Is money and confidence for men inexorably linked?

[curiousgeorge01]

I read an article in the New York Times during the middle of this recession. I don't have the exact article, but the basic gist of the article was about women who were going out with investment bankers. According to these women, they went out with these men because they were confident lions and had a take charge attitude. However, once they lost their jobs and their paychecks, the women found the men pathetic and broke up with them because they started staying in instead of ordering food, downgraded to smaller, less expensive apartments etc. Asked if it was the money that made the women like the men the comment for all of them was something akin to "No, it was the confidence."

I didn't understand that comment, for these men, aren't money and their confidence inexorably linked so in fact the women were in love with the money? You don't see them dating confident artists. The other question is, what do women define as confidence (cocky, arrogance, knowledge etc) and is that the ultimate deciding factor on whether a woman likes a man?

What do you think?

Edit: Are money and confidence inexorably linked? I realized I made a grammar boo boo

[Prunesquallor]

You've never seen a woman date an artist?

[ATCGs]

I think this isn't a universal thing. It is almost certainly true that for some men, they are as confident as the size of their bank account, and for others, the amount of money makes no difference.

I'm a poor grad student, but I'm way smarter than a whole lot of people.

[llBradll]

I think that money gave the people that you're talking about a false sense of confidence. When it went away so did the confidence. So you could say that money and a false sense of confidence are linked.

[rara avis]

Some people base important intangibles on shallow tangible things. Men and women.

If a person has made it their goal in life to be wealthy in any respect, and they fail or succeed spectacularly in that, I can see where it would certainly affect their confidence.

A lot of self-worth is tied in with your evaluation of your personal success and of your ability to be successful. Quantity of cash is one of the classic measures of at least one kind of success.


I have to say, I don't think financial wealth is entirely empty and shallow. It just needs to be kept balanced with other areas in life.

[Dave C C]

No.

[curiousgeorge01]

You've never seen a woman date an artist?

I have, but I'm referring to the women above not dating artists. They claim that it wasn't wealth that deterred them it was the confidence level.

[Prunesquallor]

I have, but I'm referring to the women above not dating artists. They claim that it wasn't wealth that deterred them it was the confidence level.

And you know for certain that these women never dated artists? Why?

[curiousgeorge01]

I think that money gave the people that you're talking about a false sense of confidence. When it went away so did the confidence. So you could say that money and a false sense of confidence are linked.

Would you say money=confidence in the above case then?

I guess I should clarify. In essence, I'm actually asking a few questions:

1.A woman breaks up with a man because she claims that the confidence was gone once the money is. While it is true that men feel more secure with have more money and therefore are more confident, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE doesn't confidence=money?

2. Is money and confidence linked for men (the majority anyway)? As a man, I do feel more confident when I wear better clothing, can afford to go out more often, and buy whatever I want and that happiness shows. I do find that being able to provide IS a main confidence driver for men. Do you think this is not true?

3. What do women find confident? Is it when a man is a master of his field? Money? When he laughs in the face of death? Arrogant? A rebel? A criminal? All the above?? And do women often confuse confidence for insecurity (many defiant people are insecure with themselves)?

Sorry that story I put up made me think of all these questions, answer whichever!

[The Maelstrom]

This seems like a case of self-worth vs self-esteem. Self-worth being how you view your own worth as a person and self-esteem being how you perceive others view your worth as a person.

If those men had more self-esteem than self-worth, it is very likely they attributed more importance to the greater of the two. When the outside factors that support self-esteem crumble aka money, status, physical beauty, etc... self-worth is the last remaining support.

With low self-worth and low-self esteem (clearly altered by a large loss of a contributing factor) confidence is low.

What you could say happened is that the women were indeed attracted to the mens' confidence, however that confidence was shattered by outside forces and they had no other means to back up their sense of worth to themselves and others. Ergo, no confidence in themselves.

This is why I (and probably most people on this forum, just a hunch ;) ) believe that your self-worth is more important in the long run. Self-esteem does make one feel good, but it can change without warning at times. Your self-worth is internal and leaves you with a greater responsibility and control over your own sense overall worth.

That's not to say the two traits are in opposition of each other. I simply view it as a tendency to favor the one that a person is most used to/suited to, etc... Ideally one would try to have both in balance so as when one falters, the other can help alleviate the pressure and mend confidence and our sense of worth.

[Stratego]

I did a little searching in one of our news databases to see if I could find this article or something like it--no luck.

