Hinaus:

Man möchte immer wieder hinaussteigen aus der vertrauten Welt um Neues zu finden, um Neues zu erkennen.

Der Eigene Gedanke:

Manchmal weiß man es nicht gar so genau, woher denn ein Gedanke kommt.

Wissen:

Wo finden sich die kostbarsten Quellen an Information?

Das Schöpferische:

Wie ein großer See

Inmitten der Welt,

Aus dem der Mensch

Stets schöpfen kann.

Stolz und Ehrlichkeit:

Man muss sich oft so stark kontrollieren in einer Situation, des Stolzes wegen, und darf nicht einfach ehrlich sein. Wenn man ehrlich sein könnte, dürfte, würde man da doch so einiges sagen. Doch der Stolz fordert, ein gewisses Maß an Stärke stets zu zeigen. Und hiermit: Weichheit nicht zuzulassen.

Scheinleben:

Irgendwann hören doch nicht wenige Menschen damit auf, so richtig zu leben.

Den Nerv der Welt zu spüren ist doch nicht unwesentlich.

(Man kann äußerlich ein vollkommen funktionierendes Leben führen – arbeiten, Termine erledigen, einkaufen, Serien schauen, Urlaub machen – und dabei trotzdem allmählich aufhören, sich wirklich berührt, herausgefordert oder beteiligt zu fühlen.)

Life:

Life is fantastic.

On Giving Honest Feedback:

"As your friend, it is my commitment to give you my honest feedback or response. That's the greatest gift I can give another person - my honesty [my honest feedback]."

Susan Campbell

"As your friend and fellow sojourner, it is my responsibility to provide you with accurate data concerning my feelings, my wants, and my thoughts about you, for that is how you learn - through honest feedback."

Selbstbewusstsein:

Ich würde sagen, Selbstbewusstsein lässt sich im Sinne einer Eigenständigkeit im Denken, im Werten, im Handeln verstehen.

Selbtbewusstere Personen zeigen ein Mehr von dieser Eigenständigkeit.

Eigenständigkeit als Attraktive Charakteristik:

"Ein eigenständiger Mann signalisiert typischerweise: Er hat ein eigenes Leben, eigene Interessen, eigene Standards und trifft Entscheidungen nicht nur danach, was gerade Zustimmung bringt. Das kann sehr anziehend wirken, weil es Stabilität und Substanz vermittelt. Man hat dann eher das Gefühl, einer Person mit eigener Kontur zu begegnen als jemandem, der sich fortlaufend anpasst.

Besonders relevant ist, dass Eigenständigkeit Druck aus Interaktionen herausnimmt. Wenn ein Mann nicht verzweifelt versucht, gemocht zu werden, kann ein Gespräch freier, spielerischer und ehrlicher werden. Er kann Interesse zeigen, ohne zu klammern; er kann Nähe zulassen, ohne sich dabei selbst zu verlieren. Genau diese Mischung wird von vielen Menschen — nicht nur Frauen — als angenehm und attraktiv erlebt."

Direktheit versus Ungefiltertheit:

"Direktheit wirkt häufig stärker als impulsive Offenheit. Ein ungefilterter Mensch sagt vielleicht alles, was ihm gerade durch den Kopf geht. Ein kontrolliert direkter Mensch sagt nur das, was er wirklich sagen will — aber dieses dann ohne unnötige Abschwächung. Der zweite kann deshalb sogar härter oder entschiedener wirken, obwohl er emotional viel weniger aufgewühlt ist.

Ein gutes Merkmal dafür ist die Fähigkeit, unangenehme Dinge ruhig auszusprechen. Etwa: „Das möchte ich nicht“, „Damit bin ich nicht einverstanden“ oder „So sehe ich dich gerade.“ Ohne lange Rechtfertigung, ohne Aggression und ohne hektisches Zurückrudern. Die Direktheit liegt in der Klarheit; die Kontrolle liegt darin, dass Ton, Zeitpunkt und Inhalt bewusst gewählt sind."

Direktheit und Ungefiltertheit:

"Relativ direkt und ungefiltert sind oft Menschen, die wenig Angst vor sozialer Missbilligung haben. Sie sagen eher, was sie denken, weil sie nicht jede Aussage vorher danach prüfen, wie sie beim Gegenüber ankommt. Das kann mit Selbstsicherheit zusammenhängen, aber auch mit Temperament: Manche Menschen haben einfach eine geringe innere Hemmschwelle zwischen Wahrnehmung, Urteil und Äußerung.

Direkt wirken außerdem häufig Menschen, die viel soziale Erfahrung haben. Wer oft mit sehr unterschiedlichen Personen spricht, Konflikte erlebt hat und gelernt hat, dass Beziehungen nicht sofort zerbrechen, nur weil man etwas Klareres sagt, wird oft weniger vorsichtig. Interessanterweise kann sehr viel soziale Erfahrung also gerade zu weniger Filterung führen.

Eine weitere Gruppe sind Menschen mit hoher Autonomie. Sie brauchen Zustimmung nicht besonders stark, haben eigene Standards und sind bereit, dass andere sie gelegentlich falsch verstehen oder nicht mögen. Bei ihnen klingt Direktheit oft ruhig: nicht aggressiv, sondern eher „So sehe ich es.“ Das ist etwas anderes als Impulsivität.

