I keep looping through the same crisis lately, which comes up any time someone points out that I’m pretentious / an idiot / full of shit / lebens unwertes leben / etc.:
Is there a good way for me to know if I’m actually any good at anything? What are appropriate criteria to determine whether I deserve to have pride in myself and my abilities? And what are appropriate criteria to determine whether I have the capacity to determine whether I’ve met those criteria?
Having followed your posts here and on #lesswrong, I got an impression of your personality as a bizarre mix of insecurities and narcissism (but without any malice), and this comment is no exception. You are certainly in need of a few sessions with a good therapist, but, judging by your past posts, you are not likely to actually go for it, so that’s a catch 22. Alternatively, taking a Dale Carnegie course and actually taking its lessons to heart and putting an effort into it might be a good idea. Or a similar interpersonal relationship course you can find locally and afford.
Yeah, the narcissism is something that I’ve been trying to come up with a good plan for purging since I first became aware of it. (I sometimes think that some of the insecurities originally started as a botched attempt to undo the narcissism).
The therapy will absolutely happen as soon as I have a reasonable capacity to distinguish “good” therapists from “bad” ones.
The therapy will absolutely happen as soon as I have a reasonable capacity to distinguish “good” therapists from “bad” ones.
Bad plan (and also a transparent, falsely humble excuse to procrastinate). Picking a therapist at random will give you distinctly positive expected value. Picking a therapist recommended by a friend or acquaintance will give you somewhat better expected value.
Incidentally, one of the methods by which you can most effectively boost your ability to distinguish between good therapists from bad therapists is by having actual exposure to therapists.
Some things are easier to tell whether you’re good at than others. I guess you aren’t talking about the more assessable things (school/university studies, job, competitive sport, weightlifting, …) but about things with a strong element of judgement (quality as a friend or lover, skill in painting, …) or a lot of noise mixed with any signal there might be (stock-picking[1], running a successful startup company, …).
[1] Index funds are the canonical answer to that one, but you know that already.
So, anyway, the answer to “how do I tell if I’m any good at X?” depends strongly on X.
But maybe you really mean not “(know if I’m actually any good at) anything” but know if I’m actually (any good at anything)”—i.e., the question isn’t “am I any good at X?” but “is there anything I’m any good at?”. The answer to that is almost certainly yes; if someone is seriously suggesting otherwise then they are almost certainly dishonest or stupid or malicious or some combination of those, and should be ignored unless they have actual power to harm you; if some bit of your brain is seriously suggesting otherwise then you should learn to ignore it.
There are almost certainly specific X you have good evidence of being good at, which will imply a positive answer to “is there anything I’m good at?”. Pick a few, inspect them as closely as you feel you have to to be sure you aren’t fooling yourself, and remember the answer.
If someone else is declaring publicly that you are a pretentious idiot and full of shit, it is likely that what’s going on is not at all that they’re trying to make an objective assessment of your capabilities or character, but that they are engaged in some sort of fight over status or influence or something, and are saying whatever seems like it may do damage. I expect you have good reasons for getting into that sort of fight, so I’ll just say: bear in mind when you do that this is a thing that happens, and that such comments are usually not useful feedback for self-assessment.
If you want to mention some specific X, I expect you’ll get some advice on ways to assess whether you’re any good at it/them. But I think the most important thing here is that the thing that’s provoking your self-doubt, although it looks like an assessment of your capabilities, really isn’t any such thing.
You could take a cognitive psych approach to some of this. What are the other person’s qualifications?
I recommend exploring the concept of good enough.
There’s a bit in Nathaniel Branden about “a primitive sense of self-affirmation”—which I take to be the assurance that babies start out with that they get to care about their pain and pleasure. It isn’t even a question for them. And animals are pretty much the same.
You don’t need to have a right to be on your own side, you can just be on your own side.
Something I’ve been working on is getting past the idea that the universe is keeping score, and I have to get everything right.
What I believe about your situation is that you’ve been siding with your internal attack voice, and you need to associate your sense of self with other aspects of yourself like overall physical sensations.
Do you have people who are on your side? If so, can you explore taking their opinion seriously?
The attack voice comes on so strong it seems like the voice of reality, but it’s just a voice. I’ve found that it’s hard work to change my relationship to my attack voice, but it’s possible.
For what it’s worth, I think your prose is good. It’s clear, and the style (as distinct from the subject matter) is pleasant.
Generally, their qualifications are that the audience is rallying around them. Also, they don’t know me, which makes them less likely to be biased in my favor. (I.e., the old “my mom says I’m great at , so shut up!” problem)
...the assurance that babies start out with that they get to care about their pain and pleasure.
This flies in the face of the political climate I exist within, that talks primarily about the gallish “entitlement” of poor people who believe they have the right to food and shelter and work.
