Insecurity as the excuse, the judgment, the origin and conclusion.
Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:23 AM
It is not that I do not think that is untrue, I am never thinking "Hey, that's not part of it at ALL!" but there is something about this that always bothers me, and that is how generalizing; how lazy it seems to use insecurity as the answer, especially when it is used as a defense that may appear dishonest, which may be coupled with hypocrisy.
It is true that if you had felt any of what I listed earlier, there is potential for the reason to be insecurity.
But when insecurity is used as the reason, excuse, and conclusion, when it is treated as the origin of such feelings, when it is used to judge others, it is outright detrimental information. Not even useless information, because when that insecurity has been labeled the source of such things, when it is viewed as the bad thing causing all of that person's problems, it becomes an insulting label, like "evil" or "wimp" or "noob" or "immature", and the judgment tends to stop there, because of laziness, because of the lack of drive to bother going further, and "going further" is the important thing here, "insecurity" is just a possible start(I don't believe it is always required to be having it for some of the above stated feelings or actions) of the reason, it is what you would use when you want the least details, saying that someone does/feels (x) because of insecurity without extension is about as important as saying "cheese is from cows"(and there happens to be goat cheese, so it's not ALWAYS from cows), it does little to answer, the statement is too broad to matter; It's being obvious in a way that doesn't even give anyone that forgot an epiphany. And I believe that is an issue because it either forsakes those with that situation from help, or it leads them into another direction, the path of "security".
The thing about security though, is that it's called that for a reason, it's basically how you feel when you are under the impression that you are safe, unthreatened(it doesn't really matter where the threat comes from or what form it takes.)
But when insecurity is derided, and security is viewed as a status symbol, there is the problem of how it promotes specifically aiming to be secure, that is, it is not even the circumstances or environment that gives them a reason to be secure, it is themselves almost forcing themselves to be that way. They are trying to banish insecurity.
Thing is though, insecurity is that thing that happens when you feel threatened...and do you want to think everything is just fine when there is a problem?
When one forces oneself to have the "secure person" status, it is no longer relevant to the external situation, and at an extreme point, it would even end up with something like them not taking their hands out of fire when it is burning them. It is intentional ignorance, it is apathy of threats. The "secure person" is what it does not just imply, what it explicitly states is that they feel secure. The secure person, when secure irrelevant to the circumstances, is ignorant. The secure person is never threatened. Not when they have a test they don't remember much about("Why study? Only people that are afraid of getting a score that is insufficient need to do that."), not when they or their friends are being tormented("If they get pissed off/feel down/are scared/whatever, it means that torment actually matters to them when it shouldn't."), not when they are trapped within a conflagration with rubble holding them down("No point in worrying."), not when they are ignored and isolated("I don't need attention."), never.
And there is no one i've ever seen in any context whatsoever, who can achieve this "secure person" status. This insulting accusation of insecurity...applies to everyone anyway. Now, if you actually did hate everyone(including yourself) because they hold the vulnerability to insecurity no matter how hard they try to remove that weakness, then at least that would be consistent. But this is often used as a way of seeing others as pathetic, and I mean it when I say others. Even if the person labeling another with the insecurity tag is insecure themselves, they display superiority in being secure regardless of the circumstances; it often appears to be done for the purpose of making themselves feel better about the situation even though it doesn't mean anything of importance when you're dealing with anything more specific.
The guy who's pissed off and depressed because his boss just fired him to cut costs when he's already having money problems is pathetic, because he's pissed off and depressed, which means he's insecure.
The girl who is jealous because her boyfriend keeps flirting with others while depriving her of attention is pathetic, because she is jealous, clingy, attention-seeking, which means she's insecure.
The geek who is frustrated at those people that he hates for humiliating him only because of how his hobby does not conform to the culture of his peers is pathetic, because he is frustrated(also letting humiliation get to him) and hateful of others, which means he's insecure.
The hero who fears her failure directly leading to the death or corruption of her childhood best friend is pathetic, because she is afraid and pessimistic, which means she's insecure.
The people who strive for equality or a less uncomfortable/painful social situation, those who were/are oppressed/limited/expected to conform to (x) because they are immigrants/female/male/ugly/pretty/dark skinned/light skinned/disabled/thin/fat/poor/geeky/chaste/religious/non-religious/elves/dwarves/dragons/vampires/etc., are and were insecure, and that insecurity was what was telling them "I don't want this crap! We shouldn't have to be treated like this!"