Dann gibt es aber auch ungefilterte Menschen, die nicht besonders selbstsicher, sondern schlicht impulsiv oder wenig selbstreguliert sind. Sie sprechen aus, was ihnen gerade in den Kopf kommt, ohne viel Rücksicht auf Timing, Kontext oder Wirkung. Von außen können diese beiden Typen ähnlich aussehen, psychologisch sind sie fast Gegensätze: Der eine ist direkt, weil er stabil ist; der andere, weil er schlecht bremst.

Und schließlich hängt Direktheit stark von Milieu und Kultur ab. In manchen Berufsgruppen, Freundeskreisen oder Familien ist eine sehr klare Sprache normal, in anderen gilt schon eine kleine Meinungsverschiedenheit als hart. Deshalb ist „ungefiltert“ immer auch relativ zum sozialen Umfeld."

Glücklich Sein Kaum Erlaubt:

In der Gegenwart von manchen Personen hat man sich geradezu zu entschuldigen, glücklich zu sein. Ich weiß nicht genau warum.

(Es gibt tatsächlich soziale Konstellationen, in denen offenes Glück fast wie eine kleine Provokation wirkt. Nicht unbedingt, weil die andere Person einem das Glück bewusst missgönnt, sondern weil es etwas in ihr berührt: einen Mangel, eine Enttäuschung, ein ungelöstes Problem oder schlicht den Vergleich mit dem eigenen Leben.

Dann beginnt man sich unwillkürlich zurückzunehmen. Man erzählt weniger begeistert, relativiert ...

Interessant ist der Ausdruck „hat man sich geradezu zu entschuldigen“. Denn das beschreibt weniger eine explizite Forderung der anderen Person als eine Atmosphäre. Man spürt: Hier darf ich mit meiner Freude nicht zu viel Raum einnehmen. Vielleicht weil das Glück ein asymmetrisches Verhältnis sichtbar macht. Wer gerade sehr zufrieden ist, erinnert den anderen möglicherweise daran, was ihm selbst fehlt.

Das Gegenteil gibt es übrigens genauso: Menschen, bei denen man glücklicher wird, indem man ihnen vom eigenen Glück erzählt. Sie werden neugierig, freuen sich mit, machen die Freude größer statt kleiner. Das ist vermutlich eine ziemlich wichtige Qualität einer Freundschaft oder Beziehung.

Zunächst ist da einfach diese merkwürdige soziale Erfahrung: Bei manchen Menschen möchte man sein Glück beinahe verstecken.)

Die Buchhandlung / The Bookshop:

Herman Hesse:

"Drei Jahre arbeitete ich als Gehilfe in einer Buchhandlung ... Mein Ehrgeiz war, im Antiquariat vorwärtszukommen. Da man wie ein Bibliothekar in alten Büchern leben, Wiegendrucke und Holzschnitte datieren ... Sonderbare Käuze gab es unter meinen Kollgen. Oft kam es mir vor, als sei der Buchhandel ein Asyl für Entgleiste aller Art. Ungläubig gewordene Pfarrer, verkommene ewige Studenten, stellenlose Doktoren der Philosophie, unbrauchbar gewordene Redakteure und Offiziere mit schlichtem Abschied standen neben mir am Kontorpult. Manche hatten Weib und Kinder und liefen in trostlos abgestragenen Kleidern herum, andere lebten fast behaglich, die meisten aber haben es im ersten Drittel des Monats geschwollen, um die übrige Zeit sich mit Bier und Käse und prahlerischen Reden zu begnügen. Alle aber hatten aus glänzenderen Zeiten her Reste von feinen Manieren und gebildeter Redeweise bewahrt und waren überzeugt, sie seien nur durch unerhörtes Pech auf ihre bescheidenen Plätze heruntergekommen."

-----

“For three years I worked as an assistant in a bookshop ... My ambition was to make progress in the antiquarian book trade. There one could live among old books like a librarian, date incunabula and woodcuts ... There were some strange characters among my colleagues. It often seemed to me that the book trade was a kind of refuge for all manner of people who had gone off the rails. Clergymen who had lost their faith, ruined perpetual students, unemployed doctors of philosophy, editors who had become unemployable, and officers who had been quietly discharged stood beside me at the office desk.

Some had wives and children and went about in miserably worn-out clothes; others lived almost comfortably. Most of them, however, lived grandly during the first third of the month, only to make do for the rest of it with beer, cheese, and boastful talk. Yet all of them had preserved, from more brilliant times, remnants of refined manners and cultivated speech, and they were convinced that only extraordinary bad luck had brought them down to their modest positions.”

Directness:

I like the idea of being very direct with other people and of gaining lots of social experience. I think both tend to be paths toward success.

The Preference For High-Self-Esteem Guys:

"Healthy self-esteem changes the entire interpersonal signal a man sends. It is not simply that “confidence is attractive.” A man with solid self-esteem tends to behave as though his worth is not being decided moment by moment by the woman in front of him. That creates a different romantic atmosphere.