But, I'd like to say that, while I'm not a man, merely a passionate admirer of men, I think that there are several arenas in which men can build/demonstrate confidence: (yes, the financial) but also the physical (bodybuilding, etc); mental (academia); sexual (being a great lover or seducer); and social.

A confident man makes almost any occupation and situation sexy, attractive or interesting. Several of the forum members here have more humble employment, but what they are as men sets them above and beyond such materilistic standards. For me, that's a man like Johnathan Brewer.

And without knowing which article you're citing, the women seem to be lying when they say they're going out with these men because they're confident. Nope. It's money and they know it.

[compubomb]

All the women that i've met atleast where i live, in the Inland Empire (Riverside County, CA) seem to be insanely obsessed with wealth. If you don't drive a new/well maintained auto-mobile, if you don't have a well paying job, if you don't have (list here...) then you aren't part of their "group of available men". Even when I was going to a community college, the women were incredibly shallow, very uninterested in anything un-music/fashion/sports related. But women who go out with men who are rich, the only way you can tell what is important to them is ask how long have you been married and did you marry your husband before or after he became rich. This is not a fairy tale world, women who hook up with rich men only go out with rich men because of the size of their pocket book and the material possessions which come with such wealth. These are women who more than likely were treated by their fathers are "little ms. princess" and were never forced to grow up and learn a person is worth more than their wealth. But men on the same token often times don't want to marry unless they feel financially stable in their lives to the point in which they feel they can support a friendly family environment. (take what i say with a gain of salt please) I'm not perfect and my opinions are definitely smelly to many.

[llBradll]

Would you say money=confidence in the above case then?

I guess I should clarify. In essence, I'm actually asking a few questions:

1.A woman breaks up with a man because she claims that the confidence was gone once the money is. While it is true that men feel more secure with have more money and therefore are more confident, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE doesn't confidence=money?

2. Is money and confidence linked for men (the majority anyway)? As a man, I do feel more confident when I wear better clothing, can afford to go out more often, and buy whatever I want and that happiness shows. I do find that being able to provide IS a main confidence driver for men. Do you think this is not true?

3. What do women find confident? Is it when a man is a master of his field? Money? When he laughs in the face of death? Arrogant? A rebel? A criminal? All the above?? And do women often confuse confidence for insecurity (many defiant people are insecure with themselves)?

Sorry that story I put up made me think of all these questions, answer whichever!
1A- In those cases money created false confidence or confidence that was only existant as long as the money was there. They felt that their money equalled power so when the money went away so did the confidence.

2A- While I feel better in nicer clothing and like to be able to provide, they don't give me confidence. Clothing is unrelated to my confidence entirely, but being able to provide makes me feel better. I think it gives me satisfaction more than confidence. My confidence is knowing that I can do whatever I want.

3A- I think the best way to be considered confident by women is knowing what you want and going and getting it. A sort of doing your own thing and doing what it takes to get what you want.

[PeterIMC]

I read an article in the New York Times during the middle of this recession. I don't have the exact article, but the basic gist of the article was about women who were going out with investment bankers. According to these women, they went out with these men because they were confident lions and had a take charge attitude. However, once they lost their jobs and their paychecks, the women found the men pathetic and broke up with them because they started staying in instead of ordering food, downgraded to smaller, less expensive apartments etc. Asked if it was the money that made the women like the men the comment for all of them was something akin to "No, it was the confidence."

I didn't understand that comment, for these men, aren't money and their confidence inexorably linked so in fact the women were in love with the money? You don't see them dating confident artists. The other question is, what do women define as confidence (cocky, arrogance, knowledge etc) and is that the ultimate deciding factor on whether a woman likes a man?

What do you think?

Edit: Are money and confidence inexorably linked? I realized I made a grammar boo boo

Putting this in an overly generalized way:
You´re making the mistake that women want money. They don't. They want men to show off with as they use the status of the man they´re with as a sign of their own status. This status is visible mostly through the man's confidence.

In my experience, being indecisive is the biggest turn off for women.

[LionsPride]

1.A woman breaks up with a man because she claims that the confidence was gone once the money is. While it is true that men feel more secure with have more money and therefore are more confident, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE doesn't confidence=money?


