Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Becoming more open

Rate this topic


Alfa
 Share

Recommended Posts

How do those 3 quotes explaining the same thing? How is being more open = being honest = less problem talking to women = showing others you wonderful self ?

Why would you want to show your "wonderful self" to everyone?

I know someone who is the most open, honest person I know. Most people seriously dislike him. Call him a cold blooded bastard. :D

The reason is precisely that he is open and honest. And seeing how most people suck often, the result of his honesty is that nickname.

His "wonderful self"? I don't think anyone thinks he's wonderful, unless they are good enough people, (or his employers ;) ).

As for me: I am a very confident person. And precisely because of that, and because I am good at figuring out people's character, I DO NOT want to be open with them all, and share my inner world with them. Most are not good enough to be shared those sacred things with.

From my experience, acting "the way you are without boundaries and perceived social limits" does not go hand in hand with "showing your wonderful self". People usually relish at the opportunity of laughing at someone who acts outside social code.

This is because they do not exercise independent judgement, rather accept some lame standard for what makes someone "successful".

So my method is to do what I want, say what I think when it is needed, and share my inner world only with those who I judge to deserve it (and from whom I can get enjoyment from sharing).

Being open =/= being honest.

Doing what you want regardless of social code =/= being open, or honest.

I think Sophia has sort of hit the nail on the head in this issue here, but it's interesting that you brought this up and I like to elaborate a bit more on this.

Let's begin with what has actually driven me to this stage where I want to become more open. As I said earlier I have always been very introverted, never had that many friends and most social situations feel kinda awkward. Although not being a very big problem, talking to women has of course always been the most difficult part. So anyway... a little while ago I found myself in a situation where I realised that I really wanted to make friends with some people, and more than just friends in one case. Now that can be pretty difficult, especially when all of them happen to be very lovely ladies.

I was simply in a situation where I felt very uncomfortable and this discomfort was in the way of a great value. Sure, I could always be the "quiet type" and hope that everyone would see what a good person I really am... but a fact is that if you shut up too much people will never learn who you are, and if you don't show them it's going to be darn difficult to make new friends, plus of course more romantic pursuits are going to be even more difficult. The sollution is to become more open and show people who I am, and what I think is good about myself.

When I talk about honesty it's really about being honest to yourself and who you are, holding on to your values - especially your own self-worth and value - and not limit this out of fear or anxiety.

Now regarding your friend... I am the opposite to him. I am much more benevolent in my dealings with people, I genuinely like most people and I try not to say an ill word unless they tread on me. On the other hand, it seems to me like your friend is bitter, cynical and not all to happy with himself. If most people regard him as a cold hearted bastard, chances are he's acting like one. While I do value honesty I wonder what people gain by acting so called "brutally honest"? It seems more like trying to put people down with some sort of excuse about "just being honest", and perhaps compensating for a low self-worth. Of course this only based on my interpretation of what you wrote about your friend, so I could be mistaken about him. However this is the tendency I see with most people who are like that, and I don't see why anyone who feel genuinely good about himself would want to act in that way.

I also don't buy that most people suck. Most people are a mix of good and bad, which means that when you deal with them you have to choose what you want to focus on. Focusing on the bad things is easy, you never have to get disappointed, and you don't have to bother too much with other people since they are idiots anyway. Seeing the good in people is more difficult; seeing something of value you tend to invest in it, which sometimes will leave you disappointed, even hurt, and simply take a bigger risk because you tend to close the distance between you and them. We all know people are not perfect but if we try and see the best in them(and ourselves), and invest in that, in the end that is also what we will get back.

However this attitude cannot, and should not, be applied towards everyone. Some people are just malicious, destructive and generally evil, and that's unforgiveable. So when I talk about showing my "wonderfull self"(it sounds more pretentious than it's meant) i'm talking about a benevolent, loving and caring attitude towards people with whom i'd like to share a positive... um, "sense of life"(if that makes sense...). But of course I am discriminating, this is just about a general attitude - i'm not going for some hippie crap like handing out free hugs to random strangers.