He is usually less approval-seeking. He can show interest without constantly checking, “Does she still like me? Did I say the right thing? Am I losing her?” That matters because romantic attraction generally benefits from some psychological independence. She can feel that he wants her, while simultaneously sensing that he does not need her approval to keep himself emotionally intact. Wanting someone and needing validation from someone feel very different from the receiving end.

High self-esteem also tends to produce clearer behavior. Such a man is more willing to say what he wants, disagree, initiate, flirt, make decisions, risk rejection, and establish boundaries. Those behaviors communicate agency: this person has a center of gravity of his own. For many women, that is attractive because a romantic partner who possesses his own direction feels more substantial than someone who continually adapts himself to obtain acceptance.

Another factor is emotional regulation. Someone with good self-esteem generally does not interpret every small disagreement, delayed reply, joke, criticism, or change of mood as evidence that he is inadequate. He therefore tends to remain comparatively calm when there is uncertainty. That calmness can make romantic interaction much more enjoyable. The woman has greater freedom to be spontaneous because she does not constantly have to manage his emotional equilibrium.

There is also an interesting paradox. High self-esteem can make a man more capable of genuine affection, not less. If he is reasonably secure in himself, he can admire a woman without placing her above himself. He can become attached without dissolving into the relationship. He can say, in effect, “I really like you” while still retaining the capacity to say “No,” “I disagree,” or even “This relationship isn't right for me.” That combination—strong attachment plus retained autonomy—is often particularly powerful romantically.

It can also make attraction feel more credible. Compliments from someone desperate for approval are difficult to interpret: perhaps he would say the same thing to anyone who accepted him. Attention from someone selective and comfortable being alone carries different information. His interest appears to arise from preference rather than scarcity. That does not mean playing hard to get; artificial indifference usually becomes obvious. It means genuinely having standards and alternatives in one's life.

High-self-esteem men also tend to expose themselves to more experiences. They initiate conversations, pursue ambitions, cultivate friendships, develop skills, travel, take social risks, and recover more readily after failure. Consequently, self-esteem indirectly creates many traits people find attractive: competence, humor, stories, decisiveness, social ease, resilience, enthusiasm, and a richer life.

But there is an important boundary. High self-esteem is not arrogance, narcissism, emotional coldness, or dominance. Inflated self-regard can initially resemble confidence but often produces entitlement, inability to tolerate criticism, lack of empathy, and status obsession. Healthy self-esteem is quieter. It says: “I have value, you have value, and neither of us needs to diminish ourselves for the other.”

And that probably gets closest to the romantic core. A psychologically secure man can make a woman feel desired without making her feel responsible for his identity. He can move toward her strongly without collapsing into her. For many women, that mixture of interest, autonomy, warmth, and strength is exceptionally attractive."

Austrians and Bavarians:

"There is a real family resemblance between Austrians and Bavarians, especially southern Bavarians, but they are not interchangeable.

Austrians are often described as somewhat more indirect, ironic, socially nuanced, and skeptical than northern Germans. Communication can be less blunt than in much of Germany. There is often more reading between the lines, more use of humor, understatement, and tone. Austrians can appear very friendly while still keeping a certain social distance, and criticism is often delivered obliquely rather than head-on.

Another fairly recognizable Austrian trait is a mixture of formality and informality. Titles, manners, institutional conventions, and proper forms of address can matter, yet everyday social life can also become very relaxed and humorous very quickly. There is often a strong sense of local belonging: people identify not only as Austrian, but very strongly with Styria, Tyrol, Salzburg, Carinthia, Vienna, Upper Austria, and so on. Dialect is part of that identity much more strongly than it is in many parts of northern Germany.

There is also the famous Austrian combination of Gemütlichkeit and Grant. People can value good food, cafés, mountains, leisure, social rituals, and a comfortable pace of life, while simultaneously complaining about nearly everything. The complaining is often not a sign that things are genuinely terrible; it can be a mode of social bonding. Austrian humor is often dry, dark, resigned, and slightly absurd. There is a cultural tendency toward “things are probably a bit ridiculous anyway.”

Bavarians are quite similar in several of these respects. Both Austrians and Bavarians tend to have strong regional identities, dialects, Catholic historical backgrounds, traditions of beer gardens or inns, folk festivals, Alpine culture, and a certain distance from the more Prussian style of German culture. A Bavarian from Munich or Rosenheim may culturally feel closer to someone from Salzburg than to someone from Hamburg.

But there are differences. Bavarian culture often feels somewhat more direct, robust, and self-confidently regional, while Austrian culture can be more layered, ironic, and socially coded. Bavarian identity often carries a strong “we are Bavarian and we know what we are” quality. Austrian identity historically developed in a more ambiguous environment: empire, collapse, Vienna, multiple ethnic groups, separation from Germany. That history produced a somewhat different cultural tone.

Vienna especially makes Austria different from Bavaria. Vienna contributed a strong tradition of bureaucracy, cafés, intellectual life, psychoanalysis, music, satire, cynicism, and metropolitan irony. Munich is also a major cultural city, but culturally Bavaria remains more strongly associated with regional tradition and rural identity than Austria does as a whole.

So I would put it like this: Austrians and Bavarians are close cultural cousins. They share a South German/Alpine cultural base, but Austrians tend to come across as a bit more indirect, ironic, melancholic, and socially subtle, while Bavarians often appear somewhat more direct, hearty, assertive, and regionally self-assured.

