I dare you to define 'confidence'

Post Reply New Topic

Try this one on for size: What is confidence?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as 'emotional security resulting from faith in oneself and from firm belief in one's powers, abilities, or capacities.' What is security? 'Freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear; confidence.' So if we doubt even once our ability to please you, does that mean we lack confidence? If so, then wouldn't our confidence be rationally influenced by past acceptance and rejection, and therefore by our perceived physical attractiveness? Besides, isn't doubt a necessary skill in the pursuit of enlightenment? You don't take us for fools, do you?

For this reason, it seems that 'confident' is in danger of being used as a euphemism for 'attractive,' so that you can sound less offensive by advising someone to learn to be more 'confident.' But... the problem of sexual selection, and all the suffering it causes, still remains... !

I started writing my own definition, because i thought i knew what confidence means to me.
Then i deleted my rambling, because it started contradicting itself too often, so: i really don't know

It's a mask i wear.

You can be confident in several areas and to various degrees. It's nothing "absolute".
I'm confident in my abilities to write computer programs of some complexity. Because I have done so in the past. Still know, that there are programming tasks above my knowledge or areas of programming where I had to learn a lot.
There are things I'm not confident, because I know that I can't do them (cooking, eye-contact, reading/using body language and many other)

Yep and I may be wrong about some of those things. Other people see me quite different.

Sometimes when I start something new, I may not feel confident in my skills to finish it. I'm not confident in that particular area. But I may have success anyway by learning. I'm quite confident in my ability to learn, even if I'm not confident in the specific task.

Then there is a kind of overall confidence. How you feel about the amount of things you feel confident in and those you feel not confident in as a kind of average.
But this one is highly unreliable. At least in my case I have days where I see myself as a person in a good job, living in a wonderful city and having some skills that are valuable to myself and society. While on other days I may be less reliable. The smile of a girl in the streets may change the from one second to another...

It just means that you have insight into what you can or can't actually do.

I think it's already the case. I see it commonly being used in such a context among young, attractive women, the ones with the most power to pick and choose their mates. I responded to it by staying away from those women entirely, and instead seeking out women who are as "unconfident" (see quote above) as me. This has served me well multiple times, where my tactic led to a great relationship.

Maybe this is what the dictionary definition should be.

Last edited by Aspie1 on 28 Nov 2008, 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

some women see confidence as being an element of attraction, but hardly the whole package. Confident guys who aren't otherwise attractive (whether by looks, intelligence, or action) are actually often seen as a turn-off.

Women select, and men compete to be selected. This is part of biology. It's not fair, but shigata ga nai...can't be helped. Still, there's likely someone out there.

I wonder what guys are attracted to in a female besides looks.....

I assume they want at least some intelligence - who would be proud to be seen with a stupid mate? Probably some social skill also, to not embarrass him in public. Unfortunately, that last one leaves me out

I can't speak for all guys, but I find intelligence, a sense of humor, a positive attitude, and kindness to be attractive. To me, if a physically attractive woman doesn't have any of those traits, I'm not interested in her.

OK!

Confidence: n. 1. Very rare. Probably a myth.

Really, though, it's not something to define. It's already been said it can be applied to some areas, and not to others. When it relates to the self, same thing applies. All it is, is assurance, and if your trust is broken in one of the areas you once had confidence in, of course you're going to lose that confidence.

Otherwise, you can keep your self confidence up better if you pay attention to yourself and your actions, why they happen, where you go wrong, where you can improve, and just generally experiencing your own strengths. And there's a huge difference between pompous narcissism and confidence, that needs to be addressed more.

When it comes to looking for potential mates, I could break down a lack of self confidence into two personal, social definitions:

1.) Lack of self-trust or total self-doubting behaviour: Unattractive. This is the kind of guy who has a high probability that he's looking for reassurance from others, or looking to validate himself. No, no and no.

2.) Lowered confidence and experiential insecurity: Not nearly as much of a problem in most cases, sometimes almost attractive. This is the result of a man who's been knocked down too many times and is guarded and unsure. It can be extreme, which sucks, but if it's not, it gives a woman the opportunity to show him he's loved. A man with a renewed sense of confidence can be a pretty thing, in my opinion.

I think the largest problem with these conversations, and what others perceive, is that people too often apply their own psyche to the views of another person.

What I mean is...whenever someone approaches a definition for confidence(or at least from what it seems), they attempt to define it as an identity. Everyone approaches context of attractiveness using variables they consider important to identity.

In other words, definitions similar to the one provided by the OP using the Dictionary. That is a state of being. It describes a person who acts upon everything with a basis totally upon themselves. Nowhere does it allow for a person who reacts to things depending on the environment or other people.

A person could have extreme self-confidence, but have a complete lack of confidence in either the surrounding environment OR other people. (or both enviro/people)

People would then attribute their own psyche to that individual's actions, and claim that person lacked confidence/was not a confident person, when if fact it is the complete opposite.

I see the problem as one of vision. The entire philosophy of current culture, and emphatically applying one's own psyche to defineable attributes, rather than by absolutes, has caused the problems of said definitions to this day.

YES. Well put!

The whole idea of self-confidence, at least in terms of dating and romance, is that you have a record of success so that you are not concerned about failing or not living up to someone's expectations. Even if things don't work out, you are secure in the knowledge that you can easily find someone else. Crucial to dating self-confidence is the commodification of the other: The other is nothing special and is expendable and replaceable. You remain aloof and emotionally detached because you've already been there, done that. You're not worried about being able to please her at all—far from it: Your only concern is whether she can live up to your expectations and please you. Your life is busy with excitement and opportunities, and you don't have a spare moment for someone who can't add value to your life. Meanwhile, you're not adverse to having a good time with her because you're open to opportunities for fun and adventure, but you won't toss your dignity by the wayside by pursuing her or making a big fuss out of someone you've just met.

Whether this is your true attitude or not, acting this way (even if it sounds wrong and despicable to you) is a necessary prerequisite to attracting women. It really is. I acted this way and was able to secure a date, but then on the date itself, I let go: I let myself enjoy the time and the companionship, I tried to be friendly and open—I made the mistake of being myself and doing what comes naturally. The fatal error was that I was too nice and not an exciting challenge.

You are mistakenly applying an aspect of philosophical and scientific inquiry to a domain where it does not fit: dating and relationships. Displaying self-confidence is a necessary aspect of dating and is unavoidable if you wish to get anywhere in it; it's simply one of the rules.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt71545.html

How can you say that? Philosophy is about the whole world!

Women generally don't care about the application of philosophical principles in determining a date. They more go by feel.