Discussion To All Ladies Who Are Attracted to Males, I Have a Simple Question For You:

[Dr Iron Arc]

Before I start I should say I really hope to keep this thread civil please. I know that may be too much to ask in any discussion like this but I really just want to know. Sorry to all you other males especially my fellow incels but I simply don't care about any of your input in this thread because I just don't think it could be helpful in any way. I wanna hear it from the women themselves.

I'm asking this because I just want to know which way I should prefer to avoid being. I know it's impossible for me to not be one or the other because of how pathetic and stupid I am so I just want to know which type of flaw is the more attractive of two evils so that I can decide which one to lean into in order to cast a wider net and finally do something about my sick disgusting unanswered urges for love and intimacy.

I should note that I want genuine answers and I really don't mean this thread as a sort of "gotcha" for women's answers. I wish for this to be a safe space to answer honestly and I promise not to judge either way. My curiosity for this topic comes from a real sense of cluelessness on my part and I have no intention of spreading malice or hatred.

And yeah I know both qualities can be borne out of insecurity, narcissism, and other horrible qualities but since I can't very well delete these qualities from myself I have no choice but to figure out which path to walk down if I am to have any success.

Anyways, I hope this thread doesn't get shut down. Like I said, I won't judge either way you answer because I can see the pros and cons of both I just can't decide which one I'd rather be.

I understand if this thread in itself is a bad idea and I'll take full responsibility for any negative consequences that happen as a result of unleashing this stupid poll of mine.

 

[S like suicide]

I would say probably a total lack of any confidence...i think this would make less attractive a person no matter the gender...just in general but this is my opinion.
But also the other option is not better...so...
But between the two...

 

[Forever Sleep]

I actually hate this about myself but, I've mainly tended to go for confident guys. Even arrogant men. Maybe importantly though, I may not be stupid enough to have dated them- even if I'd had the chance. I think common sense was enough for me to realise it would have annoyed me about them- in the end.

A friend used to say I went for people with 'star quality'. Really though- utterly stupid of me because, I'm not like that at all. I'm not attractive to people like that. Plus, I actually hate excessive self love and self importance in anyone.

I'm sure there's a balance though. I'm also not entirely sure we can or if it's good to try and pretend to be what we're not. How can you be happy if you're pretending to be someone else? How can you sustain it?

I suppose the difficulty with a lack of confidence is- we may not accept compliments people give us but we may still be very needy of them. That's bound to be exhausting. To keep having to reassure someone who won't entirely trust what we're saying anyway.

Personally speaking, the notorious incel vibe is the unattractive one because it often seems to border on resentment. Women hate me, it's their fault, they should love me. They have it the easiest. They should pitty me/ comfort me/ sleep with me- even if I've just insulted them. You never come across like that though- so- I don't think you need worry about that one.

In terms of what I am limited to- in perceiving your character via this site, I think you should be atttractive to women. You have a sense of humour. You're incredibly self aware. To the point where you claim to be this terrible person sometimes. I think you would be so intent on not being terrible that, you would be nice. Plus, you still seem to have some friends- from what you've mentioned so- some people obviously do like you. Plus, some women actually find shyness kind of cute. It can be more refreshing than guys who just assume they are God's gift. Some women see it as a challenge too. Lol. The whole: 'Women don't understand me.' I hope you do find someone because I get the sense you do have a lot to offer.

 

[sammiechzxv]

I wouldn't blame someone for not being confident, I don't think that's always controllable. Arrogance is just unlikeable in any situation whether it's a partner, friend, coworker, anything...

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I've never really found confidence levels to factor in much when it comes to my attraction to men.

 

[Jarni]

there's also what a man wants to show to others and what he really is... overconfidence may be there only to hide the lack of confidence... there's lots of this.... usually you have to deal with this duality....

 

[ninonino1]

The first one. Really extremely unearned over confidence is so pathetic. It's a bit like people who try to be funny but can't do it. Better to steer away from the jokes altogether even if it means being "dull".

 

[Aergia]

Easily the first. It was essentially the thing that turned me off the (admittedly very few) times I was into a man. Though I wouldn't have cited overconfidence as inducing the ick itself so much as specific ways in which it manifested—general complacence, an aversion to critically examining themselves/their beliefs, an absence of intellectual humility (and so intellectual curiosity). That kind of stuff makes it hard to connect with someone on a deeper level. Even in a platonic sense.

Generally speaking it is a lot easier to sympathise with a lack of confidence. It also seems to me that it would be a lot easier to help someone improve upon it. Someone who lacks confidence is more likely to accept they have a problem than someone who is overconfident.

With all that said, I'm not sure how representative SS women are. I would guess we'd be more sympathetic to a lack of confidence than the average woman.

It might be contentious to say so but it's worth considering that the reason PUAs and redpilled dudes are able to succeed on the dating scene is because their ideas and strategies, actually, y'know, work. Just maybe not on the kind of women you encounter online in abstract discussions about intersexual dynamics. I worry some people might interpret this as internalised misogyny on my part but I'm not saying women who find overconfidence attractive are "wrong". There's no accounting for taste. But certain environments probably select for certain tastes.

So yeah, TLDR, while I personally think overconfidence is far less attractive and would expect SS to agree, I don't know if that can be extrapolated to women in general. Not that I'm suggesting you listen to the redpill guys either. It's cliched but you should just do what comes naturally. It's worth considering whether a woman who thinks overconfidence is attractive is the kind of woman you'd want to date.

 

[Shroomsonmyhead]

Uh oh. This again.

With all due respect to my fellow SS members, I don't think that any of the responses that OP is getting are actually going to be particularly useful to him, because all of the prior posters in this thread are actually answering two completely different, completely unrelated questions.

