Self Esteem: Even you deserve it, you moronic sleezebucket

The BBQ Pit
1

In this and other message boards, I have read countless attacks on self-esteem (hereinafter referred to as “SE”, to save myself typing.) The latest attack came in the latest NiceGuy thread.

I quote myself:

In a past thread about fat people, one brilliant Doper asserted that fat people don’t deserve SE, because then they would have no impetus for change. Unadulterated Hogwash. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what SE is.

On a different message board (also devoted to fighting ignorance), one poster cited an example of too much SE being Bart Simpson. And the pusfuckets who responded all agreed with him! Jebus Christ on a Saltine, my capacity for reading knuckledragging ignorance runneth over!

And the crown prince of idiocity was the Doper who stated that one must always judge one’s own worth by what other people think of you. Else how would you know, right? :rolleyes:

Basic fact of life, people: No matter how badly you fuck up your life, you deserve to treat yourself in the best way you can. You owe it to yourself not to become a doormat. You have a right to breathe air, just like everyone else, from the most exaulted Olympian to the vilest criminal.

Yes, even you deserve SE, you fucking ignorant pus nodule.

Sheesh!

2

Dogvomit. Many criminals and other assholes already esteem themselves too highly – it’s called a “narcissistic personality.” Such people believe themselves entitled to any number of things that they can’t claim fairly, like the first place in line, the lion’s share of attention from service workers, or the right to punch you in the face if you annoy them. No doubt many of the Dopers you complain about are as clueless as you say, but I doubt that you, as a person battling low self-esteem, really understand the narcissistic personality well enough to make any sweeping claims.

3

So tdn…if it isn’t SE, is there anything a moronic knuckledragging sleezebucket should have less of (or be awarded less of) compared to a decent human being?

4

Nametag, as far as my limited knowledge of psychology goes, you’re only partly right. People with a “narcissistic personality.” indeed have too much self esteem, and their problems arise when their opinion of themselves inevitable clashes with the world’s.
However, a narcissistic personality disorder is comparatively rare. IMHO it is far more frequent for criminals to have too little self-esteem. Most of their crimes are done to forcibly get respect, fear, recognition, all of which a person with real self esteem wouldn’t need in the first place. (Or would have found more people-friendly ways of getting) Paradoxically, giving real SE, the kind tdn is talking about, to criminals has been proven effective to reduce crime.

It feels superfluous to tell a swaggering criminal, all attitude, bling, guns that he is a worthwhile human being just because he’s born, but if you tell him that, earnestly, in the right setting, you’re more likely to get a quivering underlip then a “damn right!”.

5

Which doper? Are you referring to my “shame can be a positive factor because it makes people want to change” argument in this thread?

6

He didn’t say that all people should have the same amount of self esteem.

7

Maastricht nailed this one. Narcissistic personality and high SE are not synonymous, they are polar opposites. This is a common misconception. Narcissism is usually a strategy to cover up a low SE.

8

Uh… Like what?

9

No, but that’s a good example. Shaming someone rarely accomplishes anything other than making them feel ashamed. Make a fat person feel feel good about herself, however, and she just might feel more inclined to take better care of herself.

Look at it this way – You own two cars. Both are complete junkers, up on blocks in your front yard. You love one car, and hate the other. Which one are you more likely to get fixed?

While we’re at it, let’s address another misconception: That if a child strikes out in a softball game, his parents should raise his SE by lying to him and telling him that he actually hit 6 home runs. Wrong. The parents’ responsiblity should be to tell him that while he did indeed strike out, it is no reflection of his worth as a human being. His dignity is not simply a function of his batting average.

10

That’s what I asked. Most decent people would like to see their efforts to be decent acknowledged in some way. If it isn’t in SE, then in what?

11

Thankfully, I fought my way out of that false logic.

Here! Here! It’s better to make a wrong choice than no choice at all and be proud that you had the courage to fail.

12

How about being acknowledged specifically for those efforts, rather than being evaluated as a person based solely on those efforts? Yes, said efforts can be used to bolster SE. That’s all well and good. But what if said efforts result in failure? Should that person be berated for trying hard and failing?

Let’s take an example: When I was a youngster, I went out for junior football. I was the center on my team. On the first game, it was raining. I fumbled the ball a lot because it was slippery. We lost something like 42-7, mostly on account of me. I felt pretty worthless, not just about my lack of football handling skills, but in every aspect of life. I took it pretty hard.

