What is the self image?

Frogzilla69

Hi I'm new here, I came looking to talk to people interested in psychological theory.

Relatively recently, I've come to the conclusion that I do not have a self image.

No, I'm not here to discuss it as a personal issue. I'm quite mentally stable and emotionally healthy.
I'm here because I don't really understand it and I would like to discuss the nature of the self image.

I'm actually working on my own theory of psychology but it's incomplete because I don't seem to understand certain intricacies in how other people communicate. The self image seems to be the key to this but I'm having trouble talking to people about it. When I do, they clam up and become unable to speak.

Talking with some friends, I found out the other day that the self image is a feeling, it's not just what you think yourself to be or believe yourself to be, it's *feeling* that you are such and such a person. I feel nothing about myself in that context.

What I understand of the self image is this:
1: it is what you think other people think you are
2: it is an emotional value
3: it is the context by which you interpret truth
4: it is the conscious/unconscious divide
5: some people's self image is stronger than others

What I really want to understand is why people have a self image. I think if I understood why people have it, I can understand the underlying pattern behind it and through that, understand how it works.

You might think me arrogant or some other such thing in saying all this but I assure you that there is no ego in this. I don't care if you don't believe me, I just want to learn.

What is the self image? Why do people have it?

You might say, "it is how someone defines themselves" but it is only because they have a self image that they feel the need to be defined.

Any theories? Any suggestions?

looksee

Of course you have a self image. Just from what you have written you regard yourself as a mentally and emotionally stable person. You see yourself as being competent to develop a new theory of psychology. You don't wish to be seen as arrogant or egotisitical, so presumably you consider that you are not either arrrogant or egotisitical. You see yourself as a person who is modest enough to ask for help in learning or obtaining information.

Presumably you have an opinion about whether you are good-looking/attractive, interesting to be with, good at your job or studies, kind, shy, whatever.

It doesn't follow that because you think these things they are necessarily true, except to you. Your self image of your looks could be that you are not attractive, other people could easily find you quite attractive. You might think you are an interesting person to talk to, others might find you boring.

There is probably a professional definition of self image, but that is what I understand it to be.

Frogzilla69

I hold no convictions about myself in regards to personal qualities.
Certainly I have a name and gender, hair colour and so forth but there is a difference between acknowledging one's traits and egotistically and emotionally believing in them.
I do not care if I am attractive or unattractive or any other things outside of the practical utility of being so. When people insult me, I am not upset with what they say but I am upset with the fact that they dislike me enough to insult me.

I'm really only explaining all this because my point of view is relevant to the topic.

I care about how I come across to others for practical purposes, I don't like to be rude or mean. I try to do what is socially right but I don't quite understand what that means or how everyone else seems to understand it and I don't. It's difficult to form good relationships with others when I keep accidentally insulting them and misunderstanding them.
People sometimes speak of me not following the "unspoken rules of social conduct" but they aren't able to explain them to me.

I found out recently that people lie about themselves all the time. They will lie and manipulate the truth to get other people to do things for them. They will put forth a preposition that things should be a certain way and then act like it is your fault for not understanding this, and expect you to live up to this "objective truth." I used to think that perhaps everyone knew literal truths that I did not know, but now I know they are made up. "We don't do things this way." "You can't say those things." "You're being inappropriate."
I presume that they are trying to manipulate others to follow their own sensibilities which have something to do with the self image. I understand lying to get what you want, I just don't know why people would want those things.




I'm really not sure which questions to ask about this except maybe, how does the self image motivate people?

kateof

Frogzilla69 wrote: »

I hold no convictions about myself in regards to personal qualities.
Certainly I have a name and gender, hair colour and so forth but there is a difference between acknowledging one's traits and egotistically and emotionally believing in them.
I do not care if I am attractive or unattractive or any other things outside of the practical utility of being so. When people insult me, I am not upset with what they say but I am upset with the fact that they dislike me enough to insult me.