Do you have people who are on your side? If so, can you explore taking their opinion seriously?
It’s very, very difficult, primarily because people who are INTENSELY on my side are never as vocal as people who are casually against me.
I.e., people who clearly love me and are willing to share portions of their life with me are willing to go so far as to say “I think you do pretty well.” People whom I’ve never met are willing to go so far as to say “fucking kill yourself you fucking loser. Stop acting like you even know how to person, let alone . Fuck it, I’m looking up your address; I’ll kill you.”
That churns up all sorts of emotional and social reactions, which makes processing the whole thing rationally even harder.
Generally, their qualifications are that the audience is rallying around them. Also, they don’t know me, which makes them less likely to be biased in my favor. (I.e., the old “my mom says I’m great at , so shut up!” problem)
On the other hand, they might be more likely to be biased against you, and they certainly don’t know a lot about your situation.
...the assurance that babies start out with that they get to care about their pain and pleasure.
This flies in the face of the political climate I exist within, that talks primarily about the gallish “entitlement” of poor people who believe they have the right to food and shelter and work.
Can you find a different political environment?
I’ve noticed that conservatives tend to think that everything bad that happens to a person is the fault of that person, and progressives tend to think that people generally don’t have any responsibility for their misfortunes. Both are overdoing it, but you might need to spend some time with progressives for the sake of balance.
Also, I’ve found it helps to realize that malice is an easy way of getting attention, so there are incentives for people to show malice just to get attention—and some of them are getting paid for it. The thing is, it’s an emotional habit, not the voice of reality.
Unfortunately, people are really vulnerable to insults. I don’t have an evo psy explanation, though I could probably whomp one up.
Do you have people who are on your side? If so, can you explore taking their opinion seriously?
It’s very, very difficult, primarily because people who are INTENSELY on my side are never as vocal as people who are casually against me.
It is very difficult, but I think you’ve made some progress. All I can see is what you write, but it seems like you’re getting some distance from your self-attacks in something like the past year or so.
I find it helps to think about times when I’ve been on my own side and haven’t been struck by lightning.
It’s very, very difficult, primarily because people who are INTENSELY on my side are never as vocal as people who are casually against me.
I.e., people who clearly love me and are willing to share portions of their life with me are willing to go so far as to say “I think you do pretty well.” People whom I’ve never met are willing to go so far as to say “fucking kill yourself you fucking loser. Stop acting like you even know how to person, let alone . Fuck it, I’m looking up your address; I’ll kill you.”
I might be an outlier, but a spiel like “fucking kill yourself you fucking loser. Stop acting like you even know how to person, let alone . Fuck it, I’m looking up your address; I’ll kill you” doesn’t signal casualness to me. The only people I’d expect to say that casually are trolls trying to get a rise out of people. Idle trolling aside, someone laying down a fusillade of abuse like that is someone who cares quite a bit (and doubtless more than they’d like to admit) about my behaviour. Hardly an unbiased commentator! (I recognize that’s easier said than internalized.)
I keep looping through the same crisis lately, which comes up any time someone points out that I’m pretentious / an idiot / full of shit / lebens unwertes leben / etc.:
Is there a good way for me to know if I’m actually any good at anything? What are appropriate criteria to determine whether I deserve to have pride in myself and my abilities? And what are appropriate criteria to determine whether I have the capacity to determine whether I’ve met those criteria?
Having followed your posts here and on #lesswrong, I got an impression of your personality as a bizarre mix of insecurities and narcissism (but without any malice), and this comment is no exception. You are certainly in need of a few sessions with a good therapist, but, judging by your past posts, you are not likely to actually go for it, so that’s a catch 22. Alternatively, taking a Dale Carnegie course and actually taking its lessons to heart and putting an effort into it might be a good idea. Or a similar interpersonal relationship course you can find locally and afford.
If you don’t mind, I’m gonna use this in my twitter’s bio.
Yeah, the narcissism is something that I’ve been trying to come up with a good plan for purging since I first became aware of it. (I sometimes think that some of the insecurities originally started as a botched attempt to undo the narcissism).
The therapy will absolutely happen as soon as I have a reasonable capacity to distinguish “good” therapists from “bad” ones.
Bad plan (and also a transparent, falsely humble excuse to procrastinate). Picking a therapist at random will give you distinctly positive expected value. Picking a therapist recommended by a friend or acquaintance will give you somewhat better expected value.
Incidentally, one of the methods by which you can most effectively boost your ability to distinguish between good therapists from bad therapists is by having actual exposure to therapists.
Some things are easier to tell whether you’re good at than others. I guess you aren’t talking about the more assessable things (school/university studies, job, competitive sport, weightlifting, …) but about things with a strong element of judgement (quality as a friend or lover, skill in painting, …) or a lot of noise mixed with any signal there might be (stock-picking[1], running a successful startup company, …).
