Social Identities of WS versus OW – A match made in hell

[2sure]

Nah, I dont think so.

 

And no, I didnt bother reading your entire response.

 

But I'm positive I understand it.

[silktricks]

OTC - "self-monitoring" does not equate with insincerity. It is about being aware of what is going on around one - the sensitivities of others, where they're at, and what behaviour would be appropriate in that context. It's not about coming over all fake UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO ACT FAKE.

 

If you are not "self-monitoring" to at least some degree, you will come across as completely blunt, untuned in to anyone else but yourself, completely self-absorbed and uncaring of what anyone else thinks or feels.

 

Instead of demonising the extremes, it would be more helpful to recognise where - and to what extent - such attributes are useful OR NECESSARY in which situations.

 

I'm in the very low range of high self-monitoring.

 

I'd also like to say that I like what you've said here. We don't want to have a lot of fakes in our life, but we also aren't really crazy about having people TRULY tell us what they think all the time - living in a social group has enough problems without that!!

[Brokenlady]

If you are not "self-monitoring" to at least some degree, you will come across as completely blunt, untuned in to anyone else but yourself, completely self-absorbed and uncaring of what anyone else thinks or feels.

 

Instead of demonising the extremes, it would be more helpful to recognise where - and to what extent - such attributes are useful OR NECESSARY in which situations. I'd hazard a guess that many of those slagging off "self-monitoring" would be horrified if someone brutally told someone else they looked ugly in new clothes, or that they'd put on way too much weight and had become sexually repulsive - behaviours consistent with low self-monitoring. MOST people recognise that tact and diplomacy in certain situations are necessary to sustain healthy social functioning. There is a huge difference between being a social fake and being a sophisticated, high EQ well-functioning person - which requires a reasonably high "self-monitoring" score.

 

I disagree. I scored a whopping 3. And I have never told someone they looked horrid in a bad outfit. But I have told someone that I like the pink dress better than the blue one or that the black shirt is especially flattering. It's more honest than gushing about how great an awful green dress really looks, and yet there is still tact involved. You don't have to involve fakery to be tactful.

[2sure]

Being tactful, polite, and non abrasive has little to do with self monitoring or being honest in general.

 

I am attempting to live as sincerely as I can....sincere first to myself. True to myself, which usually leads to being my true self to others.

 

But I do not feel that being rude about clothing or opinions is a requirement of honesty or sincerity. To me, there is a big difference.

[Got it]

I've been reading up on various social identity theories and it’s been helping me make some sense of how xDM was able to compartmentalize and put some of his words and actions into perspective. It turns out that there are people classified as high self-monitors, who are able to change their personalities to fit a situation easily, like social chameleons, if you will. Politicians, actors, and trials lawyers are among the best at doing this kind of thing – an effective way to control the impressions of themselves that they convey to others. These skills can be used for deceptive and manipulative purposes, or just to promote smooth social interactions, key ingredients for WS in an affair. Yet, these individuals prefer to live in a stable and predictable social environment populated by people whose actions consistently and accurately reflect their attitudes and feelings, and are especially fond of those who avoid strategic posturing (low self-monitors). The cost of being a high self-monitor, it is said, “is that their words and deeds reveal precious little information about their true inner feelings and attitudes.”

 

Meanwhile, low self-monitoring individuals “strive for congruence between who they are and what they do and regard their actions as faithful reflections of how they feel and think.”

 

Based on the OW posts here, it sound like OW tend to be the low-self-monitors, which may explain why we have such a hard time understanding WS whose words and behaviors don’t match their supposed feelings.

 

The bolded part is what I find particularly interesting. It would suggest that WS's choice either to stay in the M or leave it is likely to be based on trying to "look good" to those important to them, and may bear little resemblance to their true desires feelings. What do you guys think

 

In some cases I am sure this is true but it too generalize in both categories to be a safe assumption.

[White Flower]

Okay, so what if one learns early they do lack some EQ, and then becomes a high-self monitor to help open doors that would not really open for them?

