Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The word gets used a lot, and given the varied contexts in which it gets used I'm not sure we really agree on what insecurity is. Is it insecure to admit to a weakness? To occasionally become upset about the cost (effort to overcome, lost opportunities, worry) of the weakness? To even think in terms of weaknesses at all?Is it simply on a continuum somewhere beyond humility or modesty? Or is insecurity an accurate description only when the person loses objectivity and overestimates the problem or the cost. Are there "normal" insecurities and then pathological ones?
I ask because it seems most people are pretty leery of someone they describe as insecure. I see it used to describe someone who admits to flaws or who is apprehensive about doing something she in fact doesn't do very well, as well as applied to people who won't take any risk or even consider ways to mitigate the risk, and then everything in between.
So what do you mean when you use the term "insecure" and what do you think people generally mean?
Bullies, (as an example) seem to me to be very insecure people, who project a 'tough guy personna,' to mask their inner feelings of worthlessness.
Those who admit weakness, I actually think are most likely stronger individuals, in that they recognize something, and are willing to ask for help and try to get to a better place.
This is a myth. Bullies actually have very strong egos. You need strong nerves to attack others for no reason.
Not true. Bullies have weak egos and a lack of self-worth, for which they compensate by being aggressive. It's a smokescreen that (they think) keeps people from figuring that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homina12
The word gets used a lot, and given the varied contexts in which it gets used I'm not sure we really agree on what insecurity is. Is it insecure to admit to a weakness? To occasionally become upset about the cost (effort to overcome, lost opportunities, worry) of the weakness? To even think in terms of weaknesses at all?Is it simply on a continuum somewhere beyond humility or modesty? Or is insecurity an accurate description only when the person loses objectivity and overestimates the problem or the cost. Are there "normal" insecurities and then pathological ones?
I ask because it seems most people are pretty leery of someone they describe as insecure. I see it used to describe someone who admits to flaws or who is apprehensive about doing something she in fact doesn't do very well, as well as applied to people who won't take any risk or even consider ways to mitigate the risk, and then everything in between.
So what do you mean when you use the term "insecure" and what do you think people generally mean?
It takes a STRONG person to admit a weakness, because only someone who understands that their worth as a person is not dependent on one characteristic but many.
There is an important difference between humility and insecurity. Humility is not fearful and is more open and welcoming to others. Insecurity is very fearful and works hard to keep other people out, to keep them from figuring out (whatever you think is) the shameful truth about "the real you."
Not true. Bullies have weak egos and a lack of self-worth, for which they compensate by being aggressive. It's a smokescreen that (they think) keeps people from figuring that out.
It takes a STRONG person to admit a weakness, because only someone who understands that their worth as a person is not dependent on one characteristic but many.
There is an important difference between humility and insecurity. Humility is not fearful and is more open and welcoming to others. Insecurity is very fearful and works hard to keep other people out, to keep them from figuring out (whatever you think is) the shameful truth about "the real you."
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyogul
(inexplicable) flustered and negative feelings towards something about yourself
You both seem to be saying that insecurity isn't necessarily anyone's fate. It seems intuitive that some people have more , or less, to be insecure about. We all know people who seem quite blessed who are still unhappy and insecure about their place in the scheme of things, but does it make sense that people with fewer qualities we tend to think are worthwhile would be more likely to be insecure? I'm not saying I believe this, but it seems logical.
Is it logical? Or rather, does insecurity develop independent of one's accumulation of worthy traits?
You both seem to be saying that insecurity isn't necessarily anyone's fate. It seems intuitive that some people have more , or less, to be insecure about. We all know people who seem quite blessed who are still unhappy and insecure about their place in the scheme of things, but does it make sense that people with fewer qualities we tend to think are worthwhile would be more likely to be insecure? I'm not saying I believe this, but it seems logical.
It sounds like you're using "insecure" when you mean "unsure." They have different connotations, the first being more ongoing, the second more temporary. They aren't interchangeable.
And yes, actual insecurity certainly can develop independent of "worthy traits." You can do everything right, but if your own mind tells you you aren't doing it right, that's what you believe.
Not true. Bullies have weak egos and a lack of self-worth, for which they compensate by being aggressive. It's a smokescreen that (they think) keeps people from figuring that out.
No they aren't, they are just really ruthless people that don't care about others. This myth of the insecure bully is just something that the victims of bullying created to feel better about themselves. If a wealthy and a powerful person bullies a poor person that has low status, do you really think that person has a lower self-esteem than the victim?
Insecurity is a lack of confidence and self-esteem. While some people may project an image of confidence and having it all together on the outside, they are often insecure on the inside. Narcissists are perfect examples of this. They need constant reassurance and ego stroking.
No they aren't, they are just really ruthless people that don't care about others. This myth of the insecure bully is just something that the victims of bullying created to feel better about themselves. If a wealthy and a powerful person bullies a poor person that has low status, do you really think that person has a lower self-esteem than the victim?
I think many bullies are fairly high status people. I think a lot of simple fictional representations of bullying portrayed bullies as people who felt bad about themselves and so preemptively lashed out at others, and that may be a satisfying explanation for those being bullied.
But as an example close to what you described, Donald Trump is a bully. On the surface he seems to like the Donald just fine. More than just fine, in fact. But I think he's a big pile of insecurities. He attacks any time he feels the least bit vulnerable, and he hides behind his bizarre hair, his orange "tan" his money, his sexual conquests.
He projects a sort of adolescent sense of worth, but he doesn't have anything like a solid base of self esteem.
To the extent that I'm right, accumulating accomplishments may not do much to make one feel more secure. If Trump seemed genuinely satisfied with his wealth and his business successes and accepting of his business failures I'd say that was all a manifestation of his secure sense of who he is as well as support for his sense of self. As it is he seems desperate to impress you and me, but most of all himself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.