Exploding the Self-Esteem Myth
January 8, 2005 6:20 PM Subscribe
Scientific American: Exploding the Self-Esteem Myth. Four academic psychologists review the data in the latest Scientific American, and conclude: "Boosting people's sense of self-worth has become a national preoccupation. Yet surprisingly, research shows that such efforts are of little value in fostering academic progress or preventing undesirable behavior."
Perhaps unsurprisingly, groups that promote boosting self-esteem haven't shown much interest in this research.
Extra points to the authors for correctly using the word "floccinaucinihilipilification."
Well gosh, my self empowerment came from cutting heads off determined snapping turtles, planting tobacco, castrating sheep, and bailing hay. We don't all grow up in a lab, or moreover, appreciate one, even though the college education says we should.
posted by sled at 6:44 PM on January 8, 2005
posted by sled at 6:44 PM on January 8, 2005
For a more extensive discussion of the various myths current psychology takes on faith, including the self esteem one, House of Cards is really great.
posted by abcde at 6:46 PM on January 8, 2005
posted by abcde at 6:46 PM on January 8, 2005
It always seems like people with self-esteem to spare are also borderline sociopaths. I'm always surprised when it takes a scientific study (from SA no less) to show what is intuitively obvious.
posted by docpops at 6:57 PM on January 8, 2005
posted by docpops at 6:57 PM on January 8, 2005
Actually, I think the definition that Scientific American uses for self-esteem is quite different than the definition that many self-esteem movements use. I'll try to dig up some references. I know that the work that John Vasconcellos did in prisons was quite successful, replacing the "fear and shame" work with "respect yourself and have some self-esteem" message. I'll try to find some references.
posted by Joi at 7:01 PM on January 8, 2005
posted by Joi at 7:01 PM on January 8, 2005
They're scientists. American Scientists. They checked it out scientifically. You were just guessing.
(Just what are you a "doctor" of, "Mr" Pops?)
posted by IndigoJones at 7:02 PM on January 8, 2005
(Just what are you a "doctor" of, "Mr" Pops?)
posted by IndigoJones at 7:02 PM on January 8, 2005
There is also a lot of work on how positive reputation in the long run produces better results than just negative reputation by Toshio Yamagashi... this is slightly off-topic but a related thread. I posted on of his papers on my blog.
posted by Joi at 7:05 PM on January 8, 2005
posted by Joi at 7:05 PM on January 8, 2005
"The consistent finding is that people with high self-esteem are significantly happier than others. They are also less likely to be depressed."
ok, so research shows that making children aware of their self-worth is "of little value in fostering academic progress or preventing undesirable behavior." that's fine. i'd rather my kid be a failure than a failure and depressed about it. self-worth and happiness are great motivators when things turn bad in life.
i don't think you have to remove competition from the equation, either. i think people take child psychology a little too far too often. kids are much smarter than we give them credit for. talk to them, listen to them, and let them watch a little mr. rogers every now and then.
posted by blendor at 7:12 PM on January 8, 2005
ok, so research shows that making children aware of their self-worth is "of little value in fostering academic progress or preventing undesirable behavior." that's fine. i'd rather my kid be a failure than a failure and depressed about it. self-worth and happiness are great motivators when things turn bad in life.
i don't think you have to remove competition from the equation, either. i think people take child psychology a little too far too often. kids are much smarter than we give them credit for. talk to them, listen to them, and let them watch a little mr. rogers every now and then.
posted by blendor at 7:12 PM on January 8, 2005
I'm a fan of the concept in general, and am occasional self-aware enough to note my own esteem fluctuations. On the other hand, the Annenberg report about Fox News watchers feeling over-confident while being wrong might highlight one problem in promoting esteem if it comes at the absence of proper values. You should feel good about yourself as a person, but you should be a jackass.
On preview: not directly implying watchers of FNC are jackasses... just giving an example of how recieving too much positive feedback without context cues can be dangerous.
posted by allan at 7:21 PM on January 8, 2005
On preview: not directly implying watchers of FNC are jackasses... just giving an example of how recieving too much positive feedback without context cues can be dangerous.
posted by allan at 7:21 PM on January 8, 2005
A definition...
"Self-esteem, fully realized, is the experience that we are appropriate to life and to the requirements of life. More specifically, self-esteem is:
1. confidence in our ability to think, confidence in our ability to cope with the basic challenges of life; and
2. confidence in our right to be successful and happy, the feeling of being worthy, deserving, entitled to assert our needs and wants, achieve our values, and enjoy the fruits of our efforts.