 

They develop a self-serving, coping personna that helps them achieve their goals?

 

Now they APPEAR to be a high-self monitor, but it is a cover for their low self-esteem.

 

How authentic could that person truly be? In careers, relationships, etc.

One does not cancel out the other. 'Fake it till ya make it' happens every day. But when we go home we're allowed to be ourselves again around those who accept us for who we are. Again, it is about balance.

[torranceshipman]

This is one of the most interestesting threads I've read on here!

[Brokenlady]

Now they APPEAR to be a high-self monitor, but it is a cover for their low self-esteem.

 

On a related note, I read that the notion that narcisscism is merely a cover for low self-esteem is total hogwash. Many many researches have tried to find evidence of it and it turns out that narcissists really DO think they are all that and a bag of chips deep inside.

[JoyDevine]

So ...

High Self-Monitors = Fake, smooth, insincere, calculating, ingratiating, disingenuous, deceptive, posturing

 

Low Self-Monitors= Sincere, genuine, honest, frank, open, "keepin it real", authentic

 

This really does sound like most of the MM (High) and OW (low) I read about on this board.

[White Flower]

So ...

High Self-Monitors = Fake, smooth, insincere, calculating, ingratiating, disingenuous, deceptive, posturing

 

Low Self-Monitors= Sincere, genuine, honest, frank, open, "keepin it real", authentic

 

This really does sound like most of the MM (High) and OW (low) I read about on this board.

That is because you are looking at only the extremes within each category. Many successful people embody the high self-monitor trait yet are very authentic. Any human being can embody any variation of these traits or be all or nothing of these traits as well.

 

And just for the record, some 'genuine and honest' people tend to be the rudest among them all.

 

To be complex and authentic at the same time is an example of good balance.

[freestyle]

This really is an excellent,fascinating thread.

 

I wonder if the "high self-monitoring" individuals eventually lose having a sense of true, core identity............after so many years of "changing hats", and playing different roles.

 

i.e., "will the real "me" please stand up now...."

[White Flower]

This really is an excellent,fascinating thread.

 

I wonder if the "high self-monitoring" individuals eventually lose having a sense of true, core identity............after so many years of "changing hats", and playing different roles.

 

i.e., "will the real "me" please stand up now...."

That's a definite possibility. Actors, politicians, the housewife next door.

[freestyle]

That's a definite possibility. Actors, politicians, the housewife next door.

 

 

 

 

On this same vein, does that lack of a solid "core", leave an emotional void?

 

Thereby increasing the likelihood of that individual to stray from their commitments??

 

 

(Actors popped into my head as well.I've often wondered if actors who play a role on a long-running series lose part of their sense of self.)

[JoyDevine]

That is because you are looking at only the extremes within each category. Many successful people embody the high self-monitor trait yet are very authentic. Any human being can embody any variation of these traits or be all or nothing of these traits as well.

 

And just for the record, some 'genuine and honest' people tend to be the rudest among them all.

 

To be complex and authentic at the same time is an example of good balance.

 

According to the links, high self-monitoring people are very successful - in the workplace. It seems like it's a useful way to relate in professional situations.

 

Personal relationships are different. Intimacy requires honesty and sincerity.

 

Yes. Genuine and honest people can lack tact.

[White Flower]

On this same vein, does that lack of a solid "core", leave an emotional void?

 

Thereby increasing the likelihood of that individual to stray from their commitments??

 

 

(Actors popped into my head as well.I've often wondered if actors who play a role on a long-running series lose part of their sense of self.)

I'm sure it makes sense however I'm not sure one or the other lacks a solid core. Again, balance is key. Without balance in any life, there will be voids of all kinds.

[torranceshipman]

So if any OWs reading this thread think that their MM is a high self monitoring type, do you think this might lead anyone to reevaluate their A?

[OWoman]

According to the links, high self-monitoring people are very successful - in the workplace. It seems like it's a useful way to relate in professional situations.

 

I would have gotten nowhere in my career if I was not "high self-monitoring". You need the people skills to get anywhere. Low self-monitoring types are "all about me" and that goes nowhere in the workplace.

