can be."

The deer just "is".

The idea of being "more" is a purely human invention. Usually based on one's usefulness to society.

This is because once humans are not that concerned with where our next meal is coming from we get really restless looking for meaning.

Are you suggesting it's the same with humans.. that if we do not have a certain skill innately, it cannot be "built" with determined effort?
 

S_Spartan

Well-known member
Are you suggesting it's the same with humans.. that if we do not have a certain skill innately, it cannot be "built" with determined effort?

No, I'm saying that nobody has skills innately because the skills are mostly just made up by other people.

A fetus in a womb has no idea what baseball is until it comes out of the womb and is exposed to baseball.

That person may have the right physical and mental DNA to perform well at baseball but as far a nature is concerned baseball is not even a thing. It's just something humans made up to pass time and measure value.

And this is really my point: we are living in a society that is built around the idea of measuring value of people and things. We are conditioned into this thinking from a very young age.

A certain amount of this conditioning is healthy but the levels that we see today are completely imbalanced and are not healthy.

Thus, one would be wise to question their own conditioning as far as their own value system is concerned.
 

MollyBeGood

Well-known member
I think competition is not good. It creates this whole winner loser paradigm. It makes people doubt themselves and lets the world judge them, which is always harsh. It creates false idols of athletes for example.

Not to sound airy-fairy but everyone has their own special talents, even if they don't win an award that society places on them. It is a false sense of security when people think because they won they are winners.

Everyone is a winner in their own right just surviving on this planet we should all be given a medal if we don't end up in jail!

My point is and will always be if you label yourself a loser, that's what you will become. I really try my hardest to never do that to myself. Why? Because i know I have done the best I can with what I have.

By comparing yourself and competing with others you will remain miserable. Your only focus should be self-improvement for yourself not for anyone else.

There's no losers in this world only people trying to get by and make sense of living.
 

Bronson99

Well-known member
No, I'm saying that nobody has skills innately because the skills are mostly just made up by other people.

A fetus in a womb has no idea what baseball is until it comes out of the womb and is exposed to baseball.

That person may have the right physical and mental DNA to perform well at baseball but as far a nature is concerned baseball is not even a thing. It's just something humans made up to pass time and measure value.

And this is really my point: we are living in a society that is built around the idea of measuring value of people and things. We are conditioned into this thinking from a very young age.

A certain amount of this conditioning is healthy but the levels that we see today are completely imbalanced and are not healthy.

Thus, one would be wise to question their own conditioning as far as their own value system is concerned.

Lack of social network, lack of college degree, lack of good job or a solid career path is measured as value, whether I believe it or not. Any guy who ticks all those boxes is not going to be popular, and there aren't any women who would be able to look past that.

If somehow my internal perception was "I'm great" anyway, you really think that would increase my chances somehow?
 

Odo

Banned
I think competition is not good. It creates this whole winner loser paradigm. It makes people doubt themselves and lets the world judge them, which is always harsh. It creates false idols of athletes for example.

Actually, competition is fine-- it's a good motivator. I don't see why talented athletes are any less deserving of recognition than talented scientists or doctors or entertainers... or for that matter, talented teachers, businessmen or construction workers. However I think that society should celebrate all walks of life, not just the glamorous ones.

Competition doesn't make anyone doubt themselves... it's usually just the way that the competition is handled that makes it so soul-crushing. The whole 'failure is not an option' attitude makes people doubt themselves because they come to believe that their failures define them as a person. You can't even enjoy your successes if the point of living is to never fail, even if it means not trying.

The world doesn't judge... it's indifferent. People judge each other, but you don't have to accept their verdicts. You're the only person who can doubt yourself, really.

I definitely wouldn't go as far as saying everyone's a winner... but sportsmanship is more important than victory.
 
Last edited:

S_Spartan

Well-known member
Lack of social network, lack of college degree, lack of good job or a solid career path is measured as value, whether I believe it or not. Any guy who ticks all those boxes is not going to be popular, and there aren't any women who would be able to look past that.