(I know that sounds like bullshit, but I can actually prove it.)

The reason that conversations like these are so seemingly inconsistent or difficult to parse is because there are actually two different commonly-used definitions of the term "social confidence"-

Unfortunately, those two definitions are polar opposites, even though they are broadly applicable to the exact same situations.

Here is a breakdown of what I mean:

The first definition is simply a shortened version of "self-assurance," I.E. "a feeling of self-assurance arising from one's appreciation of one's own abilities or qualities."

The second is a complex blanket term that actually refers to a long list of distinct, individual social qualities that broadly fall under the "social confidence" umbrella.

But since we need to establish a functioning definition of both, here is a general overview of some of those qualities:

• Gives compliments freely and easily

• Can freely laugh at themselves

• Is willing to try new things and take risks (as they are unafraid of the possibility of failure)

• Is open minded (as they are willing to be proven wrong)

• Is unafraid to show their own flaws (as their personal sense of self-worth is unaffected by judgements from others)

Etc.

For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to the first definition as "self assuredness" and the second definition as "self worth."

Now here's the REALLY fascinating part: these two definitions have nothing to do with each other.

We can prove that is the case with a simple two-question thought experiment:

Question one: Can a person have a sense of self-assuredness that is unearned?

Definitely.

As an example, imagine a person who believes they can properly operate a forklift with no prior experience or training whatsoever.

Not only is that person endangering themselves, the self-assurance that they feel is completely unearned. They have absolutely no reason to believe that they are capable of the task at hand, and yet they still engage in it.

This excessive self-assuredness is what we commonly call ARROGANCE.

Right? Now let's swap definitions:

Question two: Can a person have a sense of self-worth that is unearned?

Huh? No. Of course not.

Self worth is BY DEFINITION unearned. That is quite literally the only thing that the term refers to.

If you acquire your positive view of yourself from anything outside of yourself (such as the people around you or your own past social successes), then it ISN'T self worth.

The reason that all of this HAS to be established when discussing this subject is that almost all of the desirable positive traits that people will provide when you ask them to describe a "confident person" are correlated with feelings of self-WORTH, NOT feelings of self-ASSUREDNESS.

Willingness to laugh at yourself? That's Self worth.

Willingness to risk failing a task in public? Self worth.

Willingness to be vulnerable around other people? Self worth.

To put it as simply as possible:

Self WORTH is when you are open and willing to engage in actions that you are likely to fail simply because you do not personally fear the possibility of failure-

Whereas Self ASSUREDNESS is when you engage in actions specifically because you believe you are going to succeed.

These two terms are not just unrelated to one another, they are POLAR OPPOSITES.

And yet BOTH are extremely common active definitions of the word "confidence." If that doesn't make you hate the english language, I don't know what will.

WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT:

Once we understand this common semantic problem, the question that OP posted actually becomes completely nonsensical.

No matter which definition of "confidence" we use, part of OP's question falls apart:

Using the second definition, the first half of OP's question makes no sense, as self-worth is not an 'earnable' trait.

Using the first definition, the second half of OP's question makes no sense, as a total lack of self-assuredness is not an outwardly-visible trait.

Self-assuredness is only outwardly visible when you have too MUCH of it, whereas self-worth is visible both when you have a lot of it AND when you have very little of it.

Whether or not "overconfidence" is even a real trait is entirely dependent on which definition you are using.

Having a sense of self-worth unrelated to your environment, position in life, or the way that others react to you is not something that can be "Earned," nor is it something you can "Have too much" of.

It is a purely binary quality. Either you believe that you and your opinions have value independent of another person's opinions, or you don't.

The reason that having vague conversations like these is so horribly damaging to incels in particular is that an enormous amount of them imagine that the exterior traits in others that they interpret as "social confidence"are traits that confident people ACQUIRED FROM PAST SOCIAL SUCCESSES (or "earned") when in reality the exact opposite is true.

Feeling comfortable being vulnerable around others or publicly laughing at yourself are not passive traits you "earn" from positive reinforcement. They are active traits you CHOOSE to have, regardless of how other people feel about them.

And the ability to make that choice is exactly what people find attractive about individuals with "self confidence."

And that is the core issue here.

This definitional mismatching of the concept of confidence is one of, if not the single most damaging collective semantic misunderstanding in the entirety of the english language. OP isn't at fault for anything here, nor are any of his respondents. Our current psych vocabulary is just complete dogshit.

In fact, this is actually the simplest summary of the concept that I could manage. If anyone wants any additional reading on this subject, I think I still have a folder on my computer somewhere that covers the topic in greater depth. I unfortunately had to be purposefully vague at points, as covering all of this problem in detail is well beyond the scope of SS.

I also feel the need to apologize for the sheer length of my reply, but establishing this common understanding of the concept of confidence is extremely important if you want to make sense of any of the seemingly-contradictory claims people make about it.

Regardless, if you remember the contents of this post, then I am personally very confident (get it?) that any future conversations you have on this subject will suddenly become a lot more straightforward and useful.

Thanks to anyone for reading, and best of luck to OP!

 

[Alpenglow]

Uh oh. This again.

With all due respect to my fellow SS members, I don't think that any of the responses that OP is getting are actually going to be particularly useful to him, because all of the prior posters in this thread are actually answering two completely different, completely unrelated questions.

(I know that sounds like bullshit, but I can actually prove it.)

The reason that conversations like these are so seemingly inconsistent or difficult to parse is because there are actually two different commonly-used definitions of the term "social confidence"-

Unfortunately, those two definitions are polar opposites, even though they are broadly applicable to the exact same situations.