[1] Index funds are the canonical answer to that one, but you know that already.
So, anyway, the answer to “how do I tell if I’m any good at X?” depends strongly on X.
But maybe you really mean not “(know if I’m actually any good at) anything” but know if I’m actually (any good at anything)”—i.e., the question isn’t “am I any good at X?” but “is there anything I’m any good at?”. The answer to that is almost certainly yes; if someone is seriously suggesting otherwise then they are almost certainly dishonest or stupid or malicious or some combination of those, and should be ignored unless they have actual power to harm you; if some bit of your brain is seriously suggesting otherwise then you should learn to ignore it.
There are almost certainly specific X you have good evidence of being good at, which will imply a positive answer to “is there anything I’m good at?”. Pick a few, inspect them as closely as you feel you have to to be sure you aren’t fooling yourself, and remember the answer.
If someone else is declaring publicly that you are a pretentious idiot and full of shit, it is likely that what’s going on is not at all that they’re trying to make an objective assessment of your capabilities or character, but that they are engaged in some sort of fight over status or influence or something, and are saying whatever seems like it may do damage. I expect you have good reasons for getting into that sort of fight, so I’ll just say: bear in mind when you do that this is a thing that happens, and that such comments are usually not useful feedback for self-assessment.
If you want to mention some specific X, I expect you’ll get some advice on ways to assess whether you’re any good at it/them. But I think the most important thing here is that the thing that’s provoking your self-doubt, although it looks like an assessment of your capabilities, really isn’t any such thing.
You could take a cognitive psych approach to some of this. What are the other person’s qualifications?
I recommend exploring the concept of good enough.
There’s a bit in Nathaniel Branden about “a primitive sense of self-affirmation”—which I take to be the assurance that babies start out with that they get to care about their pain and pleasure. It isn’t even a question for them. And animals are pretty much the same.
You don’t need to have a right to be on your own side, you can just be on your own side.
Something I’ve been working on is getting past the idea that the universe is keeping score, and I have to get everything right.
What I believe about your situation is that you’ve been siding with your internal attack voice, and you need to associate your sense of self with other aspects of yourself like overall physical sensations.
Do you have people who are on your side? If so, can you explore taking their opinion seriously?
The attack voice comes on so strong it seems like the voice of reality, but it’s just a voice. I’ve found that it’s hard work to change my relationship to my attack voice, but it’s possible.
For what it’s worth, I think your prose is good. It’s clear, and the style (as distinct from the subject matter) is pleasant.
Generally, their qualifications are that the audience is rallying around them. Also, they don’t know me, which makes them less likely to be biased in my favor. (I.e., the old “my mom says I’m great at , so shut up!” problem)
This flies in the face of the political climate I exist within, that talks primarily about the gallish “entitlement” of poor people who believe they have the right to food and shelter and work.
It’s very, very difficult, primarily because people who are INTENSELY on my side are never as vocal as people who are casually against me.
I.e., people who clearly love me and are willing to share portions of their life with me are willing to go so far as to say “I think you do pretty well.” People whom I’ve never met are willing to go so far as to say “fucking kill yourself you fucking loser. Stop acting like you even know how to person, let alone . Fuck it, I’m looking up your address; I’ll kill you.”
That churns up all sorts of emotional and social reactions, which makes processing the whole thing rationally even harder.
On the other hand, they might be more likely to be biased against you, and they certainly don’t know a lot about your situation.
Can you find a different political environment?
I’ve noticed that conservatives tend to think that everything bad that happens to a person is the fault of that person, and progressives tend to think that people generally don’t have any responsibility for their misfortunes. Both are overdoing it, but you might need to spend some time with progressives for the sake of balance.
Also, I’ve found it helps to realize that malice is an easy way of getting attention, so there are incentives for people to show malice just to get attention—and some of them are getting paid for it. The thing is, it’s an emotional habit, not the voice of reality.
Unfortunately, people are really vulnerable to insults. I don’t have an evo psy explanation, though I could probably whomp one up.
It is very difficult, but I think you’ve made some progress. All I can see is what you write, but it seems like you’re getting some distance from your self-attacks in something like the past year or so.
I find it helps to think about times when I’ve been on my own side and haven’t been struck by lightning.
I might be an outlier, but a spiel like “fucking kill yourself you fucking loser. Stop acting like you even know how to person, let alone . Fuck it, I’m looking up your address; I’ll kill you” doesn’t signal casualness to me. The only people I’d expect to say that casually are trolls trying to get a rise out of people. Idle trolling aside, someone laying down a fusillade of abuse like that is someone who cares quite a bit (and doubtless more than they’d like to admit) about my behaviour. Hardly an unbiased commentator! (I recognize that’s easier said than internalized.)
I recommend empirical reality. The kind that exists outside of your (and other people’s) head.