I'm really only explaining all this because my point of view is relevant to the topic.

I care about how I come across to others for practical purposes, I don't like to be rude or mean. I try to do what is socially right but I don't quite understand what that means or how everyone else seems to understand it and I don't. It's difficult to form good relationships with others when I keep accidentally insulting them and misunderstanding them.
People sometimes speak of me not following the "unspoken rules of social conduct" but they aren't able to explain them to me.

I found out recently that people lie about themselves all the time. They will lie and manipulate the truth to get other people to do things for them. They will put forth a preposition that things should be a certain way and then act like it is your fault for not understanding this, and expect you to live up to this "objective truth." I used to think that perhaps everyone knew literal truths that I did not know, but now I know they are made up. "We don't do things this way." "You can't say those things." "You're being inappropriate."
I presume that they are trying to manipulate others to follow their own sensibilities which have something to do with the self image. I understand lying to get what you want, I just don't know why people would want those things.




I'm really not sure which questions to ask about this except maybe, how does the self image motivate people?

Sounds to me like you've been hurt by these recent lies? and your question is more about the image you had of others being crushed in some way.

Torakx

Interesting i was just bringing up self image today on another forum where somebody was seeking advice because they didnt want to go outside because they are ugly.
Hard to answer that one as some things arent easy to hange physically,i figured the only hope was a better self image and confidence maybe through CBT.
I was putting it out there that there are people walking around that might fit those desciptions but still have an abundance of confidence in themselves.
I believe this is to do with self image or at least a part of self image.
I think its pretty much your conscious and maybe more so unconscious image of ourselves that we build up as we experience life.Media today doesnt help when it tells us what is desireable and what isnt,long ago i hear big was in for women! what happened?
This self image i believe can be distorted through bullying for example,where the unconscious and conscious are bombarded with impressions of itself from the outside world and since the outside world is the minds only anchor in this existence,plus the power of repetition and trauma/shock might cause a cognitive effect that becomes habitual.
As in habitually thinking you are ugly or whatever the bullying involved.Also i believe trauma/shock can effect the self image more intenly and for a longer time because it is a prominant memory and is anchored in the mind.
Thats my amateur view of self image anyway.
Id like to hear any fully trained psychologists/psychotherapist et al to comment on it too.
This stuff never gets boring to me.

Oh also i have been intently reasearching aspergers syndrome for the last 6 months and some of what you say is similar to people with aspergers.
This could(or not!) explain the issue with feelng your self image if its to do with feelings and it may seem illogical.
Other things include not being able to gage facial expressions/emotions well,not comfortable with alot of eye contact with people,logical thinker,takes things literally and finds it hard to spot sarcasm sometimes.Clumsy or flatfooted.Sensitive to light.Sometmes shows signs of obbsessive compulsive disorder and ussually have a subject,topic or a "thing" that they obssess about.Could be anything from animals to collecting things to memorising encyclopedias.All or nothing type of attitude.ussually high IQ but at the sacrifice it seems of social awareness and general self awareness.
This is something i am planning to look into alot more.Dont want to run the thread off topic so il stop there.

kateof

Sounds to me like you're very close, good luck with it.

Frogzilla69

Interesting, some of those symptoms of aspergers do seem to apply to me. I will keep that in mind.

And my image of others was not "crushed" in an emotional sense of things. I was not disappointed, it was actually very eye opening and it made me look forward to learning even more.

I find that the self image is something that people seem to understand intuitively and that most people have never had to discuss it in detail. When I ask specific questions about it, or about social etiquette, people seem to know exactly what they want to say but aren't able to put it into words.

I think I should ask this again in a different way: people criticize or compliment the behavior of others in such a way so as to enforce the correctness of their own sensibilities, as though their values and way of doing things are superior. Why do they do this?