Finally, in regards to "acting withouth boundaries to percieved social limits". Well... I have always been an expert of saying the wrong things and making myself misunderstood, so i'm kind of allright with people laughing - that doesent bother me too much. But when it comes to talking more freely and openly, people actually tend to respect that. Yes, they might think you're a bit weird and odd but when dealing with most adults they often just accept it - some people even find it a bit refreshing, I think. However, I guess it also depends more specifically on the way you act - some people confuse acting freely with being outrageous, which is just irrational.

Anyway, I hope I have shed some light over my thinking here. I also hope i'm not too confusing, I find it very difficult to put theese ideas into words. :)

Edited by Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's a very good question. I would not say that anything is stoping me, because I have made a lot of progress, but there are some things in my way.

One thing, I guess, is that I tend to "overthink" stuff. I just start to ponder; "should I say this or that, what if maybe..." and so on. In those cases the moment is probably gone before I reach a descision, or I have just built up too much anxiety.

The sollution is of course to just f-ing say it. But on the other hand, speaking withouth thinking can sort of go wrong... and I must be the king of screw ups(especially those times I talk to myself, it seems...). That means theres always something to get misunderstood or misinterpreted, and somtimes that really makes me feel frustrated and unsure. It should perhaps be noted that I mostly socialize with people that I like and respect, so it seems important to me that they atleast can make a just and truthfull judgement of me.

Another thing is that I could for example know how to initiate a conversation, but find it difficult to keep it going or even lead it where I want. This often keeps me from seeking contact with new people, not in that i'm afraid to approach them, I just have no idea where it would be going.

What I do now is just try not to worry about anything, relax and whatever happens happens... but I don't think that's going to work all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now regarding your friend... I am the opposite to him. I am much more benevolent in my dealings with people, I genuinely like most people and I try not to say an ill word unless they tread on me. On the other hand, it seems to me like your friend is bitter, cynical and not all to happy with himself.

Wrong. In fact people often ask him how come he is never sad, and always happy. He is open because he loves virtues so much, that he cannot stand the ugliness expressed by some people. Most people see ugliness and they shut up about it, not to hurt the feelings of the other person. The fear of hurting is stronger than expressing the truth. That is altruism, and the vice of the virtue of justice. You want a Roark in real life? This person is it.

If most people regard him as a cold hearted bastard, chances are he's acting like one. While I do value honesty I wonder what people gain by acting so called "brutally honest"?

For some, putting down people is used to raise their self esteem. But those people are not "brutally honest". Maybe brutal only. I do not appreciate "honesty" in it's extreme being presented as a vice. It is against the Objectivist morality.

If honesty is a virtue, then too much of it can never turn into a vice. Either a person embraces this principle, or he attempts to break it and ends up breaking his soul.

It seems more like trying to put people down with some sort of excuse about "just being honest", and perhaps compensating for a low self-worth.

Altruism, would be someone who represses their own self in order not to hurt other people's feelings by expressing their true opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. In fact people often ask him how come he is never sad, and always happy. He is open because he loves virtues so much, that he cannot stand the ugliness expressed by some people. Most people see ugliness and they shut up about it, not to hurt the feelings of the other person. The fear of hurting is stronger than expressing the truth. That is altruism, and the vice of the virtue of justice. You want a Roark in real life? This person is it.

Allright, I was only making some assumptions and of course I don't know your friend. What I don't understand though is how your friend comes off as a cold blooded bastard?

For some, putting down people is used to raise their self esteem. But those people are not "brutally honest". Maybe brutal only. I do not appreciate "honesty" in it's extreme being presented as a vice. It is against the Objectivist morality.

If honesty is a virtue, then too much of it can never turn into a vice. Either a person embraces this principle, or he attempts to break it and ends up breaking his soul.

