If you've read "The Inverse Attractiveness Theory" (see earlier in Feb.), you know that I theorized that people who have average qualities do much better in dating (and probably friendships as well) than those who are either very attractive in some area or very unattractive in some area. Several things I've read recently convinced me to revisit this topic.
First, LD posted a comment where he stated that a majority of people have low self-esteem, especially in college. Personally, I don't see how being in college makes all that much difference. On graduation day, are the people who think poorly of themselves going to suddenly open their eyes and experience a divine transformation? I think not. So if what LD says is right, there are more people in the world who have poor self images than those with high self-esteem.
Think of the implications of such a statement. Psychologists and psychiatrists are inundated with people every day who are dealing with personal problems. Most of these professionals would tell anyone who has poor self-esteem to come in and talk. But if
most people have low self-esteem, then why do we as a society claim that being in superb mental health involves having a positive self-image? If most people look down at themselves, then we're just treating wellness, not sickness.
Take a look at
this page. The article is geared for men, but I would suppose it applies to both genders. If you read down the page, the author claims that the more physically attractive the woman, the lower opinion of herself she has. In particular, he points out that if one is always getting attention for her looks, then that's all she'll concentrate on improving and consequently that will be her best (and only?) asset.
So if the "Inverse Attractiveness Theory" is correct, perhaps it's because the most physically attractive people don't have what it takes emotionally or mentally to be successful.
One part of the article with which I especially agree is where the author claims that some women put up a "bitch shield," i.e. being mean to feel better about herself and hide whatever problems she's feeling inside. I've seen this phenomenon everywhere. Where the author of that article makes a mistake is that he encourages men to go after such women because they'll be easy targets. I agree that they'll be easy targets, but would you really want to be with someone who has to act big in order to get attention? I hope not. If you disagree with me, you'll find out a few years down the road.
Another interesting idea this whole discussion brings up is that because many women will not take the initiative and leave it all on the men, does that mean that, on average, men have higher self-esteem than women simply because some women let the men do all the work because they feel too bad about themselves to take control of their own destinies? Perhaps it's an infinite loop: women feel bad about themselves and expect men to come after them, so men work to make themselves feel good enough to go after these women, and it becomes expected that men have to have high self-esteem to succeed. Consequently, women have no motivation to put away past problems because the men can "take care of them."
So what do you think? Do most people have low self-esteem, or do most people think highly of themselves? Is physical attractiveness inversely proportional to self-esteem? And do men look more highly upon themselves than women?
If you've read "The Inverse Attractiveness Theory" (see earlier in Feb.), you know that I theorized that people who have average qualities do much better in dating (and probably friendships as well) than those who are either very attractive in some area or very unattractive in some area. Several things I've read recently convinced me to revisit this topic.
I'd beware people that seem too... belligerent.