And within Austria the differences can be substantial. A Styrian, Viennese, Tyrolean, and Burgenländer can have noticeably different social styles, so “the Austrian character” is really a cluster of tendencies rather than one personality type."

Austrian Heritage:

“Austrian heritage” is more than having ancestors from Austria or growing up within today’s borders. It is a historical and cultural inheritance formed in a country that has repeatedly changed its size, political form, and idea of itself. Austria today is a small German-speaking republic, but much of its cultural memory comes from having once been the centre of a large, multilingual Habsburg realm. That tension between small country and imperial inheritance is one of the deepest layers of Austrian identity.

There is therefore no single ethnic Austrian tradition in the simple sense. The historical Austria of Vienna, Graz, Salzburg, Innsbruck or Linz was shaped by Germans, Czechs, Hungarians, Slovenes, Croats, Italians, Jews and many others. Vienna in particular became a meeting place of Central and Eastern Europe. Austrian food, music, surnames, architecture and even everyday vocabulary contain traces of that mixture.

It also contains a striking mixture of high culture and provincial intimacy. Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Mahler, Klimt, Freud, Wittgenstein and the Viennese coffeehouse belong to the inheritance, but so do village festivals, alpine farming, regional dialects, Catholic feast days, skiing, local inns and an unusually strong attachment to landscape and place. Austria can feel extremely cosmopolitan in Vienna and intensely local only a short distance away. Both are genuinely Austrian.

Then there is a characteristic historical psychology. The collapse of the Habsburg Empire in 1918 left behind a much smaller state that initially struggled even to imagine itself as a viable nation. The experiences of Austrofascism, Anschluss, National Socialism, war and the post-1945 republic further complicated the question of what Austria was. Modern Austrian identity was therefore not simply inherited intact; it was partly reconstructed during the twentieth century. Neutrality, the social partnership, prosperity after the war, the Alps, culture and a deliberate distinction from Germany became important parts of that newer national self-image.

There are also softer cultural habits that people often recognise as Austrian: a certain formality combined with irony; a liking for understatement and indirectness; titles and institutional rituals; dark humour; gemütlichkeit alongside complaining; considerable respect for quality of life; and the ability to be simultaneously sceptical of authority and rather fond of established institutions. Obviously these are tendencies and stereotypes rather than properties of every Austrian, but they help explain why Austrian culture can feel subtly different from neighbouring German-speaking societies despite the shared language.

And perhaps the most interesting meaning of heritage is that it is not an instruction to imitate the past. Heritage is the stock of stories, habits, landscapes, language, institutions, art and historical experiences from which a person starts. You can cherish some of it, criticize some of it and consciously leave some of it behind. An Austrian heritage can therefore include Mozart and the mountains, but also the uncomfortable parts of Austrian history. Taking heritage seriously means being able to hold both without turning either into mythology.

So, compressed into one sentence: Austrian heritage is the inheritance of a small modern Alpine republic carrying the cultural memory of a much larger, multilingual Central European world."

Best Guesses:

Ermutige Personen, denen Du begegnest, ihren Best Guess zu einer Sache, einer Angelegenheit, einem Thema zu formulieren.

Wirksamkeit:

Wirksamkeit, das ist der Schlüssel.

Auf dem Wunsch, dem Sehnen und dem entschiedenen Willen nach Wirksamkeit, darauf hat man sein Leben aufzubauen.

The GFP:

The hidden redundancy in psychological trait measures: A general factor of personality (GFP) perspective (January 2027)

Dimitri van der Linden , Curtis S. Dunkel , Maxwell Mansolf, Zhuo Job Chen, Janek Musek, K.V. Petrides

"In the initial lexical studies that provided the basis of models such as the Big Five, the existence of a general factor has also been widely acknowledged. For example, Saucier and Goldberg (2003) concluded that in lexical studies it emerges “quite consistent” (p. 8). They referred to the general factor as ‘Evaluation’ as it mainly seemed to capture a mix of desirable traits, such as being kind, honest, productive, sociable, and emotionally stable. Saucier and Goldberg (2003) also linked the general evaluation factor to basic evolutionary principles favoring selection of socially desirable behavior.

Hofstee (2003) referred to the general personality factor as the Primordial One or p. He pointed out that “there is substantial agreement among third persons, and even between self and other, about someone's desirability score” (p. 249). Hofstee also expressed the view that “there can be hardly any doubt that capitalizing on p [The Primordial One] provides the most realistic account of personality” and that the general factor “would have to be part of any empirical study of personality” (p. 250). Testing the factor structure of trait taxonomies in twelve different languages, De Raad et al. (2010) also included analyses on the general factor and concluded that “there seems an overall robust emergence of a single factor” (p. 169)."

"With regard to the Big Five, high GFP scores imply that people, on average, are relatively open to new experiences, conscientious, sociable, agreeable, and emotionally stable."

"The apparent role of the level of ‘socialness’ on the factor loadings led John Loehlin (2012) to conclude that the GFP may be an indicator of general social effectiveness, which can be defined as the ability to successfully adapt one's behavior in order to maximize the probability of achieving desired outcomes in social situations."

