Sunday, May 20, 2012

Confidence and Fear, Part II (Concluded?)

Sup.
Pretty hungover but you know.
Let's get back on the subject, continuing from the last post: Confidence and Fear, Part I

So, how the fuck are these two connected?
Well, let's return to "reality."
This term will be defined at a different point, as "reality" is a complex fucker.
For the needs of this post only, it will be defined as:

  • The objective amount of personal skill held in any field or activity.
Obviously, this is easier to apply unbiasedly to certain skill sets.
Figuring out how good someone is at taking the ACT is easy; figuring out if they are worth their shit as a student is a different story.
But, just bear with me and assume competency in any skill can be graded on a scale (0-1 if you are using the "graph" from the last post).

So, reality exists on a line stretching from (0,0) to (1,1).
If one thinks they are more competent at a skill then they actually are, for FHP's purposes they are considered confident.
And it's vice versa for fear (derp).
If this is considered across the board to all skills, the net positive or negative rating would generally subconsciously be exuded from a person.
Ever wondered how you just knew someone was a cocky shithead before you met them?
We don't realize it, but this net confidence/fear is important to everything.
It's affects how successful a person will be in any specific new situation, since no skill has been attained.
This has a multiplier effect; if said person would be considered "confident", then they will progress in the skill faster than the fearful (also commonly referred to as the pussy)

This should beg the question: If net positivity makes a person confident and therefore better prepared to advance in new skills, wouldn't a (within reason) delusional state of constant self-praise be best?
Also referred to as "The Douchebag Paradox"
TDP is perfectly easy to answer but not apply.

As humans, we have a tendency to be piles of shit.
This is also known as homeostasis.
Dorky shit aside, it basically means the human mind prefers to reside at that "reality" point, both specifically and generally.
This is where the graph comes in handy again.
It takes a lot of work to remain confident, especially mentally.
The further away from "reality"that the perceived amount of skill is located, the quicker the mind tries to get it back to reality.
Why?
Because we need real accomplishments to remain so positive about our skill.
If you get an A on a paper, do you feel like a fucking champ?
Hell yeah you do.
It does a lot more for your psyche to actually achieve than to tell yourself you can achieve.
And if you get an F?
A fire just got lit under your ass and you'll get to studying (well, if you aren't an r-tard).
But what if you get a B or C?
Other than the weirdasses who populate the front row of every class, most of us wouldn't lose too much sleep over a small paper.
Thus, we return to homeostasis; not as confident as if an A was achieved, but not as fearful as receiving an F.

What's the main point I'm getting at?

Pragmatic Confidence
  • The belief that despite past results, future achievement is possible if proper lessons are learned.
That second part is essential.
We need to have our score in most or all skills to be slightly above "reality" if we don't want to return to homeostasis yet want a net positive rating, or "confidence".
How is that achieved?
South Park had it right (strange how often that occurs): you have to tolerate, not accept.
Tolerate the rejection from a girl, but don't accept that you will always get rejected.
You want to get laid don't you?
Learn the lesson provided by failure, then forget about it.
Easier said than done.
But who the fuck wants life to be easy?

Easy is boring.

Peace.
JF



Blog Archive