A problem with having a positive self-image?

[Taikin]

Hi all,

I'm very interested in the notion of self-contentment. I don't have it, along with maybe 98% of people, and my best friend does so I fully appreciate that it does exist, but that it's extremely rare (he's the only person I've met who I know really is content with himself).

Now from what I've read the typical PD way of attaining self-contentment is to cultivate a positive self-image through NLP and, supposedly, once you have this positive self-image you become self-content.
Herein lies the problem...

I feel I already have a positive self-image, and always have had such an image. In my head I see myself as walking confidently, with good posture, and my voice sounds good and my skin complexion is reasonable and so on and so on - you get the idea. It's a flattering self-image.

But inevitably I see photos of myself and videos of myself from time to time, I see reflections in the mirror on days when the lighting in my room is quite brutal - I see hard, objective evidence of how I really walk, stand, speak, look and none of it reflects my positive self-image. The reality of the way I am is by no means terrible, but it falls short of what I think I am.

It's a healthy self-image (and it's by no means deluded) but it's useless, even indirectly hurtful, when reality debunks it. How can a person find self-contentment with this sort of positive self-image work? Should I use some other means to gain self-contentment (and if so, does anyone have any suggestions about this other means?).

Oh, and if anyone's further interested I've written an article about the elusive goal of self-content on my blog here

Thanks for reading, and for any thoughts you have to offer.

[ZHereford]

Taikin, for me a healthy self-image equals self-contentment.

If you are not content with yourself then you don't have a healthy self-image. It is false. You are probably deluding yourself to 'think' it's healthy.

I read your blog post and I know that your friend Sam claims that nothing would shake his self worth. I agree that in theory that sounds plausible, however, I wonder if something horrid really happened to him would he still feel that way.

More often than not, we speculate on how we would react to certain circumstances but we really don't know for sure until they take place.

[The Cloud]

Self-image is just that; an image. It isn't real, it's just an idea. But if you confuse your self-image with yourself, then you will become disgruntled when reality contradicts your image (which is inevitable, because you cannot hold a perfect image of yourself in your mind, since if you could then the image would be the reality).

Consequentially, seeking happiness by cultivating and focusing on any kind of self-image is doomed to failure. Perhaps instead of making up an idea in your mind and trying to force yourself to be that, you could try watching yourself in action and see firsthand what you really are.

[Jennihul]

You are mixed up.

How you feel on the inside is what you are affecting with NLP and positive thinking. The outside stuff is just a shell or a costume. It's not what is important.

Contentment is an emotion, not a physical manifestation. Not everyone physically reflects what they feel on the inside. Best not to judge a book by it's cover.

Consider what is important. Are you really a happy person? Or are you faking it all the time?

Jennifer

[Taikin]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

If you are not content with yourself then you don't have a healthy self-image. It is false. You are probably deluding yourself to 'think' it's healthy.

It's a good image. My reaction to it may be unhealthy, and the image itself may be inaccurate, but it's a really positive image and if I had no cause to doubt it I'd be very healthy. I guess you're saying that a self-image MUST be accurate for me to be self-content.

I know that your friend Sam claims that nothing would shake his self worth. I agree that in theory that sounds plausible, however, I wonder if something horrid really happened to him would he still feel that way.
More often than not, we speculate on how we would react to certain circumstances but we really don't know for sure until they take place.

Mm, I have trouble believing him too. It's really a case of logically it works but emotionally it just doesn't seem to hold water. I do believe it though, because my argument against it is: I can't comprehend feeling like that - which isn't much of an argument. I can't really comprehend Steve Pavlina's emotional well-being for the same reason, but I do believe it's real. Heck, he made the same argument once about his lack of psychic feedback compared to Erin's.

The Cloud: Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I guess a way to act on your advice would be to see myself a lot more in photos and videos. Not a perfect approach, I guess, but I do tend to react quite badly to photos and videos of me - that, to me, is suggestive that I'd be getting to the heart of the issue through those media.

Jennihul: Yep, I am mixed up I see your point, though it's really a vanity/inferiority complex thing rather than a contradiction between feelings and my showing of them physically. Oh, and I'm steadily getting happier and I don't fake it beyond what social ettiquette demands.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Taikin

I guess you're saying that a self-image MUST be accurate for me to be self-content.

No, I'm saying that it is inconsistent. I'm not sure what you mean by a healthy self-image must be accurate. It's not comparative. It is what it is. It's independent of any outside factors. By definition it's purely subjective.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Taikin

Hi all,

I'm very interested in the notion of self-contentment. I don't have it, along with maybe 98% of people, and my best friend does so I fully appreciate that it does exist, but that it's extremely rare (he's the only person I've met who I know really is content with himself).

what is it you want? is self-contentment like self-acceptance?

Now from what I've read the typical PD way of attaining self-contentment is to cultivate a positive self-image through NLP and, supposedly, once you have this positive self-image you become self-content.
Herein lies the problem...

self-content must be the same thing as positive self-image, don't you think? It's not one leads to the other, they come together.

