Cold, heartless, distant, disconnected people who go around showing nothing but a polished mask while contradicting themselves in past statements vs present day ones. People who are one way in public and another behind closed doors. Subtle people, the ones who are behind the scenes, indirect, manipulative, covert, and shady. Also, people who never really open up and just stay withdrawn or in the shallow fluffy realm. Image oriented people, inauthenticity. People who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions or esteem the truth.
I agree with most of this, though cold and distant bothers me less than heartless. (I can be the former but try not to be the latter.) Inconsistencies in past and present statements and behavior are especially bothersome if there is no obvious explanation. Of course I am always willing to hear out whatever explanation the person might offer.
I can also understand that what someone shares, especially in an online setting, can often be just a small portion of who they are as a person. Some people just compartment their lives and interactions that way, say keeping personal things out of their work interactions, while saying little about work to their family. I am that way myself. I suppose one distinction is between sharing authentically but in a very limited way; and crafting a fake persona, meaning what one does present isn't authentic at all. I can respect the former, but not the latter.
People who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and have little regard for the truth are especially trying. I will own up to my half of an interaction or relationship, but cannot take responsibility for the other person's half, and resent any attempts to blame me for it. Each of us must own our own emotions, words, and actions. Bad behavior on someone else's part does not justify the same from me.
Btw, it's one thing to be this way because you struggle to open up, or you have difficulty trusting, or whatever...but another to be this way because you are cold, detached, unempathetic, genuinely distant, can't be authentic, vulnerable, intimate, or actually have something other than one sided connections with anyone. You avoid intimacy or basically see it as "icky," it is not something you want. You remain in the superficial realm with basically everyone since you care about no one. You're incapable of forming genuine two way bonds because you're too cold to invest your heart into them.
I think in the right circumstances, anyone can find intimacy - and by that I don't mean just sexual or romantic. Platonic or familial intimacy count, too. That being said, we all are different and will have different needs, appetites, and tolerances here. For some of us, a little goes a long way, and it is hard to find people we hit it off with this way.
At the same time, especially if they are relatively intellectual or like... Know what they're talking about, they push my communication skills and help me to be a bit more self-righteous and less hesitant to stick with my own ideas
Is what you are calling self-righteousness the same as self-confidence? Usually the first is considered negative, however knowledgeable and well-meaning the person, while the second is considered positive. I suppose the difference might include that self-righteousness seems to include a moral component, a sense of the person feeling better than others, while the second is more focused on the knowledge or capability itself.
I get told I'm confident, but what I think a lot of people miss is that what comes across to people as 'confidence' isn't quite confidence in the way they would think it is. It's less that I put a lot of stock in myself but more that I put a lot of stock in ideas. I am confident in my method of vetting people's words and incoming data, but that's different from being confident as a person and how you speak. Self-righteous people I can't stand, since usually they refer to their personhood when arguing, "It comes from me thus I am right," even if they don't say it out loud. It's glaringly obvious because when you start talking seriously at them they'll fumble, break down and be offended instead of being delightfully educated. There's probably a good middle ground. There's also a difference between ungrounded confidence or confidence in the self (rather than the idea), and good communication skills and people will probably think I'm both, but I really am more of the latter, in that I usually do back up what I say and make sure it is accurate without thinking much about how agreeable it is.
What do you mean by putting stock in myself? To me, any stock I put in myself IS based on my ideas, what I know or have experienced or can do. They are inseparable. If I am ignorant or incapable in a particular area, I will have confidence only in my ability to ask questions and learn. Yes, referring to their own person is hardly support, unless they are speaking from an area of education and expertise, and cite that to support their claims. Even so, the facts often stand on their own.
There is a middle ground between fumbling and breaking down, and being educated: it is courteous and substantiated disagreement, or perhaps educating you instead. Ideally all can happen: we express disagreement cordially, ask questions with an open mind, educate each other, and enjoy the discussion. One of my pet peeves in this area is people who will try to read things into what I say, beyond my explicit stated meaning. If I want you to give weight to my view because I actually am an authority on some subject, I will say so. If I like something, or dislike it, or am bothered or upset by it, or find it useful, I will say so explicitly. When someone listens to that and then concludes or assumes the opposite, well, I just don't know what to say any more.
On the last thought above, there are actually three things here: what you describe as confidence in the self, independent of the ideas (I can't quite wrap my head around that one); confidence in the ideas, knowledge, ability (what I usually have); and communication skills. Backing up what you say links the second and third in the best way. I am sure we have all seen, however, great communication skills used to try to make up for a complete lack of substantive knowledge. Much of advertising or even propaganda falls into this category: the Big Lie, for instance. Think of the difference between a good product that practically sells itself, and one that is sold by clever, flashy marketing hype. This is related to your notion (not quoted) of pulling the wool over someone's eyes. The self-confidence rooted in ideas and knowledge is that good product. If someone has great communication skills to boot, that makes a powerful combination.