If somehow my internal perception was "I'm great" anyway, you really think that would increase my chances somehow?
I think the more important question to ask is what exactly are you going to get from being popular or from a woman?

A feeling?

Sure both may feel good for a while but neither are the end all be all of life.

All I can tell you is what I've been doing that has kinda sorta been working for me but it's still early and that is when something makes me feel lousy or like a failure I try to figure out why I have that reaction and most of the time it's because someone or someone(s) told me that I *should* feel that way.

Then I say "**** you" to the bad feeling and try to at least feel neutral about it.

Can I do it 100 percent of the time? No

Is my life improving in the climbing the social ladder sense? No, but I'm caring less and less.

Do I feel more free now? Yes.
 

MollyBeGood

Well-known member
Actually, competition is fine-- it's a good motivator. I don't see why talented athletes are any less deserving of recognition than talented scientists or doctors or entertainers... or for that matter, talented teachers, businessmen or construction workers. However I think that society should celebrate all walks of life, not just the glamorous ones.

Competition doesn't make anyone doubt themselves... it's usually just the way that the competition is handled that makes it so soul-crushing. The whole 'failure is not an option' attitude makes people doubt themselves because they come to believe that their failures define them as a person. You can't even enjoy your successes if the point of living is to never fail, even if it means not trying.

The world doesn't judge... it's indifferent. People judge each other, but you don't have to accept their verdicts. You're the only person who can doubt yourself, really.

I definitely wouldn't go as far as saying everyone's a winner... but sportsmanship is more important than victory.

this is how i feel about winners vs losers

The planet does not need more "successful people" the planet desperately needs more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers and lovers of all kind.
 

Megaten

Well-known member
Or the people needs to change their perception of what success is :)

Yeah Im thinking thats why "successful people" was in quotes like that. Sense we tend to have a general consensus at what it means to be successful. The truly happy people seem to be the ones that have found their own meaning to success. Otherwise you're always chasing that carrot.
 

Bronson99

Well-known member
Is my life improving in the climbing the social ladder sense? No, but I'm caring less and less.

Do I feel more free now? Yes.

Is the abstract freedom from objective success going to help one find some of these "occasional feelings" that humans tend to seek out, due to our nature as a social species?

"Freedom from neediness" is perhaps another term for what you're suggesting. But is it enough to compensate for lack of success?
 

S_Spartan

Well-known member
Is the abstract freedom from objective success going to help one find some of these "occasional feelings" that humans tend to seek out, due to our nature as a social species?

I don't know. It could. You know that whole "when you're not looking for it you find it." But the idea is to have even a molecule of happiness even if you find nothing. You have to at least be comfortable with the fact that nothing could happen.

Instead of fighting nothingness, embrace it and then work from there.


"Freedom from neediness" is perhaps another term for what you're suggesting. But is it enough to compensate for lack of success?

Well there is nothing that the human world detests more than neediness.

But ask this question, what if freedom from neediness IS success?
 

chrisjr

Member
Great thread. I have been pondering this question for a while (probably due to suppressed moping about the state of my own career/life, lol :eek:mg: :kickingmyself:)

I've always been one of these idealistic types who believes that anyone can turn anything around with the right attitude, but I'm a bit of a hypocrite in that I can get all cynical and give up pretty easily :S

Here's some related research and ideas I've been reading about. I'd like to hear what people think, and if they've found similar techniques valuable.


Bronson99 said:
If somehow my internal perception was "I'm great" anyway, you really think that would increase my chances somehow?

Yes, Olympic and other elite athletes have practiced such techniques since the 1970s, and there is a growing body of evidence of the effectiveness of mental rehearsal and creative visualisation. For example:

"Sports psychologist Dr Richard Suinn found that visual rehearsal actually triggers neural firings in the muscles and creates a mental blueprint that can ultimately facilitate future performance. Using electromyographic equipment, Suinn discovered that skiers who simply visualised skiing downhill fired electrical impulses and produced muscle patterns almost identical to those found when the skiers actually hit the slopes...