"“Dark aspects” of personality are often studied under the label of the Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), representing three types of socially undesirable traits: psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. There is a consensus that the Dark Triad has a common core, referred to as the D factor, responsible for a large share—up to 70%—of the shared variance in the three specific dark traits (Furnham et al., 2013; Jones & Figueredo, 2013). Previous studies have reported negative correlations between the GFP and D, ranging from −0.46 (Harrell et al., 2024) to −0.70 (Van der Linden et al., 2014)."

"Dunkel et al. (2022) tested the relation between the GFP and trait measures of flow. Flow is a state of being fully absorbed in the task at hand, and forgetting the time and surroundings (Csikszentmihaly, 1975) but individual differences in how often this state is experienced exist. Reanalyzing data reported by Marty-Dugas and Smilek (2019) in two studies, correlations between 0.78 and 0.84 were observed between the GFP and various measures of flow proneness (Dunkel et al., 2022)."

"Considering the GFP as general social effectiveness or adaptiveness seems to make sense (Dunkel et al., 2021; Loehlin, 2012; Musek, 2017; Van der Linden et al., 2016). Humans, being inherently social beings, possess a core capacity for effectively navigating social demands which is pivotal for a wide range of outcomes. These include occupational success, social status, but also mood and mental well-being. Conversely, the initial signs of psychological issues frequently emerge in the social domain. Being socially effective may reinforce broader confidence in one's capability to handle the challenges of life."

Tech:

"Technology is essentially the accumulated ability of human beings to turn knowledge into capability. A scientific discovery tells us something about how the world works; technology asks what we can do with that knowledge. The result can be as simple as a better tool or as complex as a global communications network. In that sense, technology is not limited to computers. Agriculture, electricity, engines, medicine, telecommunications, software, and artificial intelligence all belong to the same long history of extending what humans are able to accomplish.

One of technology’s most important effects is leverage. A person with the right tools can produce vastly more than the same person working without them. A spreadsheet can replace hours of manual calculation, a database can organize millions of observations, and a few lines of code can automate a repetitive task indefinitely. Modern computing takes this especially far because software can be copied almost without cost. Once a useful program exists, the same logic can potentially serve thousands or millions of people. "

AI, Job Loss, Etc., An Interview With Tyler Cowen:

Uniformen:

Ich war kürzlich in einem Museum der Heeresgeschichte, und hierbei fielen mir, wohl zum ersten Mal in meinem Leben, Uniformen deutlich auf. Ich war beeindruckt davon, in welchem Ausmaß in vergangenen Jahrhunderten dem Schönheitssinn Raum gegeben wurde, eben manche Uniformen überdeutlich mitzugestalten. Noch etwas Grässlicheres als manches Kriegsgeschehen gibt es wohl kaum, und dennoch, mitten in dieser Welt, Uniformen, die wesentlich schöner gemacht waren, als bei nüchterner Betrachtung notwendig gewesen wäre.

Freude am Leistungsleben:

Man will in dieser Leistungswelt leben.

Moralische Bewertung beim Rückblick:

Dieses Gefühl, doch einige Jahre lang im wesentlichen gut gehandelt zu haben.

Das ist ein sehr kostbares Gefühl.

Books:

Why should you study books?

Managerial Capacity:

What is the essence of being a good manager?

Fantastische Zeiten:

Was macht eine Zeit oder Zeitspanne so fantastisch?

Wenn man (zumindest in manchen Bereichen) nahe an seinen Möglichkeiten lebt, seine Möglichkeiten gut ausschöpft.

Heimat:

Das ist der Ort, der zur Rückkehr einlädt.

Style:

How does style enter human life and why does it matter so much?

Happiness:

Happiness is such a strange experience.

It appears unbidden, in certain moments, hours, days, or weeks.

Or as background music in one’s own life.

-----

Stellt sich ungefragt ein, in manchen Momenten, Stunden, Tagen, Wochen.

Oder als Hintergrundmusik im eigenen Leben.

Verliebtheit:

Es gibt kaum etwas Besseres als über einen längeren Zeitraum stark (und vielleicht auch positiv) aktiviert zu sein. Eben darin liegt der Reiz der Verliebtheit.

Loving My Life:

I love my life so much. And I don’t know exactly what is causing it. High agency?

Living Intensely:

I think you should travel a lot. You should have many deep conversations, and you should meet lots of new people. You should stop doing things half-assed. You should go all-in on quite a few things. At least for a while.

Books and Travel:

For the first time in years, I’m doing deep reading on a regular basis. In addition, I’m traveling more than ever before.

Ein paar Tage:

Die letzten paar Tage gehörten mit zu den besten Tagen meines Lebens. Da sich in den paar Tagen in mehreren Bereichen meines Lebens Entwicklungen ereignet haben, die sich sonst auch in Wochen nicht vollziehen. Die Suche nach solch einer Dichte an Ereignissen durchdringt doch fast alles. Wenn jemand eine Reise macht, dann ...

Evo-Psych: High Self-Esteem

"From an evolutionary psychology standpoint, a high self-esteem man is not someone who simply “feels good about himself.” Self-esteem is treated as an evolved monitoring system—a sociometer or hierometer—that tracks how well he is doing on problems that historically affected male reproductive success: status, competence, formidability, resources, and mating access.