If a person thinks that they are ugly, they indirectly imply this to others. If a person does not like the behavior of another, they imply that they should change it indirectly, often (I find) by implying the existence of an objective truth. If two people disagree about something, they may become quite egotistical about who's right and passionately try to prove the other person wrong. People become competitive and spiteful in their effort to be the one who is "right" as though such a thing was objectively important.

Why do people do this? Why do people want to be "right"? Why do they value their own sensibilities over those of others, so much so as to lie to themselves and betray their own sensibilities in the process?
I see people do this but when I say anything about it, they are usually offended.

Torakx

It sounds like you are refering to the ego.
As far as i know generally speaking the ego is a defensive mechanism.
And i think it weakness is when it gets over inflated or not enough,either direction im guessing can cause someone to argue incessantly or correct people.
Too much ego maybe they just think they are always right and everyone else is wrong and to be seen any differently hurts their inflated image of themselves.
Im guessing with too "low" an ego.... deflated? people may have insecurity issues and feel they are not worthy so publicly look to show they know better or are superior in some way.
If you even mention the word ego and a persons name you are likely to cause a response from the ego if they are not open minded enough to step aside from themselves and consider the matter logically(or objectively as you said) or in a detached fashion.
Does that make any sense guys? or is it completely wrong? lol
Id love to know what the books and college lecturers say on this matter.

oh also i do think ego and self image are similar if not nearly the same thing.

looksee

Frogzilla, what you are saying is quite true, about people wanting to be 'right'. Some - many - people have an underlying need to have their opinions and beliefs validated by the fact that other people believe the same thing. Like religion for example, someone comes up with a 'truth' and they need to have other people believe it to somehow prove that they are right.

I suspect it is somehow linked with our need to form 'clans' or societies of like-minded people. In order for the clan to remain cohesive they tend to act and believe the same things, then when someone comes along who doesn't accept all the 'rules and regulations' (how to dress, how to behave) they have imposed on themselves, they are regarded as different and therefore a threat.

I try not to automatically conform with behaviour patterns just because they are popular. At the same time I do not want to give myself the hassle of conflicting with everyone else about everything. There is social behaviour which makes everyday life easier and more pleasant. There are colleagues that you don't particularly want to be friendly with, but you greet them pleasantly. Most people would not consider that they had betrayed themselves by acting a kind of lie, its just a way of getting through the day without giving offence and allows you to get on with whatever business you are in.

The whole business of social contact is a very subtle dance, with moves and actions that some people know really well, and others do not really understand at all. It is possible to have a discussion with someone and put forward your opinion quite forcefully, without being spiteful or aggressive. To someone looking on it might look that way, but often people are just playing a kind of social game that they enjoy.

I think there are a couple of things in relation to your question. One is that you may not feel comfortable with, or understand, the way some people act, but that doesn't make them wrong. It also doesn't make you wrong to want to act differently. You may have to accept though that you will be regarded as a bit 'odd' if you do not conform to the obvious social norms. You have to decide how important other people's company and co-operation is to you and maybe be prepared to just accept some things that you don't necessarily agree with.

Why do people do this? Why do people want to be "right"? Why do they value their own sensibilities over those of others, so much so as to lie to themselves and betray their own sensibilities in the process?
I see people do this but when I say anything about it, they are usually offended.

When you say something about someone else's behaviour you are suggesting that they are doing something wrong, and that you have a right to question their behaviour. By inference you are saying that you are right, which is itself egotistical. When you talk about other people's sensibilities you are going into a 'private' area of someone's life, that they may not want to discuss, and they feel quite entitled to tell you to stay out of it.

Frogzilla69

I appreciate your response. It seems very mature and well tempered.

looksee wrote: »

Frogzilla, what you are saying is quite true, about people wanting to be 'right'. Some - many - people have an underlying need to have their opinions and beliefs validated by the fact that other people believe the same thing. Like religion for example, someone comes up with a 'truth' and they need to have other people believe it to somehow prove that they are right.

....

