by Guest » Tue May 26, 2009 4:10 pm
We're talking, more specifically, about self-confidence...
Self-confidence does not necessarily imply a belief in one's ability to succeed. For instance, one may be inept at a particular sport or activity, but remain 'confident' in their demeanour, simply because they do not place a great deal of emphasis on the outcome of the activity. The key element to self-confidence is, therefore, an acceptance of the myriad consequences of a particular situation, be they good or bad. When one does not dwell on negative consequences one can be more 'self-confident' because one is worrying far less about failure or (more likely) the disapproval of others following potential failure. One is then more likely to focus on the actual situation which means that enjoyment and success in that situation is also more probable.
There a fine line between being self-confident and denying reality. Based on the definition above, refusing to acknowledge the 'myriad of negative consequences' could be construed as a form of denial. However, the fundamental difference between denial (the refusal to accept negative outcomes) and self-confidence (being outcome independent) is that denial stops at the negative outcome. It does not even acknowledge the presence of a 'sister' or parallel outcome(s), i.e. positive, neutral, etc. As such, it is fundamentally flawed to consider denial the same as confidence. Denial is the refusal to be impacted by negative outcomes, self-confidence is the refusal to be impacted by any outcome.