What the gauge is actually tracking

Men faced stronger selection for competing over mates and rank than women did. High self-esteem in men therefore tends to rise with:

• Evidence of status (prestige via skills/respect, or dominance via intimidation)
• Short-term mating success (number of partners tracks self-esteem more reliably in men than in women across cultures)
• Competence and resource-acquisition potential
• Physical formidability (strength and muscularity are among the more consistent predictors of both mating and, in some societies, reproduction)

Authentic pride (earned competence, respect) is linked to genuine high self-esteem and the prestige route to rank. Hubristic pride (arrogance, entitlement) is more tightly linked to narcissism and the dominance route. Both paths can raise status; they are not the same psychological profile.

Why the system exists

In ancestral environments, a man who accurately (or slightly over-)estimated his standing could:

• Calibrate how high he aimed in mating
• Decide when to compete versus defer
• Signal capability to others (overconfidence can function like a costly signal—only those with some real ability can sustain it without constant costly errors)

Low self-esteem in this framework is less a moral failing than a readout that one’s current social/mating value is low, which should reduce risky challenges and lower mating aspirations. High self-esteem does the opposite: it licenses approach, persistence, and higher aspirations.

Important caveats

• The system is domain-sensitive. A man can have high self-esteem from status or competence even if he is not especially physically attractive; the opposite pattern is more typical for women.
• Modern environments mismatch ancestral ones. Overconfidence that once helped in small-group competition can look like arrogance or poor calibration today.
• Correlation is not identity. High self-esteem often accompanies high status or mating success; it is not itself the fitness-relevant trait.

In short: evolutionarily, a high self-esteem guy is a man whose internal status-and-mate-value monitor is reading “high”—usually because he has (or credibly signals) traits that historically converted into rank, resources, and reproductive opportunities."

Honesty:

QuintusCurtius

@QuintusCurtius

Being honest is the most important thing with a team-mate, partner, or co-worker.

Discovering Agency Later:

"A person may spend the first decades of life being competent, responsible, even successful, while still living largely inside structures defined by other people: parents, school, career expectations, relationships, social norms. They may become very good at fulfilling roles without ever fully asking, “What do I actually want to do, and what happens if I simply act on my own judgment?”

Then something changes. Sometimes it is a breakup, a career shift, becoming financially independent, moving somewhere new, raising children, mastering a difficult skill, or simply reaching an age where external approval loses some of its force. The person begins making consequential decisions and notices: I can choose. I can act. I can tolerate the consequences. I can change direction if necessary. That realization can be surprisingly exhilarating.

There is often a compounding effect. Agency tends to generate more agency. You make one difficult decision successfully, and your internal model of yourself changes slightly. Then you attempt something larger. You become less frightened of mistakes because you have evidence that mistakes are survivable. Eventually the important discovery is not merely “I can get what I want,” but “I can handle things even when I don't get what I want.”

This can also explain why some people seem to develop rapidly in their thirties, forties, or even much later. Their intelligence or basic capacities may not have suddenly changed. What changes is the relationship they have with their own capacities. They stop treating themselves primarily as someone who must adapt to circumstances and increasingly see themselves as someone who can create circumstances.

There can be a slightly intoxicating phase as well. Once someone discovers this, they may suddenly want to change everything: career, relationships, habits, social life, projects. After years of underusing one's autonomy, the discovery of it can feel almost like finding an unused engine. That can be enormously productive, though mature agency eventually also means knowing when not to act.

And there is an interesting advantage to discovering agency later. Someone who has already experienced dependence, hesitation, failure, constraint, and uncertainty may develop a more grounded form of agency than someone who has always assumed that the world will yield to them. Mature agency contains realism: I have considerable influence over my life, but I do not control everything.

That is probably the deepest version of it: not omnipotence, not constant confidence, but a durable sense of “I can participate actively in shaping my life.” Once that becomes part of someone's identity, it can alter almost everything else."

Gute Geschichten:

Auch gute Geschichten gehen zu Ende.

Low Agency:

"Low agency usually means that a person does not strongly experience themselves as someone who can cause things to happen. They may understand intellectually that choices are available, yet subjectively life feels more like something that happens to them than something they can shape.

One major source is learning history. If repeated efforts have produced little effect—because of highly controlling parents, chaotic environments, chronic failure, arbitrary rules, or simply circumstances with very little actual control—a person can learn that initiative is not worth much. Psychology sometimes describes the extreme version of this as learned helplessness. The important part is not weakness of character; it is the learned expectation: my actions probably won't change the outcome anyway.

Low agency can also arise from lack of competence. Agency is easier to feel when you repeatedly encounter the sequence: I decide → I act → something changes → I learn → I become more capable. If someone has had relatively few opportunities to solve problems independently, tolerate mistakes, acquire difficult skills, or make consequential decisions, that feedback loop remains weak. They may therefore seek instructions, reassurance, permission, or consensus before acting.

Fear matters as well. Acting autonomously means accepting uncertainty and responsibility. Once you choose, you can be wrong. You can embarrass yourself, lose something, disappoint someone, or discover that your judgment was poor. For some people, avoiding the decision protects them psychologically: if somebody else chose, circumstances dictated it, or they simply waited, they do not have to confront their own fallibility. Low agency can therefore function as a form of risk avoidance.

