The challenge I'm seeing here is to respond to what is said, to what is not said, and to the deeper implications of all of this.

First, I notice some self-deprecation about education and intelligence. Being a Ph.D. student in Human Science, I think I'm in a position to say something about this.

Intelligence is a social construction. The various measuring instruments (like IQ tests) measure a particular kind of literacy and most people I encounter discount them. Mostly you are considered intelligent because the people around you consider you intelligent. Yes, that's circular. It's also how social constructions work (they actually make no sense whatsoever outside a social context).

Which means that when we speak of intelligence, we are really speaking of other people's judgments of us.

Which brings me to the principal expression in this posting, a concern both that one is seeking approval and that one might not truly merit it. There are a lot of self-righteous folks who will tell you that you shouldn't be concerned by this. But the fact is that we are human and we are social animals. Honestly, that means that other people's judgments matter a great deal.

But since you are a woman, I'm guessing you know what it is to be judged superficially. Intelligence, as a social construction, is really another one of those superficial judgments.

Even though it might sound trite, @Mike is right to say what he says. The explanation for this involves a bit of a detour. Hopefully it will become clear soon enough.

One of the concepts I've been having to synthesize recently appears in books both by the Dalai Lama and by Erich Fromm. Both of these authors write of love as a necessary foundation for human relations, not just with those close to us, but also with those who are not so close.

The trouble is that there are many kinds of love and so it is difficult to really know what Fromm and the Dalai Lama mean when they use the term. I'm now having to read a work principally by Bill Moyer.

Though I am not in accord with Moyer's approach to activism (not that he's wrong, but I have to consider a broader view), Moyer exemplifies a moral standpoint (bolstered by his seminary training and the speaking style of an old Baptist preacher) grounded not in right wing evangelism but in a sense that as a human, you are not just deserving, not just entitled, but you are due a respect and decency from me as a human. And vice versa. I think that that's on the way to what Fromm and the Dalai Lama are talking about when then write about love.

And I'm guessing that's really what most of us are here for.

Our limitations provide plenty of fodder for self-deprecation, but even significant accomplishments won't chase away the niggling thoughts in the dark of the night that we're just not up to what we were meant to be.

So we search out affirmations from others. But we know they're in the same boat as we are, so their approbation doesn't ultimately satisfy. Our value then doesn't depend upon whether others approve of (and by that approval, praise) us.

Both as creatures who were brought into being by God, as his ultimate creation, and who in Christ were given the opportunity of redemption, have we been given value that we may recognize in ourselves and in others.

With that, we may both respect one another as creatures who are loved by God and invested with importance because he desires us, as well as seek his approval, while at the same time we seek to call attention, not to our nor to others' qualities or defects, but to his character, which has been summed up in his glory. This, too, is our glory.