Here is a breakdown of what I mean:

The first definition is simply a shortened version of "self-assurance," I.E. "a feeling of self-assurance arising from one's appreciation of one's own abilities or qualities."

The second is a complex blanket term that actually refers to a long list of distinct, individual social qualities that broadly fall under the "social confidence" umbrella.

But since we need to establish a functioning definition of both, here is a general overview of some of those qualities:

• Gives compliments freely and easily

• Can freely laugh at themselves

• Is willing to try new things and take risks (as they are unafraid of the possibility of failure)

• Is open minded (as they are willing to be proven wrong)

• Is unafraid to show their own flaws (as their personal sense of self-worth is unaffected by judgements from others)

Etc.

For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to the first definition as "self assuredness" and the second definition as "self worth."

Now here's the REALLY fascinating part: these two definitions have nothing to do with each other.

We can prove that is the case with a simple two-question thought experiment:

Question one: Can a person have a sense of self-assuredness that is unearned?

Definitely.

As an example, imagine a person who believes they can properly operate a forklift with no prior experience or training whatsoever.

Not only is that person endangering themselves, the self-assurance that they feel is completely unearned. They have absolutely no reason to believe that they are capable of the task at hand, and yet they still engage in it.

This excessive self-assuredness is what we commonly call ARROGANCE.

Right? Now let's swap definitions:

Question two: Can a person have a sense of self-worth that is unearned?

Huh? No. Of course not.

Self worth is BY DEFINITION unearned. That is quite literally the only thing that the term refers to.

If you acquire your positive view of yourself from anything outside of yourself (such as the people around you or your own past social successes), then it ISN'T self worth.

The reason that all of this HAS to be established when discussing this subject is that almost all of the desirable positive traits that people will provide when you ask them to describe a "confident person" are correlated with feelings of self-WORTH, NOT feelings of self-ASSUREDNESS.

Willingness to laugh at yourself? That's Self worth.

Willingness to risk failing a task in public? Self worth.

Willingness to be vulnerable around other people? Self worth.

To put it as simply as possible:

Self WORTH is when you are open and willing to engage in actions that you are likely to fail simply because you do not personally fear the possibility of failure-

Whereas Self ASSUREDNESS is when you engage in actions specifically because you believe you are going to succeed.

These two terms are not just unrelated to one another, they are POLAR OPPOSITES.

And yet BOTH are extremely common active definitions of the word "confidence." If that doesn't make you hate the english language, I don't know what will.

WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT:

Once we understand this common semantic problem, the question that OP posted actually becomes completely nonsensical.

No matter which definition of "confidence" we use, part of OP's question falls apart:

Using the second definition, the first half of OP's question makes no sense, as self-worth is not an 'earnable' trait.

Using the first definition, the second half of OP's question makes no sense, as a total lack of self-assuredness is not an outwardly-visible trait.

Self-assuredness is only outwardly visible when you have too MUCH of it, whereas self-worth is visible both when you have a lot of it AND when you have very little of it.

Whether or not "overconfidence" is even a real trait is entirely dependent on which definition you are using.

Having a sense of self-worth unrelated to your environment, position in life, or the way that others react to you is not something that can be "Earned," nor is it something you can "Have too much" of.

It is a purely binary quality. Either you believe that you and your opinions have value independent of another person's opinions, or you don't.

The reason that having vague conversations like these is so horribly damaging to incels in particular is that an enormous amount of them imagine that the exterior traits in others that they interpret as "social confidence"are traits that confident people ACQUIRED FROM PAST SOCIAL SUCCESSES (or "earned") when in reality the exact opposite is true.

Feeling comfortable being vulnerable around others or publicly laughing at yourself are not passive traits you "earn" from positive reinforcement. They are active traits you CHOOSE to have, regardless of how other people feel about them.

And the ability to make that choice is exactly what people find attractive about individuals with "self confidence."

And that is the core issue here.

This definitional mismatching of the concept of confidence is one of, if not the single most damaging collective semantic misunderstanding in the entirety of the english language. OP isn't at fault for anything here, nor are any of his respondents. Our current psych vocabulary is just complete dogshit.

In fact, this is actually the simplest summary of the concept that I could manage. If anyone wants any additional reading on this subject, I think I still have a folder on my computer somewhere that covers the topic in greater depth. I unfortunately had to be purposefully vague at points, as covering all of this problem in detail is well beyond the scope of SS.

I also feel the need to apologize for the sheer length of my reply, but establishing this common understanding of the concept of confidence is extremely important if you want to make sense of any of the seemingly-contradictory claims people make about it.

Regardless, if you remember the contents of this post, then I am personally very confident (get it?) that any future conversations you have on this subject will suddenly become a lot more straightforward and useful.

Thanks to anyone for reading, and best of luck to OP!

Cool post I think, but I think confidence is associated with certain behaviours and people reading automatically assume a mix of both definitions to the context. Over a large number of people, you'll get a pretty accurate overview of "confidence". How OP applies this knowledge and interprets "confidence" is another question though

 

[Shroomsonmyhead]

Cool post I think, but I think confidence is associated with certain behaviours and people reading automatically assume a mix of both definitions to the context. Over a large number of people, you'll get a pretty accurate overview of "confidence". How OP applies this knowledge and interprets "confidence" is another question though

Sadly, this is not the case! Establishing shared definitions is a prerequisite to gathering consistent data, even when the responses number in the tens of thousands.

For proof, ask the people who pick the first answer to this question to elaborate on what "unearned confidence" looks like, and I guarantee that the responses you will get will primarily be about ARROGANCE, a trait which is overwhelmingly despised.

Ultimately, asking a group of people a question that gets interpreted in two polar-opposite variations can never "even out" into a generally-useful metric, because half of the audience is answering a question about hats, and the other is answering a question about socks.

The question "Arrogance vs. no confidence" is always going to result in COMPLETELY different responses than "high confidence vs. no confidence."

What's happening here is essentially a semantic version of the "poisoning the well" fallacy that ruins polling data all the time, except in this case its obviously just a weird hiccup of the english language rather than an intentional mislead.

 

[2messdup]

Extreme overconfidence is a huge turnoff to me but that may be because I've been sexually and emotionally abused all my adult life and it's made me feel worthless. Someone with extreme overconfidence is likely to do the same again imo. This would be the same even if it was someone with a lot of self confidence. Someone with low self-confidence could meet me where I am and I would feel safer with them, and I see the attractive features in men who are like that, so attractiveness and giving me a sense of safety and understanding would be the best.

 

[Alpenglow]

Sadly, this is not the case! Establishing shared definitions is a prerequisite to gathering consistent data, even when the responses number in the tens of thousands.

For proof, ask the people who pick the first answer to this question to elaborate on what "unearned confidence" looks like, and I guarantee that the responses you will get will primarily be about ARROGANCE, a trait which is overwhelmingly despised.

Ultimately, asking a group of people a question that gets interpreted in two polar-opposite variations can never "even out" into a generally-useful metric, because half of the audience is answering a question about hats, and the other is answering a question about socks.

The question "Arrogance vs. no confidence" is always going to result in COMPLETELY different responses than "high confidence vs. no confidence."

What's happening here is essentially a semantic version of the "poisoning the well" fallacy that ruins polling data all the time, except in this case its obviously just a weird hiccup of the english language rather than an intentional mislead.

Idk, feels like you'd usually interpret it as "arrogance vs no self-worth" according to your definitions, though I'd argue you could interpret it as "arrogance/ignorance vs shyness/passivity/anxiety" with the latter also including some deference. While obviously I am interpreting here, I don't believe anyone thinks that both instances of confidence refer to the same thing here, I think most of us are referring to traits adjacent to those I described. Again that's my opinion, and I'm pretty sure it's fine for a tiny poll since it doesn't introduce that many problems for OP.

Maybe I'm missing something though, you seem to be referring to some presumed standard for larger polling? I presume academia has figured out someway to standardise qualitative data. What standards are you referring to here?

Some may say you sound pretty confident about your claims. (I'm sorry I had to lol)

 

[LivingDeadTGirl]

Confidence can be sexy or fun. Zero confidence is neither of those. You don't have to say yes to over confidence, but that guy with no confidence can't fuck, guaranteed.

 

[Adûnâi]

For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to the first definition as "self assuredness" and the second definition as "self worth."

Now here's the REALLY fascinating part: these two definitions have nothing to do with each other.

I'm sorry, but could you go more about it? I have tragically zero clue about what you mean, and I wonder if it's because my IQ is too low, or I have some mental block on this matter, or if it's just confusing, or you're making stuff up.

Gives compliments freely and easily

Depends on the looks - a hot guy can afford many compliments, an ugly guy will get scared to hell to raise his voice.

Can freely laugh at themselves
Is willing to try new things and take risks (as they are unafraid of the possibility of failure)

If he has anywhere to fall, he can laugh. If he's on his last legs, he won't laugh.

Is open minded (as they are willing to be proven wrong)

If being proven wrong does not carry a mortal danger of losing his last friend, for example.

Is unafraid to show their own flaws (as their personal sense of self-worth is unaffected by judgements from others)

But pursuing a positive judgement by others is exactly the goal here?

Not only is that person endangering themselves, the self-assurance that they feel is completely unearned. They have absolutely no reason to believe that they are capable of the task at hand, and yet they still engage in it.

Isn't it a predestination thing? Most people just do things as they can, and some get lucky (genetics), others do not. Imagine an ugly guy and a handsome guy doing the same stuff, with the same "qualifications" - one drives his forklift over unsuspecting passers-by, the other gets a ferrari for free. With the same inherent self-assuredness. Because confidence doesn't matter? At least, to the great incel theory.

To the OP - I wonder about the meaningfulness of asking this question here as SaSu ought to act as rather a significant filter, people here are far from the average.

Self WORTH is when you are open and willing to engage in actions that you are likely to fail simply because you do not personally fear the possibility of failure-

Whereas Self ASSUREDNESS is when you engage in actions specifically because you believe you are going to succeed.

These two terms are not just unrelated to one another, they are POLAR OPPOSITES.

I'm legit drawing a blank here. I have no idea what this means, or how it's relevant. They seem rather similar to me? He who has succeeded plenty can afford losing. And vice versa, he who has failed tremendously will rarely expect to win. Is this a word salad?

As to the OP - I'd say, it's quite clear that a person who tries will get a marginally higher chance of success than he who doesn't. So AFABs will "like" him more. Unless he's so ugly that he gets arrested, of course. But that's life.

Wait, now that I'm thinking of it... The question doesn't make sense if it's an ugly person in both cases - then his overconfidence will indeed draw ire towards him because people generally hate with mortal hatred those who get out of the pecking order. So a shy virgin will be invisible, but a confident virgin will get arrested. Something like that? Apologies for engaging in this thread as an AMAB, feel free to disregard^^

 

[yowai]

Second one cuz in a relationship I imagine it would be like walking on eggshells around him because insecure people can be too sensitive or needy and paranoid
Overconfidence is also annoying and stupid but can be cute sometimes lmao
Just being unapologetic about who you are and not taking yourself too seriously is most attractive to me

 

[Shroomsonmyhead]

I'm sorry, but could you go more about it? I have tragically zero clue about what you mean, and I wonder if it's because my IQ is too low, or I have some mental block on this matter, or if it's just confusing, or you're making stuff up.


Depends on the looks - a hot guy can afford many compliments, an ugly guy will get scared to hell to raise his voice.


If he has anywhere to fall, he can laugh. If he's on his last legs, he won't laugh.


If being proven wrong does not carry a mortal danger of losing his last friend, for example.


But pursuing a positive judgement by others is exactly the goal here?


Isn't it a predestination thing? Most people just do things as they can, and some get lucky (genetics), others do not. Imagine an ugly guy and a handsome guy doing the same stuff, with the same "qualifications" - one drives his forklift over unsuspecting passers-by, the other gets a ferrari for free. With the same inherent self-assuredness. Because confidence doesn't matter? At least, to the great incel theory.

To the OP - I wonder about the meaningfulness of asking this question here as SaSu ought to act as rather a significant filter, people here are far from the average.


I'm legit drawing a blank here. I have no idea what this means, or how it's relevant. They seem rather similar to me? He who has succeeded plenty can afford losing. And vice versa, he who has failed tremendously will rarely expect to win. Is this a word salad?

As to the OP - I'd say, it's quite clear that a person who tries will get a marginally higher chance of success than he who doesn't. So AFABs will "like" him more. Unless he's so ugly that he gets arrested, of course. But that's life.

Wait, now that I'm thinking of it... The question doesn't make sense if it's an ugly person in both cases - then his overconfidence will indeed draw ire towards him because people generally hate with mortal hatred those who get out of the pecking order. So a shy virgin will be invisible, but a confident virgin will get arrested. Something like that? Apologies for engaging in this thread as an AMAB, feel free to disregard^^

I definitely hope that you don't consider it rude to say this, but I am genuinely ecstatic that you replied to my post, as everything that you just said actually perfectly illustrates the core issue that I'm trying to touch on-

There is a lot in your message that would be worth further discussion, but I don't have infinite time or willpower so I'm just going to focus on underlining one particular line if that is alright with you:

"Isn't it a predestination thing? Most people just do things as they can, and some get lucky (genetics), others do not."

The reason that prying apart the definitional difference between "self-assuredness" and "self-worth" is so important is because focusing on self-assuredness (trying to forcibly increase one's odds of success) and focusing on self-worth (trying to destroy one's personal aversion to failure) actually lead to OPPOSITE outcomes when it comes to social interaction.

But I know that statement is very confusing when viewed by itself. To demonstrate what I mean, let's take a step back again:

I want to ask you to picture all of the behaviors that you associate with a highly-confident individual, the same ones I underlined before:

I.E, the poking genuine fun at themselves, the willingness to give compliments, the willingness to publicly fail, etc.

The mistake that physically-unattractive or socially-awkward incels make is that they always assume that if THEY engage in the exact same behaviors associated with confidence that attractive people do, that they will get the opposite result.

In other words, they assume (oftentimes rightly) that if THEY give compliments they will be interpreted as creepy, if THEY laugh at themselves they will be interpreted as narcissistic, if THEY make social mistakes then they will be laughed AT instead of with, etc.

So as a result, they specifically choose NOT to engage in those behaviors.

Now here's the interesting part:

People DO judge you negatively for displaying confident behaviors if you are less conventionally attractive. People WILL feel spiteful towards individuals that they personally see as "stepping out of line," especially if they arrogantly see themselves as being socially 'above' those individuals.

There is NOTHING that people hate more than seeing someone whom they view as "beneath them" succeeding at something that is typically considered difficult.

Therefore, the fear that incels have of their newfound confidence backfiring on them is absolutely, 100%, undeniably, OBJECTIVELY justified. The so-called "halo effect" attractive people get is VERY easily demonstrable.

But here's the important bit, which I CANNOT stress enough:

IT DOES NOT MATTER.

IT IS THE FEAR OF MAKING THE WRONG SOCIAL CHOICES THAT CAUSES INCELS TO CHOOSE INACTION OVER ACTION, BUT CHOOSING INACTION IS STILL THE WRONG CHOICE TO MAKE. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, HIGHER MEASURES OF SELF-ESTEEM AND ITS ASSOCIATED BEHAVIORS LEAD TO UNIVERSALLY BETTER SOCIAL OUTCOMES, REGARDLESS OF ALL OTHER FACTORS.

You do NOT have to take my word on this subject, because the quantity of evidence we have for this statement has become utterly monstrous over the past two decades.

High self-worth correlates with better outcomes in work, friendships, dating, physical health, you name it.

Small discrepancies in individual studies are obviously prevalent in any psychological subject that has been investigated to the same extent as self-esteem, but the result of the last decade's worth of meta analyses is consistent.

To put it in the words of one massive peer-reviewed metadata study posted by the APA:

"Although longitudinal data cannot provide definite proof of causality, the available evidence is consistent with a causal interpretation of self-esteem's effect on life outcomes. Indeed, the evidence is sufficiently strong that it is difficult to come up with a non-causal explanation that would plausibly account for the diverse array of findings documenting the predictive validity of self-esteem."

When it comes to psych, that kind of correlation is about as solid as it gets.

To circle back to my original post, THIS is why drawing attention to the concept of "self-worth" vs "self-assuredness" is so important, because narcissism/arrogance and self-worth often have OPPOSITE social results.

APA once more:

"Thus, when evaluating whether self-esteem has benefits, it is important not to confuse narcissism with high self-esteem because the two constructs are conceptually distinct and often have highly divergent (and sometimes opposite) effects on social relationships, mental health, and antisocial behavior."

But with the way the question OP posted is currently framed, he is inevitably going to get responses that point him in the wrong direction… because BOTH directions are wrong.