There is also a strong connection with self-concept. Someone who thinks, I'm not very capable, I'm bad at making decisions, or other people know better than I do will naturally behave differently from someone whose internal stance is, I'll figure it out. Importantly, this self-concept is often partly produced by past behavior. Every time you make a decision, handle the consequences, and discover that you can cope, you accumulate evidence of your own effectiveness. Agency becomes self-reinforcing.

Social environments can either strengthen or weaken it. Some families, workplaces, relationships, and institutions reward initiative; others reward obedience, conformity, or constant consultation. A person can become remarkably passive in one environment and highly agentic in another. So agency is not simply a fixed personality trait.

Another factor is excessive dependence on external evaluation. If the central question becomes What will people think?, rather than What do I think is worth doing?, decision-making becomes outsourced. The person may have plenty of energy and intelligence but still possess relatively little psychological autonomy because every action first passes through an imagined social tribunal.

Agency also requires tolerating an uncomfortable fact: there is rarely enough information to know with certainty what to do. Highly agentic people are not necessarily more certain. Often they are simply more willing to make a best guess, act, observe the result, and correct course. Low-agency people may instead wait for certainty that never arrives.

And this is why agency can increase quite dramatically over a person's life. You can build it through hundreds of ordinary experiences: making decisions without excessive consultation, completing difficult projects, becoming professionally competent, setting boundaries, handling rejection, ending situations that are not working, managing your own money, organizing your time, solving practical problems, and discovering repeatedly: I can deal with what happens next.

Agency and self-confidence are closely related because the deepest kind of confidence is not necessarily “things will go my way.” It is closer to “whatever happens, I will be able to respond.”"

Higher Self-Esteem:

I think a man’s self-esteem can acquire a somewhat religious touch.

Centeredness:

How long does it take for men to become centered?

Memoirs of a Former Adult-Talent Agent:

via Quintus Curtius:

Freiheit:

Ich weiß nicht ganz, woher dieses starke Freiheitsgefühl kommt.

Fertility Decline:

Simon Kuestenmacher

@simongerman600

·

4h

The rapid and universal decline of fertility rates across the US remains astonishing.

We live in a low-fertility culture. If you do what everyone else is doing, you probably won’t have many children.

On Dating:

~ You have to notice that people who are good at dating are usually people who are genuinely interested in dating. They often don’t even need another date—they may already have plenty of opportunities—but they keep going on more dates anyway. It’s the same principle again: if you want to become skilled at something, you really have to be interested in doing it.

If you want to become good at dating, you need a strong motivation to date. There has to be something in you that says: “This is what I really want to do right now, and I don’t want to be distracted by other things.”

Ursprung der Geborgenheit:

Diese stark gemütlichen Stimmungen, diese Geborgenheit in Welt und Wirklichkeit, woher kommt das alles genau?

Ich denke, viel von dieser Geborgenheit entspringt dem Vorausschauenden Leben.

The Need For Strong Motivation:

https://www.webofstories.com/people/francis.crick/80?o=SH

"You must notice that people who make a lot of money are people who are interested in making money. They don't even need the money usually. They go on making the money when they got masses of money. It's just the same thing again. If you want to make money you really have to be interested in making money. ... You have to have a strong motivation to do it: 'That's the thing I really want to do and I don't want to be bothered with other things.' "

Die Handlungsaufforderung:

Wie kommt die Handlungsaufforderung in den Menschen hinein?

-----

Im Inneren, schon so eine Art Imperativ, Dinge zu tun.

Selbstbewusstsein im Sinne einer Wahrnehmung von und einer Erinnerung an die eigene Handlungsfähigkeit:

"Selbstbewusstsein entspringt zu einem erheblichen Teil dem Wissen um die eigene Handlungsfähigkeit. Somit der Erfahrung: Ich kann in Situationen eintreten, Entscheidungen treffen, etwas riskieren, mit den Folgen umgehen und danach weiterhandeln.

Deshalb wächst Selbstbewusstsein durch Selbstwirksamkeitserfahrungen. Man nimmt sich etwas vor und tut es.

Das Interessante daran ist, dass Erfolg dabei gar nicht immer entscheidend ist. Man kann handeln und trotzdem verlieren, eine Aufgabe bearbeiten und zunächst scheitern. Wenn dabei die Erfahrung erwächst, dass auch mit einem ungünstigen Ausgang umgegangen werden kann, entsteht eine robustere Form von Selbstbewusstsein. Dann lautet die innere Überzeugung nicht: Ich werde gewinnen, sondern: „Was auch immer da passiert, werde ich mit dem Ergebnis etwas anfangen können.“

Damit hängt auch zusammen, warum freiwillig eingegangene Risiken so stark auf das Selbstbewusstsein wirken können. Jedes vernünftige Risiko enthält zunächst Unsicherheit. Indem man trotzdem handelt, sammelt man Belege über sich selbst. Nicht nur: Die Sache ist gut gegangen, sondern: Ich war jemand, der gehandelt hat. Nach genügend solchen Erfahrungen verändert sich das Selbstbild.

