Confidence is not about other people.

It's about whether you trust yourself to execute what you are doing competently - including social tasks. "To confide" means to place trust in. When we talk of "confidence" as a personal trait, it implicitly means "self-confidence", viz. "I trust in myself".

Genuine confidence thus requires both developed competence and an accurate assessment of that competence. Otherwise, you can either become overconfident (a fool), if you lack the competence; and you can likewise become timid if you have the competence but sell yourself short.

It's a form of trust, fundamentally, and thus does/should operate like all other types of trust.

Yep, you got the intended core meaning while also rightfully pointing out it was wrapped in problematic wrapping. Good for you :)

Maybe "sometimes you have to do things you feel too tired or bored to do right now, to get where you want to go". That way it makes clear it is just about not to be lazy/unmotivated than a blanket statement against all inhibition even though, as people pointed out in the comments, inhibition also includes moral inhibition, which is a whole different ball of wax.

I think the real answer to "mental health" vs. "laziness" (esp. given I've dealt and still deal with mental health issues personally) is that only you can honestly assess which is or isn't holding you back - and so the best thing to do is not make "I know better" pronouncements about other people. Introspect yourself (Socrates said, after all, that "the unexamined #LIFE is not worth living" and all), but withhold judgment from other people about things that you most likely cannot know in anywhere close to enough depth to be truly fair. You don't have direct access to their internal mental state, so you can only theorize things at best.

It is indeed, actually, though perhaps a little liberty has been taken with the translation - also keep in mind that Socrates is kind of a funny case historically(*), because he didn't write stuff; others quoted him and then did the writing, so what we have is more a quote of a quote in every case regarding him:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates

>It is a disgrace to grow old through sheer carelessness before seeing what manner of man you may become by developing your bodily strength and beauty to their highest limit. But you cannot see that, if you are careless; for it will not come of its own accord.

Attributed to Socrates in Memorabilia by Xenophon.

(*) though not uniquely - Laozi, in China, is much the same way.

hollllly hell! SLAM THAT LIKE BUTTON

Lol

See, that's the thing. How am I supposed to understand what you're saying was meant that way as opposed to simply what it said on its face? Though I can see the logic, there seems no way to distinguish it on the dint of what you have written.

And then I still get back to having to ask you, even if my anger has had a chance to dissipate some now, because I truly honestly can't see it, how you can think it must be the same for everybody, that there is an only "one-size-fits-all" approach given how diverse human beings and their circumstances are. And how you can justify such a sweeping, exception-free statement and, in doing so, what credentials or experience you bring to the table that is at least as good as what the person you were talking to were claiming as their credentials (or else, some evidence that they lack the credentials they have stated they have). Of course, maybe they too were making a sweeping statement, but then - again following logic - that just means two of us need to "pony up", not one.

And how exactly was your post calling that person "talking out of your ass" and "your opinion is crap" very "polite", exactly, much less "agreeable", and at least more agreeable than everything I have said to this point? It's hard to accept correction from someone who seems like they might (and I say "might" because again, I am trying to be open to the possibility I am wrong, so I can be fair) be a hypocrite.

OK, here's something else, now that I have been away from this a bit and calmed down.

How should I correct the "disagreeable part of my character", exactly? What would an "agreeable" way of approaching it, that would ask what I've stated is my actual intent to ask, but in the proper way that makes that clear, look like?

>Do you honestly think that you're the only person in the world who communicates like you do?

No, I don't. I also don't bother to keep a ledger of who communicates in what style, nor do I particularly care to.

And I don't have to be the only one in the world who communicates the same way I do, either. They'd probably make better convo partners than you and I do.

>Your first post was not "just a question". It was an attempt to 'judge as worthy' or 'discredit'. There's a part in the dark recesses of your mind that thinks it knows better.

The motivation of my first question was because it seemed to me you were being rather nasty yourself toward that person, treating them like they were so awful for simply disputing a piece of life advice given on an Internet forum. That got me mad to see you treat them that way. It seemed to me like you were grandstanding over them, so I wanted to call that out. I am not sure if that means I think something in my mind "knows better" (what does that even mean? "Knows better" about what, than who? You? Him? I legitimately am having trouble decoding the referent there) - I don't "know better" than you who is or isn't "ultimately right" on this, as I said I think it's really dependent on the individual which path will/won't work for them so I don't think that either one is more or less "right". But I did also honestly want to know too, because I know I could be wrong.

