Self-acceptance.

[Taeshan]

I am a defect.

Therefore, well, I'll let you figure it out.

Again Bravo, at least you admit it.

[Conserative Morality]

My defects are part of who I am, and I am content with who I am.

[Tubbsalot]

I am who I am, and there's no point worrying about it.

[Taeshan]

I accpet who i think i know i am and therfore i accept myself. But the real question do you accept who i think i know i think who i am, do you accept me?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I accpet who i think i know i am and therfore i accept myself. But the real question do you accept who i think i know i think who i am, do you accept me?

I accept that you can do word games quite excellently.

[Pope Joan]

My law partner Bill said that our staff only needed to be told of their failures and shortcomings, since if they did well that was only what they were being paid for.

I disagreed and made a point of praising them when they did well.

One notable result was that they were always more eager to help me out than to help Bill.

On the other hand, we may have gone overboard as a society with this self affirmation thing. Nobody has any inherent right to be affirmed. Sometimes you just need to admit that you're a shmuck.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

My law partner Bill said that our staff only needed to be told of their failures and shortcomings, since if they did well that was only what they were being paid for.

I disagreed and made a point of praising them when they did well.

One notable result was that they were always more eager to help me out than to help Bill.

On the other hand, we may have gone overboard as a society with this self affirmation thing. Nobody has any inherent right to be affirmed. Sometimes you just need to admit that you're a shmuck.

I agree with you, partly. We need to be self-assured and recieve assurance from others. If the only thing we hear, all day, is that we're shit (even if we know we're not) eventually, we will begin to think we are shit. That's not fair at all. Sometimes, yes, we are just shmuck, but we are also capable of being outstanding. I don't see a problem in praising where praising is due.

[Treznor]

There are reasons why positive input is as necessary as negative input. Yes, negative input is necessary so we know what to do correctly, but without positive input we have no reason to try. We are social creatures, and we rely on positive input to value what we're doing. We simply don't function well in a social setting without it. That's why someone who offers positive feedback will get better work out of employees than someone who only gives negative feedback. Who wants to work in an environment that's always negative?

This doesn't mean that we should depend on external opinions to derive our self-image, only that as social animals we don't function well without them.

[Hairless Kitten II]

First off, let me just make it clear that this has nothing to do with me. Second, let us keep it as much on topic as we possibly can. Third, if it's possible, be as sincere (not transparent), but as sincere as you can.

The premise is, I was watching something I haven't seen in a while and the characters touched the subject of acceptance. Self-acceptance at that. It was discussed that in order to accept ourselves, perhaps we need to find that we are accepted by others. That we need to be told by others that we are liked, that we posses good qualities. That, in order to grow comfortable in our skin, we perhaps need to simply be told that we are loved.

Wrapping it up, that if we are only told of our defects, that we may never come to accept that we are ok. Nationstates, what do you think of this? Is it true, can we find acceptance only when we are told by others that we are liked or is it possible to find self-acceptance just by thinking we are indeed ok?

I do not care about what people think about me. I am what I am and if people don't like me then make my day, because I don't care.
I know that several people like me and even love me and they don't have to express it by words, I just know they do and that's enough.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

There are reasons why positive input is as necessary as negative input. Yes, negative input is necessary so we know what to do correctly, but without positive input we have no reason to try. We are social creatures, and we rely on positive input to value what we're doing. We simply don't function well in a social setting without it. That's why someone who offers positive feedback will get better work out of employees than someone who only gives negative feedback. Who wants to work in an environment that's always negative?

This doesn't mean that we should depend on external opinions to derive our self-image, only that as social animals we don't function well without them.

You touch on it quite well Trezy. HK does too. We are what we are. But as you well say it, we do need the positive input, be it from peers or family.

Accepting who we are brings acceptance from others. Not everyone will like you, but that's not reason enough to not like yourself. It's a team task, I guess, society and liking us for who we are. Liking me for being me.