I do not share the belief that self-esteem is a gift we have only to claim (by reciting affirmations, perhaps). On the contrary, its possession over time represents an achievement."
--The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, by Nathaniel Branden
Too bad this isn't the definition anyone still uses.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:15 PM on January 8, 2005
"Self-esteem, fully realized, is the experience that we are appropriate to life and to the requirements of life. More specifically, self-esteem is:
1. confidence in our ability to think, confidence in our ability to cope with the basic challenges of life; and
2. confidence in our right to be successful and happy, the feeling of being worthy, deserving, entitled to assert our needs and wants, achieve our values, and enjoy the fruits of our efforts.
I do not share the belief that self-esteem is a gift we have only to claim (by reciting affirmations, perhaps). On the contrary, its possession over time represents an achievement."
--The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem, by Nathaniel Branden
Too bad this isn't the definition anyone still uses.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:15 PM on January 8, 2005
Although the researchers state that they tried for more "objective" measures of self-esteem, I'm not quite sure what that means or how it's even possible.
The psychological literature (and even moreso the literature in education research) is littered with self-esteem studies that are horrendous from a methodological standpoint. You'll find study after study where researchers pretty much just plop a low-reliability measure into a correlation matrix and then claim a wondrous finding. I'm jaded about the validity of this kind of research, and I wish the authors of this article had said something to make me think their research is any different.
In any case, the field of the study of socio-emotional factors has very long since gone beyond the idea of self-esteem. Most people in the field now talk in terms of agency and motivation. In other words, "if I try my hardest, it will make a difference" versus "nothing I do matters anyway." The idea of people taking responsibility for their own grades, which the authors of this article set up in opposition to self-esteem in a sidebar, is actually considered at the heart of the idea of self-worth in most recent research. The measurement of agency and motivation is equally subjective as any of the older measurements of self-esteem, however, and can fall prey to the same methodological problems.
/former researcher
posted by Chanther at 8:34 PM on January 8, 2005
The psychological literature (and even moreso the literature in education research) is littered with self-esteem studies that are horrendous from a methodological standpoint. You'll find study after study where researchers pretty much just plop a low-reliability measure into a correlation matrix and then claim a wondrous finding. I'm jaded about the validity of this kind of research, and I wish the authors of this article had said something to make me think their research is any different.
In any case, the field of the study of socio-emotional factors has very long since gone beyond the idea of self-esteem. Most people in the field now talk in terms of agency and motivation. In other words, "if I try my hardest, it will make a difference" versus "nothing I do matters anyway." The idea of people taking responsibility for their own grades, which the authors of this article set up in opposition to self-esteem in a sidebar, is actually considered at the heart of the idea of self-worth in most recent research. The measurement of agency and motivation is equally subjective as any of the older measurements of self-esteem, however, and can fall prey to the same methodological problems.
/former researcher
posted by Chanther at 8:34 PM on January 8, 2005
Erm, IndigoJones, docpops is an actual physician.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:23 PM on January 8, 2005
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:23 PM on January 8, 2005
The article explains that general self-esteem is a poor indicator of success. On the other hand, specific self-esteem aids success.
A classic experiment taught in Psych 101 concerns a high school basketball team. When the team practiced with a smaller-than-usual hoop, performance dropped -- and stayed down. Practicing with a larger hoop and moving down, however, was successful.
More generally, some self-esteem is necessary. Another lesson from Psych 101: People with mild depression can more accurately gauge how their peers see them. In other words, to stay happy, you must keep a false impression that people like you. You must assume things will be better than they actually turn out. Normal, healthy people constantly overestimate themselves. Look at this one way and it's too-high self-esteem. Look at it another way and it's a self-defense mechanism necessary for life without depression.
posted by NickDouglas at 9:31 PM on January 8, 2005
A classic experiment taught in Psych 101 concerns a high school basketball team. When the team practiced with a smaller-than-usual hoop, performance dropped -- and stayed down. Practicing with a larger hoop and moving down, however, was successful.
More generally, some self-esteem is necessary. Another lesson from Psych 101: People with mild depression can more accurately gauge how their peers see them. In other words, to stay happy, you must keep a false impression that people like you. You must assume things will be better than they actually turn out. Normal, healthy people constantly overestimate themselves. Look at this one way and it's too-high self-esteem. Look at it another way and it's a self-defense mechanism necessary for life without depression.
posted by NickDouglas at 9:31 PM on January 8, 2005
I disagree with Nathaniel Branden on the 'right' to be happy. You have the option, sure, but a 'right'?
