I know, I got that it was a joke. I thought it was funny, even.
And I think that is silly.
In Don Miguel Ruiz’s book The Four Agreements, he says that doing what you describe is sinning against yourself. You inner Judge judges your inner Victim, but you don’t pay just once for a mistake, you pay over and over. Every time you think of one of your past failures, your inner Judge makes you pay for it. It is the only place in the world where we are made to pay more than once for any crime.
I agree with Ruiz that that is destructive. Because it is, for me. If it’s not for you, that’s cool. The Four Agreements aren’t The One True Path, and if you live another way, kudos to you.
Let’s step back a moment. Voodoochile is on to something here. SE is all about how you judge yourself, hence the term “self.” No one else can give it to you. (Parenthetically, others can teach you how to have it, and children are especially quick learners.)
I’ll go out on a limb here and state that everyone, by their very nature, has self-esteem. The question is a difference between good SE and bad SE, as opposite termini of a continuum.
The indicator of bad SE is when you let those inner negative judges rule your life. The real test of good SE is how you choose to deal with those negative judges. You can never be rid of them, but you can tell them to go to hell. Better yet, you can listen to them with a critical ear and decide when they have something to say and when they are full of shiite.
A bit harsh, and I think I’d hate having you as a parent, but…
I see your point, though this seems like splitting hairs. Would you agree that option D) is closest to option B)? Would you further agree that option C) is by far the most destructive to the child?
No sane parent would tell his child “You got a D, therefore you are a worthless piece of shit. I hate you, and am ashamed of you.” We would consider this to be child abuse. And yet (and here’s my point, at long last) – people talk to themselves like this all the time.
It’s perfectly OK to tell yourself that you need to buckle down and hit the books, or stop watching TV, or stop drinking, or find a job. But one can either do that in a compassionate way, or in a self-abusing and destructive way. And the former is far more likely to get results.
Holy cow, 44 pages! And way over my head. I e-mailed it to my girlfriend, who will look it over if she has time. She’s used to reading things like that. She has certainly written things like that.
But what little I got from it was:
-High SE seems to correlate directly with happiness. Good enough for me. That’s what I see as the greatest benefit.
-The correlation to grades and work performance is inclonclusive. However, those with high SE are more likely to be more persistant. Also good enough for me.
-The paper makes no distinction between healthy self-esteem and arrogant, boastful behavior, which is what many of us have been trying to illuminate here. This suggests to me a fundamental flaw in the study (or at least a fundamental disagreement on the nature of self-esteem to begin with).
-The paper claims, with little justification, that Adolph Hitler had a high SE. This flies in the face of everything I have read in other sources about his psychological makeup, and once again underscores a fundamental disagreement on the nature of self-esteem, at best. At worst, it’s just plain bad research.
Most of what that paper addresses is whether high SE is a panacea for all of life’s ills. This is not something that I ever claimed, so it is a bit of a strawman. I also never claimed that it was the only personality trait that one should posess.
Hey, lets leave the Muslims out of this! 
That was exactky what I was trying to say. I’m just not very articulate. To be honest, I’ve been very uncomfortable participating in this thread since after my second post, but I’ve been forcing myself to so I don’t look like a big driveby weenie. I’m going to leave this to you, tdn, since I am obviously not equipped to discuss this at the same level that you are.
Is this the wrong thread to tell you not to be so hard on yourself? I think you’re posting some great stuff, and I’ve been feeding off of it to make my own points. I hope you don’t leave the thread, but if you do, thanks for all the good posts and support.
tdn, the problem here is that, as you define self-esteem, you’re preaching to the choir. In fact, I doubt there’s an American capable of understanding what you’re saying who wouldn’t agree with you.
No one is arguing here that people shouldn’t have fundamental self-respect. On the other hand, if you say that everyone should lighten up on him or herself, self-criticize less or less harshly, I would have to say no, that isn’t *universally * true. Many people *do * criticize themselves too harshly. Many people, on the other hand, don’t *critique * themselves, their behavior, and their actions closely enough, and probably should be exerting a little more self-reproach than they currently are.
We aren’t arguing that basic self-respect, basic self-love isn’t something that every person should have. But increasing this - as you call it - self-esteem (and what I call self-respect) isn’t the universal panacea. Not everyone who is an asshole is an asshole because they have low self-esteem. Some people are assholes because it never occurs to them to be anything else - that the feelings or even needs of others are something that it might be a good thing to consider. I gather that others are assholes because they *can * be and get away with it, although I don’t personally know anyone like that (I don’t think).
