Why do people compare themselves to the wrong ideal?

[Spoonist]

'Tiny bit of frustration here.

Just read an article written by a woman where she blamed the increased want for plastic surgery on the beauty industry. Now since I laughed aloud about the article my colleagues asked why, which resulted in a heated "debate".

My point of view was that it is always stupid to compare yourself with an ideal and not real people. Why my colleagues got a tad mad was because I held myself as a counterexample.
Personally I compare myself with my subjective view of the average joe, which usually makes my day since I again subjectively see myself as better.

But here comes the whole point of the post. Most of my colleagues and 100% of my female colleagues all compared themselves with some sort of ideal.
The skinny female ones compared themselves with curvatious bikini models, while the other females compared themselves with runway models.
The males though usually compared themselves not so much with physical ideals but rather with successful people or 'stars'.

I explained that this is selfdestructive self-fulfilling prophecy and told them to rewire their brains.
Then they proceded with saying that it is human nature to strive for an ideal.
Which I responded to that it rather is human nature to blaim someone or something else for our own delusions and while I'm sometimes isn't sure that I last checked out as human.


So what's your 2 cents?
Why do people compare themselves with unreachable ideals?
Why do they try to blaim someone/something external when they then can't reach those ideals?
Do people enjoy being less than X?

To me looking in from the outside it just looks strange and self destructive.

[Molyneux]

It may not specifically be human nature to strive for an ideal, but it is a common trait to strive for a *goal*...the question is whether a goal is a good (or an achievable) one.

[Guy N. Cognito]

I totally agree, comparing yourself with an ideal or some person who makes a living keeping their body in a certain physical condition isn't healthy. Expecially since you don't have as much time as them to burn on toning, starving, etc.
I try to keep improving and if I slide a bit, pick myself up and try harder. So far, it seems to be working, or at least, I'm not getting any worse.

[McC]

One should bear in mind that those 'ideal' people don't become 'ideal' by themselves. They've got an entire network of people making them into the 'ideal.' A movie star, for instance, has an agent, beauticians of all manner, PR people, etc. It's decidely not the work of one person, and it's decidely more work than one person would ever want to put in.

[chaoschristian]

Speaking from within the confines of the privileged North American culture - I think the central issue revolves around the question, "What satisfies me?"

Our material wealth and our desire to accumulate material wealth conditions us/makes us susceptible to the idea that all 'success' is externally measured. "Upward mobility" is a central paradigm of our culture. For those who choose to accept this, then what ensues is an escalating frenzy of physical, emotional and spiritual activity to achieve bigger, better, greater. All of this being measured against relative benchmarks, so that the more you have the more you can see that you don't have and so the escalation continues.

We can see the destructive results of this behavior in our culture - we sleep less, rest less, spend less time with our families and our friends, we spend less time alone, we go into debt in order to fund a 'life style', we increase our stress worrying about measuring up, about maintaining what we have, about what would others think if ever I should miss-step.

Do people enjoy this? No, not really I think. I think we can dig up enough evidence to support the claim that the our culture is basically 'dissatisfied.' I can testify to my own behaviour and of the observations I made whiling living in an extremely "upwardly mobile" community.

Is it human nature? I claim that it is not, because you can reject the paradigm. However, if you reject that particular paradigm, then the response to "What satisfies me?" becomes quite different.

[Big Phil]

The ideals aren't "unreachable." People reach their ideals every day, and you could as well, if you were willing to put in the time and effort to do so. People bitch and moan about how stars have personal trainers and that's why they look they way they do... bullshit - they look the way they do because they work out and train like madmen for hours every day. You could do that too if you really wanted to... most of us just have other things we'd rather do than work out for 3 hours a day.

[Broomstick]

Just read an article written by a woman where she blamed the increased want for plastic surgery on the beauty industry. Now since I laughed aloud about the article my colleagues asked why, which resulted in a heated "debate"....

[snip]

....But here comes the whole point of the post. Most of my colleagues and 100% of my female colleagues all compared themselves with some sort of ideal.
The skinny female ones compared themselves with curvatious bikini models, while the other females compared themselves with runway models.
The males though usually compared themselves not so much with physical ideals but rather with successful people or 'stars'.

You covered a lot of territory, but I'm only going to address this one issue.

Women are, in general, less competitive than men EXCEPT in physical appearance. Looks DO count, rightly or wrongly, and women can be extremely vicious in cutting each other down over perceived slight imperfections. Where this really hurts women is that while a "succesful man" (however you define that) can usually go from success to sucess and enjoy increasing success as time goes by, even the most perfect woman's looks will degrade with age.

