It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men are More Narcissistic than Women, Psychologists Say

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Sad but true,

I just spent 10 minutes on my lunch break looking in the mirror and preening my hair in the restroom. I have really nice long brown hair that goes past my shoulders with natural banana curls and natural golden highlights here and there. I literally caught myself saying "damn my hair looks good"

I don't know if that makes me like half a girl or a dude with a strong feminine side or if I'm just a self absorbed douch. But I just caught myself doing something I never though I do. But apparently I do.

Bass lowers head in shame

Your post stood out to me.

Being humble and honest with yourself and others trumps a little self narcissism any day of the week. We ALL do it and you my friend are one of the few on here who has admitted to being human.

Thank You




posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Avatar Note: Is that actually you behind the mask Kirsti? You
made me misplace my data... and the new diet's the bomb.

For a brief example of say, basic attraction and the dynamics
underlying it---

When one gets superficially set up for a date, which of the two
genders attempt to produce an optimum appearance [for self
or date] in regard to male or female? Food for thought:

A less than egotistical profile would maybe buzz,
"That should do it", whereas the narci would more likely
"S/He's not worthy." Self-satisfaction IMHO should have more
to do with profile than simply gender.. unless we're talking a
certain flavor of self-image. I can't buy one over the other.

Now I'll apologize for posting without reading, and just DO IT.

EDIT: And a short APA disclaimer at article's end:
"Readers are warned against overapplying small effect sizes to
perpetuate gender stereotypes." Need more samples... but I've
been rather deprived for several decades now.
I'd love to purchase the PDF, but I'm a little 'short' this week (groan)
edit on 6-3-2015 by derfreebie because: We're the APA...we can characterize ANYTHING as nuts.

edit on 6-3-2015 by derfreebie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I don't really like blanket statements on groups of people...not saying that's what the OP is, but it could easily turn to that. Statistical analysis of differences in personality between genders or races...there are so many factors in play, INCLUDING SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS, which such analysis them serves as somewhat 'self-fulfilling prophecies.' Besides, statistics mean nothing to the individual. Except that people read, 'group X is more Y,' which really is just a statistical trend, which individuals proceed to group individuals of that group into what is really a statistical trend a month a population, and may well not apply to that individual.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
If one can pare this down to more objective terms, like not consider overconfidence or superiority bias as a "personality disorder", and just neutralize the negative judgement, I think you can read such reports more comfortably.

The thing is, many researchers have repeatedly found that men tend over estimate themselves in all areas (intelligence, skill, looks...) and women tend to underestimate themselves.
"The Downing effect" is one illustration of this.

But this might have evolved for a reason. Researchers also find that illusory superiority and over confidence plays a role in success. Over optimism brings about more positive effects. Two people with the same skill or intelligence, applying for the same job: if one underestimates themselves, and the over-estimates their self, it is is the "over" that will get the job.

Furthermore,


Hot guys tend to underestimate women's interest in them, while other men, particularly those looking for a one-night stand, are more likely to think a woman is much more into them than she actually is, a new study says.

Women, however, showed the opposite bias — they routinely underestimated men's interest in them.

volutionary pressure could explain the discrepancies on the male side of this equation, say the researchers.

"There are two ways you can make an error as a man," said study researcher and psychologist CarinPerilloux. "Either you think, 'Oh, wow, that woman's really interested in me' — and it turns out she's not. There's some cost to that."

The other error is much bigger in terms of reproductive success: "She's interested, and he totally misses out. He misses out on a mating opportunity," Perilloux said.

Men's tendency to overestimate a women's interest, particularly if he also overestimates his own attractiveness, may boost self-confidence and make them appear more attractive as mates, according to the researchers.

"This pattern of results may reflect a suite of adaptations designed to promote positive illusions among lower-quality men," the researchers write in the study published in a forthcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science.


Source

I have always noticed that it is the less good looking guys that seem to be really confused about how the other sex generally sees them. And some of the most beautiful women I have ever known suffered terrible problems with self confidence and esteem (usually misinterpretted as arrogance)

But as a woman too, humility and underestimating oneself become important- I know I believed I was stupid and ugly for most of my life, despite all evidence others didn't agree, but my self depreciating thoughts and behaviors facilitated relationships, both with men and women! My mate would feel more confident in my loyalty, secure, and not feel his masculinity challenged- women would drop reactions of jealousy and competition that would get in the way of friendship.
Not to say I faked low self esteem, only that it was a subconscious conditioning that evolved as I grew up and sought relation with others.