As for esteem being a 'feeling of being worthy', sorry, but if I'm not 'worthy' of something, then I'm not the one with the problem. I evaluate my own worth, not you, therefore I am worthy.
To me esteem is feeling that you are everything you can be, that you've accomplished things, that you've made a difference, whether in someone else's life or your own.
It's the always striving for 'more' that drives down esteem, feeling like you must have everything someone else has to be fulfilled.
I can't say that I don't feel the occasional twinge of jealousy because I'd like something that I don't have, but it just doesn't make me feel like I'm not 'good enough' or that I have to work harder and harder to get it. If it's truly worthy of me, I'll have it eventually.
I'm not saying that there aren't some things that I wouldn't strive my hardest to get or achieve, just that I don't and won't feel badly or lose my self-esteem if I don't achieve them.
posted by kamylyon at 9:36 PM on January 8, 2005
As for esteem being a 'feeling of being worthy', sorry, but if I'm not 'worthy' of something, then I'm not the one with the problem. I evaluate my own worth, not you, therefore I am worthy.
To me esteem is feeling that you are everything you can be, that you've accomplished things, that you've made a difference, whether in someone else's life or your own.
It's the always striving for 'more' that drives down esteem, feeling like you must have everything someone else has to be fulfilled.
I can't say that I don't feel the occasional twinge of jealousy because I'd like something that I don't have, but it just doesn't make me feel like I'm not 'good enough' or that I have to work harder and harder to get it. If it's truly worthy of me, I'll have it eventually.
I'm not saying that there aren't some things that I wouldn't strive my hardest to get or achieve, just that I don't and won't feel badly or lose my self-esteem if I don't achieve them.
posted by kamylyon at 9:36 PM on January 8, 2005
few studies have shown that high self-esteem is associated with frequent alcohol consumption, but another suggests the opposite.
Oh I see, so some people drink themselves into believing they have this untangible thing called self-esteem..maybe they drink because that will distract them from thinking about their lack of self-esteem !
Question to mefites: what do you think self-esteem is ?
posted by elpapacito at 2:59 AM on January 9, 2005
Oh I see, so some people drink themselves into believing they have this untangible thing called self-esteem..maybe they drink because that will distract them from thinking about their lack of self-esteem !
Question to mefites: what do you think self-esteem is ?
posted by elpapacito at 2:59 AM on January 9, 2005
Achievement is overrated.
posted by flabdablet at 4:48 AM on January 9, 2005
posted by flabdablet at 4:48 AM on January 9, 2005
"Floccinaucinihilipilification"- The act of estimating as worthless.
Self-esteem bothers me conceptually because the word means "holding one's self in high regard" - sins of ages ago are redefined as virtues today.
posted by Veritron at 6:41 AM on January 9, 2005
Self-esteem bothers me conceptually because the word means "holding one's self in high regard" - sins of ages ago are redefined as virtues today.
posted by Veritron at 6:41 AM on January 9, 2005
So Veritron, you have little regard for yourself? Why would you not want to hold yourself in high regard? There's a difference between having a respect for yourself and being an overblown, hubristic, dickwad. Extremes either way are bad, but holding oneself in high regard, to my mind, is healthy. It prevents you from being easily taken advantage of, it enables you to protect your sense of identity from the endless b.s. that comes out of your television and your peers' mouths and it serves as a foundation for setting your sights high. The way I see it, if you don't give a crap about your self, how are you gonna give a crap about others?? And THAT is a sin of every age.
posted by spicynuts at 7:04 AM on January 9, 2005
posted by spicynuts at 7:04 AM on January 9, 2005
ZenMasterThis
"Happiness" is a right granted by whom?
Unless your name is sarcastic, I'm surprised you posted that. Suffering is the universal condition, and "happiness" is most accurately described as "a state of lessened suffering." Calling happiness \ success a "right" gets in the way of identifying the true obstacles to "happiness" by setting up a false worldview from the beginning.
So too, I might add, does praising someone who is unworthy of it. While it might seem a kindness at the time, should they come to believe such praise, they won't address the issues in their life which make them suffer. Uncritically sparing the ego ultimately hurts the person.
posted by InnocentBystander at 7:14 AM on January 9, 2005
"Happiness" is a right granted by whom?
