You are conflating love with recognition. They are not the same thing. Recognition and reward is earned through merit. Love should not be a reward or something that has to be earned. Forcing people to earn love and belonging is monstrous.
TDN, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Maastricht did not say anything that backs up your position. Narcissistic personality is NOT a “strategy to cover up low self-esteem,” it correlates very highly with high – nay, ludicrously high – levels of self-esteem, as measured by questionnaires along the lines of Oy!'s psych recollections.
You haven’t read one word in this thread, have you?
Is it? First of all, let’s differentiate between love and belonging - there’s a *lot * of miles between those two. Second of all, I agree with you that no child should have to earn its parents’ love or a sense of belonging in its family or school.
But for adults? I don’t know about you, but any one who wants my love had better be prepared to earn or merit it. Love, real love rather than the word, isn’t some I choose to give - I either feel it or I don’t, and that feeling will be based on the actions and qualities of the recipient. What’s more, that recipient can lose my love, no matter how deep and sincerely felt, if their subsequent actions demonstrate to me that either I was deceived in what they were or they have changed to a person whom I find unlovable.
And I expect the same in return. I don’t expect or desire unconditional love from anyone but my parents, and frankly, I don’t believe in it. Anyone who claims to give unconditional love (other than to their parents or children) isn’t saying anything about the recipient of that love; they’re basically stating their own determination to go on ‘loving’ the person even if it means lying to themselves to the point where they can barely look in the mirror. Emotions aren’t controllable, and they aren’t static. You can’t force yourself to love someone.
And, to a lesser extent, the same holds true for belonging. Again, it’s really not something that can be forced, although it can be faked. Every group has its tone, its characteristics, and not every person will truly fit in to every group. The reasons may be good, they may be bad, but the fact remains that that ‘fit’ can’t be forced any more than love can. People can (and often do) deny it, but sometimes an individual - no matter how meritorious - will simply not fit in to a particular group.
Does this make me monstrous? Maybe in your book it does. In that case, I guess you don’t love me or feel I belong in your circle. 
tdn, I only linked to the Christian website because most places that I know that had this study either require registration or don’t contain all the details. So leave that part out of it. When googling for the information I was looking for, I mainly contentrated on the studies mentioned. The study does not mention lying and that was an editorial comment by whoever wrote that article.
They didn’t lie to the students about their grades and I don’t know where you got that BS statement from. What exactly was said to the Students is detailed in the Scientific American article. There was no talk of lying at all in any of the studies. The ‘self-esteem’ group was fed emails that talked about their worth and how they should be happier with themselves. The other group was sent emails that said that the students needed to take responsibility for their own grades.
kung fu lola
All the information needed and more is contained in the Scientific American article which has plenty of references or in sites that require registration. You are invited to check out the articles for yourself as well as looking up the actual studies. I can look up the studies through my school account but they should be available to the general public.
No, but you can make your heart into a “magic kitchen”, as Don Miguel Ruiz puts it. You can walk around knowing that you can just make more love, so you are free to give it away lavishly and never run out. Just as you can always go into the kitchen and make yourself a sandwich or a cup of tea, you can always go back to your heart and scoop out more love. The only reason why people can’t find love in their hearts for others is because their judgemental egos are getting in the way. Stop the judgement, and you’re able to love anyone, anywhere.
All of what you’re saying comes out of the conventional view of the world as full of small, petty people, of gossip and vengeance and coldness.
I choose the see the world another way. It’s pretty radical, I don’t expect everyone to get it.
No, just small. But I respect you and I don’t pretend you’re any less of a person than I am.
No, the researches did not come to that conclusion. In fact, they said that those with high self-esteem are more willing to engage in sex.
A summery and the full text of the article is available for purchase here. You can probably go to the library and look at a free copy of it there.
Here is the book that I read which has more than enough details. Unfortunately, only UC students can read it online, but I am sure you can get it at your library.
I can give you more details on the studies and such if you’d like.
It can’t be emphasized enough, I don’t think, what conservatives are most afraid of when they consider SE. (Not just phony baloney SE, the whole concept.)
Conservatives deeply believe that self-esteem MUST be earned. If humans were entitled a priori to some basic self-respect (other than perhaps through professing belief in a Christ-like redeemer), conservatives fear further weakening of this highly effective method of mass control. Obedience to authority (in their view) is the only thing between us and the total breakdown of civilization.
The ultimate conservative moral model might be the military, where losing your self-esteem and earning it back on the terms of the group are the price of admission.
Huh? How is that different from what I said? Or are you thinking that self-respect and self-esteem are different things?
For all the naysayers, I have a question. Suppose you had a 10-year-old child, whom you love very much. You want to see her do her best in the world. One day she comes home from school with a D on a history test. You’re quite sure that this grade is well deserved, i.e., the teacher isn’t just being an asshole. Which of the following best describes how you would react to this news?:
A) “That’s not a D, that’s an A+. My little princess deserves only A’s. You’re perfect.”
B) “You know I love you, but you’re going to have to do better. This is unacceptable. Now give me a hug and then go study.”