You might be thinking that in those cases, it is "legitimate" and does not "call for" the label of insecurity. However, that is only being selective, "this one counts", "this one doesn't", even when those qualities fit the criteria for insecurity. So what reason is there to mention or use insecurity, particularly when it is even the conclusion of thought put into that matter, as the excuse, reason, or origin? Why "insecurity"...that's like teaching someone cheese comes from cows instead of telling them milk goes through [insert process i'm too lazy to look up and read thoroughly right now here...yeah, i'm being lazy too even though i'm pissed at others being lazy about judging others] to end up as cheese. I feel this way because I always want things to be more specific, more detailed. I'm one of those guys who can be like "You know that life story thing nobody wants to hear? Tell me about yours" because I have an interest in learning about other individuals. This "insecurity" thing is an obstacle that is not even only the obvious, it's just "cheese comes from cows", a misleading generalization; it's not even "cheese can come from the milk from cows and goats" or even "cheese is made from milk" it's just "cheese comes from cows" much less "cheese is..." and it's a huge issue when I can't even get a better answer than "i'm insecure" from the very persons that are feeling negative.
(speaking of laziness, I ended up writing this in a rather non-question like form for a lot of it...but I can't be assed to fix that either. I swear, i'm going to hell if only because of how extreme my sloth can get)
I believe in judgment of humans through their judgment of fiction, for nothing else tells better of their disposition freed from apprehension.
Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:41 PM
Signature thanks to Shu.
Posted 26 October 2013 - 02:16 PM
While I wouldn't say that insecurity is the root of all negative things 100% of the time, it can be the cause of almost every negative emotion. Most people who have negative emotions such as hate and jealousy are usually being insecure. Although my definition of being insecure and other's may differ.
I always viewed insecurity as having a negative outlook against something or someone when they've shown no reason for you to feel threatened or insecure. Such as how I'm insecure over my relationship with Norianna.
When a boy starts flirting with her, and she responds, it's natural for me to feel threatened.
If she's talking with one of her close friends who happens to be a male, I'd also feel threatened because he's also a potential candidate for the "lover" position. As love very often does grow from friendship.
But if I feel threatened because Norianna is simply having a conversation with another male that she doesn't even know, I could use the excuse that love at first sight is possible. But at that point I'd only be feeling threatened because I'm insecure in that aspect. Why do I say that? How often does one actually fall in love at first sight? It's even more unlikely for it to happen while you're already in love with someone.
That's an example of what I feel to be hate and jealousy stemming from insecurity rather than natural instinct. Because I honestly don't consider natural instinct and insecurity to be the same thing.
"You got a jacked up notion of fair play pal...and it's beginning to piss me off."
"Though a fight every now and again does make life a little more interesting...dontcha think?"
^ This isn't dead, I swear!
Most of my closest friends have qualities that I despise. But I love them all regardless of their faults.
"Why are we trying to narrow God's mercy? I didn't realize there was a limit to how many people could go to heaven."
This will not be removed until I finish my Sprite Series. Arim and AJ VS The World Started December 19, 2013 (I actually still haven't given up on this! XD)
This will not be removed until The Demon Invasion is finished. Started December 19, 2013 (Hue)
3DS Friend Code 0834 - 1057 - 3616
Posted 26 October 2013 - 09:35 PM
But anyway, about the personal definition problem; the thing about personal definitions is that they hinder communication unless you explain what you mean when you use the word(and of course, there's the semantics debates that show up when you DO explain) which doesn't always happen (in fact, there have been TONS of times where I have had this problem with others, mostly with the words "love", "hate", "promiscuous/slutty", and "cute", or at least those are what come to memory the most easily) and other people don't tend to be motivated enough to use or interpret the word in the way the person explaining the personal definition would prefer it to be(including me, sometimes I even take liberties on them personally while aware of how I dislike the use of it in that kind of way) and even then, people that use personal definitions tend to accept that others have different definitions anyway and go along with them(particularly when it says so in the dictionary) if they don't care enough about it to delay the rest of the conversation.
That said, I would also like to ask you this, you have made the difference between "natural instinct" and "insecurity" but is that suggesting insecurity is artificial, or at least not normal? "They're just insecure" is used for something as extremely common as people seeking attention or feeling insulted, in the case someone does state that, does it bring you into a semantic debate, or at least does it compel you to question what they mean by insecure?
I think that insecurity, both in its settled definition in the dictionaries and the way I see or hear it most commonly used, is a very natural, instinctive thing. Along with irrationality, which tends to increase the amount of insecurity if unnoticed(although that's not to say you can't increase your amount of security by being irrational) and, I think that, in your case(at least according to the examples), it might be a little more helpful to consider yourself as being irrational instead of insecure if we must use that level of simplification, because at least if someone says, "Stop being so irrational", you can consider it in a more particular way, like "Maybe if I think about this more deeply and learn more about myself to see if there's a way I can keep my cool in that situation, I won't have to get upset when that happens." using the innate rationality that everybody has that they know how to use to some extent. But if someone says "Stop being so insecure" both the specific use of insecurity and how broad its possibilities are may end up with you getting this thought in response:"How do I secure?" (you might not even think, "Why do I need to be secure?" as there's nothing in particular prompting you to think about it more if you're not the type to usually be like that.)