I think this is an oversimplification. It isn't that money equaled confidence. As The Maelstrom eloquently said, it was how the men were judging their self worth. In these cases, if the money came back, they may not suddenly bounce back to the person that they were. They may have begun to question their ability to provide or the security of their lives. Often confidence requires faith in yourself to triumph. If they have doubts, due to the loss in money, it may be hard for them to regain their confidence. So no, it's not a simple equation of money = confidence. There are a number of variables in between and the confidence being lost at the same time as the money is related, but not an equivalent.

2. Is money and confidence linked for men (the majority anyway)? As a man, I do feel more confident when I wear better clothing, can afford to go out more often, and buy whatever I want and that happiness shows. I do find that being able to provide IS a main confidence driver for men. Do you think this is not true?

For some men, being able to provide for their families is one of the ways that they compete, in their minds, with other men. For others, they may have instilled that being a good provider is part of what it is to be a 'man'. But confidence can be tied to a number of attributes that a person values. I have seen men that were confident because they were attractive, others because they viewed themselves as being the most intelligent in the room, still others by the number of women they dated or their athletic prowess. I think money and power are popular ways men rank their self worth, but they are hardly the only ones.


3. What do women find confident? Is it when a man is a master of his field? Money? When he laughs in the face of death? Arrogant? A rebel? A criminal? All the above?? And do women often confuse confidence for insecurity (many defiant people are insecure with themselves)?


The truth is women will find men confident based on how THE INDIVIDUAL WOMAN values a man's worth. How he values his own worth isn't the overriding factor. For example, let's pretend that a particular women values men by their ability to provide for her. She meet a man who is confident in his intelligence. Chances are she is going to roll her eyes and think "Ugh, he's pretty cocky for a guy who only makes grad student money". If she then runs into a guy who is confident about his looks she may think "Ugh, come talk to me when you have a job, loser". So, confidence is really only received appropriately when the women thinks it's something that is worth being confident about. Now this is just one example, I'm sure there are women who find men who are confident in their intelligence to be attractive, others may value men who are assured of their prowess with women. There could also be women who like men that are confident in handling children, confident in their job, confident in sports, confident in social settings, and so on. The key is that the confidence only matters if she values that trait, otherwise are just labeled cocky, arrogant, immature etc. So, if you are confident in your ability to provide, it is only going to be received appropriately by women who also value this ability, but there are no overriding traits that all women will appreciate.

In regards to why the women didn't date confidence artists, it's as I stated above, they value confidence as it relates to their own values. Con artists may not come across as providers or confident in being able to look after their families. In the case of the men who lost money, the loss of money may have shaken their confidence in areas the women valued that wasn't directly related to money. Some of the women may have valued the men's confidence in social settings, but when the men lost their money, they stopped going out and the man didn't act like he owned the place anymore.

[The Maelstrom]

The key is that the confidence only matters if she values that trait, otherwise are just labeled cocky, arrogant, immature etc.

I kind of agree with this statement but I still don't think it addresses everything.

Trying to formulate my thoughts I can only think of saying this right now:

Its not unlikely or entirely uncommon for people to fall for people that are not "their type". Their type would rely heavily on the above quoted statement.

Why would anyone fall for a person who isn't their type? Sure there could be a myriad of reasons but I still find confidence would play a significant role. I think it has to do with individual perceptions of overall confidence. That said, a person's value of a trait clearly influences this perception, but being aware of this how do some people still find themselves attracted to their non-types?

My sense of this is that specific traits play more of a surface or introductory role than does an envisioned deeper package brought on by an overall confidence.

lol, did that make sense?

[LionsPride]

Its not unlikely or entirely uncommon for people to fall for people that are not "their type". Their type would rely heavily on the above quoted statement.

My sense of this is that specific traits play more of a surface or introductory role than does an envisioned deeper package brought on by an overall confidence.

True, but there may be a disconnect between what the man values that makes him confident and what the woman values.

If the man valued his good looks and this made him confident, that confidence may be shown in social situations where he likes to be front and centre in the discussion, because he thinks he looks good and therefore people will like him. A woman he meets may not value his looks, but she values his ability to wander into any party, confident that others will like him. So, it might be true that the woman is dating a man that is "not her type" ie. a man who values his looks, because she usually goes for the comedian type, but essentially the value is still there.

I don't really subscribe to "types" much. I think that if a person has a "type" it's more related to something they feel comfortable with so they don't have to learn a new type of relationship. Kind of like fishing on the same part of the river with the same lure and jigging the same way and thinking that this time I'll catch something different. They have to move out of their own comfort zone to find a different type and in cases where people switch types, it might be that opportunity pointed them in a new direction and they were finally open to seeing it.