The ONLY situation in which "a complete lack of confidence" can EVER be framed as a positive trait is if it's being compared to a trait that is EVEN MORE negative. I am 100% positive that all of us already know that.

Incels have low self confidence, so they naturally like to ask questions that frame low self confidence as a potentially-positive trait. That's exactly WHY this question was framed that way in the first place.

Did OP do so consciously or unconsciously? Doesn't matter. All that matters is that the answers he's going to get are going to HARM his chances of improving his social life, because low confidence has ZERO positive social effects.

As such, any curious incel who would genuinely consider changing (or alternatively, refusing to change) their own behavior based on the responses to this post would be fucking themselves over for no reason.

Is having low self-esteem/self-confidence/excessive shyness, etc bad for social outcomes? Yes.

But is it less bad than being full of yourself?

Maybe. Who knows? Based on the responses to this post, it definitely seems like it.

But both are still negative social traits.

This thread is the psychology equivalent of an obese person asking an audience whether or not they should eat a pound of ice cream or an entire pizza for their midnight snack.

Neither. You should do neither.

Bottom line:

To reiterate what I said before, self worth is an ACTIVE trait. ALL of the behaviors you might personally associate with the concept of "high confidence" are behaviors that you yourself can personally CHOOSE to engage in. That statement is undeniably, objectively true.

Luckily, We have plenty of evidence-based methods available that can lower your emotional response to the negative judgements of others, thus making it easier to engage in "confident" prosocial behavior in spite of the always-existent possibility of failure.

A human who suffers no emotional harm from other people's negative judgements is ALWAYS going to be more likely to succeed in social situations than a human who doesn't, because they can repeatedly tank the inevitable losses that come from socialization without diverting away from prosocial behaviors or choosing to defensively self-isolating themselves. It is like playing a video game with infinite hp enabled.

As previously stated, THERE IS NO SOCIAL BEHAVIOR THAT IS ADVANTAGEOUS 100% OF THE TIME. As such, failure is inevitable. For people who aren't as socially experienced as the average person (like incels, for example), those failures are obviously more likely.

Therefore, the ability to fail calmly and painlessly (I.E, self-worth) is even more important for them to gain than it otherwise would be.

One can choose to be a lonely incel with high self confidence, or they can choose to be a lonely incel with low self confidence. It's entirely up to one's own discretion.

But if you want to improve your life, then there IS a correct choice.

 

[Namelesa]

Personally over confidence is going to be much more unattractive to me, not just cus of arrogance but also a lack of similarity between me and them as I have very low confidence in myself and so would want to be with someone to be like me or at least used to experience having low confidence and to be able to understand and empathize with me. However I am probably going to be far from the norm in what I like compared to most people. I would say low confidence is only an issue if it causes things like jealousy or guilt tripping or manipulating your partner.

 

[DefyGravity]

Sorry, too many really long answers...

I think the poll needs a 3rd choice - c) Both.

However, since there wasn't that option, I picked overconfidence. The shy, cute underconfident guy I can work with. But overconfidence, even in a really attractive body, can be a major turn off. They tend to be more interested in themselves as opposed to others.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I definitely hope that you don't consider it rude to say this, but I am genuinely ecstatic that you replied to my post, as everything that you just said actually perfectly illustrates the core issue that I'm trying to touch on-

There is a lot in your message that would be worth further discussion, but I don't have infinite time or willpower so I'm just going to focus on underlining one particular line if that is alright with you:

"Isn't it a predestination thing? Most people just do things as they can, and some get lucky (genetics), others do not."

The reason that prying apart the definitional difference between "self-assuredness" and "self-worth" is so important is because focusing on self-assuredness (trying to forcibly increase one's odds of success) and focusing on self-worth (trying to destroy one's personal aversion to failure) actually lead to OPPOSITE outcomes when it comes to social interaction.

But I know that statement is very confusing when viewed by itself. To demonstrate what I mean, let's take a step back again:

I want to ask you to picture all of the behaviors that you associate with a highly-confident individual, the same ones I underlined before:

I.E, the poking genuine fun at themselves, the willingness to give compliments, the willingness to publicly fail, etc.

The mistake that physically-unattractive or socially-awkward incels make is that they always assume that if THEY engage in the exact same behaviors associated with confidence that attractive people do, that they will get the opposite result.

In other words, they assume (oftentimes rightly) that if THEY give compliments they will be interpreted as creepy, if THEY laugh at themselves they will be interpreted as narcissistic, if THEY make social mistakes then they will be laughed AT instead of with, etc.

So as a result, they specifically choose NOT to engage in those behaviors.

Now here's the interesting part:

People DO judge you negatively for displaying confident behaviors if you are less conventionally attractive. People WILL feel spiteful towards individuals that they personally see as "stepping out of line," especially if they arrogantly see themselves as being socially 'above' those individuals.

There is NOTHING that people hate more than seeing someone whom they view as "beneath them" succeeding at something that is typically considered difficult.

Therefore, the fear that incels have of their newfound confidence backfiring on them is absolutely, 100%, undeniably, OBJECTIVELY justified. The so-called "halo effect" attractive people get is VERY easily demonstrable.

But here's the important bit, which I CANNOT stress enough:

IT DOES NOT MATTER.

IT IS THE FEAR OF MAKING THE WRONG SOCIAL CHOICES THAT CAUSES INCELS TO CHOOSE INACTION OVER ACTION, BUT CHOOSING INACTION IS STILL THE WRONG CHOICE TO MAKE. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, HIGHER MEASURES OF SELF-ESTEEM AND ITS ASSOCIATED BEHAVIORS LEAD TO UNIVERSALLY BETTER SOCIAL OUTCOMES, REGARDLESS OF ALL OTHER FACTORS.

