If we take a moment to reflect on our daily joys and worries, we might notice something intriguing:
Our happiness often stems from the gratitude, encouragement, and affirmation we receive from others. These gestures fuel our enthusiasm, making us feel invigorated throughout the day.
On the flip side, where do our anxieties primarily come from? More often than not, they arise from unpleasant interactions with others. For instance:
- A colleague’s disagreement with your proposal during a meeting might leave you wondering, “Do they have an issue with me?”
- A slightly sharp comment from a client could make you think, “Are they displeased with me?”
- An odd tone from a cross-departmental partner might have you asking, “Did I upset them?”
And on the digital front, voicing an opinion or airing a grievance online can sometimes trigger a slew of sarcastic or aggressive comments.
But in the grand scheme of things, are these situations severe? Looking back, these moments are often minor blips that don’t cause any real harm. We might even rationally understand that the person probably didn’t intend to upset or target us; it’s just their way of communicating.
However, in the heat of the moment, these tiny incidents can ruin our entire day. They might even make our blood boil, leaving us struggling to manage our emotions.
It’s fascinating how humans operate. A simple “thank you” from someone can uplift us for hours, while an unfriendly remark can bog us down just as long.
I bet many of you have experienced this: feeling utterly disheartened by someone’s offhand comment. Either you react on the spot, or you swallow the hurt, but it festers inside, taking a while to dissipate.
If you’re grappling with such concerns, I hope this piece offers you some perspective.
Why Are We So Sensitive to Others’ Opinions?
Have you ever wondered why we’re often acutely aware of how others perceive us? The answer lies in our brain’s innate sensitivity to social interactions. The reason is simple: our ancient ancestors depended on group living for survival, as they weren’t adept at hunting or surviving alone. To thrive and procreate within these groups, individuals with strong social aptitudes were naturally favored and passed on their traits through generations. This theory was introduced in 1993 by psychologist Dunbar as the “Social Brain Hypothesis.”
The hypothesis suggests that human brains (and those of other advanced primates) evolved to handle the intricate calculations required for sophisticated social interactions. A famous concept proposed by Dunbar, known as the “Dunbar’s Number,” posits that an individual can maintain a social circle of up to approximately 150 people. This suggests that our ancestors might have moved in groups of this size, shaping our brains accordingly.
With this foundation, our brains tend to prioritize and emphasize learning and reactions stemming from social scenarios. Let’s delve into an interesting experiment called the “Wason Selection Task.” Presented with cards labeled E, K, 4, and 7, participants were told: “If a card has a vowel on one side, then its opposite side has an even number.” Which cards should be turned over to verify this rule? While many would immediately choose ‘E,’ most overlook ‘7.’ Yet, when the context changed to social rules – beer, cola, 19, and 16, with the rule being: “If someone is drinking beer, they must be over 18” – the accuracy rate skyrocketed. The same logical task, when given a social twist, became much easier.
This classic experiment shows that our brains aren’t necessarily built for abstract logic. Instead, they excel in understanding and processing social situations. This is why we often grasp complex concepts better when they’re wrapped in a story or narrative. It emphasizes that our minds inherently give social feedback and opinions significant weight.
So, while we frequently advise not to fret over others’ opinions, it’s genuinely challenging. Why? Because our brain’s evolution is wired towards valuing social feedback.
Navigating the Complexities of Internal and External Self-Perception
In this context, it’s easy for us to develop a mechanism where we link our self-worth and sense of existence to how others perceive and treat us.
Every one of us has a fundamental need: to recognize and affirm our value in existence. Simply put, we need to feel that “our presence matters” and that “we have the capability to achieve our goals”. Without this sense, we might feel aimless or foundationless.
In psychology, this is referred to as “self-esteem”. Note, this might be a bit different from the everyday use of the term. Self-esteem varies in degrees. High self-esteem suggests you believe you are valuable and capable, while low self-esteem implies you feel valueless or incapable.
Typically, self-esteem is internally gauged and judged. For instance, if you have a knack for writing and derive pleasure from it, feeling accomplished even without external recognition, you’d internally believe “I write well”. This is a sign of a “healthy high self-esteem” – an ideal state.
However, because our brains tend to lean towards social connections, this can sometimes skew the development of our self-esteem, making it somewhat unstable or dependent on external validation. This is what psychologist Michael Kernis described as “heterogeneity of high self-esteem” or HSE, also known as “fragile high self-esteem”.
HSE can generally be categorized into the following types:
- Unstable: Constantly fluctuating self-assessment. One moment they feel on top of the world, and the next, they feel worthless. Their self-view often changes based on external comparisons, lacking a steady standard. Such individuals might fear unfamiliar settings or challenges, preferring the comfort of familiar environments.