[BatsintheBelfry]

I think the possession of money brought a change in the man that made him appear to himself to be more powerful, confident, 'successful' etc. So naturally when the money was gone, his views of himself changed and hence the inner crisis that brought about the change in his lifestyle and personality. But this shouldn't be too surprising, this mentality is viewed everywhere. Another example is body-building. Go to a gym, and 9/10 guys and gals there aren't taking a sport, the physical exercise is not a necessity, so why do they do it? They won't admit it, but it's because they need to do it to feel good about themselves.

So, when the investment bankers or whomever lost their money, they lost their self-confidence which was at least one trait of their identity of who they believed themselves to be as a person. So it's like they lost a part of themselves when the money disappeared.

In Conclusion, superficially you can see it as the girls were attracted to the guys money, but in reality (beneath the surface), they were attracted to the aura of the guy, which left the guy when the money disappeared.

The whole thing is very shallow and ridiculously stupid however you see it though.

Edit: Oh lol didn't see your direct question. No, money and confidence aren't directly related ALWAYS, but they usually do have that correlation with people that believe money has more value then it actually really does (which is most of humanity, to most people the purpose of their lives are to hoard moar and moar money (and I say this because the accumulation of more money is the reason for them waking up and doing their thing every day), they've turned money into a living thing when it is really just nothing (inanimate, it shouldn't have any life) if that makes any sense i.e. it's like the money is alive because it has such a significant presence for most people).

The money is more real then they are which sounds contradictory because money should be inanimate and it can't 'think and feel', but if that's true, then why does money have such an effect on a human being (who presumably is 'alive') that this inanimate object could influence and manipulate the human beings own identity of himself?

[JohnDoe]

All I can say is that the times I've had women really blatently hit on me or ask me out were while I was having very major successes at work (not necessarily that paid well either). Noting that none of these people knew even what I was working on, so that blows that theory out of the water. Its confidence, not money. However its not an accident that people with money are confident. Confidence draws money, not the other way around.

[BatsintheBelfry]

@JohnDoe

Totally agree with you, except for the last line, didn't understand. Shouldn't it be the other way around? That is, it is the money that effected the boost in confidence? Hence, when the money disappeared, the confidence was significantly diminished to become apparent to other people. If it was the other way around, and if confidence brought about (drawed) money, it would be inexplicable why he lost any money since he would have been confident.

[JohnDoe]

@JohnDoe

Totally agree with you, except for the last line, didn't understand. Shouldn't it be the other way around? That is, it is the money that effected the boost in confidence? Hence, when the money disappeared, the confidence was significantly diminished to become apparent to other people. If it was the other way around, and if confidence brought about (drawed) money, it would be inexplicable why he lost any money since he would have been confident.

No, I'm saying confidence brings money. People who stay confident in rough times bounce back fairly quickly. If someone laid off uses the opportunity to start a consulting firm he has wanted to start for years, then he will probably do just fine and may even end up making significantly more money, and his girlfriend who was attracted to his confidence will stay with him. If he just bemoans how the financial industry is dieing and gives up, who the hell would want to be around that?

[BatsintheBelfry]

@JohnDoe

Ok, I understand you and can agree with you, for that particular example that you gave.. But as to whether confidence brings money or vice-versa, it really just depends on the particular example and the type of person involved.

As for OP, clearly the money had brought about the confidence and not the other way around. If confidence brought money then I don't see how they would have lost money, but if you believe I'm being silly here because there are many other external factors that could contribute to the loss or gain of money besides confidence, even so, the investment bankers definitely should not have had a diminishment in confidence regardless of whether or not the money disappeared. The confidence shouldn't have been dependent on the money, if 'confidence draws money'. But since it was, I think that money drawed the confidence.

[curiousgeorge01]

Edit: Oh lol didn't see your direct question. No, money and confidence aren't directly related ALWAYS, but they usually do have that correlation with people that believe money has more value then it actually really does (which is most of humanity, to most people the purpose of their lives are to hoard moar and moar money (and I say this because the accumulation of more money is the reason for them waking up and doing their thing every day), they've turned money into a living thing when it is really just nothing (inanimate, it shouldn't have any life) if that makes any sense i.e. it's like the money is alive because it has such a significant presence for most people).

