coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Most Muslims are not Arab, and also empirically the Arab population grows. The population of the Arab world grows at the same time that they export Arabs overseas and despite its increasing development which is significant.
Religious warfare which involved political claims occurred. That’s like the Shia vs Sunni proxy war in Syria and Iraq, which is as political as it is religious. But there was nothing like your typical Muslim “because your congregation is liberalizing I will commit an attack” ideology. That’s novel to Islam. Protestants didn’t blow up a building when someone started teaching girls how to read.
Calvinists insist that good works do not purchase salvation but are instead a product of salvation, but in practice this is a purely semantic distinction
I don’t think you understand how orthopraxic Islam is. Calvinists don’t define hierarchies of good works versus bad works with their commensurate rewards in heaven. Calvinists don’t cling to authoritative transmissions of Jesus which make mandatory thousands of small actions and make commendable certain other actions. As an example, in Islam they legislate the direction of your pointer finger in prayer, every syllable of the Quranic reading, the upkeep of your beard. You are comparing apples to orangutans. In Calvinism, the question is “do you believe and do you behave morally according to my view”. In Islam, it’s “do you believe according to this long list and do you do these long lists of actions.” The five obligatory prayers where every syllable and movement must be precise is an example of this sort of legalism. The Muslims who do not follow legalism are called Quranists and they are not even a percent of global Islam. There’s no Muslim sola scriptura movement of note, which secularization used to desacralize.
Some of the listed elements describe Protestant Christianity, but certainly not (3) and (5), and I would argue not (1). Because Islam requires knowledge of Arabic and because the required pilgrimage is Mecca, the growth of Islam aids the growth of Arabs in a way that doesn’t apply to Protestant missionaries. The center of Protestant Christianity was never an area plagued by religious terrorism, although it has a history of political terrorism, because the center has been a singular church or a collection of hands-off church collectives. Protestant Christianity is a faith-based religion that promotes orthodoxy about perhaps one dozen facets of faith, whereas Islam is mainly orthopraxic with most of a person’s focus being the correct prayer routine at correct hours in correct language, fasting at correct times, etc, although it also possesses amuch stricter orthodoxy as well. Islam has significantly less leeway about interpreting rules than Christianity because it eschews parables and exaggerations. It is legalistic.
There are plainly substantial reasons why what happened to Christianity may not happen to Islam. And let’s not forget the racial angle: Islam began as an Arab supremacist religion; artifacts of that still exist today. For Arabs in America, their religion is the whole celebration of their racial achievement, which does not apply to Christian Protestants.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
What is the future of Islam in the West and the future of the West with Islam?
-
Popular youth figures Andrew Tate and Sneako became Muslims and made it a part of their media personality, which frequently gets millions of unique views with the audience mostly impressionable young boys.
-
Muslim memes are becoming popular online. Muslim terminology is becoming popular online — I have seen cases of Muslim expressions like inshallah and mashallah entering terminally online lexicon (which is the first step to normie lexicon).
-
Unlike Christianity, there is a confluence of significant factors that lead to Islam retaining strict behavioral and cultural rules. Mosques and scholars are funded by wealthy Arabs who have a monetary, political, and genetic influence in the spread of the religion; imams have children, the more strict the imam the more children, and dynastic imam families are not uncommon; the center of the religion is the Middle East where there is a constant threat of violence if leaders stray far enough from orthodoxy; the practice of excluding women from decision-making means that feminine-coded tolerance is sidelined; the religion itself highly emphasizes the following of strict tradition and punishments for “innovation”.
-
We are seeing the influence of Muslims in the criticisms against Israel, in a London street draped with Ramadan signs on Easter, and so on.
It’s interesting that “Islam is a threat” discourse has died down relative to a decade ago, despite the influence of the religion increasing. Is it because so many people have lost faith in both liberalism and liberal Christianity that they no longer care? I think that could play a part. Is it just laziness? Has there been a fundamental shift in assessment of Muslims?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Why would the knowledge that a parent has been acting for longterm benefit increase a person’s internal motivation regarding longterm planning and delayed gratification?