- Defensive: Extremely afraid of external criticism and will go to great lengths to uphold their image. They tend to resist negative feedback, often becoming quite stubborn even in the face of evidence. This is because they view their stance as an integral part of their self-worth.
- Dependent: Highly reliant on external validation. Such individuals prioritize meeting others’ expectations and find it challenging to disappoint or refuse others. This can manifest as excessive vanity or the need to put on a facade, even if it means stretching beyond their means.
- Inconsistent: Presenting a high self-esteem that’s at odds with their true feelings. While they might seem confident on the outside, they might grapple with deep-rooted insecurities. Their internal and external selves don’t align.
Individuals might exhibit one or even multiple forms of HSE, with varying intensities. Regardless of the type or degree, it’s not a favorable state, mainly because it signifies handing over the power of self-assessment to others, rather than keeping it within oneself.
Delving into the Impacts of HSE on Personal Behavior
What happens when someone exhibits signs of Heterogeneous High Self-Esteem (HSE)? Research has highlighted two significant patterns observed in those with HSE (as per Kernis et al., 1996, 1997, 2000):
- Tendency to Overemphasize Negative Feedback: Individuals with HSE often pay more attention to negative comments and might even interpret neutral or ambiguous feedback as negative.
- Dwelling on Negative Feedback: They are prone to ruminate, or dwell, on negative feedback more deeply.
This creates a sort of vicious cycle: The increased sensitivity to negative feedback means they encounter it more often, and then they ruminate on it, amplifying its impact on their well-being.
Let’s consider an example: Imagine you’ve made an error at work and received a reprimand from your supervisor. Later, you see colleagues whispering, and while many might shrug this off, someone with HSE might instantly wonder, “Are they talking about me? Are they mocking me?” This causes them to relive the distress of their earlier mistake. It’s certainly not a pleasant feeling.
Most individuals with HSE frequently experience such distress in their daily lives. Consequently, they might adopt subconscious strategies to avoid these painful feelings. A prominent example of such a strategy is narcissism.
Narcissism is described by psychologists as “an excessive focus on oneself with an expectation for others to pay attention too” (Baumeister, 1996, 1998). In simple terms, narcissists often feel that they’re exceptional, even if others haven’t yet realized it. When they achieve something, they’re eager to share and seek validation and recognition. This approval brings them immense satisfaction.
Research suggests that among the different types of HSE, the “Inconsistent HSE” type is most likely to manifest narcissistic tendencies (Zeigler-hill, 2006). In other words, narcissism might emerge as a mask for underlying feelings of inadequacy.
Moreover, when this narcissistic attitude faces external challenges, such as rejection or ridicule, another defense mechanism might come into play: externalization. This involves drawing a line between oneself and the world, assigning all the ‘good’ to oneself and all the ‘bad’ to the outside world. Phrases like “You wouldn’t understand,” “No one gets me,” or “Geniuses like me are never appreciated” capture this mindset.
Furthermore, research has shown that narcissists tend to be more aggressive (Twenge, 2001). This means when they face social rejection, they’re likely to harbor grudges and may even retaliate, spreading rumors, or giving low evaluations of others. This could even be directed at unrelated third parties, essentially taking out their frustrations on them.
Lastly, narcissists have a strong competitive streak. This can lead them to be prickly or confrontational in their interactions, even unprovoked, as they’re constantly trying to prove “I’m better than you” to satisfy their HSE.
Addressing the Concerns of HSE – Strategies and Tips
Having discussed the intricacies of Heterogeneous High Self-Esteem (HSE) in depth, the pivotal question remains: How can we best manage and address it?
It’s worth noting that while HSE might not signify optimal mental well-being, it isn’t an exceptionally grave concern. Most individuals exhibit traces of it to varying extents. What’s crucial is:
Recognizing and intervening early, instead of allowing HSE to magnify.
Ensuring it doesn’t evolve into narcissism.
Here are a few straightforward tips to alleviate any HSE-related stress:
1. The Principle of Tolerance
This philosophical concept encourages maintaining an utmost goodwill when communicating with others. It means giving them the benefit of the doubt, believing they’re being positive and are genuinely attempting to resolve issues. To understand this principle better, let’s discuss the Fundamental Attribution Error.
This cognitive bias means we often credit our successes to our abilities (“I’m brilliant”), but blame external factors for our failures (“Just bad luck”). Conversely, we might attribute someone else’s success to their luck and their failures to their inadequacies. This is the essence of the Fundamental Attribution Error.