The money is more real then they are which sounds contradictory because money should be inanimate and it can't 'think and feel', but if that's true, then why does money have such an effect on a human being (who presumably is 'alive') that this inanimate object could influence and manipulate the human beings own identity of himself?

No biggie. I actually didn't realize how multi-segmented the question would be until I wrote the story and posted it. I was like oh wait...this article actually addresses a few issues so any answer to any of the questions would've been fine.

The reason I said IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE above is because I feel like with some people, money is really all that had in life, those investment bankers for example. To get that sort of job, you really have to have no life (they work hours and hours) but they pay you handsomely for it. The way I look at it, if those men put in those hours without getting paid that amount, the women would've have come to them (I'm assuming they have almost no other talents or interests since the job takes up so many hours I'll explain this assumption further below) and therefore their confidence was equated with money.

I also read in another article that people who come into huge wads of cash tend to blow it (athletes, lottery winners, celebrities) and that's why women (I assume the gold diggers here) target the new investment bankers. The men who attract these women really think it has to do with their own greatness when in reality women use their ego to trap them.

Also, I know most men (because of cultural norms) link their confidence for being able to be a provider. Money, therefore, I feel is a big part of a male's identity. I also think that's partially why men are more risky with their money, they want that bigger payoff to boost their self-esteem.

[Tyrant Soup]

However, once they lost their jobs and their paychecks, the women found the men pathetic and broke up with them because they started staying in instead of ordering food, downgraded to smaller, less expensive apartments etc. Asked if it was the money that made the women like the men the comment for all of them was something akin to "No, it was the confidence."


--Not eating out (presumably at an obscenely expensive restaurant)
--Live in a less expensive apartment

How are those items signs of confidence? Those women are gold diggers. Of course they're not going to say " I dumped him because without the cash, my one reason for dating him is gone". They deserve each other.

[curiousgeorge01]

--Not eating out (presumably at an obscenely expensive restaurant)
--Live in a less expensive apartment

How are those items signs of confidence? Those women are gold diggers. Of course they're not going to say " I dumped him because without the cash, my one reason for dating him is gone". They deserve each other.

Well yea that may be the case. The other thing it may be is that the men defined their confidence through money so when they stopped spending so much, the MEN's confidence went down.


I agree with you but I'm just playing devil's advocate though.

[BatsintheBelfry]

The reason I said IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE above is because I feel like with some people, money is really all that had in life, those investment bankers for example. To get that sort of job, you really have to have no life (they work hours and hours) but they pay you handsomely for it. The way I look at it, if those men put in those hours without getting paid that amount, the women would've have come to them (I'm assuming they have almost no other talents or interests since the job takes up so many hours I'll explain this assumption further below) and therefore their confidence was equated with money.

I also read in another article that people who come into huge wads of cash tend to blow it (athletes, lottery winners, celebrities) and that's why women (I assume the gold diggers here) target the new investment bankers. The men who attract these women really think it has to do with their own greatness when in reality women use their ego to trap them.

Also, I know most men (because of cultural norms) link their confidence for being able to be a provider. Money, therefore, I feel is a big part of a male's identity. I also think that's partially why men are more risky with their money, they want that bigger payoff to boost their self-esteem.

Yes it makes you wonder. I actually originally wanted to be a trader when I was younger, but when you hear about people committing suicide because they lost millions, you wonder what you're getting yourself into and what God you would be worshiping.

But there are at least two conclusions I can reach as to why people work those hours for money. Either they work for the money as an end in itself or for the means that money could give them. I see no other reason why else they would, but regardless, both would be insufficient. The former is a little curious because *technically* it could work, but the individual would have to be very spiritually mature indeed. He would have to be totally indifferent about money, so that if the money ever disappeared or increased, his confidence and being wouldn't budge (his identity would be set upon an immovable foundation). The use of the money to him would end as soon as he made it, after that the money would have to be indifferent and useless to him. He must have no bonds to the money. The only thing worthwhile as to why he joined the industry would be the 'joy' of creation (which in this case is making the money).

But this is all ideal, and in just about everyone who goes down this path, their identity would be bonded to the money and if it ever disappeared, it would be like a piece of themselves disappeared too. Not to mention they would always want more and more money since they have a bond to the money and it influences their identity (i.e. more money is 'good' meaning they are a 'better person'). Hence they would be eternally unhappy, consumed with cares and woes because there would never be any peace, and no end ever to the accumulation of money (infinite).