You had problems with self-esteem, you know others who had problems with self-esteem, and therefore you see problems with self-esteem in almost everyone. What the people here are disagreeing with you about (or at least this person is) is how widespread that problem is, and to what degree it is a cause of various social dysfunctions. You are unwilling to accept the only studies that have been cited here as evidence that this is not as universal a problem as you seem to believe or that increasing it will make not necessarily make things better, because you don’t accept that what they were measuring was self-esteem. Fine. But you don’t have (or at least haven’t presented) any other evidence beyond the anecdotal that what you seem to claim is true either.
Do I question that almost every individual can be a little too hard on him or herself occasionally? No. Of course we all can do that. But do you have anything beyond your own personal experience, and that of some others you know, and the deep musings of various self-help books to support the belief that low self-esteem (as you define it - a sense of self-worth so low as to question your rights to the earth you walk) is particularly widespread, let alone universal?
I’ll leave you with one more thought, and then I have to get back to work. It’s very, very easy to get someone to believe that they are suffering from too low self-esteem. Bring to mind the times they have been shy, hesitant, embarassed, threatened, or overly self-critical - and everyone on the face of the earth has these moments - and sympathize with them for their tragically low self-image. You’ll have that lip trembling in no time. And bear in mind this - people usually aren’t aware of the times when their assessment of themselves has been too high. I may have acted like a total jerk at that party, and yet thought I was charming people left and right - unless someone got in my face about it, how would I know? It’s easy to come to believe that you are routinely undervaluing yourself. That doesn’t mean it’s actually true. Don’t get me wrong - I’m not questioning that this was an issue for you or for the other people who have talked about this issue so fervently here. I’m saying that if you question people on the issue of self-esteem and whether or not they have suffered from a problem with it being too low, you’ll get a whole lot of people saying yes. On the other hand, if as in the studies I remember, you look at people’s assessment of themselves versus the assessment of the people who know them, you’ll often find that people’s actual evaluation of their own abilities and merits is quite high. It’s not false pride due to low self-esteem - they really believe it. It’s not hard to over-estimate yourself in a society that avoids ‘not being nice’ to the degree ours does. I long since lost count of the number of times I have assessed myself accurately out loud and been told ‘Don’t put yourself down!’ as if I was committing the ultimate sin. I wasn’t putting myself down. I’m as fully aware of my virtues and good qualities as anyone else, maybe more. But I can also look in the mirror and see the stuff that ain’t so pretty. People can’t stand hearing it, let alone telling it to you if you don’t already know. It’s VERY easy to get an inflated opinion of yourself without it having anything to do with low self-respect.
I’ll try to check in later.
I wanted to say one more thing to address the white paper link that was offered. The claim was made that high SE makes you more attractive, and the white paper sets out to debunk that claim.
The way they did this was to assess the SE of a group of subjects, asking them such questions as “Are you superior to others” and other wonky questions which I’ve hopefully already debunked. They then asked a group of people to evaluate the attractiveness of the subjects by showing them pictures of the subjects. They found no correlation between SE and attractiveness.
I think that the researchers have largely missed the point.
This thread was borne of the latest Nice Guy thread, in which (and in many other places) women have repeatedly asserted that what they find attractive in a man is self-confidence, far more than physical traits, wealth, or anything else. I’ll take that assertion as truth, at least partially.
So we can assume that self-confidence (closely tied to self-esteem) is a trait that people find attractive.
How are we to judge that based on still photos? SE finds its expression in how someone acts. You’d have to interact with a potentially attractive person, or at least see him on film, in order to experience the self-confident, self-esteem component of that attractivenes.
What the researchers were therefore trying to test for was whether SE could be tested for in bone structure, clear skin, hair products, and heritable genes. This is absurd.
What they did find was that there may be some reverse correlation, that being good-looking may have a positive effect on self-esteem. Of course it does. You don’t need Bell Labs to tell you that.
What they also fail to address is that, very possibly, a person with high SE would be more likely to take care of himself, by taking more regular baths, exercising more, eating right, flossing, and spending a bit more on hair care.
Yet another strike against that white paper.
Oy!, we’re probably more in agreement than we think. Yet again.
Then we have no argument.
I never said “everyone.” Many do, yes. I guess a valid question is how many that is.
Several posts back I stated that very thing.
Nor did I claim that. But I believe it to be a component in a large number of cases. How large, I’m not sure.
Fair enough, but I’m largely arguing with people who claim that SE is a bad thing.
Not because I’m willing to dismiss any evidence out of hand, but because I find the evidence presented to be highly suspect. I’ve voiced some of my objections already.
Most of what I had was in book form, so it really can’t be posted, but I’ll try to dig something up.
Sure, but that’s an entirely different problem, isn’t it? One that we’re not addressing here.
