Playing higher Elo players

Should i find higher elo players than me to play and if yes would anybody want to play me so i can see how i do??

Why don't you just play in a swiss type tournament?  If you win some games,  you will almost certainly be paired with higher rated players .

(Arena tournaments try to pair you with players who are rated similar to you.)

im not familliar with swiss type tournaments and anything like that in general, could you explain it to me

https://support.chess.com/article/758-what-is-a-swiss-tournament

If you just play rated live chess (chess.com selects your opponent for you), then some of the time you'll be higher rated and some of the time the opponent will be higher rated; this is usually within 100 points of your rating. By doing so, you'll occasionally play people higher rated than you anyway

It is good to occasionally play players higher than you because they'll better punish your errors or have more precise ideas against you - this makes for good learning material in post game analysis. However, I wouldn't recommend only playing higher rated players because you then aren't seeing ideas common around your own level (and this means you don't get practice against how to fight against these ideas) and it can also be discouraging to only play tough players and get crushed almost all the time.

Also consider it this way: whenever you seek a higher rated player and play with them, that means the opponent is choosing to play a game with a lower rated player (you). People who more often want to face higher rated players may not realize that if everyone took that same mindset then players higher than them would have less incentive to play them too!

Luckily, not everyone cares only about rating and some people don't mind helping others by giving them experience and offering to play chess together.

If you want, we could play some unrated live chess games @ChessEnjoyer4321 I could even give you some of my post-game analysis and thoughts for the sake of learning

Very occasionally I run into things like this too, but among all the people I make this offer to, most of them play at a level I expect and find the experience a valuable, learning one. More common than getting a cheater is that sometimes I'll make this offer to people who play at a much higher level like 1400-1600 range, but only have a circa-1000 rating because they haven't played enough rated games online yet. Even these 1400-1600 level players tend to appreciate my offer. 

All the good experiences I have helping others justifies the rare occasions I get

p.s. also rare, but has happened before, are players who have played several games with me and have won even though I know the game was fair and they just so happened to win that particular game. This result is something I'm okay with as well. The goal should be to learn and to give others a nudge in the right direction for improvement on their own

Yeah, many people don't actually want to put in the work themselves @NervesofButter - We both know real improvement takes time and effort. I still help people with a game or two, but if don't hear from them after that, then that's cool and I don't pursue them anymore. At least I helped someone in a small way.

I also only do this with live games. I couldn't imagine sitting through a long daily game with someone who doesn't want to put in the effort to learn themselves; I like my games to take one sitting for sure and especially so with people I hardly know. 

p.s. I don't offer formal coaching. It is just a casual way to help others and give them some advice I wish I could have had when I worked on my own chess alone. If people want structured lessons and such, then they need to find someone they get along with and pay them for their help. I'm not offering free coaching; just offering a little helpful advice.

Fair enough. Besides, any help you offer I'm sure improves the chess community as a whole.

Change begins with oneself, so even if I'm just one person, making the chess community better for everyone to how I'd like it can only begin with me doing my part to enacting change. I don't have to change the landscape of chess for the entire world single-handedly, but if I do what I can and others do what they can, then together our positive impacts can be felt

yes but most of my wins are determined in whether i can focus or not, when i can i easily outplay and beat my oppoment. when im not i get beat

instead of the 10 minute games should i go for 15? i understand what you mean when you say games are decided by blunders and tactics which i can usually punish if i can focus most of the time

It isn't about the exact time. It is about not feeling constantly rushed to move and giving yourself enough "free time" to think before you move and to also consider other things such as the opponent possible responses if you make that move. I think 10 minute games is fine, but I can also see the value in 15 min games or longer time control. Everyone thinks at a different natural pace. Some people will feel rushed in a 30 min game, so in their case, maybe they should try a 60 min chess game instead. Other people might feel 30 min is way too long, but 10 min is okay for them, so perhaps sticking with 10 min or maybe increases slightly to 15 or 20 min games would be beneficial. 

It is about being comfortable enough to "think" in the positions before you. Having more time is especially important as a beginning player because you have less pattern recognition and a lot of positions you've never seen before. Higher rated chess players can play shorter time controls decently because they already know what plans to do in most positions, but even stronger players can usually benefit from longer time controls too.

no i want to improve and get better. but ive allways played 10 minute games since day 1, so thats what ive gotten used to playing. so to get better i should just play longer games and do alot of puzzles every day for consistency?

Check these two links:

The first one is a forum thread I answered this in (my post in the long one as typical xD)

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/which-is-better-for-improving-chess-for-people-rated-1000-10min-or-30-min?page=2 

and the second one is a chess article written by a famous chess National Master (NM) 

https://www.chess.com/article/view/is-speed-chess-good-for-you 

For me it depends how much I want to think about a position. 3+2 games often don't seem too fast to me yet every time I play a 60+0 or 30+0 game I wished I had started an even longer game as I take such games slowly and with a different mindset than 3+2 games.