For the latter group of people who work for that which money can bring them, well that also seems like an insufficent path too. In this case I guess they would be working for the corporeal benefits like women, cars, etc; but also the incorporeal benefits too like prestige and conscious self-importance. Well I dunno about their experience, but in my experience, whenever I desired something, as soon as I got it, I no longer cared about it at all and then I desired something else. It made me very unhappy and brought me so much pain. There was no peace. I suspect its the same with these other people. This never-ending circus of desires would never end unless I consciously curbed the desire at its source and like metaphorically placed a stone over its sprout. As for the latter benefits, these too are worthless because your identity of yourself is directly related to what other people think of you. If they admire you, you feel great; but if they don't, your opinion of yourself will be low. You end up having nothing that is your own and spend all your time worrying about what other people think of you because what they think of you is you.

Additionally, that's true, women use their egos to trap these people. I won't analyze these worthless parasites here. But also, besides self-esteem and the illusionary identity trip, these bankers desperately need these lovely shallow women too for another reason. Why? For the simple reason because that's all money can buy, material and corporeal objects like physical beauty regardless of whether it be in a human being or an inanimate object like a car. If you spend all your time serving the money God, you also want all the benefits that come with the association of such a servitude. Basically they need to be reminded (note they are not conscious) that the accumulation of money is not a pointless life, hence they use the money (what they slaved for) to buy all the advantages money can buy (to give the impression that they have something of value). Hence it's a necessity for them to buy these rich toys, and a little more insight into this truly slavish life.

[JohnDoe]

Yes it makes you wonder. I actually originally wanted to be a trader when I was younger, but when you hear about people committing suicide because they lost millions, you wonder what you're getting yourself into and what God you would be worshiping.

Gah there are lots of people to attack as seeking only money, but I would be least apt to label traders as them. I think most great traders love what they do (and quite frankly I can identify... trading is like playing chess with the entire world at once, and who doesn't love chess?). Maybe that is why they are great though.

But there are at least two conclusions I can reach as to why people work those hours for money. Either they work for the money as an end in itself or for the means that money could give them. I see no other reason why else they would, but regardless, both would be insufficient. The former is a little curious because *technically* it could work, but the individual would have to be very spiritually mature indeed. He would have to be totally indifferent about money, so that if the money ever disappeared or increased, his confidence and being wouldn't budge (his identity would be set upon an immovable foundation). The use of the money to him would end as soon as he made it, after that the money would have to be indifferent and useless to him. He must have no bonds to the money. The only thing worthwhile as to why he joined the industry would be the 'joy' of creation (which in this case is making the money).

Honestly.. what you just described is how you are supposed to learn how to trade. If you start trading for the money, your going to fail, because your going to worry about losing it.


But this is all ideal, and in just about everyone who goes down this path, their identity would be bonded to the money and if it ever disappeared, it would be like a piece of themselves disappeared too. Not to mention they would always want more and more money since they have a bond to the money and it influences their identity (i.e. more money is 'good' meaning they are a 'better person'). Hence they would be eternally unhappy, consumed with cares and woes because there would never be any peace, and no end ever to the accumulation of money (infinite).

"I never knew how poor I was until I started making money" -- WallStreet (the movie). Its a pretty true statement. Its easy to be happy with little if that is all you are used to. It is hard to go back the other way.

For the latter group of people who work for that which money can bring them, well that also seems like an insufficent path too. In this case I guess they would be working for the corporeal benefits like women, cars, etc; but also the incorporeal benefits too like prestige and conscious self-importance. Well I dunno about their experience, but in my experience, whenever I desired something, as soon as I got it, I no longer cared about it at all and then I desired something else. It made me very unhappy and brought me so much pain. There was no peace. I suspect its the same with these other people. This never-ending circus of desires would never end unless I consciously curbed the desire at its source and like metaphorically placed a stone over its sprout. As for the latter benefits, these too are worthless because your identity of yourself is directly related to what other people think of you. If they admire you, you feel great; but if they don't, your opinion of yourself will be low. You end up having nothing that is your own and spend all your time worrying about what other people think of you because what they think of you is you.

Your identity of yourself is always linked to what others think. Maybe not as strongly, but tell me that if the people who said they loved you told you they hated you, would you not feel just as bad?