Maybe it's just brutality. I guess what it's reffering to is an honest opninion intentionally expressed in a very offensive manner. That is about more than just being honest, and as you say honesty in itself can never be a bad thing.

Altruism, would be someone who represses their own self in order not to hurt other people's feelings by expressing their true opinion.

Agreed. This is interesting however... is it possible to not expres ones true opninion(i'm not talking about lying) without repressesing ones self?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Let me first start by saying that what i'm after here is no easy to explain. I will probably have to clarify it a bit later, but for now i'll try to make it brief.

As the topic implies i'm looking for help in becoming more open and extroverted as a person.

If you want my view of extraversion and introversion, and you do, then it's that introversion is "inside doing", and extraversion is "outside doing". They are functions, not predispositions. There is a philosophical and cultural reason why men seem to get chronically attached to one method or the other, and seem to find that being more of one means being less than the other. It's a very prevelent perception, and it is to do with false dichotomies (that's your hint) and upside-down standards (that's another hint) but it's far too large a subject to write more than 1% on in this context, and besides, I don't know what i'm talking about. So here's the 1%.

Extraversion is not an advancement over introversion, nor in competition with it. It, along with introversion, are methods, and a man with integrity uses both. Now you just have to find a man with integrity so that you'll know the example. If you want to become more of an extrovert, try to also become more of an introvert at the same time. If you neglect being an extravert while being an introvert, your introspective self will suffer and feel less real; you will become less contingent, more floating. Even if you act in reality on a daily basis, it's your attitude that counts, and it will affect you. The sense of realness that the real world possesses, will mirror itself in your minds concepts, and your concepts in turn will bring you closer to reality. Without tending to both sides, you will either feel that your thoughts aren't real, or that the world isn't.

The whole idea of introvert versus extravert is due to a false dichotomy between being yourself and being "open", as you dub it (which is an offshot of more fundamental splits). In other words, to have integrity and honour your ideas, is to shrink from a world you won't be permitted to live in. Or you can stop saying what you think and function in the world. This is the symptom of the genius who has every right to have more self-esteem than anyone else, but actually has the opposite. This man actually spends more time thinking about people than the people whom he resents for doing the same, and feels that they only "make him do it because they're what the world is".

Let me tell you, 1 leader, 1, lonesome human being, can make the world a different place on a massive scale, for good or evil, and a trillion followers will not affect a damn. It's being frightened of the role they're born to fill that's their problem. They don't have to be history-changers; there are different degrees of genius. But they feel presumptuous for who they helplessly are. And I say, go ahead, presume to be what you are. Who will stop you?

Even if there is only 0.01% of the world's population who are worth surrounding yourself with, that's 60 million people, and with the communication means we have today it won't be hard to have a HUGE circle of friends of people whom you ONLY admire and don't have to feel bad about giving an honest opinion to. Or let's go mad, 0.001%. That's still a huge six million people. How many of them do you need? A hundred? And do you need to think of the other 5, 904, 000, 000 people or sense their existence as important? Still, with those percentiles, there's a 99.9% or 99.999% chance that the parents who raised you, your teachers, etc. were not in that category. Thinking like this will give you what I'll colloquially call "perspective". As an adult, you have a choice, that you didn't have as a child, to get the exact "world" that you want.

I happen to think that men who are able to seek quality are the ones who get quantity. Being selective and eliminating what you don't want, will get you what you want. Regardless of the size of the elimination. Don't settle, ever. There's no reason and no excuse and if you think there is, your view of reality at the least, and your view of yourself at the most, is distorted.

More on the false perception of intro-extra-version. Some people have adaptability, because they're of lower intelligence and genuinely don't see corrupt ideas that are second-nature for the genius to see. They have no trouble being their extraverted self, because they don't perceive "threatening ideas" in others, and they will hold those "threatening ideas" themselves, blindly, and sometimes even virtuously, with no self-checking. The dumber someone is, the greater their "tolerance for contradictions". It's not really a tolerance, but mental short-sightedness. See it for what it is. You can tell when someone is doing something on purpose, and when they rather don't get it, and if they don't get it you'll be able to utter something that is more congruent with who they are and strikes them on the forehead like a bell. Half of speaking well is minding who you're speaking to, so that you can talk to them, and not just at them.

I want to make a point, here, though. Every man, of every intelligence, has ideas of his own, first-born. He just doesn't respect his first-born thoughts as much if he is of less intelligence, and so defaults to relying on others who seem oh-so-much-more-like-they-know-what-they're-doing. This is the mistake. Even if your thoughts are modest or small, they can be built on, and they are the ONLY THING THAT COUNTS. You can always get a life that most people would envy, whoever you are.

It may seem unfair to the bright but repressed man that extraversion (usually) comes naturally to dumb people. The fact of the matter is that the intelligent man can be just as "extraverted", but he has to earn it. Everyone does, but it doesn't take as long for some; it's easy to be bolstered by the world when it doesn't seem to extend its thinking range too above or too below your own. If you're not one of those people, then swallow the fact that you've got work ahead of you.

A really intelligent man- and I'm talking about a genius among geniuses, here - may find it very hard not to absolutely hate and distrust his fellow men. He has a chance to become a neurotic self-checker. That's until he learns to accept that they're not what he is and they're not his equal (he views himself as normal) and are not just being dumb on purpose, and suddenly finds it unnecessary to seek their validation anymore, and generate his own ideas, Ayn Rand-style. He becomes an extravert (Ayn Rand had all the symptoms of both categories), but not by adapting.

I think another reason some introverted men are not extroverted, the reason they hide, is because some of their ideas genuinely are offensive, petty, and malevolent, and dearly believed, and independently formed, and belligerent, and deep, and wrong, and not of who they'd want to be if they had a choice (which they do), and they are self-righteous (privately) in holding onto to these ideas and feel that they'd be erasing themselves out of existence to question them. This is a worldview that is very false and self-damaging but keeps being "reaffirmed" with their confirmation bias. That's more than I want to go into, here, and it only applies to a very small number of men (I was one of them).

Extraversion doesn't mean "ability to make friends without standards or reason". You gain it by being comfortable with yourself and your relationship to the world: WHOEVER YOU ARE. The rationale, "He's stupid, how can he permit himself to act so freely like that? Evil is winning!" is just not how it works. The fact is, like it or not, that he has found away to relate to the world, knows his place, likes his place, and it is pretty much handed to him on a platter. It doesn't matter how offensively big or small of a brain you have, or if you have a nose that can severe people's heads. You can be extraverted, but it is YOUR extraversion, and you won't get it by looking at other people's.

Once you actualise your potential, you can go and teach those below you how to be, because they won't figure it out on their own.

Remember when Ayn Rand wrote in The Fountainhead that Wynand was "Not born to be a second-hander"? The implication of this statement is that some people are born to be second-handers. That's not the damning, free-will-denying notion that it may seem. It just means that without someone like Ayn Rand to come along and straighten them out, they won't have the mind to become the master of what they are doing. It means that consciousness has limits and treading the domain of philosophical abstractions is next to impossible for a great many people without someone to guide them through the steps. They don't have the power to influence what has already influenced them. You have to be a leader yourself, and there is no such thing as a leader who doesn't lead by example.

This is why Ayn Rand said that Kant was so evil, and that Robert Stadler had the most guilt. Intelligence has the mind to know better.

Now people have less of an excuse, and more guilt, today, because Ayn Rand finally existed and her writing is available. Before her ideas were around, there was more of a reason to be excused. But still, some can be. Ayn Rand was the creator, not a middle-man. To approximately adopt another quotation from Rand, there is the great man, and then the man perhaps greater who is able to see greatness and say so. There are not enough men who are seeing greatness and/or are saying so, today, so the one's who ought to be middle-men are guilty, the one's who perhaps would like and need a message translated through middle-men, not so guilty.

Some lack the seeing it but not the saying so (cultists, mob-mentality), some lack the saying so but not the seeing it (cowards, introverts), and some do both, and others neither (evaders, fools, people you probably don't want to know). These are useful categories to detect.

What i'm referring to, however, is not just about basic social skills - that's pretty simple. I'm talking more about being completely free and open towards others. This could for example mean being better at initiating contact with others(especially women, I guess), being clear, honest and straightforward when showing both thoughts and feelings... and, perhaps above all, speaking and acting in the way you want just because you want to - because it gives you pleasure just being the way you are without boundaries and percieved social limits.

Or to put it more simply; how can I become better at showing others my lovely wonderfull self? ;)

Hmm, that's about as appealing as waving your willy in my face. No, wait. Don't. Stop!

The self-efacing wink there has to go. No man on earth, regardless of potential ability, has a right to wink about himself like that.

Seriously though,

Yeah. Seriously. See? Were you unserious when you said you had a lovely, wonderful self? Is that chucklesome? Well, I did laugh a bit.

Allright, I was only making some assumptions and of course I don't know your friend. What I don't understand though is how your friend comes off as a cold blooded bastard?

I, for one, would love to meet ifat's boyfriend, and get some of the cold-blooded treatment. I am sure that I'll be hearing nothing but praise as a result of his brutal honesty. A honest man who is also a right man, is a "mirror". Only vampires hate mirrors. Virtuous men love mirrors. You know that you can only see your appearance by looking in a mirror, right? Well, that or a webcam.

And when you look in one of those bendy mirrors and you look distorted, you know that it is the mirror and not your body structure that's awry, right.

You do, right? Well I hope so.

Then go figure.

When someone says that you're "too honest", they are not speaking of your fortitude. Oh, no. They said HONEST. Honesty means being true to reality. They resent your being true, your BEING RIGHT.

An "honest man" doesn't turn into a crusader for finding fault in people, and don't let anyone get away with suggesting it. He doesn't do it, because he has better things to do (and that's a good reason), not because he can't see something wrong and not because he's afraid to state what he says. Remember how Keating would sometimes freak out around Roark without Roark saying anything at all to him? Sometimes a simple gesture or ignoring someone is as much an offense to them as stating what they think, and they might have the gall, if they're stupid (because body language can never lie) to complain about it as if you had actually uttered something. Sometimes they'll take the offense from your just pursuing your values and minding your own business. They view it as an affront. These are all just different degrees of the same thing. If you think one is bad, then why not the whole?

You know what I notice about good and strong men? It's that they hold the power, at least in the moment, to do a great deal to you. They can compel you to do things you wouldn't normally do, and they can crush your short-term self-confidence with a single remark. Once you've established that they're above you, smarter than you, more right than you, and seamlessly act as if they know it and can prove it in your own mind if challenged, and once you've accepted that status in your own mind, they might be able to do that to you. And it might be good for you, if you try and learn something from it if it happens, learn why and how he did it. Getting angry at a man saying what he thinks, true or false, is as futile and pointless as getting angry at a post that you've walked into (unless it has a face on it). The kind of men who kick objects when they're in a temper are that sort of out-of-control human being.

I think, though, that you can make yourself more pallatable in your strength to those who can't handle it, by putting a humorous spin on it; saying something arrogant in the first place someone would expect you to say the opposite, and let them wonder whether you're for real or not and like you all the same. What people dislike is someone who doesn't translate their potential greatness into actual greatness. That's a disgusting sight. Although I still want to help them. I think that humour is *the* means for a smart man to inoffensively show that he's smart. Humour is also the way to communicate assumption of someone elses context and premises. It's doing something with what you say, so that you're actually demonstrating by doing rather than by saying, AND saying something, because the something said has something "done to it". Right? There are two fundamental categories of humour (write this down), there's lying (sarcastic humour) and telling the truth (unintentional humour). Actually, it's all lying. I mean telling the truth.

--

Anyway, please don't think that my above post was any good. It wasn't. It may be helpful, but it's not good, not for me. I rushed it actually. So no compliments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I was only making some assumptions and of course I don't know your friend. What I don't understand though is how your friend comes off as a cold blooded bastard?

Before I answer, I have something to add. Upon second reading: the reason why most people would not say the truth to someone if it will offend them is because they do not want to remain friendless, and people do not tend to hang around someone who says bad stuff to their face. Another reason is that they are primarily interested with the impression they make on others, according to the well-known formula: popularity = you're hot = self esteem.

So saying they would say nothing for the fear of hurting is cutting a lot of slack in many cases.

Now to answer your question: First of all, he doesn't "come off" as anything. A better way to put it is that this is the opinion most people have of him. To better people, he "comes off" as something completely different. So he does not "come off" as a cold-blooded-bastard, as an absolute. A better question would be why do some people call him that?

Cold Blooded- because he does not help them fake the reality which would spare their feelings. It is much easier to cancel someone's words by saying they are not human, cold, and emotionless than to think of what they actually say.

Bastard - because he refuses to help them fake the reality which would spare their feelings. In other words, he's a bastard for pursuing justice and being selfish.

is it possible to not express ones true opninion (I'm not talking about lying) without repressing ones self?

Your question requires more context. The default for a person is not constant verbal expression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. In fact people often ask him how come he is never sad, and always happy. He is open because he loves virtues so much, that he cannot stand the ugliness expressed by some people. Most people see ugliness and they shut up about it, not to hurt the feelings of the other person. The fear of hurting is stronger than expressing the truth. That is altruism, and the vice of the virtue of justice. You want a Roark in real life? This person is it.

Alright, I was only making some assumptions and of course I don't know your friend. What I don't understand though is how your friend comes off as a cold blooded bastard?

Before I answer, I have something to add. Upon second reading: the reason why most people would not say the truth to someone if it will offend them is because they do not want to remain friendless, and people do not tend to hang around someone who says bad stuff to their face. Another reason is that they are primarily interested with the impression they make on others, according to the well-known formula: popularity = you're hot = self esteem.

So saying they would say nothing for the fear of hurting is cutting a lot of slack in many cases.

Yes, and an other thing to add is that this fear of becoming friendless is completely irrational. If you are not honest you will not find any real friends in the first place, and people of higher virtue will turn you down because they will not trust you. So the Peter Keatings of this world will only find loneliness, and the more "sucessfull" they are the worse it will get.

Now to answer your question: First of all, he doesn't "come off" as anything. A better way to put it is that this is the opinion most people have of him. To better people, he "comes off" as something completely different. So he does not "come off" as a cold-blooded-bastard, as an absolute. A better question would be why do some people call him that?

Cold Blooded- because he does not help them fake the reality which would spare their feelings. It is much easier to cancel someone's words by saying they are not human, cold, and emotionless than to think of what they actually say.

Bastard - because he refuses to help them fake the reality which would spare their feelings. In other words, he's a bastard for pursuing justice and being selfish.

Okay, I think I understand you better now. And just to make it clear, I think your friend is acting right here. I might also have been thinking of a whole different kind of people than your friend.

I must say though that I feel a bit confused as to how this relates to your first post... Have I provided a good answer to the questions you raised there or have I missed something? Sorry I got a bit off track... :)

Your question requires more context. The default for a person is not constant verbal expression.

I think we are on the same page here, but I had to check so that you were not talking about expressing ones opninion even in the most trivial situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say though that I feel a bit confused as to how this relates to your first post... Have I provided a good answer to the questions you raised there or have I missed something? Sorry I got a bit off track... :)

Well I still don't see how being honest and being open go hand in hand. As I understand it, being open means sharing your inner world with people. Being honest means to say your true opinion.

Just because someone is honest doesn't mean that somehow a "group hug" will follow, where people fall in love with his wonderful self.

Since seeking honesty was presented side by side with being more open and sharing your self, I assumed that all of those things were seen as some package deal. My point was that they are not a package deal. So my questions were whether or not you view them as a package deal (which were not answered). However, I presented them more as rhetorical questions to allow me to express my own view. My interest in this topic is general, not specific to your (Alfa's) psychology.

So do not mind my own intention when deciding what to do with those questions. But thanks for asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is open because he loves virtues so much, that he cannot stand the ugliness expressed by some people. Most people see ugliness and they shut up about it, not to hurt the feelings of the other person. The fear of hurting is stronger than expressing the truth. That is altruism, and the vice of the virtue of justice. You want a Roark in real life? This person is it.

Roark didn't go around morally lecturing everyone, that is actually rather 2nd handed. If people asked, he expressed his opinion, without reservation, to them, but he did not offer it to anyone every time he witnessed some ugliness (damn if you really did that you'd never make it more than a few steps) To whom does your friend do this to? Just to other friends, to friends of friends? To strangers at bus stops? To servers at resteraunts? In what contexts does he offer his constructive criticisms? Seems like it would be pretty easy to go from standing up for the virtues of a good life, and preaching like an ass to everyone you see. Feeling like you need to go around and 'save' everyone by pointing out their faults is also altruistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I still don't see how being honest and being open go hand in hand. As I understand it, being open means sharing your inner world with people. Being honest means to say your true opinion.

Just because someone is honest doesn't mean that somehow a "group hug" will follow, where people fall in love with his wonderful self.

Since seeking honesty was presented side by side with being more open and sharing your self, I assumed that all of those things were seen as some package deal. My point was that they are not a package deal. So my questions were whether or not you view them as a package deal (which were not answered). However, I presented them more as rhetorical questions to allow me to express my own view. My interest in this topic is general, not specific to your (Alfa's) psychology.

So do not mind my own intention when deciding what to do with those questions. But thanks for asking.

I'm reffering to open in regards to ones nature, and to do that one has to be honest about himself. A dishonest person could only appear open. They might seem sincere but in reality they are only hiding behind their words. Somone with an honest self-image. and who likes himself, has no reason to hide anything(however not suggesting there's necessarily a reason to show everything either). I believe only such a man could be genuinely open with who he is.

Now the "group hugs" and stuff would only be in my particular case. If I would be dealing with other kinds of people they might even hate me. That is sort of the point of being more open - it helps you connect with the right kind of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roark didn't go around morally lecturing everyone, that is actually rather 2nd handed. If people asked, he expressed his opinion, without reservation, to them, but he did not offer it to anyone every time he witnessed some ugliness (damn if you really did that you'd never make it more than a few steps)

if anything Roark erred on the side of not saying enough. He would be in a conversation and would give a one word answer to some preposterous statement--without elaboration. A lot. I read Fountainhead after Atlas Shrugged and sometimes I wanted to bang my head against a wall since he was *so* uncommunicative, it came across as bull-headed stupid-stubborn sometimes, even though I *knew* from my previous readings of Ayn Rand what was really going through his mind. He was in the perfect situation to explain what he meant and didn't. I know some of the time he was dealing with the "problem of the Dean" and didn't really know the answer, but not always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roark didn't go around morally lecturing everyone, that is actually rather 2nd handed. If people asked, he expressed his opinion, without reservation, to them, but he did not offer it to anyone every time he witnessed some ugliness (damn if you really did that you'd never make it more than a few steps) To whom does your friend do this to? Just to other friends, to friends of friends? To strangers at bus stops? To servers at resteraunts? In what contexts does he offer his constructive criticisms? Seems like it would be pretty easy to go from standing up for the virtues of a good life, and preaching like an ass to everyone you see. Feeling like you need to go around and 'save' everyone by pointing out their faults is also altruistic.