Unless your name is sarcastic, I'm surprised you posted that. Suffering is the universal condition, and "happiness" is most accurately described as "a state of lessened suffering." Calling happiness \ success a "right" gets in the way of identifying the true obstacles to "happiness" by setting up a false worldview from the beginning.
So too, I might add, does praising someone who is unworthy of it. While it might seem a kindness at the time, should they come to believe such praise, they won't address the issues in their life which make them suffer. Uncritically sparing the ego ultimately hurts the person.
posted by InnocentBystander at 7:14 AM on January 9, 2005
And, to address the article at hand, I would suggest that the researchers on both sides of this are looking at it the wrong way. It does not matter whether "high self esteem" or "low self esteem" is "better." These are both shadows. What matters is teaching people to *accurately* judge their self-worth, so that they can adjust their esteem accordingly.
If we are to study anything, it is how to best teach people truthful self-evaluation. Discover that, and questions of self-esteem fade away.
posted by InnocentBystander at 7:24 AM on January 9, 2005
If we are to study anything, it is how to best teach people truthful self-evaluation. Discover that, and questions of self-esteem fade away.
posted by InnocentBystander at 7:24 AM on January 9, 2005
And a fine physician docpops is, too, I've no doubt.
It was a joke, Mr Butt (Ms Butt?), a light tease. Like the rest of my comment. like the article itself, come to think of it. No intent to besmirch the medical profession or the individual, whose own comment I was, notice, agreeing with.
posted by IndigoJones at 7:40 AM on January 9, 2005
It was a joke, Mr Butt (Ms Butt?), a light tease. Like the rest of my comment. like the article itself, come to think of it. No intent to besmirch the medical profession or the individual, whose own comment I was, notice, agreeing with.
posted by IndigoJones at 7:40 AM on January 9, 2005
There's an excellent book called "The Optimistic Child" that talks at length about the difference between self-esteem and optimism, and the ineffectiveness of the "everyone's a winner!" rhetoric. It's written by a highly-regarded cognitive-behavioral psychologist, and has great tips for parents who want to "innoculate" their children against depression and pessimism.
posted by mamamusings at 7:59 AM on January 9, 2005
posted by mamamusings at 7:59 AM on January 9, 2005
To me esteem is feeling that you are everything you can be, that you've accomplished things, that you've made a difference, whether in someone else's life or your own.
Precisely, and this is why esteem can only be earned through ongoing testing of one's self. Having self-esteem without achievement is like believing one can lift 1000 pounds but never actually doing it. "I'm worthy of respect" might be true, so it's not quite a lie, but your subconscious demands proof before it grants happiness.
posted by kindall at 8:59 AM on January 9, 2005
Precisely, and this is why esteem can only be earned through ongoing testing of one's self. Having self-esteem without achievement is like believing one can lift 1000 pounds but never actually doing it. "I'm worthy of respect" might be true, so it's not quite a lie, but your subconscious demands proof before it grants happiness.
posted by kindall at 8:59 AM on January 9, 2005
For a "scientific" magazine, SA is strangely averse to referencing many of the papers cited, listing only secondary sources. This one is a classic:
Diener, E., Wolsic, B. & Fujita, F. (1995). Physical attractiveness and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663.
posted by meehawl at 9:00 AM on January 9, 2005
Diener, E., Wolsic, B. & Fujita, F. (1995). Physical attractiveness and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663.
posted by meehawl at 9:00 AM on January 9, 2005
On the other hand, the Annenberg report about Fox News watchers feeling over-confident while being wrong might highlight one problem in promoting esteem if it comes at the absence of proper values.
There's a difference between having a respect for yourself and being an overblown, hubristic, dickwad.
What matters is teaching people to *accurately* judge their self-worth, so that they can adjust their esteem accordingly.
If we are to study anything, it is how to best teach people truthful self-evaluation. Discover that, and questions of self-esteem fade away.
posted by InnocentBystander at 7:24 AM PST on January 9
Cognitive dissonance. So long as one can, through self deception, blame others for their own shortcomings, or inflate the shortcomings of others as most egregious they may maintain an inflated sense of self worth. Thus the popularity of Faux News and other "idealized hero worship" or hate groups.
InnocentBystander wins.
posted by nofundy at 9:00 AM on January 9, 2005
There's a difference between having a respect for yourself and being an overblown, hubristic, dickwad.