Additionally, that's true, women use their egos to trap these people. I won't analyze these worthless parasites here. But also, besides self-esteem and the illusionary identity trip, these bankers desperately need these lovely shallow women too for another reason. Why? For the simple reason because that's all money can buy, material and corporeal objects like physical beauty regardless of whether it be in a human being or an inanimate object like a car. If you spend all your time serving the money God, you also want all the benefits that come with the association of such a servitude. Basically they need to be reminded (note they are not conscious) that the accumulation of money is not a pointless life, hence they use the money (what they slaved for) to buy all the advantages money can buy (to give the impression that they have something of value). Hence it's a necessity for them to buy these rich toys, and a little more insight into this truly slavish life.
At the end of the day, the problem isn't that they only have money. The problem is without their job to make their money they are nothing. These arn't people who have other useful skillsets most of the time. And quite frankly, the obsession people have with dumping on the toys of the "rich" seems most often to come from some desire to comfort themselves that people who are rich really don't have more fun. That Ferrari really does not buy happiness, so its ok that I'm not trying to be rich. Right. Somehow I don't believe that. There are plenty of rich people who serve the money god who manage to find love.

[PeterIMC]

@JohnDoe

Totally agree with you, except for the last line, didn't understand. Shouldn't it be the other way around? That is, it is the money that effected the boost in confidence? Hence, when the money disappeared, the confidence was significantly diminished to become apparent to other people. If it was the other way around, and if confidence brought about (drawed) money, it would be inexplicable why he lost any money since he would have been confident.

You´re wrong. People without confidence aren't very successful. That can be financial success but also every other type of success of course. I mean, I never saw an athlete say: "I don't think I have a chance, but I'm gonna try anyway."

Success is the result of being confident at what you do. But that does not automatically mean that everybody that's confident is successful. You can't turn the logic around.

At the same time it's true that not all success is the result of confidence. Some people just are riding along with the real leaders. That's also a form of success of course, but just a very dependent type of success.

[BatsintheBelfry]

Gah there are lots of people to attack as seeking only money, but I would be least apt to label traders as them. I think most great traders love what they do (and quite frankly I can identify... trading is like playing chess with the entire world at once, and who doesn't love chess?). Maybe that is why they are great though.

Hrm, you're probably correct. But isn't it specifically the "high" that usually makes them want to (and thus like) trading? (kinda like the high in extreme sports?)

"I never knew how poor I was until I started making money" -- WallStreet (the movie). Its a pretty true statement. Its easy to be happy with little if that is all you are used to. It is hard to go back the other way.

Sure, it's also easier to be just healthy, in contrast to trying to get back to that healthy state after becoming sick.

Your identity of yourself is always linked to what others think. Maybe not as strongly, but tell me that if the people who said they loved you told you they hated you, would you not feel just as bad?
That's why I might be sociopathic because although I can see myself in other people and can react normally, and I know the rules of society and the norms because I wasn't born that way, I do not believe in any of it and I can honestly tell you that my identity is not linked to this world. I don't believe in what I see around me every day. I'm not fooled to think that the 'spirit of the times' around me and that possesses most everyone I see around me is actually real. In 20 years, a couple centuries, a millenia later, it will have changed. But that's not really the point, you should be more concerned with yourself, and the harm to yourself that you are doing to yourself when your identity is stabilized on so faulty a foundation as the opinions of other people (which are just as faulty). I want something real, something lasting, that will never leave me, and that will be with me say like 5000 years later and would also have been relevant 5000 years in the past. If your identity is based on what other people say, then you should be aware of how little of yourself is really you at the very least. And yes, I agree, what other people say to you whether positive or negative could have devastating results either way positive or negative. Why is this an ideal state? Don't you see all it's disadvantages and how transparent the advantages are? Moreover how disastrous it is to the individual itself? He ends up having nothing that is his own.