And even callous authoritarian parents are not going to be as callous as slaveowners
But there are no shortage of high performing Asians who genuinely feel that their parents were callous in their adolescence, showing no love, driving them like a slave.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Comrade, if you wish to practice your unique way of life, you may move to your autonomous oblast! Sure, it’s far away from any industry, but…
An individual white nationalist does not have any influence over where jobs are, or how expensive the housing market is. You might as well tell them to move to remote Alaska. Iceland and Denmark are silly because, were they accepting many immigrants, I bet white nationalists would move there. Maybe even Latvia, too.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Well, why do you think so?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
But Indian and East Asian authoritarian/disciplinarian parenting styles — at their most extreme — result in physical punishment and shaming without regard for “internal motivation”. Yet this produces the highest performing capitalist worker bee cohort. Marine training is also externally-focused, yet military science tells us this produces good soldiers and common wisdom tells us this results in disciplined young men after service. Having food to eat and a roof over your head is also intrinsically motivating as is, we are talking about the late 19th and early 20th century where there is no welfare state, but in the case of slaves their habits are optimized for productivity.
Internal motivation is probably a meme concept. Do we mean, “has the skill of foreseeing the positive versus negative consequences of their current behavior?” This is instilled by slavery, where reneging of daily duty results in salient physical punishment, and fulfilling the duty in abundance may result in greater rewards. The difference post-slavery is that the foreseeing of reward/punishment is applied only to money and the consequences of money, so it is a little more delayed in consequence, but it’s the same neural circuitry.
replies suggesting that the history of slavery and Jim Crow might have something to do with black underperformance
Even during slavery, African Americans had the highest literacy rate of any SSA group. They had a greater attainment of complex skills as a consequence of being skilled slaved and/or freed in the North. How do you reason that it’s possible for slavery to cause black underperformance, when we know that their skill level was worse before slavery? Lastly, if I enslaved you to work all day and inflicted corporal punishment whenever you misbehaved, and I did this for a decade, do you think after the decade you would be a better or worse worker? When a slave from the south was freed in the north and went on to work a productive life as a blacksmith (or something), what caused him to be unhindered from slavery that hindered the others?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
I think Folamh3 is close to it ITT. He had confronted his cheating partner who then emotionally abused him, leading to his suicide just hours later. If he were already depressed and planning suicide, he wouldn’t have cared about her infidelity or would have messaged her something else. The fact that he attempted to reconcile the relationship hours before taking his life indicates that he had no plans to do so before the event. So the overwhelming probability is that the experience was causal to his suicide. Which then should make us disgusted that the woman who caused it received attention and pity after the event.
Now what’s the deepest reason he committed suicide? We could blame it on the immoral woman — iirc, the actress he was seeing took Harvey Weinstein as a date to the premiere of her movie, likely indicating she sold her body for status. But I don’t think this is the deepest reason, because as a rich icon Bourdain could easily have found a morally upright partner. The reason definitely isn’t depression; that to me is a truly dangerous “just so” story that thwarts all thinking. I would assert that the reason is poor moral value.
Here is the liberal-individualist boomer par excellence. He tours the world and waxes poetic on the quaint social life, yet considers himself above their primitive family and social ties. He sits down with large families to eat, he attends their communal festivals, and he transmits this all to the solitary Americans in their living room. He is the rootless cosmopolitan, an omni-tourist, an enjoyer of spectacle over substance. Seeing all these wonders of the world, he’s yet unable to internalize their moral significance and necessity. He is self-worshipping; he cooked himself an identity in Kitchen Confidential and was too blinded by pride to ever revise it. Bourdain wanted to be the cool Western individualist loner, enjoyer of all but adherent to none. He attended every place’s ritual meal — each one a eucharist, essential, consuming God — but only as the aloof tourist, the narrator. It was this pride and absence of self-reflection (one’s real needs and obligations) which is the deepest reason. He let his heart be captured by an exotic woman to fulfill his own self-image, the idol he worshipped, which led to his demise.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Johnson leaves out a strong argument (which is frequently omitted): Europeans have been united in a shared culture for hundreds of years. This began with Catholicism and continued after the reformation. It affected every culture in Europe, and had little effect on cultures outside of Europe. This is why the monks of Ireland had their works read in Germany, why the composers of Germany were recruited to British courts, why Italian architecture inspired Scottish buildings, why a Spanish novel was read across Europe, why British plays were in heard in France, and so on. If you were a prominent European thinker or composer it was probable that you would spend time in other European countries, and unthinkable that you would spend time in the Middle East or Asia. And none of this culture affected Asia, or the Middle East, except for late indirect influences in maybe northern Turkey or something. So even if race were wholly socially constructed, everyone with European ancestry is influenced and stained by the culture of Christendom and its consequences.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