MOST women can cope with this nasty little fact of life, just as most men can cope with not being an NFL quarterback, Indy car driver, or multi-millionaire.

However, modern graphic/video arts can put in front of us, on a daily basis, women who are "perfect", or nearly so. A hundred years ago women might ocassionally encounter someone of extraordinary beauty, or see such a representation in an art museum, but mostly she was surrounded by ordinary women not too different from her. Things are different now - the average woman is bombarded by non-average images, which skews her perceptions of herself.

Enter plastic surgery. Originally, this was reconstructive surgery, to restore appearance (and often function) after illness or injury or inborn defect. Then some folks started using it to "correct" the "defects" of age - or even ethnicity.

So, it is possible in some places these days to see not a natural variety of noses but everyone wearing more or less the same nose - which means someone with a perfectly normal and natural nose that's outside the new norm is now under some pressure (subtle or even not-so-subtle) to "get some work done". As just one example. Another is breasts - if I recall the B and C cup are average range in the US... but if everyone in the neighborhood goes out and gets implants so they're now a D, then what used to be an ample C is now on the small side. Since large breasts are usually seen as desirable the B and C cups of the world now start feeling some pressure to "get some work done".

So yes, I absolutely do believe that the availability and (thanks to new financing schemes) affordability of plastic surgery has a LOT to do with women getting more and more snipped, and likewise gets wrapped up with unreasonable expectations by changing what is "normal" and "average".

Mind you, I have nothing against plastic surgery in and of itself. I think that, properly applied, it can be a wonderful thing. Getting bad teeth fixed, or a good facelift/dermabrasion after decades of sun damage, or lifting breasts that have mutated into size "34 extralong" after several children and four decades of life can be a good thing. Breast implants as a high school graduation present, though, is whacky.

And yes, I think the beauty industry contributes a great deal to this demand - after all, they have products to sell and a vested interest in making sure demand remains high. I mean, where do you think this trend towards over-inflated lips came from? I see white women walking around with lips bigger than any grown naturally on an African face - WTF is that all about? They've gone beyond "sensuous" into caricature. My god, 20 years ago if you had walked into a hospital looking like that they would have started treating you for anaphylactic shock and started asking you about bee stings and food allergies. It's a fucking fad - someone decided big lips were sexy (which to some they are) and went overboard, then convinced everyone else to do the same. Sort of like hula hoops, goldfish swallowing, and phone-booth stuffing fads, except these carry the potential for much more serious physical complications. That's strictly a product of marketing.

The end result is a physical ideal that no woman could ever achieve naturally. Which is just fine for the beauty industry that stands ready to sell the products and procedures necessary to attempt this totally unrealistic "ideal".

To me looking in from the outside it just looks strange and self destructive.

I tend to agree with you, however, I think we're in the minority these days.

[Darth Servo]

I think its pre-programmed into our heads through billions of years of evolution. This is what drives COMPETITION. To be the BEST.

True, it often is self destructive.

[Spoonist]

->Guy N. Cognito
I totally agree, I always try to evaluate myself to see if I can improve me. But I do that with the very subjective "me" not something external.

->McC
Especially when Images gets photoshopped etc.

->chaoschristian
But that is what I see as the stupid thing. We are in a unique position to actually enjoy what our culture has to offer. Instead people take it as an excuse to feel bad about themselves...
I don't think that it is the paradigm itself that is flawed, rather what people perceive as the demand on themselves because of the paradigm.
(Sort of preaching hate because some guy said that we should love eachother some 2000 years ago).

->SancheztheWhaler
But that is the problem, just because you can reach an ideal doesn't mean that you should or that the specific ideal is ideal for you.
I know the limitations of my time and will, within it I try to improve myself.

->Broomstick
That's another thing I don't get. Women aren't mostly doing it for the men, they are doing it because of other women...
Strange.
On the cover of mens magazines=women.
On the cover of womens magazines=women.
But I on the issue I don't get it.
Why compare yourself with the girls in the magazines? I wouldn't compare my endowment with that of male pornstars, that would be depressing... I don't compare my wealth with Bill Gates, I don't compare my brains with Mensa people.

->Darth Servo
Since I and other abnormals are here to prove otherwise you are quite incorrect.
It is a mindbug, just like that if you are popular/good locking you can't be good at math...

[Darth Servo]

->Darth Servo
Since I and other abnormals are here to prove otherwise you are quite incorrect.
It is a mindbug, just like that if you are popular/good locking you can't be good at math...