Adding to Suinn’s remarkable studies, researchers at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio found that subjects who only visualised doing biceps curls, five times a week, for two weeks, increased their strength by 13.5pc."[1]


"“Research proves that how you talk to yourself affects the chemistry in your brain and your hormones,” says Bradley Busch, a sports psychologist who has worked with footballers from several Premier League clubs. “Negativity and criticism is associated with the stress hormone cortisol, which reduces the ability of the frontal lobe to function effectively. Positive, energised language releases dopamine, which is linked to certainty and confidence, as well as noradrenaline and DHEA which enable your prefrontal lobe to fire more effectively. As a nutritionist advises you not to eat rubbish before matches, we advise players not to fire the wrong chemicals and hormones through their brains. In training, we ask them to practise capturing negative thoughts and converting them into positive ones. We call this ‘squashing ANTs’ (Automatic Negative Thoughts).”
According to a study published by the Journal of Sport Behaviour in 2010, this self-talk really does make a difference. The study showed that the introduction of psychological skills, such as self-talk, at half-time improved the performance of midfield players in the second half in at least two of the three performance components measured (passing, first touch and tackling.)

Even body language can be harnessed to project a positive frame of mind and elevate confidence. “We tell players that if their eyeline is lower than the height of the corner flag, it’s too low,” says Busch. “Your physiology is linked to your mental state. If you have your head down and shoulders slumped, your brain chemistry changes for the worse. Holding your head up keeps your brain alert. It’s why managers often look at body language to decide on substitutions.”

There is science involved here, too. Research by Harvard Business School demonstrated that dominant poses can decrease levels of the stress hormone cortisol by 25 per cent and increase confidence-boosting testosterone by 19 per cent."[2]


[1] Bailey, M. (2015, Jan 22). Sports visualisation: how to imagine your way to success. The Daily Telegraph Retrieved from: /men/active/10568898/Sports-visualisation-how-to-imagine-your-way-to-success (DOT) html
[2] Bailey, M. (2014, Feb 19). Mind games: how footballers use sports psychology.The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from: /men/active/10568730/Mind-games-how-footballers-use-sports-psychology (DOT) html


There is the idea that we tend to behave in a way that is consistent with our own self-image and identity. That is, if you believe you suck and always will - it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Evidence for self-verification has taken a variety of forms. Beyond numerous studies showing that people prefer interaction partners who agree with them about their self-views (e.g., Swann & Pelham, 2002; Swann et al., 1989), there is evidence that people attend more carefully to information that confirms their self-views, which results in corresponding biases in memory for this information (e.g., Swann & Read, 1981). People may also interpret self-confirmatory and self-disconfirmatory information in a biased fashion — for instance, by judging the former as more valid (Swann, Griffin, Predmore, & Gaines, 1987). Importantly, the self-verification literature includes evidence that people who hold negative self-views seek self-verification, just as do people who view themselves favorably (e.g., Swann et al., 1989). Such data represent especially compelling support for the claim that self- verification motives may at times override self-enhancing tendencies to seek flattering appraisals of the self. Overall, there is considerable evidence that self-verification motives may guide
self-evaluation.


[Chen, S., Chen K. Y. & L. Shaw. (2004). Self-Verification Motives at the Collective Level of Self-Definition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 77-94.]


Some theorists also believe that we subconsciously move towards what we focus on. Maxwell Maltz was fond of comparing the way the brain focusses to a guided missile, using the metaphor of the servo-mechanism. Thus the idea goes: by focussing on where you want to end up, rather than all the reasons you'll never make it, you naturally begin to notice opportunities and resources that otherwise may have passed you by.

As David Nowell points out:

"Our Reticular Activating System (RAS) serves as a gating mechanism to screen out most incoming sensory information. Well, to partially screen it out. If something important (relevant, dangerous, interesting) presents itself, the RAS "gate" allows the sensory information (tactile, auditory, visual) on through to the higher cortical areas for actual processing...

Your RAS is always on and working, screening out most incoming sensory data. We would be overwhelmed if we had to take in and process everything that's coming at us right now. Moreover most of that sensory data are not relevant or important so it's okay to "ignore" most of it.

So even if you're intently focused on a visual activity, your RAS will allow relevant data from another sensory (tactile, auditory) domain to interrupt if it's relevant to survival or safety or pre-determined goals (hearing your name in the hallway is relevant to maintaining your social reputation or your standing among peers or authority figures). But you can also manage that sensory gate yourself by choosing and intending - directing your attention to material which, though boring, may be related to long term goals. For example, you can do tax paperwork even when Facebook is more interesting.

And yes, when you are directing your attentional resources (either willfully or by RAS-directed attention), you will not "remember" other simultaneous information because it's not being processed at a high enough level to move it into memory. If you're listening to conversations out in the hallway, or attending to a spider crawling across your foot, you will "hear" the teacher but not give that info enough attention to remember it later. So your recall for the lecture will include gaps at every point your focus wandered or was pulled away."


Nowell, D. (2013, Jan 27). What's the role of the Reticular Activating System in attention and focus. David D. Nowell Seminars [website]. Worcester, MA: Nowell Neuropsychological Services.


While I've personally found techniques of creative visualisation and NLP-style 'anchoring' very useful, I've struggled to put them into practice consistently if I've been socially isolated, or if I've not been able to overcome any negative beliefs about myself first. It does seem much easier if you're around people who are good role-models.


Thoughts?


(NB: Apologies if this appears as a double post, had issues submitting. Hyperlinks removed to avoid any censorship issues.)
 
Last edited:

S_Spartan

Well-known member
While I've personally found techniques of creative visualisation and NLP-style 'anchoring' very useful, I've struggled to put them into practice consistently if I've been socially isolated, or if I've not been able to overcome any negative beliefs about myself first. It does seem much easier if you're around people who are good role-models.


Thoughts?


(NB: Apologies if this appears as a double post, had issues submitting. Hyperlinks removed to avoid any censorship issues.)

Creating "success" is really about creating positive feedback loops.

Positive feedback loops can't be created in a vacuum.

The psychologist Eric Berne put this in a way by saying that people need a certain amount of social "strokes" from other people to feel good about themselves.

Everyone hungers for strokes and external validation. Some more than others.

And when you think about it, the classical definitions of success are centered around things that will give the successful individual more social strokes.

For example, a pile of physical, paper cash holds no value in itself, it's just paper, but the amount of social validation that the cash represents is extremely valuable to the owner of the cash.
 

Bronson99

Well-known member
Chrisjr, I appreciate your post and the time you took to write it.

However, it's worth noting I would need to defy logic, so to speak--to quit acknowledging the general societal belief that achievement defines quality, and is a strong influence on attractiveness (for men, in particular). It would seem to be quite tough in these circumstances to believe I'm something special, right?
 

chrisjr

Member
However, it's worth noting I would need to defy logic, so to speak--to quit acknowledging the general societal belief that achievement defines quality, and is a strong influence on attractiveness (for men, in particular). It would seem to be quite tough in these circumstances to believe I'm something special, right?

There is a concept called "positive illusions". This describes the widely-supported theory that people often percieve situations in a way that focusses on information that promotes self-esteem and optimism - at the expense of accuracy.