So, the first golden rule is: Whenever someone behaves in a manner that upsets you, try attributing it to external factors before considering it’s because of their inherent traits.
For instance, in a knowledge-sharing group, if a member repeats a frequently asked question, it’s easy to label them as “lazy” (inherent trait). But a more compassionate understanding could be they’re swamped at work and missed earlier discussions, hence the repetition – an external factor.
Another example: If someone criticizes you without reason, instead of thinking, “They’re deliberately targeting me” (inherent trait), consider, “They might have misunderstood me” (external factor). This mindset shift encourages you to clarify any miscommunication proactively.
Further, even if we end up attributing a behavior to internal factors, it can be due to capability or intent.
The second golden rule is: If a behavior can be explained by a lack of skill, avoid escalating it to malicious intent.
For instance, if someone makes a snide remark, instead of assuming “They have a problem with you” (malicious intent), consider “They lack emotional intelligence” (capability issue). The strategy then becomes: address the issue first and gently point out their behavior later.
In short, when someone’s words unsettle you, interpret in the following order:
(1) What are they trying to convey? Did I possibly misconstrue it?
(2) Could external factors or conditions have influenced their statement?
(3) Could their capability limits be the cause?
(4) Are they challenging, negating, or attacking me?
Typically, interpreting in the 1→2→3→4 sequence, staying in the 1-3 zones, can resolve most misunderstandings. Only transition to 4 when you have solid evidence.
Adopting this approach can effectively alleviate many of your concerns. You’ll discover that many perceived criticisms might just be misinterpretations, not genuine indicators of someone’s ill-intentions.
2. The Principle of Equivalence
In simple terms: if someone offers you a judgment, they must present equivalent evidence to back it up. Without such evidence, the judgment is meaningless, and you shouldn’t let it bother you.
I categorize rebuttals into two main types: ineffective and effective. What’s an ineffective rebuttal? Broadly speaking, it’s a counterargument that’s all opinion and no substantiation. This includes baseless negations, nitpicking minor points while missing the main message, or misrepresenting the other person’s stance. On the other hand, an effective rebuttal is one that offers reasons and evidence to support the statement.
Ideally, your response should go something like: “I fully understand your position, but I have some concerns about this specific point because (provide reason)… I believe this approach would be better because (provide solution)…”
When faced with an “ineffective rebuttal” in life, the best thing to do is not to let it get to you. There are far more meaningful things to pay attention to.
3. The Three-Step Firefighting Approach
It’s inevitable that sometimes, someone’s words can make you extremely upset or agitated. How can you keep your cool in such moments? Here are three steps to help you quickly regain your composure:
- Divert Your Attention – Refrain from reacting immediately. Shift your focus to another task or thought, and return to the matter later.
- Third-Person Perspective – Ask yourself: how would an unbiased third party perceive what they said? How would they view my reaction if I were to lash out or make a scene? What response would seem ‘reasonable’ to them?
- Depersonalize – Think of both yourself and the other person as machines. Separate your emotions and consider the issue as if it’s not directed at “you,” but some unrelated entity. Then consider if there’s a process or procedure that could be applied in this situation. If there is, follow it. If not, create one for future instances.
This approach can effectively help you break free from emotional reactions, preventing you from further agitation.
4. The Firewall Method
What’s the Firewall Method? It’s a powerful self-defense strategy, also known as Compartmentalization. In essence:
- Diverse Identity: Your self-concept and self-worth come from multiple facets of your life, not just one. This means that the “me” is multifaceted: there’s the work-me, home-me, the me in my neighbors’ eyes, the me in my friends’ eyes, and so on.
- Isolation: Any judgment or evaluation from others is about the current context, which represents just a part of “me”, not the whole.
- Integration: I might not meet my own standards in one area, but I can excel in another, keeping the overall “me” in a reasonable position.
Using this method proactively can provide emotional resilience, ensuring that negative feedback is contained and doesn’t impact your overall self-view.
Beyond Winning and Losing
I’ve always emphasized that the true aim of a debate isn’t about winning or losing; it’s about getting closer to the truth.
So, in daily life, when someone contradicts or questions you, shift your perspective. Don’t think in terms of “I lose, you win”, but instead ask:
“What are they trying to convey?”
“Where do our opinions diverge?”
“How can our fundamental beliefs converge?”
“How can their viewpoint enrich or correct mine?”
This is a higher-level thinking habit. Even if you look at situations from a win-lose perspective, this habit ensures you always come out on top. Those fixated on winning or losing have already lost. Those who look beyond such binaries are the real winners, as they constantly learn and grow.