You do NOT have to take my word on this subject, because the quantity of evidence we have for this statement has become utterly monstrous over the past two decades.

High self-worth correlates with better outcomes in work, friendships, dating, physical health, you name it.

Small discrepancies in individual studies are obviously prevalent in any psychological subject that has been investigated to the same extent as self-esteem, but the result of the last decade's worth of meta analyses is consistent.

To put it in the words of one massive peer-reviewed metadata study posted by the APA:

"Although longitudinal data cannot provide definite proof of causality, the available evidence is consistent with a causal interpretation of self-esteem's effect on life outcomes. Indeed, the evidence is sufficiently strong that it is difficult to come up with a non-causal explanation that would plausibly account for the diverse array of findings documenting the predictive validity of self-esteem."

When it comes to psych, that kind of correlation is about as solid as it gets.

To circle back to my original post, THIS is why drawing attention to the concept of "self-worth" vs "self-assuredness" is so important, because narcissism/arrogance and self-worth often have OPPOSITE social results.

APA once more:

"Thus, when evaluating whether self-esteem has benefits, it is important not to confuse narcissism with high self-esteem because the two constructs are conceptually distinct and often have highly divergent (and sometimes opposite) effects on social relationships, mental health, and antisocial behavior."

But with the way the question OP posted is currently framed, he is inevitably going to get responses that point him in the wrong direction… because BOTH directions are wrong.

The ONLY situation in which "a complete lack of confidence" can EVER be framed as a positive trait is if it's being compared to a trait that is EVEN MORE negative. I am 100% positive that all of us already know that.

Incels have low self confidence, so they naturally like to ask questions that frame low self confidence as a potentially-positive trait. That's exactly WHY this question was framed that way in the first place.

Did OP do so consciously or unconsciously? Doesn't matter. All that matters is that the answers he's going to get are going to HARM his chances of improving his social life, because low confidence has ZERO positive social effects.

As such, any curious incel who would genuinely consider changing (or alternatively, refusing to change) their own behavior based on the responses to this post would be fucking themselves over for no reason.

Is having low self-esteem/self-confidence/excessive shyness, etc bad for social outcomes? Yes.

But is it less bad than being full of yourself?

Maybe. Who knows? Based on the responses to this post, it definitely seems like it.

But both are still negative social traits.

This thread is the psychology equivalent of an obese person asking an audience whether or not they should eat a pound of ice cream or an entire pizza for their midnight snack.

Neither. You should do neither.

Bottom line:

To reiterate what I said before, self worth is an ACTIVE trait. ALL of the behaviors you might personally associate with the concept of "high confidence" are behaviors that you yourself can personally CHOOSE to engage in. That statement is undeniably, objectively true.

Luckily, We have plenty of evidence-based methods available that can lower your emotional response to the negative judgements of others, thus making it easier to engage in "confident" prosocial behavior in spite of the always-existent possibility of failure.

A human who suffers no emotional harm from other people's negative judgements is ALWAYS going to be more likely to succeed in social situations than a human who doesn't, because they can repeatedly tank the inevitable losses that come from socialization without diverting away from prosocial behaviors or choosing to defensively self-isolating themselves. It is like playing a video game with infinite hp enabled.

As previously stated, THERE IS NO SOCIAL BEHAVIOR THAT IS ADVANTAGEOUS 100% OF THE TIME. As such, failure is inevitable. For people who aren't as socially experienced as the average person (like incels, for example), those failures are obviously more likely.

Therefore, the ability to fail calmly and painlessly (I.E, self-worth) is even more important for them to gain than it otherwise would be.

One can choose to be a lonely incel with high self confidence, or they can choose to be a lonely incel with low self confidence. It's entirely up to one's own discretion.

But if you want to improve your life, then there IS a correct choice.

I appreciate your long and thoughtful replies, as well as those of everyone who's responded to this thread.

I haven't responded sooner because I'm kind of too stupid to really figure out what you said at first but I think I get it now. You're trying to say this question is doomed because they really aren't the only two choices to be, right?

Problem is because of the aforementioned extreme stupidity and various other negative qualities on my part they're kind of the best I can do.

I get that there can be overconfidence without self worth. My intention was not to set up this question as a rigged way of making some kind of social commentary. The sample size is too small and skewed to really prove anything substantial but I just was really curious and wanted to know which out of these two traits were less attractive since I can only really be one or the other it seems.

Recently I have been trying to go on my own escapades to break through the incel walls but no matter what I do it keeps leading to nothing because I can't commit between being a cocky asshole and riddled with crippling dangerous insecurity. Seems like there's no hope for me to be anything else.

 

[nogods4me]

I definitely hope that you don't consider it rude to say this, but I am genuinely ecstatic that you replied to my post, as everything that you just said actually perfectly illustrates the core issue that I'm trying to touch on-

There is a lot in your message that would be worth further discussion, but I don't have infinite time or willpower so I'm just going to focus on underlining one particular line if that is alright with you:

"Isn't it a predestination thing? Most people just do things as they can, and some get lucky (genetics), others do not."

The reason that prying apart the definitional difference between "self-assuredness" and "self-worth" is so important is because focusing on self-assuredness (trying to forcibly increase one's odds of success) and focusing on self-worth (trying to destroy one's personal aversion to failure) actually lead to OPPOSITE outcomes when it comes to social interaction.

But I know that statement is very confusing when viewed by itself. To demonstrate what I mean, let's take a step back again:

I want to ask you to picture all of the behaviors that you associate with a highly-confident individual, the same ones I underlined before:

I.E, the poking genuine fun at themselves, the willingness to give compliments, the willingness to publicly fail, etc.