Some researchers have argued that this bias results in many benefits to health and productivity:

Taylor and Brown (1988) then went on to review a great deal of social cognition research ultimately concluding that “contrary to much traditional, psychological wisdom… the mentally healthy person appears to have the enviable capacity to distort reality in a direction that enhances self-esteem, maintains beliefs in personal efficacy, and promotes an optimistic view of the future” (p.204).[1] Indeed, it was Taylor and Brown (1988) who went on to suggest the term “positive illusions” which they defined as the “pervasive tendency to see oneself in the best possible light” (Peterson, 2006 p.117).[2]

Taylor and Brown (1988) defined positive illusions as “unrealistically positive self-evaluations, exaggerated perceptions of control and unrealistic optimism” (p. 194). They believe that these illusions are maintained through biases in encoding, interpretation and retrieval of information (i.e. selective attention and benign forgetting), cognitive drift (whereby beliefs change temporarily and then “drift” back to their original state), acknowledging pockets of incompetence (i.e. accepting a lack of talent in certain areas of life while maintaining belief in a general competence) and negative self-schemata which enable people to simply avoid situations in which they lack talent – in other words they construct a self enhancing world in which to live (Taylor and Brown, 1988).

Taylor (1989) argues that there are a range of benefits to be gained from these positive illusions and argues that they are related to (and indeed foster) happiness, the ability to care for others, creative and productive work (through increasing motivation, creativity and the ability to develop relevant skills), the ability to function under stress, physical health and the ability to cope with trauma.[3] Building on this, much recent research has emphasised the benefits of positive illusions in relationships. For example, Murray and Holmes (1997) found that “positive partner illusions predicted greater satisfaction, love and trust (as well as less conflict and ambivalence) in both dating and marital relationships” (Swami and Furnham, 2008 p. 3).[4]


[1] Taylor, S. E. and Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being. A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

[2] Peterson C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

[3] Taylor, S. E. (1989) Positive Illusions; Creative Self-deception and the Healthy Mind. USA: Basic Books

[4] Swami, V. and Furnham, A. (2008) Is love really so blind? The Psychologist, 21 (2), 108-111



Source: Simmons, J. (2015). Just how positive are positive illusions? Positive Psychology UK. Moscow: MSK Filanco


Bronson99 said:
It's possible I may be sub-consciously trying to prevent myself from improving...

...I already know my "best possible self" is still way below par... I'm a realist and I'm aware I will not get back what I put in... I'm not good at many (if not most) things...

Let's rewrite this script. Assume you cannot fail. What do you want to change? What would you do differently?

Now return to the old script. What beliefs are limiting your actions? What are these beliefs costing you?
 

Bronson99

Well-known member
There is a concept called "positive illusions". This describes the widely-supported theory that people often percieve situations in a way that focusses on information that promotes self-esteem and optimism - at the expense of accuracy.

Some researchers have argued that this bias results in many benefits to health and productivity:

I won't re-quote the whole thing to save space. But yes, I am generally aware of this phenomenon and have observed that it seems to be a *normal* state of mind for most people, including men who are college dropouts, not particularly good looking or socially fluent.. somehow, though, this "enhanced perception of self" has skipped me, or I never assimilated it.

I think my development of poor self-esteem and depressive-realist thinking (generally the opposite of the "positive illusion") has many causes, chief among them being an invisible/untreated case of ADD.. failure to pay attention and execute goals screws a person in every single way, academically and socially in particular.. what is then left is a lifetime of not being good at anything.. then, we have the emotional chaos that comes with ADD and autism (interrelated disorders).. preventing any "positive illusion" from balancing out the lack of achievement.

It still remains ironic to me that "positive illusion" is believed to be a core tenet of maturity.. while depressive-realism, as I depict, is thought to be an obvious form of immaturity. It kind of lacks logic.. and yet, as I hear time and time again, a mature man believes he can do most anything he needs to do, and never doubts himself. Fair enough, but it still doesn't make sense, y'know?

Let's rewrite this script. Assume you cannot fail. What do you want to change? What would you do differently?

Now return to the old script. What beliefs are limiting your actions? What are these beliefs costing you?

Good question
 
Top