We hate ourselves for needing other people’s approval so much

By David McElroy · January 3, 2022

Their voices were quiet, but I could tell the man and woman were arguing. She seemed calm and dispassionate. He was full of rage. They were sitting near me Monday evening.

His angry words got louder. Finally, he stood and glared down at her.

“I don’t care what you think of me,” he said loudly. “I don’t need you or your approval!”

And then he stalked out of the restaurant, never looking back.

I knew he was lying, but I have no idea whether he knew that. If he hadn’t cared about the woman’s approval, he wouldn’t have been so angry. He wouldn’t have protested so strongly. And if he really hadn’t cared what she thought of him, he wouldn’t be a normal human being.

I’ve been fighting this battle all my life. I don’t want to care what anybody else thinks about me. I don’t want my actions to be shaped by fear of being hurt by your disapproval. I’ve often lied to myself and I’ve sworn I didn’t care.

I don’t want to need you, but I do. I don’t want to crave your approval, but I do.

I need you to like my work. To understand my work and my motivations. I need you to be interested in my thoughts and to admire the best about me. I need you to believe in me. I need you to see the fears in my shadows and still think I’m good enough anyway.

I crave all of that — and more — but I hate myself for having such a powerful need for your approval and admiration.

It’s not everybody whose approval I crave, of course. It’s the relatively few who I care about enough to want to please. I want the approval of crowds far more than I like to admit to myself. But the approval I really crave is from the few whose disapproval can hurt my mind and crush my heart.

It’s popular in society to teach people that they shouldn’t need others’ approval. It’s common to praise those lone wolves — mostly in books or movies — who walk alone and don’t care what others think. I don’t necessarily disagree with that sentiment, but I don’t see how it’s very realistic.

Our need for approval has been used all our lives to control us. Parents used it. Teachers did, too, as did religious leaders in many cases. Everybody who’s been in a position of power or authority over us has used it to shape us to their liking. We probably weren’t even aware of it at the time, but people gave us conditional love and approval in exchange for our acting as they wanted us to act.

They controlled us. They molded us.

My experience is that the more aware you become of this need for other people’s approval, the more you deny it. With everything I’ve done in my life, I’ve been like a stage performer who was only too aware of the audience. I’ve had one eye on that audience, eager for their applause. Desperate for their approval.

This makes me vulnerable to others’ control. And I don’t like that. I fear losing control — because I’ve experienced hurt from those whose approval I craved — but my quietly hidden need for approval from others is so powerful that I blunder forward anyway, even though I rage at myself for having the need.

My need is manipulative. It makes me change myself — to try to be what would get me the love or approval or admiration I need. It unconsciously shapes my behavior and it even pushes me at times to be what someone else might want.

Would she want this from me? Would she want me to become that instead? Would this make her proud of me?

I constantly fight this inner battle and I believe almost everybody else does, too. In fact, I think those who deny most loudly that they want approval from others are almost always those who are deepest in denial.

And that’s what I recognized in that man tonight. I saw someone who desperately craved that woman’s approval. For some reason, she wasn’t giving it to him — so he desperately needed to believe he didn’t need her approval.

He was lying to her. But more importantly, he was lying to himself.

I don’t like to admit that I need your approval. I sometimes still lie to myself and claim it doesn’t matter. I tell myself I’ll be fine without getting the approval I crave. I assume that would be the emotionally healthy thing to feel. It seems safer. And it doesn’t threaten to hurt me so much.

But when I’m honest with myself, I know better. And I hate the fact I’ve unconsciously given you this control over me — because it’s most often a need which brings pain to all of us.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts