the self-concept
hellour! this is gonna be a long post!
.・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。.
i was studying for my social psychology course today (for context i'm a psych major) and read something that might be helpful for everyone who's been having doubts about manifestation subconsciously being part of our everyday lives—as opposed to something made up by the internet.
the information i'm about to provide is from actual sociologists and psychologists, so this is rooted in studies. i promise i'm not about to pull info out of my ass! this is mainly just a very very brief summary of the self concept chapter we're reading about in class.
side note, i named all the researchers in case you wanna check out their work yourself! i made this post to provide insight about our self-concept and clear limiting beliefs. :)
what is self-concept?
so we hear the term self-concept a lot in the manifestation community. Neville, Edward, Sammy, Dr Joe Dispenza, bloggers on tumblr… all of them talk about it all the time. but what does it actually mean?
the self-concept refers to the total sum of beliefs that people have about themselves. it consists of cognitive molecules that social psychologist Hazel Markus called self-schemas. these are the beliefs about ourselves that guide the processing of self relevant information. but what does this actually mean?
well, self-schemas are to the self-concept what books are to a library. if someone asks about yourself, you will probably answer with something quick like: “i am a woman” or “i am a student.” those simple attributes are part of your self-schema; if we want to go deeper, body weight is also a self-schema. for people who regard weight as a crucial part of their beliefs, something simple like a gym trip with friends or buying stuff at the supermarket may trigger thoughts about the self. but if a person is aschematic (not concerned by a certain attribute) about body weight, no thoughts will pop up.
we already know that the self is a special object of our attention. whether its a thought or a song, our consciousness is like a spotlight. this means that it can shine on one object at one point in time, yet shift rapidly from one object to another and process information outside of awareness. in this spotlight, the self is at the forefront of our minds. its what's most important to us at that moment. keep this in mind for later!
to finish with the explanations, neurologist Oliver Sacks highlighted two important points about the self:
🩷 there is a private “inner” self, and an “outer” self we show to others. if we don’t self reflect to understand how were feeling, how will we understand our emotions and actions?
🩷 the self is heavily influenced by social factors.
now–what does that last point mean? well, what we think about ourselves is rooted from childhood. if we grow up hearing “you’ll never amount to anything” or “you’re my favorite child” (extreme examples i know), then that's what we’ll ingrain in our self-concept. this notion brings me to the fun stuff–the studies!
is self-concept scientifically proven?
psychologist Gordon Gallup performed a series of studies where he put animals in front of a mirror to test if they could recognize themselves. at first, they vocalized and greeted themselves in the mirror (my dog did this too when he was a pup, he would bark at his own reflection and play with it), but after several days, only great apes seemed capable of self recognition, using the mirror just like any other human would. grooming themselves, making faces… in short, they recognized themselves!
why do i bring this experiment up? well, this proves that the concept of “me” is necessary to define our self-concept. we must first recognize ourselves as Something to become Someone.
using that same study in humans, this process of self-recognition begins between 18-24 months. which means that from this point onwards we start to define Self (consciousness).
you might read this and–admittedly–think: “oh this blog post hasn’t said anything about manifestation!” true, but i want to present the basics or self-concept first to understand how it affects our daily thoughts!
there was another experiment we talked about in one of my lectures (i do not remember who performed this study specifically, but Dr Patrick Heck did one similar to this one and the results were the same), where participants were told to take a test. half of them were told to boast about themselves, and the rest were instructed to describe themselves modestly. naturally, participants who spoke highly of themselves scored higher on these tests than participants who didn’t. so… you all see where i’m going with this.
remember how i said to keep the “consciousness is a spotlight” paragraph in mind? i’ll finally touch on it with this next and last thing i’m gonna talk about (in this post at least!).
we already established that the first step in the evolution of our self-concept is the ability to recognize ourselves as Someone. the second step, however, involves social factors. sociologist Charles Horton Cooley introduced the term looking-glass self to suggest that other people serve as a mirror in which we see ourselves. and another sociologist by the name of George Herbert added that the only way to know ourselves is by imagining the opinions of our significant others and applying them to our self-concepts. sounds familiar?
how do i change my self-concept?
Neville mentioned the “mirror-self” on his conferences too. he said that one of his favorite techniques to better his Self was to imagine a loved one speaking kindly of himself. in his book Your Faith is Your Fortune, Neville wrote: “Stop trying to change the world since it is only the mirror. Man’s attempt to change the world by force is as fruitless as breaking a mirror in the hope of changing his face. Leave the mirror and change your face. Leave the world alone and change your conceptions of yourself. The reflection then will be satisfactory.”
since the self-concept is a library (our perception of Self) made out of self-schemas (books brought to us by our peers), we can see that sometimes, what we think of ourselves is just an amalgamation of beliefs implanted to us by the people in our lives. so if we were given these books we don’t like, why should we keep them in our library?
to change these negative beliefs we have about ourselves, all we have to do is replace them with positive ones. i know, i know, this is what every person who studies loa and manifestation regurgitates over and over. its nothing that hasn’t been posted to numerous blogs or twitter threads before.
however, the point about this whole post is to tell you why that is the only way to change your self-concept. if your daily thoughts are filled with phrases like: “my sp doesn’t want me” and “i’m so broke” or “what’s the point? this is all worthless anyways.” STOP. DROP. CHANGE.
journal. write your limiting beliefs in your ipad, paper, wood, stone–whatever.
use your hands to apply muscle memory. once you have them, CROSS THEM OUT!
i can’t manifest = I CAN MANIFEST EVERYTHING I WANT
i hope i shift tonight = I KNOW I SHIFT EVERY NIGHT
i wish i had money = I HAVE ALL THE MONEY I WANT AND MORE
just those small changes are enough to rewire your entire self-concept. also, exposure. the more exposure you have to something, the more insecure it will make you. if you’re having a hard time manifesting, remove all blogs, twitter accounts, and people that limit your beliefs. less exposure to negativity = less negativity reflected in your self-concept.
problems with the Self will always be there. if you remove a negative belief, another will pop up. all you can do is learn more about your “inner” self and recognize how you’re feeling. what you can do is focus on the positives, and automatically, your self-concept will change.
persist in the assumption until it becomes your reality!
.・。.・゜✭・.・✫・゜・。.
thank you all for making it this far! just in case, the book i got this information from is Social Psychology 11th Edition authored by Kassin, Fein and, H.R. Markus. there’s a lot of interesting information on this academic book that is similar to the ones Dr Joe Dispenza has written, so i could make another post like this in the future! take care!
250 notes
·
View notes
How was Felix's case going? Not good. Their current tactics in exploiting the scammers were not enough for the court. From their sources, the Sterling-Ricos had hacked into the bank organisation to steal Felix's money. Apparently, the bank had a request to fortify their system security from any tech company and since Isaac was a certified ethical hacker, he secured the job before anyone else! Through this method, he also found concrete evidence to end the scammers! He looked up after learning of the new data...
"I found something." All his new findings were enough for legal proceedings on their half, but there was also evidence concerning corruption or money laundering schemes...meaning the Sterling-Rico family could be connected to something bigger.
"Let's transfer this over to detectives, it's not something of our scope," Vincent thought. "Good job Isaac, I'm glad you spotted this."
With Isaac as his right-hand man, Vincent believes they could take on anything. "Anyway, where'd you learn how to hack?" he was curious. "Oh, I took some cybersecurity classes during law school. More hard work and now here I am, eyes as sharp as an eagle," Isaac joked around with his nickname back then. Vincent laughed and sat down, "Lucky you're on our side with that!"
Isaac took off his glasses and chuckled, "Heh, they don't call me Eagle Eyes for nothing."
81 notes
·
View notes
I'm gonna say this in the loosest most bastardized way that I can, but I absolutely adore how ghostwriters will absolutely abuse the fact that Carson has his own law firm as an excuse for him to do whatever the hell he wants.
Although there is some amount of "wiggle-room" in real life with lawyers in Carson's position, I know it's not even remotely close to being accurate but Carson can get away with it because he's just that good of a lawyer and he owns his own business.
He is technically a criminal prosecutor. But also a defense attorney whenever he feels like it. Or Nancy asks him to do it because he will do anything for her. Sometimes if he's bored he'll look into real estate law or if Nancy asks him to do it. And then also estate planning, environmental law, animal rights, business, immigration, employment, medical malpractice, and anything else a general practice attorney would do without actually ever calling himself one because he does have a specialty.
The ghostwriters were really like, "Carson Drew can do whatever the fuck he wants because he's Carson Drew" and that is fantastic.
And now you know why Nancy is the way that she is
62 notes
·
View notes
crasso has +100% immunity to any and all rumors, but he draws the line at anything that might cause people to think that ciceron is the father of either of his kids. anyone else would be fine, but he draws the line at ciceron on account of Disliking Ciceron So So SO Much
so!! I finished the first draft of bad governance! which means now I get to edit everyone's dialogue and sometimes during the course of editing, you come across a scene that accidentally sounds like a B plot to a teleserye (you know how they can get). like, I know i have to cut it from the final draft, but it can live on as a comic for my own amusement
the historical dynamic this is based on is extremely funny to me btw
Plutarch, Crassus
Publius Crassus - ‘optimus adulescens’ and his unfortunate career, Ireneusz Łuć
unintentionally this gets into some historical parentage drama, cicero made about publius' (peter, in this story) father being someone other than crassus
Plutarch, Cicero
(the running bit for bad governance is that no one is entirely sure what's going on with crasso's household. crasso calls marcus and peter his sons, but marcus rotates between calling crasso 'dad,' 'kuya,' 'tiyo,' and 'nanay.' no one in that house clarifies anything to anyone else.)
128 notes
·
View notes