Consider this model.....

Think of yourself like an object flying along a path. On the left side is an area that represents an extremely positive self-opinion and on the right side an extremely negative one. Your trajectory depends on the forces pushing you toward either side. These forces result from the way you interpret your experiences.

Everyday you are having experiences and when you evaluate many of those experiences in your mind you determine that they either prove that you are smart or else prove that you are stupid. As can be seen in the diagram below, your evaluations are mostly negative and as a result you are pushed into the low self-esteem area.

The "forces" come from the sides and push your path as you move along into the negative or positive areas of "self-worth".

.............................................
.............................................
Positive......... Your ......Negative.
Area............. Path .......Area ....
.............................................
..........................^........ ........
=======>...... //....<==........
=======> .....//.... <==........
=======>.... //......<==........
.............................................
.............................................

You cannot simply "think" your way out of this situation and trying to prove "once and for all" that you are smart is likely to fail because there isn't enough force behind it. What you need is to change the balance of the forces pushing you so that they are moving you to the positive area of feeling that you are intelligent.

I said earlier that these "forces" are the result of interpretation of experience. This can be diagrammed as follows:

1. ( actual event ) X ( your beliefs ) => ( perceived event )

2. ( perceived event ) X ( belief of cause ) => ( evaluation of self )

3. ( evaluation of self ) X ( personal standards ) => ( your value )

4. ( your value ) X ( value judgement ) => ( feeling of self worth )

This might seem complicated but it's really very simple. All it says is that how you interpret an event that happens to you depends on your beliefs on what caused it. This in turn results in an evaluation of the characteristics you have. You compare this to a standard you have of how you "should be", which then produces a "value" in your mind which you assign yourself. Your interpretation of high value as "good" and low value as "bad" results in a feeling, and that feeling is your self-worth.

Here is an example of how this process might work with you:

1. ( Jack laughed at my idea ) X ( Other people know the truth ) => ( My idea was stupid )

2. ( My idea was stupid ) X ( A smart person would know better ) => ( I am stupid )

3. ( I am stupid ) X ( I should be smart ) => ( I have low worth )

4. ( I have low worth ) X ( Low worth is bad ) => ( I am bad ) => ( I feel bad )

So, if you trace your thoughts out you realize you are doing this exact same process everyday and the result of these processes is what causes your low self-esteem. In order to change your self-esteem you must have a preponderance of affirming processes which result in your feeling that you are smart and therefore have high worth. As can be seen in the diagram, the only way to do this is to either (a) change your beliefs, or (b) change the actual events happening to you. There is no other way out.

Chances are you cannot get the confirmation that you need from the outside world to convince yourself that you are intelligent. No one is going to hand you a Nobel prize or laud you with so much praise that you are forced to believe it. Instead, you will have to approach it as follows:

(1) debunk the beliefs that cause you to misinterpret actual events in ways that make you culpable for doing or thinking stupid things. You must determine either that (a) you are not really acting or thinking in a stupid fashion, or (b) you are being "stupid" but it isn't your fault.

(2) debunk the beliefs that cause you to assign a low value to a person who is not very highly intelligent, perfect, or otherwise superior.

Here is a hypothetical debunk of the process diagrammed above:

1. ( Jack laughed at my idea ) X ( Other people know the truth ) => ( My idea was stupid )

Debunk: If other people knew the truth then everyone would agree on everything. However they do not. For any given idea there is almost always a few people who think it is stupid. Therefore, Jack's interpretation is merely his opinion and not a fact. Since everyone has there own opinion, and there's no good reason to think my idea is stupid, I am justified in assuming it is reasonable.

Let's assume that your idea really was stupid, since this will happen sometimes. Here is another debunk:

1. ( Jack laughed at my idea ) X ( Other people know the truth )=> ( My idea was stupid )

2. ( My idea was stupid ) X ( A smart person would know better ) => ( I am stupid )

Debunk: If a smart person "should know better" then most people would never do anything stupid. However, it is clear from observation that almost everyone has made numerous stupid mistakes. In fact, anyone who claims not to is almost certainly a LIAR. I can verify this pattern by investigating people who I know to be honest (my mom, cousin, brother, friend, teacher, etc.). All of them admit to making numerous stupid mistakes as bad or WORSE than mine. Therefore, smart people would not necessarily "know better". Therefore, it cannot be said that I am stupid as there is no evidence. IN FACT, since I am typical unless it can be shown otherwise, and typical people are reasonably intelligent, I am justified in assuming that I am reasonably intelligent.

There are some other cognitive therapy methods that you can use to debunk pathological beliefs but the basic technique is the same, identify the thought, debunk it, replace with a positive and more accurate thought, and repeat until you are totally sure of it.

Hope this helps.