At the end of the day, the problem isn't that they only have money. The problem is without their job to make their money they are nothing. And quite frankly, the obsession people have with dumping on the toys of the "rich" seems most often to come from some desire to comfort themselves that people who are rich really don't have more fun. That Ferrari really does not buy happiness, so its ok that I'm not trying to be rich. Right. Somehow I don't believe that. There are plenty of rich people who serve the money god who manage to find love.
I wasn't harping on them, and if you feel that I was, then I fear that you don't understand where I'm coming from, allow me to try to reclarify. I wasn't bashing the toys for the sake of the toys and because I envy them or something. The toys aren't important and their unimportance is why I bashed the toys, and why I bashed a whole set of people who devote their lives to their possession here of those toys whether it be women or cars or numerous other objects of desire that money can buy (people who desire wealth for what it can buy). Oh, and yes I'm talking about the rich only at the moment, but this mentality engulfs all social levels too. I guess you're correct, it's not fair to only include the rich, those that have been successful, although the topic of this thread WAS the rich and we were examining just them, hence why I only talked about them. But more specifically, it's a state of mind that is equivalent to a sickness that I have beef with - and this includes all people regardless of status. The rich in themselves (people in general) aren't important to me and are not the real issue here. I'm concerned with the internal forces that motivate people to devote their lives to the unreal. The internal forces are what is real, not the people. And I really don't have anything against being rich, but I do have a problem with the woes and bewailing cries that usually come with the ambition of such a lifestyle (whether they were actually successful and became rich or not which includes almost all humanity now that the world is so globalized and so is invading the east and which includes just about all of the west).

I feel like I'm not being very accurate here in what I have just said and I could have so much more to say because these topics are extremely complicated and because I didn't spend another hour or so trying to make pin-point sense what I'm already said (not to mention what I haven't even said or the reason and experience as to why I think what I think) I'm just going to further confuse you and seriously should probably just delete everything here, but w/e.. Now you're talking about love for some reason, so allow me to suggest you visit my thread in the relationships and dating forums, "Do we have a choice when it comes to love?". I would love to have you rip and criticize me and I know you would do very well ;)

@PeterIMC
I think you just said pretty much the same thing as JohnDoe when he responded to that same post that you quoted, so please refer to post #22 and if you still have issue please feel free to respond again. I probably agree with you anyway.

[PeterIMC]

@PeterIMC
I think you just said pretty much the same thing as JohnDoe when he responded to that same post that you quoted, so please refer to post #22 and if you still have issue please feel free to respond again. I probably agree with you anyway.

Oh well, I don't read all the posts so that might happen every now and then... :)

[jndiii]

From personal experience, I think it's more the confidence than the money that makes the difference. Obviously, in some cases, these may be gold diggers, but even then, if the guys involved had evoked confidence that they'd soon be back in the game, even the gold diggers would buy it. (no pun intended)

I don't think it's money and confidence that are linked, but rather it's a man doing what he believes is his mission in life, whether it be art, or science, or financial wizardry. When the mission fails, it's a dreadful blow to the man, and that can destroy confidence.

[Marius]

I dont know if anyone has considered this, but about the bankers losing confidence when they lost their job/money, and so on. I know that a lot of us work a job only because of money, but think about this: Some people actually enjoy what they do, even if it is making money itself and when that goes away wouldnt you think that they would get depressed?

I dont think that money=confidence, at least not entirely. i do on the other hand think that pride plays a very important part in our confidence. For some people, (Im assuming for those that work in the moneymaking fields) the prospect of money and the size of their bank can seem like a reflection of their pride hence huge confidence.

Substitute the bankers and the Wall Street guys for musicians, or painters, or anything like that. Doesnt the painter lose confidence when he cannot find the inspiration to paint, or loses his pride in his work? Doesnt the musician suffer when his instrument is broken?

I however cannot explain to you why women choose to date guys who have large ammounts of money other then for the mear security of offspring? I mean, we are very much primitive for an evolved species. How we choose to mate, how we raise our children, how we gather food, how we make or find shelter.... I would think one needs to look back at Darwin to find the answer to that question maybe.

I hope that makes sense.

[curiousgeorge01]

Ok, I think most people here have established that money and confidence are separate things for a man, though they may be linked at times. I guess the next follow up question would be "For a woman, how important is money when deciding a relationship?"

[Prunesquallor]

Ok, I think most people here have established that money and confidence are separate things for a man, though they may be linked at times. I guess the next follow up question would be "For a woman, how important is money when deciding a relationship?"

It depends on the woman.
Money is a handy thing, and people generally want to increase their access to it. It is, however, only one of many positive attributes, and its importance will vary depending on the individual and things like, say, their own financial situation and life plans, from extremely important to barely relevant.

The main complication is that money is associated with power for many people. Sadly, there are still men who don't feel "manly" enough unless they are the provider, so they'd rather women who are not so rich, just as there are women who want to use money to keep an upper hand in the relationship. The former, however, is still more common, and generally has less societal complications, so that imbalance will be more common.