I feel I already have a positive self-image, and always have had such an image. In my head I see myself as walking confidently, with good posture, and my voice sounds good and my skin complexion is reasonable and so on and so on - you get the idea. It's a flattering self-image.

But inevitably I see photos of myself and videos of myself from time to time, I see reflections in the mirror on days when the lighting in my room is quite brutal - I see hard, objective evidence of how I really walk, stand, speak, look and none of it reflects my positive self-image. The reality of the way I am is by no means terrible, but it falls short of what I think I am.

what is it you want? to look good? or feel good about yourself (which has little to do with how you look, just your reaction to how you look)?

It's a healthy self-image (and it's by no means deluded) but it's useless, even indirectly hurtful, when reality debunks it. How can a person find self-contentment with this sort of positive self-image work? Should I use some other means to gain self-contentment (and if so, does anyone have any suggestions about this other means?).

reality isn't debunking it, you are. you are judging what is, even though you also say it's a healthy self-image.

Oh, and if anyone's further interested I've written an article about the elusive goal of self-content on my blog here

Thanks for reading, and for any thoughts you have to offer.

Claim your flaws as part of you. The shadow self is what we deny and try to put outside of ourselves. Instead we can look at what we judge as not a good self-image and make it ours and we become whole and self-accepting. I think once one accepts their full being, there's no need to worry about positive self-image or self-contentment because accepting kind of makes those judgments unnecessary. You won't be trying to build up a self image because you accept what is your image now. You won't be wondering if you are happy with yourself either, because you accept what yourself is.


Go for self-acceptance.

[Tigerlilly]

How about a little mental exercise for shaking up your self-image a bit:

Your body doesn't really exist in the shape that your eyes see it. You are an energy field that only looks like a body. Actually you're just zillions of tiny little energy particles flitting about merrily. Scientists believe there are more than just four dimensions, ever wondered what you look like in the others?

Why not try seeing yourself like an energy field that just looks human shaped in four dimensions? You're not just a bag of bones really, so if your self image just sees your human body, and works on a purely physical level to form a self-image you limit yourself. I can't imagine an energy field that's not totally perfect and whole and beautiful, can you?

[Taikin]

I'll clarify things with an analogy, the following is all completely made up (and rather extreme) but I think it will illustrate everything properly:

Tom thinks he looks like Sean Connery in Goldfinger: same physical appearence, same walk, some posture and same voice. Tom, thusly, feels good about himself thanks to this belief (this positive self-image). Sometimes however, when confronted with certain evidence, Tom thinks maybe he doesn't look like that at all, that he looks actually looks worse than this. This confuses Tom and makes him feel bad that he doesn't look as good as he thought he did.

Anyway, I think you guys have helped me break down the problem into manageable parts. I guess I have to adjust what I look like in my own head to what I really truly look like, and then accept that realistic image. The only way I can think of doing this is, as I say, through exposure to lots and lots of photos and videos.
So, thank you, and if anyone has anything else to add by all means do.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Taikin

I guess I have to adjust what I look like in my own head to what I really truly look like, and then accept that realistic image.

Why do you think you have to do that?

What you look like to yourself (mirror, photograph, video, imagination) will never match what anyone else sees, and what you look like to each one of everyone else will never match what you look like to another one of everyone else. There is no such thing as an "accurate" self-image. It's all made up -- that's what images are! Imaginary!

What you are chasing after is a greased pig.

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by Angela

There is no such thing as an "accurate" self-image. It's all made up -- that's what images are! Imaginary!

It is a scientific fact that you cannot measure something without changing it. The more accurate the measurement, the more pronounced the change. To get an accurate self-image, you would have to observe yourself very closely. This would inevitably change the self that you are trying to measure. So it is theoretically impossible to have a perfect self-image because having that image would invariably alter your self, invalidating the image. You can only observe yourself from moment to moment to see what you really are, because every moment that changes.

[ZHereford]

I guess I have to adjust what I look like in my own head to what I really truly look like, and then accept that realistic image. The only way I can think of doing this is, as I say, through exposure to lots and lots of photos and videos.

Taikin , I guess what you really meant is that you thought you were more attractive than your pictures/videos suggest. When you said you had a healthy self-image, I interpreted it as a healthy self-concept which encompasses much more than just your looks.

[Taikin]

Originally Posted by Angela

What you look like to yourself (mirror, photograph, video, imagination) will never match what anyone else sees, and what you look like to each one of everyone else will never match what you look like to another one of everyone else. There is no such thing as an "accurate" self-image. It's all made up -- that's what images are! Imaginary!

That's fascinating, and potentially very helpful But is there any evidence that subjectivity is that dominant? This is the other related fight I have: between objectivity and subjectivity. If there were no objectivity over physical attractiveness there would be no supermodels, right? Isn't there some large general consensus about how people look? Can we really all look at the same person and see them differently?

The Cloud, I must confess I'm not quite following. Could you use an example with a person or object, please?

Taikin , I guess what you really meant is that you thought you were more attractive than your pictures/videos suggest.

Yep, sorry about that ZHereford, I could have put it more simply.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Taikin

Can we really all look at the same person and see them differently?