What show, film, book, or album had the most intense or beautiful dramatic moment for you? What was the moment?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Unless I’m misreading you, you are assuming that evolutionary theory has no predictive value. But doesn’t it? We can predict that in certain environments, certain adaptions occur. If we take breed of dog with heavy fur and migrate them southward over time, they will eventually no longer have heavy fur. These adaptions occur because they promote the reproduction of the organism. Where does a tautology appear?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
I was reading a little on the letters they found from the Bar Khokba revolt (insane that they just found his letters in a cave). I was looking at some renaissance paintings of the resurrection which featured Roman soldiers guarding the tomb. Actually a very cave-filled day, I guess.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
That would only make sense if it were “Atonement Day of Visibility”, followed by “Judgment Day of Visibility”, because we would need to increase the visibility of the Transfigured rather than the transgendered.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Here is my policy suggestion
-
Inculcate in young girls’ a desire to have children. You do this with positive, aspirational media and experiences involving motherhood. Echoing RandomRanger’s insight downthread, require girls in the first three years of schooling to bring their dolls to school and engage in doll-oriented activity. The highlights of female education in the first 6 years of schooling should be: motherhood, cultivating the nurturing instinct, and homemaking skills. In high school, two years of required internships in which female students “babysit”, nanny, and helping out new mothers — which doubles as a cost-free program for new mothers.
-
Ban women from high stress professions. (Women in STEM is grossly dysgenic due to low birth rates. Instead, reserve the least stressful STEM-adjacent positions for the highest IQ women. This is highly eugenic.) Reserve society’s least stressed jobs for women.
-
Government grants to media which extol motherhood.
Raising girls as identical to boys has obviously failed. In history, the primary “skill” a girl learned was how to be a mother/wife. That’s because it’s an important, difficult, stressful 6-18 years of a woman’s fertile years. Feminism failed, we can move on. Another to note is that there is a lot of research showing that stressed mothers and mothers who cannot breastfeed or love their children properly have a much higher chance of having children who are mentally ill or autistic etc, or even have childhood obesity. So the thought that we would lose “money” with our MAMA agenda (Make American-women Mothers Again) is not necessarily correct. Tons of resources are spent on psychiatric and physical disability which is ameliorated through MAMA policy.
It’s kind of hilarious that we consciously destroyed the mothering instinct in girls who naturally gravitate to dolls and tea parties and so on, and then we look at ourselves shocked like that retarded Spider-Man meme when we realize women now don’t want children, want money and safety more than children, and are stressed at the prospect of children.
A problem with this essay is that it takes everything that a Jewish student says as true, when we don’t actually know if what they allege is true. There are no links to police reports and investigations, and no rigorous comparison of “Jewish student victimization” versus “Palestinian student victimization”. That is problematic because it allows a random anonymous Jewish student the power to change the discourse, because he can tell his story to the author who then writes it in the Atlantic. It’s doubtful that the author has as many Palestinian friends as Jewish friends, or considers everything a Palestinian student alleged to be true in the same way he does for Jewish students.
The piece in the Atlantic is… a story. It is written to persuade the reader. He omits things not part of his narrative, like that a Jewish organization was caught writing a hoax anti-semitic message at Stanford. Similar hoaxes have occurred at other universities: 1, 2, 3. Jewish groups love their hoaxes. If one of the only(?) people caught writing something antisemitic is Jewish, what then is the probability that the other writings and postings are by a Jewish student? We can’t ignore that there would be a strong motive to do this and that it has been done frequently before.
If there have been some altercations and insensitive comments which have victimized Jewish students at Stanford in the year 2024, I expect to see a video recording or audio recording, at the very least I would need it to be confirmed by two gentile witnesses who are not affiliated with Jewish organizations.
edit here’s a Twitter thread of alleged altercations at Stanford in which an Arab or Palestinian was victimized. Are these events real? Well, isn’t that the point — the author picks and choose which hearsay to post in his article. We need a clear breakdown of victimization rates, not more hearsay narratives.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
On the archaic social technology of Good Friday
Today is Good Friday, a Christian holiday that commemorates the worst Friday ever. In a couple days, through a beautiful deus ex machina humanitas, the worst Friday becomes the best Friday. What significance did this event have in Christian Western history?