[Bottle]

I absolutely think that one must receive some form of external validation in order to develop true self-acceptance. I mean, if you never hear anything positive, if nobody ever gives you a sign that you are valued or good or worthwhile, then the natural conclusion would be that you are none of those things. Just like if, from the day you were born, everyone around you insisted that the sky was red...you'd simply decide that "red" is the name for the color that the sky is.

But you don't need validation from everyone or everything. In my experience, a person just needs a few solid people to help keep them grounded. And, of course, there are a few rare and exceptional people who manage to find self-acceptance without any external support, but those folks are the exceptions that prove the rule (in my opinion).

[Czardas]

The day I "accept myself for who I am" is the day I stop striving to improve myself. Not gonna happen.

I don't really care whether others accept me or not, mind, but I'm not just going to say "oh yeah, my flaws are just part of who I am, there's nothing I can do to change them." That's bullshit. If I can't correct my own flaws, what good am I?

[Extreme Ironing]

I think the idea of self-acceptance is a difficult one to come by. In a very real sense, I still don't accept myself. I'm not perfect - heck, I'm barely independently functional. The point is to realise that you don't have to accept yourself in order to move forward. In my case, indeed, it is only in constant self-renewal that I consider myself to be progressing. I constantly submit myself to critique, but do so not in the intention of destroying me but in making me stronger.

I don't expect to be accepted by others. I don't accept me anyway, so it's probably not reasonable for them to do so. But I do know that I'm constantly improving through understanding my flaws and building on them, and each trial I face is something I come out of better off. The point at which I become "Okay" is the point at which I lose the drive to improve, and personally, I'm not sure that that's a point I want to come to. My weaknesses may not be something to be proud of, but without the challenge of facing them, life would probably be pretty boring.

Of all the replies so far, this echoes most closely my own thoughts, albeit expressed in a more coherent way than I would have managed.

I wouldn't say I have self-acceptance. If others accept me, then it is the public side of me that I haven't restricted from them, probably with some additional slips. Even then, every time you wake up you are a slightly different person, both physically and mentally, so the concept of 'me' is a plurality - a spectrum of multiple instances combined haphazardly.

I'd say a bigger problem than self-acceptance is believing in self-worth. Ashmoria said something about this earlier.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The day I "accept myself for who I am" is the day I stop striving to improve myself. Not gonna happen.

I don't really care whether others accept me or not, mind, but I'm not just going to say "oh yeah, my flaws are just part of who I am, there's nothing I can do to change them." That's bullshit. If I can't correct my own flaws, what good am I?

One does needs to strive to be better, you are correct. But acceptance is needed, and that entails accepting that you have many flaws. We're far from perfect.

I am lazy, I procrastinate, I envy. Those are some of my many flaws. I accept it, and accepting these flaws make me want to work harder to be a better person, to no be lazy or envious. And when those I love tell me they love me despite of these flaws, I am driven to be better.

[Treznor]

The day I "accept myself for who I am" is the day I stop striving to improve myself. Not gonna happen.

I don't really care whether others accept me or not, mind, but I'm not just going to say "oh yeah, my flaws are just part of who I am, there's nothing I can do to change them." That's bullshit. If I can't correct my own flaws, what good am I?

How do you change your flaws unless you face and accept that they're a part of you? Why bother trying to change those flaws unless you accept the good parts of you and acknowledge that you can change yourself?

[Czardas]

The day I "accept myself for who I am" is the day I stop striving to improve myself. Not gonna happen.

I don't really care whether others accept me or not, mind, but I'm not just going to say "oh yeah, my flaws are just part of who I am, there's nothing I can do to change them." That's bullshit. If I can't correct my own flaws, what good am I?

How do you change your flaws unless you face and accept that they're a part of you?

Identifying flaws ≠ accepting that flaws are inherent.

I don't consider my flaws part of me. I consider them obstacles my real self must overcome, like any other obstacle; they are not a manifestation of myself but presumably of some minor illness or mental disorder that causes me to behave in ways I know are not correct. (Do you accept that the difficult exams you're required to pass, the lack of money to accomplish something, the influenza laying you up in bed for a week are "part of you"?) The methods of dealing with them are different, but they are obstacles nonetheless.