C) “You’re a worthless piece of crap. I always knew you were stupid. You’ll never amount to anything.”
Explain your answer.
I agree, but I wouldn’t ascribe it to either conservatives or Christians. I’d ascribe it to Authoritarians. Who, interestingly enough, often become conservative Christians.
You think Phred Phelps ever went out of his way to build a sense of self-worth into his children?
OK, folks, first of all there is a misconception running around - primarily that studies showing self-esteem to have no positive correlation with better achievement were done solely by Christian or conservative groups. The studies I recall were cited in basic Psych 101 books, and were performed by basic social psychologists. I seriously doubt there was an agenda there. The Christians and conservatives (and I am neither, being a very leftist atheist) may have liked what they found there for their own reasons; this doesn’t change the results of the study.
Lola, I’m sorry, and I’m really not trying to be insulting, but IMO what you are doing isn’t about others at all - it is about you. I doubt you’re actually feeling real love for any more people than I do, but by determining that you “love” people, you become the kind of open-hearted, non-judgmental person you apparently admire. Me, I find lots of things to like in others, I will grant fundamental human respect to everyone, but I don’t begin to believe that I love everyone or even most people. And to me, your love would be pretty worthless. Why would I want it? It would say nothing about me as a person, nothing about your and my fundamental kinship, the way we specially connect, the things we have in common or the differences we have that we find endearing or charmingly exasperating. All it would say is that you have decided to “love” me. It in no way would distinguish me as an individual or give me any reason to believe that to you I was truly special. If everyone is special, then no one is special.
As for the rest of this discussion, what it’s really coming down to is definitions. Any arguments that are presented against the concept of universal self-esteem are being shot down by basically saying “but that’s not *really * self-esteem.” Well, maybe you’re right, but it’s what I see being conveyed to children via their parents and schools in the name of self-esteem. And it’s what I have a problem with.
Which is why I said I hesitated to draw any correlation there.
I got it from a too-swift reading of it. I’ll try to give it a more thorough look tomorrow.
Any cites you can provide would be helpful. But taking you at your word on this, I have to really wonder about something – they did a controlled study by e-mailing self-esteem to students? Did it come as an attachment? Was there a popup sound that said “You’ve got worth”?
Do you honestly think that self-esteem is something that can be e-mailed? If so, then it’s becoming clearer why you put so little value on it. If not, then does this method of experiment strike you as a reasonable and workable protocol? I’d be interested in knowing if this was IRB approved.
The reason we keep shooting them down is because people keep bringing the same old points up again and again. We’re not just blindly shooting down whatever criticism comes along. The true meaning if SE has been defined several times in this thread. I’m not really sure why the naysayers are having so much trouble reading those posts, and instead insist on clinging to wrong definitions.
And what’s wrong with that? I choose not to see love as a luxury - I don’t think it should be, I think that since love is a basic need, it is cruel to make it a luxury, just as it would be cruel to make food a luxury.
Of course I experience friendship, romantic and familial love the same way anyone else does, with just as much discernment and trepidation. I just make a conscious choice to give people I don’t know so well as that the benefit of the doubt, to appeal to their higher nature, and to realize that someone’s worth is not indicated by their material success, intelligence, or physical attractiveness. It’s an easy way of assigning worth to people and lots of people choose to live that way, but I don’t, and I work at it.
And what tdn and I are saying is that we think those people are just as misguided as you do. Just because it’s what addled people calll “self-esteem”, doesn’t mean it really is.
And just as often become social or political conservatives, no?
I shudder to think!
D) “You know that a D is not acceptable. You KNOW you can do better. I know you’re capable of it. You obviously need to buckle down and study harder, because you haven’t been lately. The last couple of nights, you came home and were on the phone all night to your friends, but you never even cracked a book. So, until you can bring up your grades on the next test, we’re going to start limiting phone and goof off time so you can study.”
At least, that’s what my parents would have said. It would be silly to say, “You know I love you,” because, duh, I knew that. Just saying, “This isn’t acceptable-go study, you have to do better,” isn’t going to get through to a kid all the time. My mother would have said that, “You’re smart and you are CAPABLE of doing well, so getting a D is NOT acceptable-it’s being lazy and not doing your work.” Then, she would have restricted me on the phone, or tv because I was probably watching tv or gabbing with my friends INSTEAD OF studying when I was supposed to be.
“I love you” and hugs are good and are needed-but they aren’t what convinces a child to do better, necessarily. He or she needs to understand that is important to work hard and study, that life isn’t handed to one on a plate, and that even though that child may be a genius, he or she will never excell if they don’t work at it.
(And before some smartass suggests that someone can study as hard as he or she wants, but still fail-no shit. That’s when you look into other possibilities, such as tutoring, talking to the teacher, or see WHY he or she isn’t getting the material.)
Basically: Girls with high self-esteem have less sex.
The study said that girls with high self-esteem have more sex.
Here is the website of the professor. I haven’t been able to find detailed summeries of how the experiment worked online, but basically it was a psychology class and the students who were doing poorly were divided into groups. One group recieved emails devoted to self-esteem and the other received emails devoted to self-improvement. They were just told to check the emails without any explanation of what the emails were for. The ones in the second group scored higher and were more likely to pass the class than those in the first group.