When you say something about someone else's behaviour you are suggesting that they are doing something wrong, and that you have a right to question their behaviour. By inference you are saying that you are right, which is itself egotistical. When you talk about other people's sensibilities you are going into a 'private' area of someone's life, that they may not want to discuss, and they feel quite entitled to tell you to stay out of it.

People wish to be right and so they seek validation from others.
Could need to be right be the ego in itself?
And what the "right" is, is their self image?
So, implying that someone is "wrong" in any way is offensive.
That sort of makes sense, given what I've seen.

I considered myself to be objective in thinking that perhaps I am the same as everyone else but that we all simply have our own different experiences that define us. Perhaps that's a biased way to think, maybe we are all fundamentally different in our minds but learn the same things and try to fit in despite our differences. If this is so, not having a self image would be as natural as anything else. But intellectually, I don't like the idea of saying that a thing "just is" and letting it go. I want to understand it.

looksee wrote: »

Like religion for example, someone comes up with a 'truth' and they need to have other people believe it to somehow prove that they are right.

Not knowing the truth of something can make it impossible to make decisions about it. I can relate to this. I used to believe all the social "truths" that people told me (that I did not have reason to question). They acted like they were so true but what was true one day would be different than what was true on another day. It was very confusing. I was wrong for a reason that I did not understand and that no one could explain to me. I understand now that explaining it may have been psychologically impossible for them.

There is a huge emphasis on the context in which truth is used in this conversation. People need to be "right" and all other processes flow around that. If they are not right, they do not know the truth and so have no basis for making decisions. Not being right is painful and frustrating and rightfully saps one's confidence. People need to be right to be themselves.

I have theorized that the self image is the context by which conscious (as opposed to unconscious) truth is measured. Different people measured truth in different contexts and try to imply the correctness of their version of truth to each other for validation. To question or to explain the functionality of their own version of truth (like saying, "it's just my version of truth") would involve an impossible thought process because one cannot measure the falseness of the basis for measuring truth. In this, "truth" and self image are inherently linked. As such, a person could have a notable psychological response to someone else questioning their self image.

But why would the opinions of others affect one's ability to know their own version of truth? Why are people not inherently sure of themselves?
I know that I was once unsure about what everyone else was talking about, but that was because they were being logically inconsistent (from my point of view) and I didn't realize it. But I never thought the problem was with me, just with my understanding.

Could it be that the self image is a byproduct of the mind's measurement of reality? That everything is measured from the point of view of how it relates to you? If so the nature of truth and the self image would be one and the same. People would take points of "truth" very personally. But again, that doesn't explain why other people's truths would offend your own. There's no basis for people to compete over who's opinions are more true.

I'm sorry if I've gotten confusing or off topic. I don't really know where to go from here. I really just need more input, I think.

Torakx

Hmm im having a light bulb moment i think.
Maybe...When your mind is looking out of the lenses of your eyes into the world it seeks validation that it is real so uses memory from all the senses to record its interpretation of life as it has experienced it,thus securely anchoring that mind in reality.
I guess if that is so and i think it is, to question someones "truth" deep down and unconsciously is to question the truth of their very existance ^^
And possibly that is where the ego comes in,to protect the anchor in reality(knowledge gained/memories),even if they are false.

Or another way to say that might be we all create our own reality in our minds.That includes an ideology of everything we are(self image) through memories.Once recorded and because we literally live it every day it is not there on a conscious level because it is trained intuitively as we experience and memorize.
I discovered that after 8 years of looking at my keyboard and typing with 2 fingers from each hand i can now intuitively type without looking with only 4 fingers!And i type dma fast too!
Can you imagine that shock that i am "suddenly" able to fully type without having to feel for any keys.It was trained intuitively into my head as i played online mmorpg's over the 8 years and i had absolutely no clue i was able to do that.
The funny thing is for me to do it without many mistakes i sometimes have to think vaguely of something else as im typing to distact my conscious mind and relax me enough to let my fingers do the walking.
Crazy stuff.
Once again the power of the mind shocks me!

looksee

Maybe approach this discussion from another direction. Coming to conclusions or having opinions on certain matters may seem illogical, but if individuals did not do that we would be no more than a 'hive' with a common view of life.