Why bother trying to change those flaws unless you accept the good parts of you and acknowledge that you can change yourself?

Well, of course I can change myself. Empirical observation of the actions of others indicates that human behavior and personality is mutable.

[Treznor]

The day I "accept myself for who I am" is the day I stop striving to improve myself. Not gonna happen.

I don't really care whether others accept me or not, mind, but I'm not just going to say "oh yeah, my flaws are just part of who I am, there's nothing I can do to change them." That's bullshit. If I can't correct my own flaws, what good am I?

How do you change your flaws unless you face and accept that they're a part of you?

Identifying flaws ≠ accepting that flaws are inherent.

I don't consider my flaws part of me. I consider them obstacles my real self must overcome, like any other obstacle; they are not a manifestation of myself but presumably of some minor illness or mental disorder that causes me to behave in ways I know are not correct. (Do you accept that the difficult exams you're required to pass, the lack of money to accomplish something, the influenza laying you up in bed for a week are "part of you"?) The methods of dealing with them are different, but they are obstacles nonetheless.

I see your point, but accepting that you have flaws is different from accepting that your flaws are permanent. Some people go through their lives not accepting that there's anything flawed about them, or conversely (perversely?) that there's anything good about themselves. Accepting that we have both is part of the process by which we create change within ourselves.

Why bother trying to change those flaws unless you accept the good parts of you and acknowledge that you can change yourself?

Well, of course I can change myself. Empirical observation of the actions of others indicates that human behavior and personality is mutable.

For those who can't accept there's anything good about themselves, they never bother trying to create good changes because they believe they're incapable of being good, or better, or whatever. Other people can change, but they're helpless in the face of their seemingly insurmountable flaws.

[Czardas]

The day I "accept myself for who I am" is the day I stop striving to improve myself. Not gonna happen.

I don't really care whether others accept me or not, mind, but I'm not just going to say "oh yeah, my flaws are just part of who I am, there's nothing I can do to change them." That's bullshit. If I can't correct my own flaws, what good am I?

How do you change your flaws unless you face and accept that they're a part of you?

Identifying flaws ≠ accepting that flaws are inherent.

I don't consider my flaws part of me. I consider them obstacles my real self must overcome, like any other obstacle; they are not a manifestation of myself but presumably of some minor illness or mental disorder that causes me to behave in ways I know are not correct. (Do you accept that the difficult exams you're required to pass, the lack of money to accomplish something, the influenza laying you up in bed for a week are "part of you"?) The methods of dealing with them are different, but they are obstacles nonetheless.

I see your point, but accepting that you have flaws is different from accepting that your flaws are permanent. Some people go through their lives not accepting that there's anything flawed about them, or conversely (perversely?) that there's anything good about themselves. Accepting that we have both is part of the process by which we create change within ourselves.

There is nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about my self. It's just a normal human personality, capable of good and bad things like everyone else, and occasionally suffering from mental imbalances or disorders that limit its functionality. If I remove those limits, I will be able to accomplish more good things than otherwise. Hence, removing the limits (or "flaws") is a good thing.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, in short.

Why bother trying to change those flaws unless you accept the good parts of you and acknowledge that you can change yourself?

Well, of course I can change myself. Empirical observation of the actions of others indicates that human behavior and personality is mutable.

For those who can't accept there's anything good about themselves, they never bother trying to create good changes because they believe they're incapable of being good, or better, or whatever. Other people can change, but they're helpless in the face of their seemingly insurmountable flaws.

If those who don't accept themselves, to use your terminology, still do good things, they are functionally no different from those who do accept themselves. If they're unable or unwilling to overcome their limits, and fail to accomplish anything worthwhile as a result, they're essentially suffering from mental disorders, and should be treated so that they will be capable of doing things.