You think a few exceptions disproves the general rule? Or were you being sarcastic?

[Darth Wong]

Men increasingly have the same problem: witness "Men's Health" magazine and the current obsession over "six-pack abs" and looking "ripped". In order to look "ripped", one must maintain an unnaturally low body-fat level. When you look at a guy like Steve Reeves, one regarded as an Adonis, he was in great shape but he didn't look "ripped". Even Arnold at his steroid-popping bulging-muscle peak didn't look "ripped" the way so many models do now. And in order to achieve that "ripped" look, people do stupid things, like taking these ridiculous "fat burner" pills which are really just diuretics with caffeine added.

But the funny thing is that despite all this, I don't really think it's necessarily bad for people to aspire to an ideal. The problem is that we often aspire to stupid ideals, or ill-chosen ones. For example, I think it's perfectly healthy for men to aspire to the "greek god" physical ideal, but not the modern "ripped, shredded abs" ideal. I also think it's perfectly healthy for women to aspire to the "greek goddess" physical ideal, but not the modern "lean hardbody with large breasts" self-contradictory physical ideal.

[Broomstick]

->Broomstick
That's another thing I don't get. Women aren't mostly doing it for the men, they are doing it because of other women...
Strange.
On the cover of mens magazines=women.
On the cover of womens magazines=women.
But I on the issue I don't get it.
Why compare yourself with the girls in the magazines?

I, for one, avoid "women's magazines". But then, I'm pretty weird for a gal.

Men compete amongst themselves, just not on appearances. Women DO compete with appearances. Perhaps it would be easier if you think of many "woman's magazines" in the same line as publication that claim to help you improve your golf game or how to ski better. Why would an amateur weekend golfer compare himself to Tiger Woods? Hmm.... maybe if they could pick up some tricks/tips/techniques from Tiger they could improve their golf game? And Tiger provides a yardstick with which to measure their skills. Likewise, most women will never look like Iman, but if they could pick up some "beauty secrets" from her they could look better. And trust me - women do rate themselves on how their complexion compares to Model X or how clothes look on them compared to Model Y - and they'll rate their girlfriends that way, too, and whoever comes closest to the "ideal" is "winner" even if none of them are close. For these women, "beauty" occupies the spot that "sports" does among fanatic sports fans. The beauty parlor/salon/spa becomes the equivalent of the sports bar or the playoff game.

Women look at other women to size them up in comparison to themselves, or in an effort to "figure out" their beauty secrets. Men look at women in magazines because men are visual creatures and (if het or bi) like to look at women's bodies. Also note that the women featured in "woman's magainzes" usually look significantly different than the women in "men's magazines". Men want curves in their women (as a general rule - there are always exceptions). Women, though - you know, I am a woman and I can't figure out the "women's magazines" for the most part. Most of the gals in there look like sticks. Starving refugees with breast implants. Ugh. And the "beauty secrets" are often pretty whacky, too. ::::

[Broomstick]

Men increasingly have the same problem: witness "Men's Health" magazine and the current obsession over "six-pack abs" and looking "ripped". In order to look "ripped", one must maintain an unnaturally low body-fat level.

Which brings up a good point - this look is unnatural, and at the most extreme unhealthy.

A high-protein diet devoid of fat and with very low carbs can put severe strain on your kidneys. It messes up your hormone levels - the body needs fat to make all sorts of hormones, including testosterone. Drop below 3% bodyfat and your sex drive is probably going to go bye-bye. So those sexy "ripped" guys may be "manly" looking, but they may not be able to get an erection. The body oils used in competitions masks the fact these "gods" have dry skin and other problems because their bodyfat is so very low. Extreme low bodyfat can also interfere with the metabolizing of fat-soluable vitamins like A, D, and E which can have long term consequences for health.

In fact, very few men could maintain the extreme low bodyfat of some of these "models" - only a genetic quirk allows some men to drop that low (and some women, as well) and still function. Even then, these folks only drop that low temporarially - in between photoshoots and competitions they aren't quite so "cut". Diuretics are also used to help with the "ripped" look, as dehydration can also emphasize musculature though, again, that's a temporary measure and carries health risks.

Then we get into areas like photographic lighting and retouching, which are standard in the industry.

But the funny thing is that despite all this, I don't really think it's necessarily bad for people to aspire to an ideal. The problem is that we often aspire to stupid ideals, or ill-chosen ones.

Yes - ideals are good as long as they're reasonable.

There's no way I could ever look like a runway model - I just don't have the genetics for it. I'm too short and my ethnic background gives me a relatively robust skeleton and build. Trying to attain "runway" standards would be as unrealistic as my attempting to tan myself to a skin color approaching that of, say, a Masai woman. Just ain't gonna happen, it's physically impossible, and attempting to do so would be extremely unhealthy. It's not a reasonable ideal for me.

Likewise, for the average man attaining the "ripped" status of some of these male bodybuilders is just simply impossible. One of the many dirty little secrects of the industry (along with steroids and other "enhancements") is that there IS a genetic componet to the "look".

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be in better shape, but where it becomes toxic is when it's held up as "you MUST have 6 pack abs or you won't get laid". Truth is, the guys who look slightly squishy around the middle are probably getting more sex than the guys who spend 16 hours a day pumping iron.

[McC]

Truth is, the guys who look slightly squishy around the middle are probably getting more sex than the guys who spend 16 hours a day pumping iron.

Exactly. We actually have time to devote to having sex with our girlfriends.

[CoyoteNature]

I think that its related to a general feeling of unhappiness, I mean its not just the beauty industry, its also the cars we buy, the houses we buy; and even the medication we overmedicate on.


We are being pulled one way or another and overall its designed to give us the feeling that said thing will make us happy, when we get it (the happy thing), it might or might not make us happy depending on what we really need to be happy.

Most of the time our ideal, the thing that we would be happiest with, is often not in the same direction THEY tell us it is.

Then we get angry with that when we aren't happy with what we find.

It's a bit like a story involving three wishes, i.e. there is what you wish, and what you at the core of you want.

Do you want that look? Or do you want the acceptance that comes from having that look?



I think in some ways its deliberate, a happy society is not a profitable society. If you are well balanced and have good ideal in your head, are you likely to buy beauty products, medications for stress, big huge cars?

Or it occurred to me that a generally happy society and people in it would not be one that is technologically advanced, because it might be a sane society.

I think that if people had sane ideals, i.e. ones more in tune with reality, then a lot of the stuff we take for granted wouldn't even exist.

Of course I could be wrong, just my experience in the US, maybe its different somewhere else.

[Molyneux]

So...if the pop-culture images of attractive folk are unhealthy and unrealistic, what exactly *is* a good image of a healthy male or female?

[McC]

As Mike said, the ancient Greeks got it right. Obviously in good shape, but not totally devoid of body fat either.

Men
Women (here too)

[wilfulton]

Men increasingly have the same problem: witness "Men's Health" magazine and the current obsession over "six-pack abs" and looking "ripped". In order to look "ripped", one must maintain an unnaturally low body-fat level. When you look at a guy like Steve Reeves, one regarded as an Adonis, he was in great shape but he didn't look "ripped". Even Arnold at his steroid-popping bulging-muscle peak didn't look "ripped" the way so many models do now. And in order to achieve that "ripped" look, people do stupid things, like taking these ridiculous "fat burner" pills which are really just diuretics with caffeine added.

The whole stinking lot of you can have your six pack, I prefer my keg!

When Arnold Schwartzenegger did the Terminator movies, he claims that he was at about 8% body fat. When he first started getting in shape for T3, he claimed to have been at 14%, and over the next 6 to 8 months got it back down (From his commentary on T3). 8% is rather low, I believe the idea for men is in fact about 12-15% (but I'm not really sure, my ass is about 20%).

And taking all these fat burner pills are not just stupid or ridiculous, some are downright dangerous. Some popular ones I've seen in the military are hydroxycut (which is what my driver in Iraq used to stay awake on long missions). Talking to a medic, I learned that Hydroxycut raises your body temperature up to about 102 degrees, where your muscles like to be when they work. This enables you to more or less immediately start burning fat when you exercise (but do remember to drink plenty of water).

On the bulletein boards outside of commanders offices and around the aid stations, however, it is not uncommon to find reports of soldiers who have DIED from taking dietary supplements, often they collapse after PT, which is that vigorous first hour of the military duty day.

Oh yes, from what I understand, most of these weight loss supplements that resulted in fatalities, from what I understand, fuck with the body's ability to regulate its temperature. And you wonder why I'm not too crazy about jumping on the bandwagon. I mean, when your time comes and all, it comes, nothing you can do about it, but ask yourself, is it worth a prematurely punched ticket to get those rock hard, shredded abs? (which by the way rot away in the grave, or turn to ash in the oven?)