And what would form the basis on which we worked? If this common view required that we all obey a single authority, assuming this authority were incorruptable and working for the common good, it would be unable to evolve. Evolution of society requires independent thought and ideas, many of them are wrong, in that they are not good for a majority of society, but overall they slowly creep in the right direction.

I think you are arguing for a totally logical society, which seems fine on the face of it, but it is people exploring ideas that seem to be illogical by current thinking that produces new discoveries, art, music, and a good deal of the colour and beauty that is around us if we care to lift our heads from the routine world that feeds and clothes us.

If someone comes up with a new idea, to be true to themselves people would have to refuse to consider it, but if they do put their own views slightly to one side and consider the argument they might find it is actually a good idea and be converted. They have not forfeited any of their ego or sense of self, in fact it is considered open minded and socially accepted to do that.

If I could just give an example. Some people like to read fantasy novels. Logically there is no point in them as they are not grounded in real life. But that is the very reason for reading them for some people. But it is a matter of opinion, some people like them, others can't see the point. So if a discussion arises one is going to say they really enjoy them, the other is going to say they are a waste of time. Fair enough.

But if that is the limit of the conversation, it ceases to be a conversation and is just a statement of fact as each sees it. So each tries to see the other side of the argument and offers evidence as they see it and it becomes a social experience where two people are communicating.

There is no 'right' and 'wrong' about it, but if I have really enjoyed reading a book I will try and explain why I found it so enjoyable. The other person is not (usually) going to say 'you are a misguided fool for reading that', they will try and understand what the attraction is, and then maybe offer an alternative genre that they enjoy. That is social interaction.

Or another quick example. You have a relative that you find to be rude and offensive, but other members of the family put up with and accept because they are family. You are all invited to a family wedding, are you going to spend the entire time fighting with the relative you don't like, in order to be true to yourself, or would you try to be calm and pleasant, and not engage with the relative so that you do not spoil the event?

Frogzilla69

I believe I may have come to a conclusion. It seems to fit and I am pleased with it.

For practical reasons, people need to correlate their truths and come to a common understanding. People need a well grounded sense of what is real so they can function in reality. There is a healthy balance to be found in accepting the truths of others and enforcing one's own truth.

I believe that I am being thrown off because I have a different sense of truth than other people.

People measure themselves in context with their environment, which is sensible, but because of this their image of reality and their image of self become inseparable. They judge themselves by the quality of their interaction with their environment as though there was some objective measurement of their worth to the external world. So they put up a front of what they externally show of themselves and claim to believe so that they fit in with the world better, this becomes the conscious mind and the other side is the unconscious mind.
People see the world as a single, objective reality with set truths. They take these truths very personally because their interaction and understanding of those truths justifies their own actions and existence.
And they define existence by how it relates to themselves which produces a dynamic psychological relationship between self and reality.

Does this sound accurate?
I think it is. It explains everything that I did not understand.

I see truth differently than that:
If I compare myself to someone as though they are more attractive than I am, I will measure myself to be less attractive. If I compare myself to someone else as though they are less attractive than I am, I will be measured as more attractive. To me it is nonsense to believe yourself to be objectively attractive or unattractive. How you measure, what you measure, is a choice and your choice directly correlates to the result. Objective and subjective are the same thing to me. I still understand worth and the value of practicality, I just prioritize it differently. I have no problem accepting and working with two logically contradicting facts.

Lots of people see truth in different ways, many of them become inventors and writers and philosophers and/or crazy lol. It may be a natural event for me to see things a little differently, I'm not concerned with that, I just wanted to understand and now it seems that I do.
Or, well... What do you guys think? Does that make sense or do I seem out to lunch?

kateof

Lunch? did someone say Lunch?

