<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hubris</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.loopinfinite.com/2009/11/06/hubris/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.loopinfinite.com/2009/11/06/hubris/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:33:03 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Broco</title>
		<link>http://www.loopinfinite.com/2009/11/06/hubris/comment-page-1/#comment-777</link>
		<dc:creator>Broco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loopinfinite.com/?p=2529#comment-777</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s the self-help culture that&#039;s so prevalent in the US that does it, I think.  No one with taste wants to be a follower of Dr. Phil.  The TV shrinks and &quot;Ph.D.&quot; writers might actually be damaging the prospects for happiness among a segment of the population, by tarring the whole idea of self-improvement with their tackiness.

There&#039;s no way to ignore the ingrained associations of a phrase like &quot;believing in yourself&quot;, so I think it&#039;s more effective to come up with your own wordings. This isn&#039;t purely a way to trick yourself either, since another thing that&#039;s repellent about the self-help brigade is how they oversimplify and blindly deny anything sad or discomforting.  It&#039;s not wrong of you to want to maintain your awareness of the melancholy side of life (especially since even joyful artwork tends to have a bittersweet aftertaste to it).  By reconstituting your own terminology and worldview, you can synthesize the positive and negative and arrive at something more nuanced that you can actually believe in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s the self-help culture that&#8217;s so prevalent in the US that does it, I think.  No one with taste wants to be a follower of Dr. Phil.  The TV shrinks and &#8220;Ph.D.&#8221; writers might actually be damaging the prospects for happiness among a segment of the population, by tarring the whole idea of self-improvement with their tackiness.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s no way to ignore the ingrained associations of a phrase like &#8220;believing in yourself&#8221;, so I think it&#8217;s more effective to come up with your own wordings. This isn&#8217;t purely a way to trick yourself either, since another thing that&#8217;s repellent about the self-help brigade is how they oversimplify and blindly deny anything sad or discomforting.  It&#8217;s not wrong of you to want to maintain your awareness of the melancholy side of life (especially since even joyful artwork tends to have a bittersweet aftertaste to it).  By reconstituting your own terminology and worldview, you can synthesize the positive and negative and arrive at something more nuanced that you can actually believe in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amandeep Jutla</title>
		<link>http://www.loopinfinite.com/2009/11/06/hubris/comment-page-1/#comment-775</link>
		<dc:creator>Amandeep Jutla</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:20:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loopinfinite.com/?p=2529#comment-775</guid>
		<description>Part of the deal with me really is this weird knee-jerk aversion to the kind of positivity that I actually should be embracing. The psychology of it is bizarre: on some unconscious level I think I actually hold the bullshit belief that self-deprecation and depression and so on are in some way more &quot;real&quot; or &quot;authentic&quot; than &quot;believing in myself&quot; (which by comparison seems like an inherently trite and douchey concept). That&#039;s a frame of mind I really need to get rid of, to get anywhere.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Part of the deal with me really is this weird knee-jerk aversion to the kind of positivity that I actually should be embracing. The psychology of it is bizarre: on some unconscious level I think I actually hold the bullshit belief that self-deprecation and depression and so on are in some way more &#8220;real&#8221; or &#8220;authentic&#8221; than &#8220;believing in myself&#8221; (which by comparison seems like an inherently trite and douchey concept). That&#8217;s a frame of mind I really need to get rid of, to get anywhere.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Broco</title>
		<link>http://www.loopinfinite.com/2009/11/06/hubris/comment-page-1/#comment-770</link>
		<dc:creator>Broco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:59:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loopinfinite.com/?p=2529#comment-770</guid>
		<description>Most successful writers only get any kind of substantial external validation of their ability after their first or second novel.  In the years before that, they need to maintain at least by spurts an entrepreneurial spirit -- a drive to action and an optimism about beating the odds -- against the lukewarm support of friends and family, the awareness that much their previous writing (and that of the vast majority of unpublished writers) is rubbish, and the steady time pressure from diminishing savings or a day job.  It&#039;s a minor miracle that so many good writers, for whom introspection rather than drive to action is the crucial quality, manage to push through this period, and it&#039;s even luckier that writers like Kafka whose self-doubt is at the center of their art have managed to produce something regardless.

To these external problems you add your own: as a matter of sensibility you&#039;re repulsed by self-confidence, equating it with smug superiority and narcissism.  But I shouldn&#039;t really need to point out that the beret-wearing douche is an arbitrary point of reference -- you could ignore him entirely and define yourself neither as similar nor opposite of him.  There&#039;s another, quieter and friendlier sort of self-confidence, easy to forget about because it doesn&#039;t inspire envy or loathing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most successful writers only get any kind of substantial external validation of their ability after their first or second novel.  In the years before that, they need to maintain at least by spurts an entrepreneurial spirit &#8212; a drive to action and an optimism about beating the odds &#8212; against the lukewarm support of friends and family, the awareness that much their previous writing (and that of the vast majority of unpublished writers) is rubbish, and the steady time pressure from diminishing savings or a day job.  It&#8217;s a minor miracle that so many good writers, for whom introspection rather than drive to action is the crucial quality, manage to push through this period, and it&#8217;s even luckier that writers like Kafka whose self-doubt is at the center of their art have managed to produce something regardless.</p>
<p>To these external problems you add your own: as a matter of sensibility you&#8217;re repulsed by self-confidence, equating it with smug superiority and narcissism.  But I shouldn&#8217;t really need to point out that the beret-wearing douche is an arbitrary point of reference &#8212; you could ignore him entirely and define yourself neither as similar nor opposite of him.  There&#8217;s another, quieter and friendlier sort of self-confidence, easy to forget about because it doesn&#8217;t inspire envy or loathing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