 

Personal relationships are different. Intimacy requires honesty and sincerity.

 

But it also requires people skills, unless you're a narcissist in a relationship with a co-narcissist. individuals that are genuinely "low self-monitoring" are as unable to sustain Rs as extreme "high self-monitoring" types, for the opposite reason: they are unable to relate to where others are at, it's all about them, them, them, they are unable to compromise or to empathise or to intuit what's going on with someone else. They're almost autistic in that sense.

 

Successful individuals - in the workplace, as in Rs, are found between the extremes, whether more towards the high or low sides. It's a continuum, not a dichotomy. Most of us are some of each; seldom is anyone completely one or the other (0 or 25 on the scale). Arguing about the pathological few ignores the vast majority - or seeks to pathologise them (or at least the ones who "don't resemble us"...) so as to discount them and affirm those who most closely resemble the self.

 

It's a question of balance. Neither extreme is healthy.

[OWoman]

So if any OWs reading this thread think that their MM is a high self monitoring type, do you think this might lead anyone to reevaluate their A?

 

My H is probably high self-monitoring - the fact that he twisted himself into knots to "be" the kind of person his xW demanded of him would be consistent with that.

 

His xW is probably low self-monitoring. Her inability to understand anyone's perspective but her own, complete lack of people skills, inability to empathise or to intuit emotions outside of her own and bullying personality would be consistent with that.

 

Which would I rather be in a R with - someone who's aware of my feelings and takes them into account and moderates their own behaviour accordingly, or someone who rides roughshod over anyone's feelings but their own, completely unable to moderate their behaviour in any way, lacking any self-awareness or people skills? Well, I know which I'd choose / have chosen. I'd go for the emotionally aware person (the high self-monitor) any day. I can't say I've ever wanted to live with emotional retards!

[White Flower]

My H is probably high self-monitoring - the fact that he twisted himself into knots to "be" the kind of person his xW demanded of him would be consistent with that.

 

His xW is probably low self-monitoring. Her inability to understand anyone's perspective but her own, complete lack of people skills, inability to empathise or to intuit emotions outside of her own and bullying personality would be consistent with that.

 

Which would I rather be in a R with - someone who's aware of my feelings and takes them into account and moderates their own behaviour accordingly, or someone who rides roughshod over anyone's feelings but their own, completely unable to moderate their behaviour in any way, lacking any self-awareness or people skills? Well, I know which I'd choose / have chosen. I'd go for the emotionally aware person (the high self-monitor) any day. I can't say I've ever wanted to live with emotional retards!

My goodness, as much as I see your H and my MM differently I can say that this post resonates with what he tells me about homelife. He is a high self-monitor and I'm sure by what he tells me his W is the low self-monitoring type. I bolded everything that resonates with what he's shared with me. It must be terribly frustrating and feel like a huge burden for men especially to leave someone of this type.

 

For me, I just left my H. I guess women don't have to feel all that 'altruistic' about leaving narcissistic (or low self-monitors) Hs. Not to say all low self-monitors are narcissistic.

[Spark1111]

On a related note, I read that the notion that narcisscism is merely a cover for low self-esteem is total hogwash. Many many researches have tried to find evidence of it and it turns out that narcissists really DO think they are all that and a bag of chips deep inside.

 

True narcisscism is thought to be extremely rare and very difficult to diagnose.

 

Narcisstic tendencies, to project grandiosity in a public facade to cover for feelings of worthlessness is fairly common and can be a symptom of many mental illnesses and personality disorders.

 

There is a major difference between the two.

[Brokenlady]

True narcisscism is thought to be extremely rare and very difficult to diagnose.

 

Narcisstic tendencies, to project grandiosity in a public facade to cover for feelings of worthlessness is fairly common and can be a symptom of many mental illnesses and personality disorders.

 

There is a major difference between the two.

 

When I referred to narcissim, I was referring to the tendency, not clinical NPD. It's easy enough to find people who tend towards narcissism without being actually NPD. These are the people they studied.