So yes, maybe the question did serve a rhetorical purpose (not sure it's exactly the one you are saying it is though given the aforementioned reading comp problem viz. the phrase "knows better") but for me, whenever I ask such a question I also am doing so just as much with an open mind to that the answer may very well defeat my rhetoric, too, so it's double-purpose, not single.

Also, since you have said this conversation is circular and boring, why are you still trying to rope me back into it?

>You're defining the terms of the conversation as if you have some control over things, which you don't.

You did the same to me when you decided what my words meant / my intent was, so fair is fair. And you did that first - because my first post was just a question.

>Pretentious and entitled don't win points.

Why should I care what you think? Caring what someone else thinks about you is not typically talked of very kindly in my experience, so why do you bring this piece of opinion up? (Note how I'm not going to assume your intent, see? I ask a question so I do not assume something that is not correct.)

But maybe you're right, it's better not to bother answering again because all it's doing is making both of us angry and saying shit to each other that isn't going to help make us do anything more than further increase/escalate our anger levels and feelings of mutual indignation.

So let's end the convo gracefully with a bow-out, and I will say to the person you responded to (i.e. this part of my message is for u/aureliusofthenorth) if you can work on yourself while keeping a level of social interaction, great - you're not wrong! But if you (i.e. u/FatherOfLights88) need isolation, great for you too. Keep doing what works for your own individual constitutions. Both of you know yourselves far better than you do each other or I know either of you.

Goodbye!

OK, how about, "How do you know though that your knowledge is more extensive and thus can ask that someone accept your claim more than theirs? Do you have more extensive, formal training than they in psychology and neuroscience? A Ph.D., perhaps?"

And in any case, to me "genuine" means one thing: that what you say is what you honestly want. And that is exactly what I did. You chose not to interpret it that way because it didn't fit some preconceived mold you have regarding how that "should look". If you want to argue about tone, then ask me to "ask in a softer tone", not "ask genuinely" because "genuine" is not a tone but rather a statement of concordance between what is said and what one wants. And that concordance has been there from the get-go on these posts of mine.

No, it has nothing to do with feeling smart; it just is that if you're going to make a dismissive, cocksure sounding comment of your own, then I can inquire just as curtly as to how you can justify it honestly, too. For the interests of even further honesty, it makes me angry because I hate seeing other people treated dismissively like that when I can sympathize with their plight due to it peeling scabs off years of past trauma that still I have not fully and entirely recovered from (if there is such a thing as recovery), but I also am simultaneously open-minded to that maybe you have good reason to say as you do, too, in spite of that anger, and so I then inquire about it, with the intent of procuring an honest answer.

Hence, you don't know what I "really want" answers to - not even the half of it. Trying to guess if someone "really wants" an answer to a question or not is a silly game I decided myself not to play a long, long time ago. Can you answer the question? If it's a "yes" - great for you, then you win points on both me and your original opponent. If it's a "no", then tell me how you justify your comment's truthfulness in the absence of possessing such knowledge.

Probably some of the truest stuff on this site! Bravo!

You may have bit off more than you could chew. If you found the work too hard you could also do less volume (less hours a day) at least at the beginning.

And if you can't afford it, you can always just go and do the same anywhere else you happen to be at.

Introverts will of course be at least halfway there anyways all the time.

So you have a Ph.D. in psychology and neuroscience then, and thus can rightly call your knowledge base significantly more extensive?

"Some of us" also need the opposite.

So your comment kind of contains its own refutation.

There "real cold hard truth" here is there is no one size fits all formula for everyone, and neither the OP's nor the person you are responding to's, are that formula, because it doesn't exist.

Tell me then how you would propose they could extricate themselves from that situation.

Perhaps, but that's not the same as "weak", either. Also, when it's that extreme it absolutely needs a competent mental health professional handling it, not a layperson or moralizer (punisher, like in a jail, where they deliberately deny people treatment as a way to exact "society's just retribution" upon them, something I'd rather undermine.).

You bet.

As I said in another comment, this is more to supplement or discuss the other, much higher voted post here for those people who see merit in it, without being outright confrontational or "critical" to it or them. I also tend to think you are right though, in terms of that I personally don't find the underlying idea helpful either. I think revenge is kinda petty generally. But if you (i.e. others) don't, then at least make sure you know not everyone gets the same ability to have this kind of "best revenge" and you shouldn't implicitly hold that against them, either.

Awwwwwh 🥰 thanks

Very fair criticism of the original idea, actually. My msg was just for those who felt it had validity 😁

??

My post is not meant to assert something about me. But rather to help those who may feel they aren't "good enough".