What matters is teaching people to *accurately* judge their self-worth, so that they can adjust their esteem accordingly.
If we are to study anything, it is how to best teach people truthful self-evaluation. Discover that, and questions of self-esteem fade away.
posted by InnocentBystander at 7:24 AM PST on January 9
Cognitive dissonance. So long as one can, through self deception, blame others for their own shortcomings, or inflate the shortcomings of others as most egregious they may maintain an inflated sense of self worth. Thus the popularity of Faux News and other "idealized hero worship" or hate groups.
InnocentBystander wins.
posted by nofundy at 9:00 AM on January 9, 2005
It was a joke, Mr Butt (Ms Butt?), a light tease.
My apologies; I didn't recognize your comment for what it was. And that's Mister Butt.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:30 AM on January 9, 2005
My apologies; I didn't recognize your comment for what it was. And that's Mister Butt.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:30 AM on January 9, 2005
What matters is teaching people to *accurately* judge their self-worth, so that they can adjust their esteem accordingly.
If we are to study anything, it is how to best teach people truthful self-evaluation.
Great! But...how? Sounds tricky. I've never understood how to do it. And I can't remember ever meeting any person who could truthfully evaluate their self.
posted by Panfilo at 9:43 AM on January 9, 2005
If we are to study anything, it is how to best teach people truthful self-evaluation.
Great! But...how? Sounds tricky. I've never understood how to do it. And I can't remember ever meeting any person who could truthfully evaluate their self.
posted by Panfilo at 9:43 AM on January 9, 2005
I have been thinking about this article since I read it a few days ago, linked from the wonderful Arts & Letters Daily. Quoting the article, "Some findings even suggest that artificially boosting self-esteem may lower subsequent performance." If that is true, then lying to a people about the strength of their achievements, thus artificially boosting their self-esteem, might actually hurt that person's chances to excel in the future.
Drawing my own conclusions from the article, I think that may explain why some people are so (incorrectly) convinced of their extreme artistic talent. If they have such a natural talent, for which they've been praised repeatedly, why work hard to develop their skill? A little honesty earlier in their lives - hopefully delivered gently - may have encouraged them to do the hard work which may have potentially allowed them to excel.
posted by Invoke at 10:28 AM on January 9, 2005
Drawing my own conclusions from the article, I think that may explain why some people are so (incorrectly) convinced of their extreme artistic talent. If they have such a natural talent, for which they've been praised repeatedly, why work hard to develop their skill? A little honesty earlier in their lives - hopefully delivered gently - may have encouraged them to do the hard work which may have potentially allowed them to excel.
posted by Invoke at 10:28 AM on January 9, 2005
ongoing testing of one's self
My only problem with that is when I haven't studied. ;c)
There IS a reason it's called self-esteem.
It's not how others view you, it's how you view yourself. Yes, you can [and should, on occasion] be influenced by other people's opinion of you. This should not be the only yardstick by which you measure yourself.
Personally I'm inherently lazy, I'm okay with that, but it can get in the way of GTD. For me GTD may mean doing laundry, talking a walk or writing a few words here and there. When I do get something done, no matter how small, I feel good about it.
Being lazy, I don't obsess about my esteem, I don't obsess about how others perceive me. Too much minor obsession takes away from my REAL obsession and I just can't have that!
posted by kamylyon at 10:39 AM on January 9, 2005
My only problem with that is when I haven't studied. ;c)
There IS a reason it's called self-esteem.
It's not how others view you, it's how you view yourself. Yes, you can [and should, on occasion] be influenced by other people's opinion of you. This should not be the only yardstick by which you measure yourself.
Personally I'm inherently lazy, I'm okay with that, but it can get in the way of GTD. For me GTD may mean doing laundry, talking a walk or writing a few words here and there. When I do get something done, no matter how small, I feel good about it.
Being lazy, I don't obsess about my esteem, I don't obsess about how others perceive me. Too much minor obsession takes away from my REAL obsession and I just can't have that!
posted by kamylyon at 10:39 AM on January 9, 2005
I have seen many trumpet these findings in support of arguments against the social poilcies of weak-kneed liberals. Indeed, confidence may not be a prerequisite for success, but as a society, don't we hold individuals' happiness as a goal. I mean, s*, it's in the constitution right?
posted by willns at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2005
posted by willns at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2005
Ok, can I summarize?
* Feeling good about oneself is not a bad thing, but it is not a societal cure-all.