He would say what he says at the context of a normal conversation. Either one on one, or a conversation of a few people.

Your idea of a preacher is completely off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I suggest reading the book "The Introvert Advantage." It might help shed some light on all the effects of your introversion you may not realize are there, and thus help with your depression. The author has a web site as well:

http://www.theintrovertadvantage.com/being.html

In objectivist terms: if you are being true to yourself and others and not trying to be someone or something you are not, your self esteem will rise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the tip, I will definitely check it out! :P

Since I last wrote here I have made the decision that no matter how hard it is, if there's something I would like to say, I will relentlessly push myself to say it. And I have done so quite a few times now. It feels good actually, although people around me probably think i'm weird. Maybe i'm too open? I don't know, but i'm at least perfectly straight and honest - no matter what.

Anyway, this all makes me think about my current situation. It's interesting that you mentioned my depression. I havent thought of myself as being depressed, not until just recently. I have basically two related problems, and my situation is kind of like this:

I have job that I really like. Or rather, I have an OK job with people I really love working with. Unfortunately my employment will most likely end in a few months because i'm only there as an extra help, and they probably can't afford to keep me there - even if they want to. So anyway... yesterday I spent most of the day teaching the job to someone who's probably going to be my replacement(unlike me, they can pretty much hire her for free, so.... pretty hard to compete with that). A pretty tough situation, but I wouldnt want anyone else teaching her my job. However, when I get home after work I realize I have never felt so utterly worthless in my entire life. Hell, i'm the kind of person who loves to work and feel productive, I would like more work and now it's like i'm being replaced by a better model.... fuck!

I only mention this because I want you to better understand my state of mind right now. As far as the job itself is concerned, well... if they wont let me work to my potential, I might as well quit right now. Only thing keeping me are a few relationships I like to pursue, so that when I leave that place I can at least keep a few new friends.

My biggest problem regarding this is that I havent been myself for a long time now. I think it's both stress related and due to some health issues(I will get some test results next week). Either way, I can goo between being my normal, driven, positive and confident self, to completely lack self-esteem and "mental drive". And aside from being a complete nightmare, it makes it so much more difficult to get close to and bond with other people. Imagine one moment you're having a good time with people you consider friends, and the next moment you sit there doubting yourself and the people around you. Being aware of it only makes you realize you are not acting rational, but you still have no idea what actually is rational.

I have actually told everyone involved that i'm pretty unstable at the moment, so I guess that's not a problem. But because of my weird mental state right now, I have no clue where I have other people. This is due to my almost complete lack of rational judgement in these matters. I guess normally I wouldnt care too much, but now i'm just confused... I'm thinking how open one should be in these matters. However, even though i'm consfused I know I have good reasons for liking these people, so i'm thinking of just being completely open and tell them somthing like... I like them and want to try and make friends outside of work. Sort of. I don't know, I havent made new friends in a hell of a long time, making this even more difficult. Normally I would have a sense of where I stand with other people, but because of how messed up my mind is right now I can't tell if I would just be opening myself to get hurt. On the other hand... I guess the worst thing would be not trying at all.

Edited by Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told to treat people I meet like a client. That means listening to them and giving them undivided attention. That goes for family, friends and strangers. People love it when they have quality face time with you. That's half the battle because you still need to execute and engage people. The more often you do it, the better you get.

I am the definition of introverted, yet amazingly I find it easier and easier to open up with others in business settings. I was very anxious about approaching individuals at my clients so I asked my manager for more opportunity to do it. After a few months I'm having conversations with the director of finance about his children, the stock market, cars, etc. It's amazing that (almost) everyone loves to talk about pretty much anything

The next part is social settings for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...