[Treznor]

I see your point, but accepting that you have flaws is different from accepting that your flaws are permanent. Some people go through their lives not accepting that there's anything flawed about them, or conversely (perversely?) that there's anything good about themselves. Accepting that we have both is part of the process by which we create change within ourselves.

There is nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about my self. It's just a normal human personality, capable of good and bad things like everyone else, and occasionally suffering from mental imbalances or disorders that limit its functionality. If I remove those limits, I will be able to accomplish more good things than otherwise. Hence, removing the limits (or "flaws") is a good thing.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, in short.

It seems to me that it never occurred to you that people can be a little blind when it comes to their own strengths and weaknesses. Someone who is focused on their good traits or moral superiority can utterly ignore their flaws, and be quite offended when those flaws are pointed out to them. Someone who is focused on their bad traits or moral inferiority can just as vehemently reject any attempt to point out their good points. You are apparently capable of observing yourself and accepting what you see as valid with an eye toward changing what you wish, but you don't put it in those terms. It never occurred to you to reject any strengths or flaws within yourself.

For those who can't accept there's anything good about themselves, they never bother trying to create good changes because they believe they're incapable of being good, or better, or whatever. Other people can change, but they're helpless in the face of their seemingly insurmountable flaws.

If those who don't accept themselves, to use your terminology, still do good things, they are functionally no different from those who do accept themselves. If they're unable or unwilling to overcome their limits, and fail to accomplish anything worthwhile as a result, they're essentially suffering from mental disorders, and should be treated so that they will be capable of doing things.

People who do good things aren't always capable of admitting that they're doing them because of any good aspects of themselves, Yes, they need help, but that doesn't invalidate that this is what they perceive. You can call it a mental disorder or whatever you like, but it's not uncommon among humans in every culture. People have blind spots to their good points and bad points alike, and some people take it to some drastic extremes.

Some people never take the time to examine themselves for strengths and weaknesses. It simply never occurs to them that they could be anything other than who they are right at that moment. Change isn't something they make happen, change is something that simply happens to them. They never accept themselves as who they are because it never occurs to them that they should take a look.

[JuNii]

First off, let me just make it clear that this has nothing to do with me. Second, let us keep it as much on topic as we possibly can. Third, if it's possible, be as sincere (not transparent), but as sincere as you can.

The premise is, I was watching something I haven't seen in a while and the characters touched the subject of acceptance. Self-acceptance at that. It was discussed that in order to accept ourselves, perhaps we need to find that we are accepted by others. That we need to be told by others that we are liked, that we posses good qualities. That, in order to grow comfortable in our skin, we perhaps need to simply be told that we are loved.

Wrapping it up, that if we are only told of our defects, that we may never come to accept that we are ok. Nationstates, what do you think of this? Is it true, can we find acceptance only when we are told by others that we are liked or is it possible to find self-acceptance just by thinking we are indeed ok?

very hard to say. I am kinda a recluse, but I've accepted that of myself. infact, I accept myself for who I am, and I accept others for who they are. sure there is room for improvement, but accepting yourself is accepting all your flaws and short-commings.

People will always find flaws, and some people will be more than happy to point them out, what I try to do is find the good things about others. sure other people do thinks that irk me, but instead of dwelling on that I concentrate on things I like about the person. Hence why I hate games like Survivor, Big Brother, Mafia, etc... where I would have to 'vote' someone off... it's just not in my nature, I guess.

[JuNii]

I accpet who i think i know i am and therfore i accept myself. But the real question do you accept who i think i know i think who i am, do you accept me?

ah... but are you accepting the you you are, or the you you think you are.

and yes. I accept the you you present.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I accpet who i think i know i am and therfore i accept myself. But the real question do you accept who i think i know i think who i am, do you accept me?

ah... but are you accepting the you you are, or the you you think you are.

and yes. I accept the you you present.

You know... I would go to Hawaii only to blow raspberries on your belly. You're so adorable!