* Having what used to be called pride in one's accomplishments is better than "Everyone's a winner! Everyone is great! You are good because You Are!"
* Just as it is possible to have an unrealistically negative opinion of oneself, it is possible to think way too highly of oneself.
posted by ilsa at 11:41 AM on January 9, 2005
* Feeling good about oneself is not a bad thing, but it is not a societal cure-all.
* Having what used to be called pride in one's accomplishments is better than "Everyone's a winner! Everyone is great! You are good because You Are!"
* Just as it is possible to have an unrealistically negative opinion of oneself, it is possible to think way too highly of oneself.
posted by ilsa at 11:41 AM on January 9, 2005
Another lesson from Psych 101: People with mild depression can more accurately gauge how their peers see them.
"Mild" depression must be fairly common then, from my experience. And I'd say it's a good thing, too.
In other words, to stay happy, you must keep a false impression that people like you.
Really? Why should one's "happiness" depend on the esteem of others? That idea always struck me as too damn sheep-like.
You must assume things will be better than they actually turn out.
Here's another idea I have problems with: if that's the case, I'm sure many British folks during World War I would have preffered the generals who planned the Battle of the Somme had a bit less "self-esteem."
Normal, healthy people constantly overestimate themselves
And don't forget the contant denigration of others who can be portrayed as being "abnormal" or "unhealthy" that's required to maintain one's image of oneself as "better than them," and that for most "normal, healthy" people maintaining "self-esteem" is a shared social process requiring contant negotiation and reinforcement within "self-esteeming" groups and between the groups and their members as to who "deserves" to have "self-esteem" and why. I'd expect that "normal, healthy" pro-slavery Southern whites had higher self-esteem than the "chattels" in the cotton fields, for example.
Then too, "self-esteem" that the group(s) around one did not bestow upon one is commonly called a "symptom" of some "mental illness" by the defining group, while the "excluded" often characterize the "l33t" as a "mutual delusion society."
posted by davy at 11:47 AM on January 9, 2005
"Mild" depression must be fairly common then, from my experience. And I'd say it's a good thing, too.
In other words, to stay happy, you must keep a false impression that people like you.
Really? Why should one's "happiness" depend on the esteem of others? That idea always struck me as too damn sheep-like.
You must assume things will be better than they actually turn out.
Here's another idea I have problems with: if that's the case, I'm sure many British folks during World War I would have preffered the generals who planned the Battle of the Somme had a bit less "self-esteem."
Normal, healthy people constantly overestimate themselves
And don't forget the contant denigration of others who can be portrayed as being "abnormal" or "unhealthy" that's required to maintain one's image of oneself as "better than them," and that for most "normal, healthy" people maintaining "self-esteem" is a shared social process requiring contant negotiation and reinforcement within "self-esteeming" groups and between the groups and their members as to who "deserves" to have "self-esteem" and why. I'd expect that "normal, healthy" pro-slavery Southern whites had higher self-esteem than the "chattels" in the cotton fields, for example.
Then too, "self-esteem" that the group(s) around one did not bestow upon one is commonly called a "symptom" of some "mental illness" by the defining group, while the "excluded" often characterize the "l33t" as a "mutual delusion society."
posted by davy at 11:47 AM on January 9, 2005
Really? Why should one's "happiness" depend on the esteem of others? That idea always struck me as too damn sheep-like.
That's a little harsh. Knowing someone else's low opinion of you is always going to be a bit of a blow. It need not lead to depression, but different people react differently, and even knowing that it shouldn't affect you overly isn't the same as being able to control one's chemical/emotional response to it.
posted by Sparx at 12:39 PM on January 9, 2005
That's a little harsh. Knowing someone else's low opinion of you is always going to be a bit of a blow. It need not lead to depression, but different people react differently, and even knowing that it shouldn't affect you overly isn't the same as being able to control one's chemical/emotional response to it.
posted by Sparx at 12:39 PM on January 9, 2005
Lisa : I think it's a bit more than that. It's saying that with confidence, one can often do more than without.
One theory is that motivating people by telling them "you're better than that!" rather than "you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so poorly... you'll be punished" is more successful.
Also... one very concrete experience I've had is when I'm snowboarding. When I "know" I can make it through a hard curve, I usually can. The minute I start thinking "I'm going to fall" I often do. Once I start to fall a lot, it often gets worse as I lose confidence.