[J]

So...if the pop-culture images of attractive folk are unhealthy and unrealistic, what exactly *is* a good image of a healthy male or female?

Me!

Ok, that was pretty shameless and rather vain, but I do think distance swimmers come pretty darn close. We tend to have a nice athletic build while still having nice curves, and unlike some sprint swimmers we still have a healthy amount of body fat.

[wolveraptor]

As Mike said, the ancient Greeks got it right. Obviously in good shape, but not totally devoid of body fat either.

Men
Women (here too)

Holy shit! I have to cut my forearms off?

But seriously, I think that the healthy range for average teenage males in the age range of 14 and 15 is about 10%. For atheletes, depending on what sport they're in, the range drops lower, around 7% in more vigorous activities. Assuming one puts on body fat as one grows older (like Arnold), then 8% is too low, but not overly harmful, while 15% is fine, I'm guessing.

[The Spartan]

*snip*Diet pill info

I briefly(maybe 2 months or so) took "thermogenics" pills. I don't recall the exact brand but I know that they were considered to be in that class.

I hated them.

I didn't really see that much difference in my body composition, and worse, I couldn't sleep at night because my heart was pounding so much. And as soon as I got off the damn things is when I actually started losing weight again because I was able to rest again and then go get a good exercise routine in.

There's another lesson: rest is just as important as exercise.

[Broomstick]

But seriously, I think that the healthy range for average teenage males in the age range of 14 and 15 is about 10%. For atheletes, depending on what sport they're in, the range drops lower, around 7% in more vigorous activities. Assuming one puts on body fat as one grows older (like Arnold), then 8% is too low, but not overly harmful, while 15% is fine, I'm guessing.

You're low-balling the figure.

I checked several sources. Healthy bodyfat percentage for males is 15-20%, for women 20-25%. In other words, normal for men is 1/6 to 1/5 of your total weight being bodyfat, for women 1/5 to 1/4. Athletes and young adults will be on the lower range, older adults on the upper. Race also has an effect - those of African descent tend towards the lower end. To get much lower than those figures the individual would have to be very active in a sport such as distance running or practice extreme dietary restriction or otherwise go to unusual measures or be (essentially) a genetic freak.

Runway models run about 15% bodyfat - in other words, they are on the lower end of the male range (no wonder they are occassionally described as "boyish"). They do not seem to suffer long term from this, other than a greater risk of eating disorders (which can have nasty effects themselves).

Female gymnasts run under 10% - and on the world class/Olympic level they suffer from delayed puberty, stunted growth, and some have had osteoporotic fractures as early as 30. So yes, there are serous health consequences to carrying less than half the normal bodyfat.

Bodyfat is necessary for fuel storage, but also for insulation from the cold, to provide cushioning on the soles of the feet and other pressure points, and to cushion and protect vital organs such as the heart. It's not useless, but like any good thing, more is not always better.

[Spoonist]

->Darth Servo
Since I and other abnormals are here to prove otherwise you are quite incorrect.
It is a mindbug, just like that if you are popular/good looking you can't be good at math...

You think a few exceptions disproves the general rule? Or were you being sarcastic?

I'm being sarcastic as well.

A general rule must explain the exceptions to it.
Since this is mostly in the realm of psychology I'd think that it has little with genetic evolution and more with memetic evolution.

Lets take a simple example.
Some people are taller and some people are shorter. Fact of life. Now you can 'wish' to be taller or shorter. But if you don't have a disabilty and still focus so much on being taller or shorter that you want reconstructive surgery then you have a brainbug.
For instance in shanghai there is a clinic where people get reconstructive surgery to become taller so that they can be more successful. It's a typical Mindbug. While if they'd put the same amount of time, effort and money into something else....

[Spoonist]

I think in some ways its deliberate, a happy society is not a profitable society. If you are well balanced and have good ideal in your head, are you likely to buy beauty products, medications for stress, big huge cars?

I don't agree. Profitable for who?
Point 1
Even though the tobacco industry itself is really profitable, the end result for society isn't.
Point 2
Just because you like a beauty ideal doesn't mean that you should mimic that ideal.

If you are at the point where you become depressed over who you are then you have already passed the point where you could make the changes that would make you a 'better' you.

[CoyoteNature]

Profitable for the Car industry, profitable for the pharmaceutical industry, drug companies, pretty much nearly any product that involves some cure for that ego problem that a lot of people have.

Beauty industry, movie industry, comic industry, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Profitable for the individual, usually not; but for the businesses in our society yes.

Never said it was good for the society, just that was the way it is.