[Czardas]

I see your point, but accepting that you have flaws is different from accepting that your flaws are permanent. Some people go through their lives not accepting that there's anything flawed about them, or conversely (perversely?) that there's anything good about themselves. Accepting that we have both is part of the process by which we create change within ourselves.

There is nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about my self. It's just a normal human personality, capable of good and bad things like everyone else, and occasionally suffering from mental imbalances or disorders that limit its functionality. If I remove those limits, I will be able to accomplish more good things than otherwise. Hence, removing the limits (or "flaws") is a good thing.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, in short.

It seems to me that it never occurred to you that people can be a little blind when it comes to their own strengths and weaknesses.

Hadn't thought of that, no. I'd figured out my "strengths" (i.e. traits) and "weaknesses" (i.e. obstacles) by the time I was sixteen, and assumed that was the marker of maturity. I suppose some people are just immature.

Someone who is focused on their good traits or moral superiority can utterly ignore their flaws, and be quite offended when those flaws are pointed out to them. Someone who is focused on their bad traits or moral inferiority can just as vehemently reject any attempt to point out their good points. You are apparently capable of observing yourself and accepting what you see as valid with an eye toward changing what you wish, but you don't put it in those terms. It never occurred to you to reject any strengths or flaws within yourself.

Well, no. My traits ("strengths") are inherent, and can no more be "accepted" than you can accept having high cheekbones, brown eyes, or an inability to grow facial hair. You can attempt to disguise these traits with, say, plastic surgery or contact lenses, but that's all it really is -- a disguise, presented for some reason known only to yourself. My obstacles ("flaws") are not inherent, since I can overcome them, and therefore do not derive from me. I reject them the way you reject a disease.

For those who can't accept there's anything good about themselves, they never bother trying to create good changes because they believe they're incapable of being good, or better, or whatever. Other people can change, but they're helpless in the face of their seemingly insurmountable flaws.

If those who don't accept themselves, to use your terminology, still do good things, they are functionally no different from those who do accept themselves. If they're unable or unwilling to overcome their limits, and fail to accomplish anything worthwhile as a result, they're essentially suffering from mental disorders, and should be treated so that they will be capable of doing things.

People who do good things aren't always capable of admitting that they're doing them because of any good aspects of themselves, Yes, they need help, but that doesn't invalidate that this is what they perceive. You can call it a mental disorder or whatever you like, but it's not uncommon among humans in every culture. People have blind spots to their good points and bad points alike, and some people take it to some drastic extremes.

Some people never take the time to examine themselves for strengths and weaknesses. It simply never occurs to them that they could be anything other than who they are right at that moment. Change isn't something they make happen, change is something that simply happens to them. They never accept themselves as who they are because it never occurs to them that they should take a look.

It seems, then, that the sticking point of our whole argument is semantics. As per usual for NSG.

[Sarkhaan]

It is both external and internal. A childs first experiences of self-worth will come from the parents, even before the child has developed a sense of "self". Can a child grow to have no self-worth, even with parents that constantly encourage the child? Yes. Can a child grow to value himself, even with denegrating parents? Yep. How and why will rely upon two things: the child and other outside forces. Some people are just resiliant enough to grow to accept themselves even with no further encouragement. These people are very, very rare. Other people will be lucky enough to find a teacher, a friend, a coach...someone who shows the individual that they have value.

Self-acceptance is a cycle. One will rarely find value in themselves without hearing it from outside, but one will rarely get it from the outside without having it inside first.

[JarVik]

It's the other way around. If we accept ourselves, others will accept us.

While I find a great amount of truth in the above statement, I feel this is a bit of a chicken or egg first type question.

For others to accept you (add possibly love you) you need to be comforatable and accept (and love) yourself. However, self image/self acceptance is influenced by your peers and family, particularily a lasting influence from your childhood years I expect.

So your levels of acceptance or encouragment during childhood from family/friends likely has a big influence on your self acceptance as an adult. I would expect strong or regular negative re-enforcement leaving a strong tendancey towards self doubt and unhappiness with self.

Just my gut feeling on it,