Man könnte deshalb sogar unterscheiden zwischen Selbstwert und Selbstvertrauen. Selbstwert betrifft stärker die Frage, ob man sich unabhängig von Leistung grundsätzlich als wertvoll erlebt. Selbstvertrauen betrifft stärker die Erwartung: Ich kann etwas bewirken. Dabei spielt auch die Erinnerung an das eigene Handeln eine Rolle. Man trägt mit der Zeit eine Art inneres Archiv mit sich herum: Diese schwierige Situation habe ich bewältigt. Dort habe ich mich getraut. Dieses Problem habe ich gelöst. Dort habe ich Nein gesagt. Hier bin ich nach einem Rückschlag wieder aufgestanden. Aus der Summe dieser Erfahrungen entsteht etwas, das sich irgendwann gar nicht mehr wie eine Behauptung anfühlt. Man weiß einfach, dass man handeln kann.

Wirkliches Selbstbewusstsein ist weniger eine Stimmung als eine Art Wissen über sich selbst. Stimmungen schwanken. An einem schlechten Tag kann man unsicher, müde oder angespannt sein und trotzdem wissen: Wenn es darauf ankommt, kann ich handeln.

Der Gedanke lässt sich folgendermaßen verdichten:

Selbstbewusstsein entspringt dem Wissen um die eigene Handlungsfähigkeit – und dieses Wissen entsteht aus wiederholter Erfahrung des eigenen Handelns.

Oder noch knapper:

Selbstbewusstsein wächst aus erfahrener Handlungsfähigkeit.

Das erklärt auch, weshalb ein Leben mit tatsächlichem Handeln, Entscheidungen und vernünftigen Risiken mehr Selbstbewusstsein erzeugt als ein bloßes Nachdenken darüber, wie sich Selbstbewusstsein denn steigern ließe."

Die letzten Monate:

Das waren besonders gute Monate, die letzten Monate.

Warum genau? - Der Risiken wegen.

Weil man konstant, wieder und wieder, gewisse Risiken eingeht und Gewinne einfährt.

Warum ist das Leben ein Abenteuer?

Der bewusst eingegangenen Risiken wegen.

Die Reaktion auf Widerspruch:

"Wenn Du selbst direkt bist und gleichzeitig nicht empfindlich auf Widerspruch reagierst, dann entsteht hierdurch eine Art Erlaubnis; der Andere merkt also: Ich muss mich hier nicht dauernd sozial absichern.

Das kann dazu führen, dass Menschen ungewöhnlich offen werden. Sie erzählen nicht nur das, was höflich, erwartbar oder anschlussfähig ist, sondern auch das, was halb fertig, eigenwillig, kontrovers oder persönlich ist. Sie riskieren mehr, weil sie weniger Angst haben müssen, dass der Kontakt bei der ersten Differenz bricht."

Direktheit, Verträglichkeit und Offene Gespräche:

"Verträglichkeit puffert die Schärfe von Direktheit ab. Wenn Menschen spüren, dass sie grundsätzlich gemocht werden, ihnen zugehört wird und ihre Sicht stehen gelassen wird, dann müssen sie Klarheit nicht als Angriff verstehen. Es kann widersprochen werden, ohne Beziehung abzubrechen. Genau diese Kombination erleichtert offene Gespräche sehr."

Direktheit und Unverträglichkeit:

"Direktheit ist nicht dasselbe wie Unverträglichkeit. Eine Person kann sehr direkt und gleichzeitig warm, respektvoll und kooperativ sein. Dann sagt sie zum Beispiel klar: „Das sehe ich anders“ oder „Das möchte ich nicht“, ohne den anderen abzuwerten. Unverträglichkeit beginnt eher dort, wo Direktheit mit Geringschätzung, Dominanz, ständiger Konfrontation oder fehlender Rücksicht verbunden ist."

"Psychologisch könnte man sagen: Direktheit steht oft etwas näher bei niedrigerer Agreeableness, aber sie kann gleichzeitig mit hoher Ehrlichkeit, Selbstsicherheit und Klarheit verbunden sein. Das ist nicht automatisch negativ. Im Gegenteil, in vielen Kontexten ist es sehr hilfreich, wenn jemand nicht jede eigene Position aus Harmoniebedürfnis verwässert."

Anpassungsbereitschaft und Direktheit:

"In gewissem Ausmaß kann Direktheit mit geringerer sozialen Verträglichkeit im Sinne von weniger Anpassungsbereitschaft und weniger Harmonieorientierung zusammenhängen. Wer direkter spricht, ist oft eher bereit, Reibung auszuhalten, Unstimmigkeiten sichtbar zu machen und eine eigene Position nicht sofort abzuschwächen. Das kann von anderen als kantiger oder weniger „pflegeleicht“ erlebt werden."

Geistige Reibung:

"In manchen Gesprächen entsteht etwas, das man als geistige Reibung bezeichnen könnte. Zwei Menschen müssen nicht dieselbe Sicht vertreten, um ein gutes Gespräch zu führen. Im Gegenteil: Das Aufeinandertreffen unterschiedlicher Perspektiven kann besonders anregend sein, weil dadurch mehr Auseinandersetzung, Prüfung und Weiterentwicklung von Gedanken möglich wird als bei weitgehender Übereinstimmung. Der andere wird nicht zum Bestätigungsautomaten, sondern zum echten Gegenüber."