My parents stepped in a reminded me that while I didn’t do so well on the field that day, that it didn’t change the fact that I was still a kind, decent, smart boy. I was more than the sum of my fumbles. Five games later, football season would be over with and forgotten. I would still be a kind, decent, smart boy.

Were they wrong in saying that? Would it have been better if they withheld all praise until I was shamed into playing a better game?

13

I didn’t, but I’ll say it now. All people should have the same amount of self-esteem. :slight_smile:

And that amount should be “As much as possible.” Consider SE to be a measure of one’s mental health. Would you say that someone has too much cardiovascular health? That someone’s teeth are too healthy?

Teeth are a good analogy. Dental hygiene is not the practice of lying to yourself about how you don’t have cavities, nor is it about neglecting your teeth until they fall out, nor is it about biting others to prove your toothy superiority. It’s about taking necessary steps to keep your teeth and gums as healthy as you can. SE is the same thing – taking responsibilty for your own happiness, tending to your own sense of well-being. Not letting others push you around. Letting insults roll off your back. Not letting negative external events define who you are.

It’s Mental Floss.

14

I thought that this was disproven.

From here.

15

Here.

Here.

The detailed article also discussed a study were they found that those with high self esteem do not appear more attractive than those with low self-esteem. I haven’t yet been able to find the details of that study online, but the study was done in 1995 by Edward F Diener and Brian Wolsic of University of Illinois.

The January issue of Scientific American might still be on the shelf, so I suggest that everyone go and read it. It’s fascinating.

16

Wow. Those look like some seriously flawed studies.

First of all, I never claimed that SE causes better grades. Secondly, I never claimed that SE makes you more physically attractive. That would be a ridiculous claim, and a strawman to boot.

Thirdly, these researchers seem to be as much in the dark as others about what SE even is. Professors lying to students about their grades? What kind of wonky pseudo-science is that?

Go back to the part where I said that you don’t give fake praise and lie to children about the bleeding obvious. You get them to know that they are still OK as people despite having messed up.

And are we seriously to believe that girls who respect themselves more are more likely to abstain from sex? Are those “researchers” high?

Unbelievable.

17

I would be curious to know how those studies defined “self-esteem”. Is there a clinical definition? Can some people think of it as “opinion of oneself”, while others of it as one’s “sense of worth” (which are not synonymous)?

After reading the articles, there is little in the way of scientific analysis, such as disclosure of method, variables, and definitions of terms. It looks like they came more out of polls conducted by conservative think-tanks than actual clinical studies.

The most telling thing is that both articles mention lying to children about their performance, but tdn has already pointed out that this is a strawman, as authentic advocates of self-esteem do not do this or encourage it. Building true self-esteem is to teach people that their self-worth is not related to their performance at all. It doesn’t matter how much you fail or succeed, you are still a worthy individual who deserves love, acceptance and belonging.

Lots of people, especially here on the SDMB, don’t seem to get that. Maastricht has been implying that using love and belonging as a reward for good behaviour or performance is appropriate. Maybe s/he is so glib about it or accepting of it because s/he has never been on the receiving end of that kind of rejection. I have, and it’s horrific.
Success should be rewarded with other things; awards, money, admiration, or other kinds of recognition. No one is saying that we should give Olympic medals to couch potatoes or Nobel prizes to mouthbreathers. But what we should do is give everyone the same love, compassion and basic respect no matter how much they succeed or fail.
Read Becoming Human by Jean Vanier (whose parents are being considered for Sainthood, btw). It illustrates this concept so beautifully.

18

Well said, kung fu lola!

To reiterate, it’s not about false praise, it’s not about building yourself up by tearing down others, and it’s not about having a huge ego. It’s about taking responsibility for your own happiness. How anyone could be against that is beyond me.

However, I did note that one of those links was to a Christian web site. I’m hesitant to draw any correlation there, but I will say that I have long suspected that the religious right has an agenda behind their anti-SE stance. “Don’t believe in yourself. Believe in God. Don’t follow your intuition. Do what your parents say.”

19

THank you, kimera. You found cites for what I have believed intuitively (and vaguely remember reading in the past).

tdn, every human being is worthy of respect until really proven otherwise, and to really prove otherwise, I’m talking about someone so immoral, so utterly useless to themselves or others - and deliberately so - that I have trouble imagining such a person’s existence.