There’s an old European myth about a young prince facing punishment for misbehavior. When the boy prince committed an infraction, his tutor would discipline him. But the tutor would be disgracing the majesty of the royal seat by flogging a future king, himself only a lowly tutor. How then did he discipline the heir apparent? He would take the boy’s best friend, and in the presence of the heir he would whip the friend for the royal’s crime. Seeing his own deserved punishment transferred onto his beloved friend (the “whipping boy”), the innocent friend a substitute for his own transgression, the heir would be overwhelmed with guilt, pity, and shame. The event would change the heir’s conduct even more than if he were the one whipped. And there is more benefit to this exchange: the heir learns to identify the pain of another as occurring because of his own misconduct, seeing that his conduct affects the whole kingdom while increasing his capacity for empathy — important wisdom for a man to have.
Compare this myth to one of the oldest writings on Good Friday we have:
But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own compassion and power, how the love of God through exceeding care for men did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable process! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! (Epistle to Diognetus, 150AD)
We see that our princely myth and the Crucifixion share a similar emotional dimension. The Christian believes that “Christ bore our sins on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness — through his wounds we have been healed.” (1 Peter 2:24). This doesn’t just play out on Good Friday, though. It’s an event that recurs continually in the heart of the believer. It doesn’t work intellectually, but emotionally. Consider: were you to tell a troublesome heir in our princely myth that his crime deserves whipping, he would reply “yeah, so?” If you were to tell him that someone, somewhere, at some point in history was whipped for that very crime, he would reply “uh, okay?” But if you were to take his beloved and best friend, an innocent boy, and show him the consequence of his crime by whipping him in front of him, then the significance of the crime would be apparent to our heir, and then he would repent and change.
That is close to the operation at play on Good Friday. But in the Christian story, it’s not the friend who is punished for the prince, but the prince of heaven who is punished for his friend. It’s not the tutor who administers the punishment, it is the tutor who is punished, tortured by a crowd of sinners similar to his lowly friend. It’s not the dignity of the graceful prince that is safe, it is the grace of the prince that saves the sinner. And it’s not the honor of a future king that causes this process, but the compassion of a King whose son is given over to torment, so that the goodness and honor of God could be beheld by sinners.
As the central event of the Christian religion, this is the lense through which the West understood their moral concerns. And that’s pretty interesting, because their ideas are so distant from our secular beliefs now:
-
There is a serious, perfect moral standard that all must follow. The moral standard is objective, existing since the beginning of time. The failure to follow it deserves punishment, which Christ pays out of mercy.
-
Corporal punishment is a valid way to inflict punishment on malefactors.
-
A punishment may be deserved and yet withheld out of mercy or clemency. (Is “mercy” even a thing anymore? There doesn’t seem an interest in mercy for the contrite for social infractions.)
-
Humans are not born perfect, they require serious intervention to behave morality. This intervention was first moral law, and then a dramatic intercession by the Son of God. Noble savage et al conflicts with this idea. As does the equality of cultures. This cannot be reconciled.
-
Drama is used for a moral purpose. The crucifixion is intrinsically dramatic and the drama effects moral change. Our dramas no longer serve that purpose.
-
Friendship, love and mercy are the primary modes of morality, in fact required to understand the Cross (and so the Eucharist, and thus to be moral). It seems like the focus on morality has since morphed into “obeying peer pressure”, and a false “loving everyone equally” which doesn’t entail love as a feeling (but more an “equalizing” absence of love for one’s own group.)
As an aside, there is great music that captures the dramatic-emotional sense of the crucifixion. From Bach: “your grave and headstone shall, for the anxious conscience, be a comfortable pillow and resting place for the soul”. From Bach again: “Behold the bridegroom! Behold his patience. Look at our guilt.” And from the Syrian Fairuz: “as at the cross she bewailed what was done, to his heart hers was so atuned, both were pierced when they pierced the One.”