And even in the case the accusation of insecurity is legitimate, consider which of these sounds more helpful, or more relevant(hell, you could even use the longer one as a better insult since it could strike harder by phrasing it differently):
"Arim, stop being so insecure, geez."
"You know Arim, she's just talking to a guy she barely knows, he might not even be anywhere close to her type, why does it bother you so much? If you can't think of why, try talking it out with her to find out, I usually think better when i'm talking to someone since my brain kind of has to be more active to respond, and she could bring up points you'd have never even known without her saying so. Maybe there's even more problems underlying that are better revealed sooner than later, because if not, you could end up losing the relationship between you two simply because you(or she) kept going on with those issues you never thought to address or talk about in more detail. We can't read minds, so better, extensive communication is pretty damn important, especially if it's going to be with someone you love. You might even learn things that give you reasons to trust or favor her even further(and she may too), since the more you two discuss about either participant in the relationship, the more is likely to be revealed about the person."
(of course, it's not that you can't say the latter without the former, but if you do say the latter the former becomes useless anyway)
Even if you extended the conversation with a response like: "But i'm afraid of talking to her about this part of me, what if she hates me after finding out? How about talking to a professional instead, or a sibling?"
Which of these responses to that sound more helpful or relevant?:
"Don't be so insecure and just do it already like a man should!"
"I get that since you're aware of how this is a problem; you would rather not have her learn about such things since it doesn't seem to interfere that much anyway when you're interacting with each other; you might think it's not necessary to reveal that kind of thing. And maybe it's not, maybe you can just have that sort of thing about you change before she ever notices. But if you're afraid of talking to her about your issues because she might hate you, doesn't that mean you don't trust her all that much? Doesn't it mean that, you're depending on deceiving her for sufficiently long enough? And even if you're comfortable with doing that kind of thing for now, do you have confidence in being able to keep doing it consistently without her ever finding out about something she might dislike in you? She's your girlfriend already and has been for a a pretty long time(I think), I think if you feel that she has the potential to be fickle enough to hate you because of what you're suffering from when you even want to get rid of that part of you(admittedly, i'm not sure if you do) then the relationship isn't really stable enough to keep going; if you really care about how she feels because you sincerely love her, unless you have some other reason you can come up with that warrants otherwise, maybe it's even better for her to end up hating you when you reveal more of yourself, so she won't have to deal with the problems of someone she doesn't want to care about, someone she would suffer interacting with. As for the professional option, I do think that may be helpful, but I bet you would get the most out of it if you brought her along anyway, seeing how the professional would understand the situation better if both of you are present, making it less one-sided."
And even if someone is only using it as an excuse in order to feel better about their own selves(who tend to be insecure, ironically enough) which one sounds more relevant to the observer/victim/whatever:
"He sure is insecure"
"Man, I sure am glad I don't get as jealous as that guy; I don't want to be so judgmental as to lose my cool just because my girlfriend looks at some other dude."
The former just starts and stops at insecure, it might think "Jealous = Insecure, Judgmental = Insecure" but the thing about insecurity is how broad it is which makes it so pointless(and it even assumes MORE, because it's actually rarely apparent without further provocation or knowing the person better, you just figure the person is insecure because something else tends to = insecure) while the latter at least makes the person feel better about themselves because they don't have the more apparent looking trait of jealousy and aren't as judgmental due to that lack(and there's a better chance of it even being true.)
Also, one may think that such distinctions aren't important when excusing oneself just to think of oneself as a better person, but I feel that this kind of thinking is likely to influence the rest of them/this part was influenced because of what they normally think(or, for people that need to do it more often, it IS what they normally think) because if they already went to the conclusion of "Such insecurity, pfft." then there's not much of a reason to think they wouldn't ever think of it in different cases where something possibly related to insecurity shows up(in others at least), even if it's one of their friends. A friend may be genuinely angry at them because they never returned the $50,000 they borrowed years after the date they promised to give that amount back(the friend might even be going through money problems and specifically regrets giving that much money to someone else when they could be using it right now), but the same person can look at that anger, perhaps unexplained by the angry person themselves, and simply think "Was this guy always so insecure?" instead of "Why's he so angry?" because of how convenient the explanation they already have prepared to assume is.
|If she's talking with one of her close friends who happens to be a male, I'd also feel threatened because he's also a potential candidate for the "lover" position. As love very often does grow from friendship.|
Try telling that to the people that complain about being friendzoned. (In fact, i've heard someone considered secure that specifically stated that she doesn't need to think about her crush looking at his female friends, they've been trapped in the friendzone anyway. Same person cried with confusion over why the same person rejected her though...)
I believe in judgment of humans through their judgment of fiction, for nothing else tells better of their disposition freed from apprehension.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users