There was some talk a while back about "reverse narcissists", which was a rather interesting concept, and really fit with a lot of women I have known- in which case an introversion of narcissistic tendancies simply makes them project it upon their partner, or some other close relationship, in which they become a sort of submissive enabler (living their narcissism through the other).
edit on 7-3-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108


If we look at the ego-I as the whole body-mind, then that makes the most sense. In fact, we relate to one another as body-minds. I don't relate to my neighbor as some separate sense of self inside his head or wherever. I relate to him as the body-mind just like he apparently relates to me in the same manner.

People relate to one another as people. End of story.


Why do we tend to relate to our own body-mind as though it was separate from us?

It's called consciousness. It's normal.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108


OJust to be clear, you are saying that the self exists as a "psychological entity" - and does this mean that this self is not the body-mind, but some separate entity within the body-mind? And this is what you call yourself or "I"? If so, what or who is that?

What the #@*?>//# is a body-mind?

I am an animal with a highly developed brain. That brain perceives the world as being comprised of objects. One of these objects is me. The name my brain gives to this object is 'myself'.

This object produces directly apprehensible ('subjective') as well as sensory ('objective') data, all of which my brain attributes to 'itself'. In this way the self differs from other objects, which offer only external perceptual data, and so it occupies a special place in its own perceptions. Indeed, it is the most important object. That is nature's way of promoting my survival and reproductive success, and any attempt to alter it is folly.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: bb23108

Many super stars are known for not just their great skills, but their "super" egos too.


I disagree. Coming from a Hollywood family, and having Christmas parties filled with celebrities, turned me away from an early interest in acting- particularly because of what I saw of actors. Their ego was not "strong" they didn't have a stable sense of self- it was constantly in flux, whore to public opinion, changing forms with roles (as each character made them intensely aware of different sides of their self, they would identify with different characteristics from one year to another). The more powerful people (like directors and producers) didn't have that problem, and looked down upon actors in a subtle way.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: bb23108

I don't relate to my neighbor as some separate sense of self inside his head or wherever. I relate to him as the body-mind just like he apparently relates to me in the same manner.

Why do we tend to relate to our own body-mind as though it was separate from us?


Why consider what you call "body-mind" as something separate from "us"?

One can be simultaneously aware of varying levels of self- from very individuated, to expansion of nothing/everything, and varying levels in between.

I do relate to my neighbor as a separate sense of self inside his head- we may all be one, he may have a body which is obviously separate, but also, has a mental separation, in which he has perception which differs from mine. That seems important, to me to respect and acknowledge. Without doing so, I will just react and respond to him as if he has the same desires, views, experiences, as I have had- which is false. The other levels of being, we can interact on in other subtle dimensions beyond physical and do, but on the level of "body-mind" it is completely appropriate to acknowledge each other as very different.

Oh heck, here comes Itisnowagain.... I'm out of this conversation. I'll have a non-existent non-entity trying to communicate again, which is just a waste of time. Need two separate things for communication.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis


There is an addiction to the 'separate me' which does not actually exist.
Always telling stories about 'me' and 'mine' - what I did or what others connected to me do or have done - stories about what I will do and become, what I was and did. 'Me' wanting something in particular - like wanting relationship or career or wanting to appear good enough. The separate 'me' wants other 'me's' to tell them about themselves so they can measure themselves against them.
All these stories about 'me' and 'my life' are about who?
When others do not act the way the 'me' wants it gets offended - and gets defensive and angry. The separate 'me' fears being wrong and not good enough.

The separate me never feels good enough so is always getting you to seek it's drug - acceptance - it needs others to make it feel better.
It is only when this 'separate me' is found to be nothing other than a thought arising in the one, that the person you are a slave to will vanish.
edit on 7-3-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   
The character that you 'think' is you is not you.
There is a trying to control the future and past because it has been found that this character (the person that you think you are) keeps messing up - it does not seem to be able to do what I wants it to do. If the character (the person you think you are) did exactly what you wanted there would be no concern about it.
So in this moment one plans the future in a certain way based on the past to ensure a good result. The mind loves doing this - it is trying to solve the problem of life. Life can seem to be a problem that needs solving - it is not always easy.
It may seem as though it is 'my' life or that life is happening to 'me'.
When the planning of how I am going to be in life stops it will be seen that life is just happening.

The separate me lives in time but there is just life here and now. The illusory separate me is trying to do life when the fact is, life is done by no one. All this meing happens in the head - thoughts about how I should do it, how I could do it, how they aren't doing it as good as me - because when me is good he looks down on others - when me is bad he wants other mes to make him feel better and blames them for making him feel bad. It is nothing other than the belief in the 'I thought'.


Life is happening and then a voice says I did that - I is just a thought that happens and it is possible to see that there is no I that does.
It is the talking in the head (thought) which gives the illusion that there is a separate me.

edit on 7-3-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   


Women earning doctoral degrees in psychology outnumber men three to one. What does this mean for the future of the field?


Men:A Growing Minority

I suppose the ones providing the data could impact the study, too bad we don't have a third party for stuff like this. Personally I am of the idea that we all show it in our own way, most people just aren't noticing.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
What the #@*?>//# is a body-mind?


The whole complex that we identify with. Would you prefer I call it the whole body or whole bodily complex or the whole ball of wax or ???


originally posted by: Astyanax
I am an animal with a highly developed brain. That brain perceives the world as being comprised of objects. One of these objects is me. The name my brain gives to this object is 'myself'.


How can you be one of the objects if you are the subject? Awareness cannot look at itself.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I could believe that men are more narcissistic than women.


I think woman are outwardly more interested in things like fashion and how they look all the time but that’s mainly through conditioning.

Men aren’t as conditioned as woman to be narcissistic but therefore may be more prone to repression of narcissism that sometimes men are conditioned to do.

So what happens is they worry it about more because they don’t express it as openly as woman



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
People relate to one another as people.


Exactly. So why do you relate to your ego-I, that you say is an actual psychological entity, as yourself? Aren't you actually the whole body-mind complex (whatever that is altogether)?


originally posted by: Astyanax

Why do we tend to relate to our own body-mind as though it was separate from us?

It's called consciousness. It's normal.


So do you assume that consciousness is separate from the whole body?
edit on 3/7/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: bb23108

Many super stars are known for not just their great skills, but their "super" egos too.


I disagree. Coming from a Hollywood family, and having Christmas parties filled with celebrities, turned me away from an early interest in acting- particularly because of what I saw of actors. Their ego was not "strong" they didn't have a stable sense of self- it was constantly in flux, whore to public opinion, changing forms with roles (as each character made them intensely aware of different sides of their self, they would identify with different characteristics from one year to another). The more powerful people (like directors and producers) didn't have that problem, and looked down upon actors in a subtle way.


Oh I agree with what you say here. When I used the words "super" ego, I meant that their egos were very big and complex - but didn't necessarily mean they were "great" egos or positively strong egos.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I think that it's good to pay attention to the self, because if you don't it is possible nobody else will. But also do care about other people too.

Even though I look into mirrors at myself often doesn't mean I don't look at others.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: bb23108
I don't relate to my neighbor as some separate sense of self inside his head or wherever. I relate to him as the body-mind just like he apparently relates to me in the same manner.

Why do we tend to relate to our own body-mind as though it was separate from us?

Why consider what you call "body-mind" as something separate from "us"?

I don't - as I said in an earlier post, the ego-I is best equated as the body-mind, not some internal "psychological entity" we somehow tend to identify as our self. The latter is Narcissus staring in the pond, not being the whole feeling body-mind, participating in the limitless field of relatedness.


originally posted by: Bluesma

I do relate to my neighbor as a separate sense of self inside his head- we may all be one, he may have a body which is obviously separate, but also, has a mental separation, in which he has perception which differs from mine. That seems important, to me to respect and acknowledge. Without doing so, I will just react and respond to him as if he has the same desires, views, experiences, as I have had- which is false. The other levels of being, we can interact on in other subtle dimensions beyond physical and do, but on the level of "body-mind" it is completely appropriate to acknowledge each other as very different.

That is well said, and yes, we respect each other's rights to individual points of view, but still, when all is said and done, the neighbor is his whole body-mind complex (whatever that is altogether), not just his point of view.

Of course his body-mind is unique.

Not sure where you thought I said everyone's body-minds were the same. How could they be?

edit on 3/7/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma


celebrities'... ego was not "strong"

Exactly. What the anti-egotists refer to as 'ego' is better described as 'egotistical behaviour' — that is, behaviour that promotes and aggrandizes oneself, often at the expense of others. Such behaviour — as is widely understood — is neurotic, associated with a poorly differentiated sense of self (to use Jungian terminology). The problem is not an overdeveloped ego but an underdeveloped one.


edit on 7/3/15 by Astyanax because: of ego.



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108


Awareness cannot look at itself.

Says who? Have you never heard the term 'self-awareness'?



posted on Mar, 7 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: bb23108


Awareness cannot look at itself.

Says who? Have you never heard the term 'self-awareness'?

The term self-awareness refers to one's sense of self, but in reality, awareness cannot objectify itself.

Give yourself a few minutes to actually see if you can objectify awareness. You can certainly confess to being aware, and even call it self-awareness, but this is not the same as objectifying awareness.

Edit: Off to get outside and enjoy a sunny day! Later!
edit on 3/7/2015 by bb23108 because:



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join