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
I don’t think I care. Huberman (afaik) has never offered moral advice or implied moral superiority. He’s a neuroscientist who gives professional advice, which is different from a Jordan Peterson or a conservative podcaster who gives moral advice. If he’s lying to women to have sex with them (not a new phenomenon in the history of Man) that’s a personal matter. It’s more effective to just warn women not to dedicate themselves to high status men without assurances, as that is literally what marriage is for. Huberman is 48 by the way, that’s probably the more surprising aspect of the story. Impressed by both his time and testosterone management.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Texas Governor Abbott signs law attempting to ban free speech at universities whenever the speech criticizes Israel in certain ways (described below).
The Executive Order requires all universities to —
-
Review and update free speech policies to address the sharp rise in antisemitic speech and acts on university campuses and establish appropriate punishments, including expulsion from the institution.
-
Ensure that these policies are being enforced on campuses and that groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee and Students for Justice in Palestine are disciplined for violating these policies.
-
Include the definition of antisemitism, adopted by the State of Texas in Section 448.001 of the Texas Government Code, in university free speech policies to guide university personnel and students on what constitutes antisemitic speech.
Section 448.001 reads
Examples of antisemitism are included with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's "Working Definition of Antisemitism" adopted on May 26, 2016
And this definition includes (among other things) —
-
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
-
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
-
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
These examples are intentionally ambiguous and can be weaponized by politicians or the judiciary against critics. The first example simply bans anyone from criticizing Israel in the same way that Israel routinely criticize others, by comparing them to Nazis. This cuts off a whole spectrum of political comparisons from ever applying to Israel. The second example could imply that you are antisemitic if you criticize Israel for things without also criticizing other nations in the same breath, however culturally and politically distant the nation. The third implies that an ethnostate cannot be considered racist if it is Jewish. The fourth implies that no one — not a single politician who is Jewish — can be accused of being more loyal to his self-defined homeland than America.
IMO this is a clear affront to freedom of speech. I find it embarrassing that any conservative in America would sign a law like this. The ambiguity is dangerous because it could be used by biased politicians or judges in its broadest application. While I don’t think it’s good public rhetoric to compare Israel to Nazis, that should be legal because (1) Nazis are everyone’s go-to villains, (2) Israel was recently the subject of an ICJ inquiry regarding genocide, (3) ethnonations should be extra scrutinized for genocide, (4) ethnonations with a history of genocide (Kitos War) and who fondly remember their nation previously committing genocide in their Holy Text should be super extra scrutinized for potential genocidal acts. The holocaust, like it or not, has no actual relevance to the current conduct of the Israeli regime. In real life, multigenerational ethnic groups do not swear off the same violence that their grandparents were victims of. So comparisons are fair game, if usually in bad taste.
“Dopamine detox” in the sense of abstaining from hyperstimuli and distractions and lesser pleasures is something everyone should do. It’s a spiritual practice in every religion. There are basic psychological reasons for how it works: the mind is limited, so learning something undesirable takes the place of something preferable; the mind is efficient, so it will choose easier pleasures over difficult pleasures; the mind is habit-forming, so it will form habits around easier pleasures rather than difficult pleasures; the over-justification effect will reduce your motivation to do difficult things after satisfaction from easier things; the difficult pleasures in life are vastly more satisfying than the easier pleasures, but we can’t easily grasp this with our limited mind, so we have to accept it on faith until we are mystically resurrected from the dead presented with these high experiences.
Trivial examples:
-
two bored kids in a math class, and one can use his phone. The bored and abstaining one will eventually and sporadically have his interest piqued by math, because that’s the only interesting thing going on. The one with the phone has no such motivation to ever pay attention in the classroom.
-
A man’s friends and crush are on the other side of a mountain, while he sits bored in a cabin. He will, one day, trek the whole mountain out of sheer human need. If he instead has a ton of distractions and drugs, he will never take those steps on the narrow path.
-
One person’s friends are reputable and wholesome. They give each other attention and affection for their good works. Another person’s friends are disreputable and corrupt. They only have fun being edgy and doing drugs. The former person’s character will change because only prosocial activity is reinforced; the latter person will be dragged down by his comrades, and wind up ”learning” that deleterious things are important — some of his mind is essentially worthless now, those months were a write-off.
-
One man is captivated by a virtuous crush, and molds his life so that it is aligned with what the crush wants. Another man is captivated by promiscuous women who just want to have fun. The former is going to be better for the longterm character and life of both.