Torakx

Im not sure myself about a self image being only conscious.As i believe there is an unconscious self image which is the one we use with our emotions and intuitions.
Whatyou said does sound pretty much accurate to me aside from that ubnless i missunderstood.It is getting a little complicated lol
But definetly enjoying this thread

Torakx

I was doing my ussualy hours or browsign and reading and found a link that might be of interest here.
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_gazzaniga.html?subaction=showfull&id=1177186177&archive=&start_from=&ucat=8&

Its about the neurobiology of the self and self image i think is covered too.I just started reading it now but wanted to post the link before i forgot about it.

Thought id copy paste a part that might explain where the sense of self comes from and how it relates to new memories and intuitions are built up.

Other scientists are investigating the brain networks that may be organized by the medial prefrontal cortex. Matthew Lieberman of the University of California at Los Angeles has been using brain scans to solve the mystery of D.B., the man who knew himself even though he had amnesia. Lieberman and his colleagues scanned the brains of two sets of volunteers: soccer players and improvisational actors. The researchers then wrote up two lists of words, each of which was relevant to one of the groups. (Soccer players: athletic, strong, swift; actors: performer, dramatic, and so on.) They also composed a third list of words that did not apply specifi cally to either (messy and reliable, for example). Then they showed their subjects the words and asked them to decide whether each one applied to themselves or not.

The volunteers’ brains varied in their responses to the different words. Soccer- related words tended to increase activity in a distinctive network in the brains of soccer players, the same one that became more active in response to actor-related words in actors. When they were shown words related to the other group, a different network became more active. Lieberman refers to these two networks as the refl ective system (or C system) and the reflexive system (or X system).

The C system taps into the hippocampus and other parts of the brain already known to retrieve memories. It also includes regions that can consciously hold pieces of information in mind. When we are in new circumstances, our sense of our self depends on thinking explicitly about our experiences.

But Lieberman argues that over time, the X system takes over. Instead of memories, the X system encodes intuitions, tapping into regions that produce quick emotional responses(The ego in action?) based not on explicit reasoning but on statistical associations. The X system is slow to form its self-knowledge, because it needs many experiences to form these associations(And possibly a sense/image of self?). But once it takes shape, it becomes very powerful. Soccer players know whether they are athletic, strong or swift without having to consult their memories. Those qualities are intimately wrapped up with who they are. On the other hand, they do not have the same gut instinct about whether they are dramatic, and in these cases they must think explicitly about their experiences. Lieberman’s results may solve the mystery of D.B.’s paradoxical self- knowledge. It is conceivable that his brain damage wiped out his refl ective system but not his refl exive system.

Bernard99

Frogzilla69 wrote: »

If I compare myself to someone as though they are more attractive than I am, I will measure myself to be less attractive. If I compare myself to someone else as though they are less attractive than I am, I will be measured as more attractive. To me it is nonsense to believe yourself to be objectively attractive or unattractive.

I was struck by your thinking but to me it seems a bit "heady". What of the theory that beauty in humans is an objective truth, out there, regardless of our choices. For example, one theory would have it that beauty in humans is based on health. Symmetry, skin condition, height, weight, give us information about the "health" of an individual, in an evolutionary sense. Disease, injury etc, cause harm to the "image" of the body, causing non symetrical looks, marks or discolouration on the skin, or variations in height and weight etc.

Do we value "healthy" as attractive, and "unhealthy" as unnatractive?

How aware are we of our biological bias toward beauty, no matter what we want to believe about ourselves?

......just putting it out there.......!? :cool::rolleyes::D

ECN

Hi guys,

Having spent the past year finding myself in the fortunate position of 'needing' to deal with my self image. I strongly believe it all lies in our self conscious. In helping us figure what our self image is, ask yourself why you react to certain situations the way you do? Let it be in a good way or a poor way.

Personally it takes a lot of honesty with yourself, mediation (in whatever form suits you) and a serious amount of rooting around in our mental health.

I would be interested to hear other's thoughts on the above.