The mistake that physically-unattractive or socially-awkward incels make is that they always assume that if THEY engage in the exact same behaviors associated with confidence that attractive people do, that they will get the opposite result.

In other words, they assume (oftentimes rightly) that if THEY give compliments they will be interpreted as creepy, if THEY laugh at themselves they will be interpreted as narcissistic, if THEY make social mistakes then they will be laughed AT instead of with, etc.

So as a result, they specifically choose NOT to engage in those behaviors.

Now here's the interesting part:

People DO judge you negatively for displaying confident behaviors if you are less conventionally attractive. People WILL feel spiteful towards individuals that they personally see as "stepping out of line," especially if they arrogantly see themselves as being socially 'above' those individuals.

There is NOTHING that people hate more than seeing someone whom they view as "beneath them" succeeding at something that is typically considered difficult.

Therefore, the fear that incels have of their newfound confidence backfiring on them is absolutely, 100%, undeniably, OBJECTIVELY justified. The so-called "halo effect" attractive people get is VERY easily demonstrable.

But here's the important bit, which I CANNOT stress enough:

IT DOES NOT MATTER.

IT IS THE FEAR OF MAKING THE WRONG SOCIAL CHOICES THAT CAUSES INCELS TO CHOOSE INACTION OVER ACTION, BUT CHOOSING INACTION IS STILL THE WRONG CHOICE TO MAKE. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, HIGHER MEASURES OF SELF-ESTEEM AND ITS ASSOCIATED BEHAVIORS LEAD TO UNIVERSALLY BETTER SOCIAL OUTCOMES, REGARDLESS OF ALL OTHER FACTORS.

You do NOT have to take my word on this subject, because the quantity of evidence we have for this statement has become utterly monstrous over the past two decades.

High self-worth correlates with better outcomes in work, friendships, dating, physical health, you name it.

Small discrepancies in individual studies are obviously prevalent in any psychological subject that has been investigated to the same extent as self-esteem, but the result of the last decade's worth of meta analyses is consistent.

To put it in the words of one massive peer-reviewed metadata study posted by the APA:

"Although longitudinal data cannot provide definite proof of causality, the available evidence is consistent with a causal interpretation of self-esteem's effect on life outcomes. Indeed, the evidence is sufficiently strong that it is difficult to come up with a non-causal explanation that would plausibly account for the diverse array of findings documenting the predictive validity of self-esteem."

When it comes to psych, that kind of correlation is about as solid as it gets.

To circle back to my original post, THIS is why drawing attention to the concept of "self-worth" vs "self-assuredness" is so important, because narcissism/arrogance and self-worth often have OPPOSITE social results.

APA once more:

"Thus, when evaluating whether self-esteem has benefits, it is important not to confuse narcissism with high self-esteem because the two constructs are conceptually distinct and often have highly divergent (and sometimes opposite) effects on social relationships, mental health, and antisocial behavior."

But with the way the question OP posted is currently framed, he is inevitably going to get responses that point him in the wrong direction… because BOTH directions are wrong.

The ONLY situation in which "a complete lack of confidence" can EVER be framed as a positive trait is if it's being compared to a trait that is EVEN MORE negative. I am 100% positive that all of us already know that.

Incels have low self confidence, so they naturally like to ask questions that frame low self confidence as a potentially-positive trait. That's exactly WHY this question was framed that way in the first place.

Did OP do so consciously or unconsciously? Doesn't matter. All that matters is that the answers he's going to get are going to HARM his chances of improving his social life, because low confidence has ZERO positive social effects.

As such, any curious incel who would genuinely consider changing (or alternatively, refusing to change) their own behavior based on the responses to this post would be fucking themselves over for no reason.

Is having low self-esteem/self-confidence/excessive shyness, etc bad for social outcomes? Yes.

But is it less bad than being full of yourself?

Maybe. Who knows? Based on the responses to this post, it definitely seems like it.

But both are still negative social traits.

This thread is the psychology equivalent of an obese person asking an audience whether or not they should eat a pound of ice cream or an entire pizza for their midnight snack.

Neither. You should do neither.

Bottom line:

To reiterate what I said before, self worth is an ACTIVE trait. ALL of the behaviors you might personally associate with the concept of "high confidence" are behaviors that you yourself can personally CHOOSE to engage in. That statement is undeniably, objectively true.

Luckily, We have plenty of evidence-based methods available that can lower your emotional response to the negative judgements of others, thus making it easier to engage in "confident" prosocial behavior in spite of the always-existent possibility of failure.

A human who suffers no emotional harm from other people's negative judgements is ALWAYS going to be more likely to succeed in social situations than a human who doesn't, because they can repeatedly tank the inevitable losses that come from socialization without diverting away from prosocial behaviors or choosing to defensively self-isolating themselves. It is like playing a video game with infinite hp enabled.

As previously stated, THERE IS NO SOCIAL BEHAVIOR THAT IS ADVANTAGEOUS 100% OF THE TIME. As such, failure is inevitable. For people who aren't as socially experienced as the average person (like incels, for example), those failures are obviously more likely.

Therefore, the ability to fail calmly and painlessly (I.E, self-worth) is even more important for them to gain than it otherwise would be.

One can choose to be a lonely incel with high self confidence, or they can choose to be a lonely incel with low self confidence. It's entirely up to one's own discretion.

But if you want to improve your life, then there IS a correct choice.

I would be surprised to discover that most incels have not sought out some sort of therapy/counseling at some point. It doesn't seem to really help much.

 

[Hikari.]

To be honest both of these options are very unattractive to me, I think it should be in between. You can be insecure, just dont put your insecurities onto me. And being egotistical makes you seem annoying and snobby.