This was, of course, a peer-reviewed study as were all the studies I have mentioned so far. I already posted the abstract of the one funded by the APA. Here is the more detailed version of it but it is an annoying PDF.
I managed to find most the Scientific American article online.
I’d love to see you post some cites of your own.
Did I ever, in any way, suggest that someone’s worth was indicated by their material success, intelligence, or physical attractiveness??? If so, please provide a link!
But what you are calling love (or at least above seemed to be calling love) I call basic human respect. Love to me is far more than a recognition of the good qualities each individual one meets seem to have (whatever they may be). And the criteria for love will vary wildly from individual to individual - what I find lovable may do nothing for you and vice versa. And sometimes, but by no means always or even most of the time, intelligence, physical attractiveness or even material success may be a factor in that - or it may not - and there’s nothing inherently more or less virtuous about finding one of those particular virtues lovable in a person, any more or less than finding a sense of humor or a similar taste in music to be lovable. It all goes into the pot.
If you want to call it love and feel good about how open minded and loving you are, go to town. But really, what you’re doing is broadening the word beyond recognition. Love, whether platonic or romantic, is something more - a recognition of a special something in another and a sense of its special appeal to you. (or, of course, parent/child love)
Unfortunately, those addled people are the ones who are creating programs to boost “self-esteem” in the classroom and in adult self-help classes around the country. Whether you agreement it or not, most people if asked would almost certainly equate self-esteem with “a high opinion of oneself,” not with a basic sense of a right and worthiness to occupy space on the earth.
Not you specifically. But that is where my argument in this thread began - people posting here really do believe that. If you’re arguing against me, then I assume you’re with them. If not, then you must have misunderstood me in the firts place.
Fair enough. I still don’t think there is enough of it being passed around in the world, and that’s the reason why I tweak my own behaviour - so that I’m not part of the problem.
And what does that mean? Just because it’s what most people think, does not mean they are correct. I don’t want to speak for tdn, but IMHO those people are hurting the casue more than helping it.
Congratulations, Oy!. You’ve earned your place in this world. The odds were against you, but you showed 'em. You clawed your way out of the gutter so you wouldn’t have to ooze through life with the rest of us slimeballs.
But just suppose tomorrow morning, the bottom drops out and you lose everything. Everything, including your good name. Of course nothing like that could ever actually happen to you, right? Because it wouldn’t be fair!
Well suppose it did anyway. I’m betting you wouldn’t be so quick to turn up your nose at lola’s love, or anyone else’s for that matter.
tdn, good thread. I agree with what you’re saying. If people had more self-esteem to start out with, it’d be a lot easier to give them bad grades when they didn’t perform well. Then it wouldn’t be a matter of life and death, just a grade!
I’m not sure what your point here is. If I’ve come across as arrogant, I apologize - that certainly wasn’t my intent. I’m not sure why distinguishing between general respect and acknowledgement of people’s good qualities on the one hand and love on the other, or asking to be loved for what I am rather than on the basis of the lover’s determination, make me arrogant, and I hope you’ll tell me.
Look, my sense of self-liking is based on *me * - the faults and weaknesses that I scorn and despise, the many failures, the things I was handed at birth and that I’m sometimes stupid enough to pride myself on (such as academic ability), and the few, very few, true merits. I’ve had the good fortune to connect with a few dear friends and lovers over the years, but their love for me has not made me think more highly of myself. Nor would being down and friendless make myself think more poorly of myself (except to perhaps cause me to review my own self-appraisal and verify its accuracy - perhaps when I think I’m being charming I’m actually alienating people? Reality checks are a good thing.). Certainly someone’s determination to “love” me based on a sense of universal benevolence would not make me feel better about myself. Why should it? It has nothing to do with me, and says nothing about me one way or the other.
lola, granted that I’m not here all that much (although I have been the past couple of days for some reason), but I’ve never seen anyone here state, even in so many words, that a person’s worth was based on his material success or physical attractiveness. Intelligence, well, that one is more of a toss-up around here - I think most of us are a little choosy (not to say snobbish) in that respect - not in acknowledging general worth, but in feeling real admiration for someone. Can you show me any examples?
As for the definitions issue, the problem here is that either you’re arguing in favor of something that I don’t think anyone would argue against (the importance of a basic sense of self-respect, a belief that one has the right and worth to take up the air s/he breathes), or you’re supporting a term which, despite your objections, is being used out in the real world to support situations in which children are constantly being praised and “recognized” for the fact of their existence. “Graduation” from pre-school and kindergarten, for heaven’s sakes! “Prizes” for every child in the class or on both teams, regardless of performance. An unwillingness to acknowledge real achievement or merit because it might make the other children feel bad. These are things being done in the name of bolstering self-esteem.
If there are parents out there who don’t do their level best to instill a sense of reasonable self-respect in their children, I’ve never met them. What is it, tdn, lola, et al. exactly that you’re arguing in favor of that isn’t being done? The elimination of psychos from parenthood? OK by me if it’s ok by you! What else?