I think a lot of the self-esteem therapy (the good stuff) is not about "everyone is a winner!" but about "first you have to believe you can do it..."
posted by Joi at 7:29 PM on January 9, 2005
One theory is that motivating people by telling them "you're better than that!" rather than "you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so poorly... you'll be punished" is more successful.
Also... one very concrete experience I've had is when I'm snowboarding. When I "know" I can make it through a hard curve, I usually can. The minute I start thinking "I'm going to fall" I often do. Once I start to fall a lot, it often gets worse as I lose confidence.
I think a lot of the self-esteem therapy (the good stuff) is not about "everyone is a winner!" but about "first you have to believe you can do it..."
posted by Joi at 7:29 PM on January 9, 2005
Why does a person with self-confessed "low self-esteem" have such a high opinion of their opinion of themselves?
If you think so little of yourself, why should you care what you think of you?
Or, as Albert Ellis puts it, why do you need to rate yourself at all?
posted by Paddle to Sea at 9:59 PM on January 9, 2005
If you think so little of yourself, why should you care what you think of you?
Or, as Albert Ellis puts it, why do you need to rate yourself at all?
posted by Paddle to Sea at 9:59 PM on January 9, 2005
Self-esteem bothers me conceptually because the word means "holding one's self in high regard" - sins of ages ago are redefined as virtues today.
Move to the UK veritron, I can assure you its not a virtue here.
They're scientists. American Scientists.
Two of them are at Canadian institutions.
posted by biffa at 1:19 AM on January 10, 2005
Move to the UK veritron, I can assure you its not a virtue here.
They're scientists. American Scientists.
Two of them are at Canadian institutions.
posted by biffa at 1:19 AM on January 10, 2005
"Knowing someone else's low opinion of you is always going to be a bit of a blow."
It doesn't have to be, and even when it bugs you you can always counter it by considering the source and what s/he's done for you lately. The opinion of a fool who contributes nothing to your happiness can't be worth much. (Not even when s/he's just pixels on a screen as far as you know.)
Another way to put it is "Buy me a Targa and I'll care what you think of me -- enough to keep you paying the insurance."
As for self-esteem, somebody already made the point that it's what I think of me, by criteria of my choosing, that makes it; else why would it be called self-esteem? It does help to check it against the outside world a bit, like checking against circles shows me I can't draw one, but one needn't obsess about externals (as kamylyon said). Again, one can always balance it: e.g., I can't draw a circle but I can compose a Baudelairean sonnet. ("If that's not good enough for you, that's your problem.")
And as for what Panfilo said, "I can't remember ever meeting any person who could truthfully evaluate their self", how do you know you can truthfully evaluate their self either -- even enough to know whether they can or not? Did I miss another important Power- point presentation?
posted by davy at 9:28 AM on January 10, 2005
It doesn't have to be, and even when it bugs you you can always counter it by considering the source and what s/he's done for you lately. The opinion of a fool who contributes nothing to your happiness can't be worth much. (Not even when s/he's just pixels on a screen as far as you know.)
Another way to put it is "Buy me a Targa and I'll care what you think of me -- enough to keep you paying the insurance."
As for self-esteem, somebody already made the point that it's what I think of me, by criteria of my choosing, that makes it; else why would it be called self-esteem? It does help to check it against the outside world a bit, like checking against circles shows me I can't draw one, but one needn't obsess about externals (as kamylyon said). Again, one can always balance it: e.g., I can't draw a circle but I can compose a Baudelairean sonnet. ("If that's not good enough for you, that's your problem.")
And as for what Panfilo said, "I can't remember ever meeting any person who could truthfully evaluate their self", how do you know you can truthfully evaluate their self either -- even enough to know whether they can or not? Did I miss another important Power- point presentation?
posted by davy at 9:28 AM on January 10, 2005
And don't forget the con[s]tant denigration of others... that's required to maintain one's image of oneself as "better than them"...
Did I miss another important Power- point presentation?
posted by y2karl at 7:02 PM on January 10, 2005
Did I miss another important Power- point presentation?
posted by y2karl at 7:02 PM on January 10, 2005
« Older There can be no escape. . . | Dancing Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Seriously - good link. My thought is that kids see through a lot of the bullshit pretty quickly. Kids realize that if "everybody is a winner" then nobody really is a winner at all. Those "everybody wins" "contests" and "games" that were creeping into school when I was a kid were way too transparent. Some people are good at dodgeball, some people aren't. That's life and kids realize it.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 6:43 PM on January 8, 2005