The term “dopamine detox” is misleading, I think everyone here knows that, we can just call it mental purification or something, or mental detox. It’s not so much about longterm lowering of dopamine as purifying and filtering cognitive expenditure for that stimuli which leads to the highest reward. There’s no reason at all to bring in neurotransmitters here especially when we barely understand how dopamine and serotonin synergize.
like when you remove sugar from coffee
Agreed. Alas, I must confess that even coffee is a superstimuli which staves off the boredom.
True Crime satisfies the mostly female need for wives’ tales and gossip — women evolved to keep their bodies and character safe from bad men. It’s true that some women also fantasize about serial killers but this is because of the paradoxical evolutionary desire to fuck really good killers who also happen to be handsome and charismatic. Why is this not found in Latin America? Their culture still has good old wives’ tales and gossiping, and they have soap operas where the characters’ continually fall into calamity.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Anyone have any thoughts on the 2001 anthrax attacks, particularly whether the accused perpetrator was truly guilty? If this is something you have researched let me know.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
Hence
without duress
Plenty of ways to genuinely convert an unintelligent terrorist.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1yr ago
The evolution of humanity requires increasingly prosocial status games. For women, the status game can be intelligence (see the high STEM rate among Iranian and Saudi women), inner beauty (acts of compassion in a community, singing, poetry, see the ancient world), external beautification (beautiful prosocial religious or quasi-religious art), and fidelity (to some social principle, like anti-consumerism).
The status games we have concocted for women today are bad. Placing poison on their face, wasting their money under false allusions, social media, music festivals, tRaViLiNg… all bullshit. Because for some reason we let for-profit corporations infect the minds of the impressionable.
Bullshit male status games should also be illegal, of course.
A lot of complexity here. IMO: there are contexts where high confidence is beneficial even if it is not externally-administered, for instance in making friends and finding partners where people gravitate to confidence. Similarly, you can have high external valuation and yet have a low assessment of yourself, causing a shyness that is unwarranted and unbecoming, which leads to problems in social life.
There’s also the question of proportionality: you can be confident and have reasonably high self-worth and yet still feel pain at social defeat and feel pleasure at social victory. The default self-worth can buffer against unwarranted catastrophizing. If you’re a chess player and go into hysterics at every loss you will probably not play chess for long. Self-confidence is also (counter-intuitively?) judged as good by others, for instance when a defeated opponent keeps a stiff upper lip and praises the winner.
The ideal is a reasonable amount of sensitivity regarding your external persona, which is guided by a reasonable amount of self-respect and self-judgment that filters and optimizes longterm social sensitivity. You don’t want to commit sepukku every time you fail at an obligation. Neither is it necessarily advantageous to primarily judge yourself by some narrow and fleeting social obligation.
Religious language can offer some insight here. God judges every deed, while both loving and disciplining as a father. This is an archetypally correct mode of social feedback because nothing is more optimized for behavioral shaping (the psychological term of art) than how a loving Father/mentor teaches his Son/student. This is how evolution has guided the best possible identity-formation / behavioral-shaping, through love and loving chastisement (which is very cool actually). So we see for instance that a child who feels socially secure is most adaptive to learning in school. That’s the correct balance of self-worth [forever loved by the Eternal Father] and reasonable social sensitivity [humility, growth mindset, interest in others].
Frankly I do not find the term self-[worth / judgment / assessment] ideal. How can I be the one negatively evaluate what I myself am doing? Why would the problematic me negatively evaluate the exact same problematic me, and why would problematic me listen to problematic me when evaluated? In what sense can I be disappointed in myself when I am the same person through and through? I am disappointed in myself being disappointed? What’s really happening in any self-judgment is that we imagine a hypothetically reasonable and perfect Judge and how that Judge would feel about us. We then internalize this judgment and measure our action against it. It is at least quasi-religious. It is more healthy to admit that I myself suck, and that there is instead an independent, omnipresent judge who I answer to. In ages of old, when a person felt the watchful eye of their deity over them, what they are really doing is what we would call “self-judgment” today. This is very optimal, because we have a built-in instinct of external administration that can be sublimated in the imagination, whereas there is no “self-judgment” instinct so it gets confusing and paradoxical and unhelpful.
More options
Context Copy link