Yesterday I worked at a casting of a movie, and out of the thirty or so people that came in, not one of them were agreed by me and all my associates to be "attractive" or "beautiful" or "handsome." In fact, the ones that got the most extreme positives also got the most extreme negatives.

Also, when the actors were asked to adjust their audition performances, several of them went from being generally perceived as unattractive, to generally being perceived as attractive. The entire difference was what they were being -- none of them deliberately changed their "look."

[Taikin]

Wow...that's pretty amazing, I had no idea people could vary that much in their perceptions.
It's difficult for me to get my head around it, but that's very encouraging...it really puts a different spin on things.

[Calicatt]

Hey, just a quick thought.

Instead of coming up with a fantastical image of yourself to idealize, perhaps try forgetting appearances altogether and working on loving your SELF, accepting yourself who you are, not feeling like your conentment rides on looking (or not looking) like a movie star.

Personally, I've experienced that if you believe and put yourself out there enough to have real experiences that prove that you can be loved for who you are, then looks really don't matter that much.

From my own life, I suffered from an eating disorder for a number of years. I could have been the most gorgeous person in the world to other people, but I wouldn't have known/accepted it because I was busy hating myself and whenever I looked in the mirror, I saw that hate. Slowly, slowly, I came to accept myself (via therapy, friends, self development, accepting love, etc) and now when I look in the mirror I think I'm d*mn hot! And I am, because I'm a reflection of what I *know* through experience.

Hope that helps and hope your journey isn't as hard as mine was!

[The Cloud]

Originally Posted by Taikin

The Cloud, I must confess I'm not quite following. Could you use an example with a person or object, please?

Check out this Wikipedia article on the observer effect.

Look at it this way. Say that you have developed the habit of picking your nose at the dinner table, and you have had it for so long that you just aren't aware of it anymore. Suppose also that the people you eat with are far too polite to mention something so vulgar to you.

Then one day, in your observation of yourself, you notice that you pick your nose, and furthermore that people seem to have a passive negative reaction to it. Would you continue to pick your nose irregardless of this observation? Not likely. So your observation of yourself has led to a change in your behavior. How else can you define yourself except by how you think and act? So essentially, you have changed what you are due to the act of observation.

[Angela]

What TheCloud says is also almost certainly true of most of the photos and videos you see of yourself, unless you are completely and utterly unaware that you are being photographed.

[Tigerlilly]

Originally Posted by Taikin

But is there any evidence that subjectivity is that dominant? This is the other related fight I have: between objectivity and subjectivity. If there were no objectivity over physical attractiveness there would be no supermodels, right? Isn't there some large general consensus about how people look? Can we really all look at the same person and see them differently?

Oh YES, I certainly believe we can. There seems to be a general consensus that Brad Pitt is good-looking, I think he's totally unattractive and I'd never date him, same goes for Leo di Caprio whom millions swoon over. The lead singer from Tokio hotel to me looks like a girl dressed up like a skunk. Then I love the looks of a guy and think him the sexiest alive ever and another tells me he reminds him of Mr. Bean.

So, to me it's no question that what you love to see is subjective. And it is absolutely true that if you feel fabulous about yourself and just bubble over with joy for life, people suddenly think you incredibly attractive and you magically draw people to you who look totally attractive to you. I have no idea why, but I know it works this way.

Now the question is, do you really want to have sex-appeal to the whole world, do you intend to become an actor or something? If not, who do you want to be attractive for and attract to you? Every stranger you meet on the street? That is hardly ever the case, if you really think about it, I guess, mostly one just wants to be attractive to whoever one wants to attract.

And there's simply no need to look like Sean Connery to do that.

[Taikin]

Sorry for the late replies: university is quite hectic at the moment and this reply took a fair while to type

So, I wonder how much objectivity does exist then...I suppose there could be almost none.

Maybe it's the case that ideal models of beauty have been created by societies pretty much by accident and that the members of these societies subscribe to these models in the belief that they have existed inherently: that they're natural and not man-made.

So, let's take Brad Pitt. He is, indeed, up there with DiCaprio and Depp. He's one of the three men in Hollywood who the media presents as the most attractive men in the public eye.
I've never understood the appreciation of Pitt either. I, too, would say he's slightly below average in looks. But for a long time I didn't say this, especially as a child, because it seemed so against public opinion. Also because we're taught from an early age not to say bad things about people, especially not in terms of their looks.

Now that I do comfortably say this I'm still drowned out by the voices of those who adore his looks. This is because there will always be more voices talking of beauty than there will of ugliness. We're much more inclined to gush about the beauty of so-and-so than we are to comment on the ugliness of someone else, just like we're more inclined to talk about films we love than films we hate.

So what happens is we accept that Depp or DiCaprio or Pitt is attractive initially because they are presented by the media as attractive, and if that doesn't work we'll still end up accepting they're attractive because we only hear views supporting that view - even though, deep down, we just don't see it.

Tieing in with Tigerlilly's point, the actors in question will probably feel more attractive than ever and act in a way that is attractive, and then more people find them attractive and so the dissenters have even more cause to doubt themselves.

Oh, and I do NOT think I look like Mr. Connery