When questioning your intentions as arrogant, entitled, immature vs confident, moral right, correctness. Or even questioning if the Duning Kruger effect is at play.
What process do you incorporate to back-up your self-judgement or in identifying your decisions/choices are in-fact “correct” in online discussions and/or personal life with friends/family.
How do you remove “self-doubt”?
Stay intellectually humble. It’s a huge component of wisdom in my observation. Understand you can always make mistakes that can be corrected, and that you have arrived at your opinions through limited information that can always be supplemented, so stay open to both of these possibilities.
You can be confident in your opinions that you arrived upon through spending a lot of effort thinking about them, and you don’t need to have self doubt when challenged on them baselessly. But when someone does point out an error or something you missed, it’s essential you haven’t become closed to accepting it.
Always remember what the basis are for your opinions and how well-founded they really are. For example: how much do you actually know about a thing when you’re relying on something you read in the news? How much do they really know about that thing?
As a check on yourself believing you’ve put a lot of effort into thinking about something, be on the guard for unwarranted confidence. If a professional has put their efforts into something in their field of expertise they’ve spent their whole lives working on, chances are you haven’t thought of something they haven’t in the first five minutes of hearing about their work. That might seem ridiculous, but you see this all the time on Lemmy, where for example commenters seem to think they’ve figured out key errors in scientific papers after reading a single popular science article about an experiment or figured out solutions to incredibly complex problems like fair taxation.
deleted by creator
I get where you are coming from, that it is a useful thing to have but sometimes self-doubt or insecurities can be debilitating and lead to inaction. It’s should healthy medium like most things in life.
Because your family is toxic and conditioned you from birth to doubt everything you think and feel.
I don’t. There is no absolutely “right” answers, we just need to accept the bad choices and move on. Like anyone else, you will choose the wrong choice eventually, and that’s is fine, just learn from it.
There’s a line in Nicholas Roeg’s movie Insignificance that has stayed with me for decades now.
There’s an obvious Einstein expy just called “The Professor.” At one point, he’s asked why he’s so cautious about his claims - why he habitually says things like, “I think that…” or “The theory is that…” or “One might argue that…”
His response is, “If I say ‘I know,’ I stop thinking.”
That, IMO, points to the primary answer to your question - don’t try to remove self-doubt. Nourish it. Revel in it. Because it’s the thing that will keep you thinking, and the more you think, the more likely you are to get to actual truth.
I completely agree, and I try to frame my opinions like this, and be open to me being wrong and accepting better information. I don’t do it perfectly 100% of the time, but I do try, especially in a work setting.
One thing to be wary of: some people will call these humble qualifiers “weasel words” and accuse you of lacking conviction. Most likely to happen if you’re having a political discussion with a person who’s convinced themselves that they have it all figured out and/or they mistake bullying for a good argument. I try to disengage with that type of person, but they’re out there in the wild.
Yes - I’ve had many of those asshats over the years insist that I have to “choose a side.”
That’s generally because they can’t actually argue for their position, and the best they can manage is to find fault with a self-serving characterization of a falsely dichotomous opposing position. So they need to be able to assign me to one or the other team, so they know whether they can ignore me or if they need to hurl some emotive rhetoric and fallacies somewhere in my general direction.
And yes - they’re almost never worth engaging with.
And to go all the way back, it could be said that the exact problem is that they have unfounded confidence.
And it’s sort of ironic really, because they’re generally driven by a psychological need to be right, and clinging desperately to one fixed position pretty much guarantees that right is the one thing they will not be.
can manage is to find fault with a self-serving characterization of a falsely dichotomous opposing position. So they need to be able to assign me to one or the other team
Oh wow, this is kind of what I have experienced. The tougher part for me, it was someone that wasn’t a stranger. It made me self-doubt intensely. And I resorted to doing the same, without thinking that I changed myself completely at the moment. Pointing out flaws rather than bringing it back to the main “issue”. (I never am one to “confront”, so it felt like a new frontier).
Cutting ties with these types, has probably been the biggest mental improvement I have had. And a huge boost in most other aspects of my life. But, I still have these self-doubt questions. But, this time around trying to discover those answers via the suggestions/similar strategies listed in this thread, I feel is much healthier moving forward.
And to go all the way back, it could be said that the exact problem is that they have unfounded confidence.
And it’s sort of ironic really, because they’re generally driven by a psychological need to be right, and clinging desperately to one fixed position pretty much guarantees that right is the one thing they will not be.
This is all spot on to be honest
And to go all the way back, it could be said that the exact problem is that they have unfounded confidence.
I definitely have unfounded confidence as well, but am one to internalize all the causation or experiences that aggravate it. Leaning on those I view have “resolved” those issues I see in myself.
And it’s sort of ironic really, because they’re generally driven by a psychological need to be right, and clinging desperately to one fixed position pretty much guarantees that right is the one thing they will not be.
Which is why when I see traits like this, I tend to mirror thinking its the correct approach. Instead of realizing the flaws of absolutism.
This is great. It’s a nice little addition to a list of gratitudes.
It’s always good to have self doubt, it leaves you open to changing your mind. Do what you think you should, but those who realise they are fallible will more easily change their view of things when proven why they should.
I don’t think you should ever fully remove self doubt. It’s useful so you don’t end up a megalomaniac.
But generally speaking, you do the best you can. I look at the situation, weigh the variables, and make a decision based on the best information I have at the time. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong.