I need to say more, but I have to go now. I’ll check in tomorrow.
tdn, there’s no question in my mind that you and I can get along, and have largely similar viewpoints in these areas. We’re arguing the fine points here, and (at least to my mind) having fun doing it! Others may not be enjoying it so much, in which case I apologize.
I think that may be the heart of the matter, and as you’ve already noticed, it’s a bloody hard thing to measure. But if basic teaching and parenting approaches are going to be based on this, it might not be a bad idea to find out.
Oh, come on! Has anyone actually argued that what you call self-esteem and what I call self-respect is a bad thing? I suspect that the people who are argued against building self-esteem have been arguing against what I’ve been arguing against, and what is done in the name of building self-esteem quite a bit - boosting a high opinion of oneself without substance to justify it. Can you show me anyone who has said that fundamental self-respect is a bad thing? Self-esteem, yes, because there is obviously a large difference in the way people are defining that term, and you can’t expect people to automatically know and conform to the definition that you hold to be valid. But in the narrow terms you have defined the term, have you seen anyone argue against it?
DOn’t bother if it’s a book of people talking about self-esteem and how lacking it is widespread and really a problem. I’m talking evidence of widespread lack of fundamental self-respect and the problems it’s creating here, not beliefs.
I think that the people who are arguing against *your * self-esteem are addressing that exact problem, because that’s how they’re reading self-esteem. As I said, I find it hard to believe that anyone has argued against your definition of it as being a good thing.
Have a good evening, and thanks for the great conversation!
But you are aware that correlation does not equal causation correct?
I fail to see where it says that in the study. Could you please link to where you found that?
The measure they use for self-esteem is the Rosenburg scale. If you can prove that this scale is wrong or measures the wrong things, I would love to see your proof.
Do you have any cites for that?
Not at all. Did you even read it, or just get out of it what you wanted to get out of it?
From the abstract:
There is hardly anything about it being the panacea for all of life’s ills. These scientists were commission by the APA to figure out the benefits or drawbacks of high self esteem.
That is not what was being said in the paper and if you had bothered to read it, I think it would have been quite clear what was actually being said. Go back and actually read it.
I find it interesting that you think you know more about self-esteem than the researchers that put together this study and presented the final paper. I’m sure the APA would be interested in learning how debuked this study is since they commissioned it. And I’m still waiting for cites of your own.
Fat person weighing in (so to speak) here to re-enforce this idea. Knowing from personal experience:
When I feel good about myself, I eat less, tend to get more exercise, and do other ‘personable’ things.
When I feel bad about myself, I tend to eat more comfort food, not care about how I look, how social I am, etcetera.
YMMV, but I suspect I can’t be the only person like this.
kimera, I admit that I only skimmed the white paper. I’ve begun reading it more thoroughly, and I have a lot more to go, but I think I’ve read enough to answer your last post.
I am aware of that, and although I could argure the point, your cite on page 1, column 2, paragraph 2 concedes the point.
Page 15, column 2, “conclusion”
No proof as such (but see my link later in this post, if I remember to put it there 
), but here’s the thing: People believe the Rosenberg scale to be flawed. Those that exhibit true, healthy self-esteem score very similarly to those that have a narcissistic personality disorder, which Branden (see link) and others have argued is anti-, or pseudo-self-esteem. Bart Simpson Brand self-esteem, if you will. The Rosenberg scale fails to differentiate between the two, so as far as our discussion here goes, is totally useless. Both Branden and Baumeister agree that various other methods might be better, and both agree that the newer methods are still too controversial to be reliable. However, while Branden suggests other approaches, Baumeister essentially says “Meh, close enough for jazz.” (Page 5, “Problems and Challenges”)
By the way, Rosenberg himself identifies this distinction.
I’ll look for some, but consider Branden’s differentiation between real SE and pseudo SE, and ask yourself this – would someone with no need for outside reassurance (who grew up with a violent father, to boot) to feel good about himself resort to gassing 12 million people? That’s narcissism, not self-esteem. But I’ll look for cites.
I swear I read the word “panacea” in one of your cites, but now I can’t find it. However, your cite examines the claim that SE will solve the problems of low test scores, low work productivity, bad love lives, and violence. This was done because of an investigation by the State of California to solve many of its social ills and lower taxes.
Page 8, top of page.
I find it interesting that you would accept that one source at face value, in spite of at least one glaring methodological error. Many in the APA (including my own girlfriend) have indicated that Baumeister’s work is generally considered in the psychological community to be flawed and biased.
I have more to say, but for now, here’s one
cite. More on the way.
Nitpick: If you mean the American Idol judge, that’s Simon Cowell. Simon Callow is an actor most often seen in Merchant-Ivory films.
Not being an American Idol watcher, I must say, I had wondered about that. What’s wrong with Simon Callow? I *loved * him in Four Weddings and a Funeral!