Self-respect should be based first of all on the bases that one exists, and one has every right to exist, and that ordinary as one may seem, the fact remains that every individual is truly unique and therefore has something to offer the world that no one else has or ever will. I have no problem with pretty much unconditional self-respect, even though at times this may be overlaid with well-deserved shame (self-imposed) for actions on one’s own part that were unworthy. Unworthy of oneself, btw. I feel no shame for being unable to shoot a basket like Michael Jordan (or whoever is big in basketball these days), but I feel great shame for not living up to a responsibility I have voluntarily assumed.

But I differentiate between self-respect and self-esteem, although I admit my definitions are utterly arbitrary. (In fact, for the sake of this discussion, please mentally substitute ‘thinking very highly of oneself’ for self-esteem, the latter being shorter to type and less awkward in sentences.) And I deny utterly the late 20th century concept that boosting self-esteem is the panacea for all ills.

I majored in psych some ten years back, and while I haven’t retained much (computer programming doesn’t call for much citing of studies of this nature), I do remember reading that studies had shown that an amazingly large percentage of Americans had an exaggeratedly high assessment of their own intelligence, appearance, and general likeability as compared to assessments of these qualities by people who knew them (or less subjective measures such as testing for the intelligence). I think something like 10% of people believed themselves to be in the top 1% of intelligence and over 25% in the top 10% (it’s been a long time, so the numbers are fuzzy). So on the whole, I’d say that lack of self-esteem is hardly a universal problem. On the plus side, there was an extremely high correlation found between a *realistic * assessment of one’s own abilities and depression, so maybe that’s not all bad. Personally, I’d rather be accurate and depressed than over-estimate myself and be happy, but that may be my own quirk.

But when it comes to the raising and especially schooling of children, and admittedly, being childless I don’t have an enormous stake in this, I think it is a HUGE mistake to focus on raising self-esteem universally. I also remember studies showing, not unreasonably, that self-esteem automatically follows achievement for most kids, and I think it is a major mistake to just generally try to raise self-esteem first.

Don’t get me wrong. There are people, both kids and adults, who have trouble recognizing and acknowledging their own achievements - who *need * the external reinforcement to help them get past that. There are also people, again both kids and adults, whose belief in their own abilities is so low that they need real boosting to get to the point where they will even *try * to achieve. What I object to is the universal application of “improving self-esteem” as a solution to virtually every problem.

When I was a very little kid, I was ugly. Cute in a troll-like sort of way (I’ve seen pictures), but not pretty at all. I knew this; I had a mirror, and I wasn’t blind or stupid. My parents insisted on telling me that I was pretty, and I could tell that they were being absolutely sincere. All that this achieved was to teach me that people’s judgement was absolutely useless where love was involved. To this day, over forty years later, I never trust the assessment of anyone when I know they are fond of me. Maybe that wasn’t a bad lesson to learn, but I think I would have preferred to learn it a little later.

By all means, be generous with praise and recognition. But let it be given where merit has been demonstrated. Ten years ago, when I was back in school, I remember talking to a little girl (well, she was probably about 19 or so), who was bitching because she hadn’t gotten an A on a paper she had done. She was quite indignant, because she had worked quite hard on it. I pointed out to her that in the real world, you don’t get an A for effort. She muttered sulkily “Well, sometimes you do.” Pretty as she was, I’m sure that had been true not only in school, but in life, and would likely continue to for a little while. But I shudder to think what will happen when that little girl ceases to be as young and pretty. What’s going to happen to all these kids who are being taught that praise and recognition comes just for showing up, that they are entitled to be cherished by the world for the simple fact of their being?

20

Thanks. And I think it’s because giving or withholding love and acceptance is an easy way to control people, especially children. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people parent this way. Mine did. It’s prolific because it’s easy, effective, and people learn it from their parents. People don’t even learn what self-esteem is, because they substitute it with love. Their thinking goes: be successful=be loved and feel good (which is the substitue for SE). It doesn’t even occur to them that if they had SE they wouldn’t feel like slaves to their own need to be loved.

These people are an excellent example of that attitude in the Christian community. FWIW, I have also heard several Christian objections to the idea of using psychology or therapy for healing on shows like 100 Huntley Stree and CBN.