It’s sort of like playing poker. Sometimes you have AA and you lose to someone with 72. Doesn’t necessarily mean you misplayed the hand - sometimes you do your best and still lose. Just lick your bruises and keep moving forward.
Also, I think being able to admit to your mistakes when you are wrong will help a ton.
Imo, you don’t. You must remain humble and open-minded.
I always know I can never be 100% sure of anything. That removes some of the pressure of needing to be right, and ironically some of the uncertainty too. Other than that, well, just gather as much information as possible and go for it… Then don’t look back
Find a friend who you can trust to be honest with you to second guess yourself with—preferably someone with a lot of emotional intelligence and self-awareness.
It’s important to look at the reactions you get. If what you’re saying provokes discomfort or hostility, that’s the time to reëxamine what you just said.
And further, when someone disagrees, try to politely ask why. Most people are willing to explain where you fucked up a long as you don’t get defensive.
This gets a little tricky though, because other people’s reactions aren’t always a good metric. If multiple people are telling you something, then it’s almost certainly pretty pertinent to listen. If only one person is telling you something, it’s probably worthwhile to reflect on that in most cases, but you may also want more feedback before you go too deep down that rabbit hole. But this all depends on the people you’re around, what kind of criticism/feedback you’re receiving, and what’s behind the other person’s intent for telling you.
Sometimes we end up in relationships that involve gaslighting and emotional abuse, and it’s not always obvious to us. Sometimes, we don’t have a strong sense of self and we look outside of ourselves for validation more often than not. Sometimes we interact with people whose internal experience is wildly different from our own.
IMO, it’s important to work on strengthening our egos when they are fragile, and to form our own foundational sense of self from which we can build atop with feedback from others.
Reading other responses, I think maybe I misunderstood OP. I thought she was asking, “Self-assured peeps, how do you self-monitor for arrogance and egotism?”, which is where my advice is coming from.
that’s the time to reëxamine what you just said
yeah this is definitely hard, I feel like sometimes it is hard to see what caused it. or overthinking on what is it that provoked. and then focusing on probably the wrong causation and then basing everything afterwards on that.
Genuinely asking, Do you usually ask for clarification even on that or not? I feel it would make it worse, “What did I do, to make you say that just now to me?” I would normally think it comes off as arrogant.
someone disagrees, try to politely ask why. Most people are willing to explain where you fucked up a long as you don’t get defensive.
Yeah, the problem is sometimes, the experiences don’t match up properly and the explanation will still not fit the reason for disagreement. Navigating past that, is really difficult. Because I feel it then becomes a battle of egos. Because all points on the table, self-included, will not fit the solution. But, I guess maybe in these situations a third party is necessary?
I double check. If I think that I’m right about something, I take a moment to consider "have I actually double checked this to make sure it’s true? If not could I potentially humiliate myself by saying something verifiably false, or could I potentially spread misinformation? If I haven’t checked, then I take the time to look into it first before trying to talk about it or make any claims about it. I try not to go based entirely off assumptions or gut feelings. If it turns out I was wrong, then I’ve learned something and avoided a mistake, if it turns out I’m right, then at least now I know for sure that I really am right. It also helps to get into the habit of actually thinking about what I’m going to say, whether it’s actually right or not or just feels right without anything to back it up, and to be open to being wrong. I try to see the possibility of being wrong as a potential learning experience, which makes it less scary, and also makes it easier to not cling to the desire to be right all the time.
Yeah, I also tend to log everything that is supporting my argument. But, it definitely feels like it could be worse “gathering evidence” sometimes. Especially if the topic is around self-improvement rather than something objective.
If the topic isn’t objective then I try to keep in mind that just because something makes me uncomfortable or I disagree with it, that doesn’t automatically make it wrong or me right. I have to contemplate why I disagree and whether it’s something that actually affects me or just something that rubs me the wrong way for no good reason. And if something does bother me, is it productive in any way to make that known to others or should I just keep that to myself? And even if it bothers me, does that mean other people should be bothered by it too? If yes, then why? Is it a morality thing, or just a personal preference thing? Then even if it is a morality thing, I don’t have to try to make it an argument or a fight, instead I can just try to get my own views across and explain my reasoning for the other person to make of what they will. Doesn’t mean I never get mad or into fights, but I try to usually just give the energy I get.
I think in this context it’s important to be specific about the type of self-doubt you’re experiencing. Are you unsure about something specific you’re stating? A decision you’re making? A belief you have? A pattern of behavior you exhibit? Yourself/your life in general (literally, “unsure of yourself”)? These are all separate things imo and warrant different levels of healthy doubt. Like, be open to being wrong about a fact, and be mindful of your behavior / willing to change it if it’s hurting others, but no need to spend energy constantly doubting who you are or how you’re living your life. Whenever I experience self-doubt, I try to first ask myself which of these categories it belongs to, and based on that I decide how I want to respond to it.
I hope this makes sense, it got rambly lol
It definitely makes sense. and that’s what makes it more complicated. because it is also hard to relay context to get second opinions. sometimes what’s left is personal reflection, but practicing how to remove self-bias and not re-adjusting past memories to fit an argument is very difficult.
Thank you for listing those categories, it’s nice seeing them out in print to properly remember.
You don’t
Simply keep saying “Fuck it we ball” untill you can ball no more
OP: I’m struggling with mental unwellness how do I deal with this?
Every reply: You know you should feel even more unsure of yourself, you’re literally wrong about everything and you’re also probably really dumb.
