The Illness of Self-Esteem

Humpty · April 21, 2011, 8:09pm

I have a friend who has a PhD in psychology, and we were talking about…some private stuff, and he ended up telling me, “You know what your problem is? Self-Esteem.” I was like, “HUH?” “Yeah, the whole concept is backwards, it’s sick, you really shouldn’t use that paradigm, does more harm than good.”

Then he gave me some links to various websites talking about why self-esteem really isn’t such a great concept. Haven’t read through it all yet myself, not sure what I think about it yet, but I figured I’d share a lil bit with you folks.

Article

A study popularized by Charles Krauthammer, writing in Time magazine, investigated the self-concepts of 13-year-olds in Britain, Canada, Ireland, Korea, Spain, and the United States. Each was administered a standardized math test. In addition, they were asked to rate the statement: “I am good at mathematics.” The Americans judged their abilities the most highly (68 percent agreed with the statement!). On the actual math test, the Americans came last. Krauthammer concludes: “American students may not know their math, but they have evidently absorbed the lessons of the newly fashionable self-esteem curriculum wherein kids are taught to feel good about themselves.”

Researchers at Case Western Reserve University and the University of Virginia conducted a comparison of evidence from a variety of studies concerning individuals involved with aggressive behavior of all kinds: assault, homicide, rape, domestic violence, juvenile delinquency, political terror, prejudice, oppression, and genocide. In some studies, self-esteem was specifically measured; in others it was inferred. The authors concluded that “aggressive, violent, and hostile people consistently express favorable views of themselves.” It’s therefore pointless to treat rapists, murderers, and muggers by convincing them that they are superior beings, for this is precisely what such criminals typically believe already.

These researchers considered the possibility that in such cases observable high self-esteem was a disguised form of low self-esteem, but were unable to find any corroboration for it. The authors conclude that “the societal pursuit of high self-esteem for everyone may literally end up doing considerable harm.” According to American Educator, psychologist and researcher Roy Baumeister has “probably published more studies on self-esteem in the past 20 years that anybody else in the U.S. (or elsewhere).” As Baumeister has observed, many violent crimes result when an individual defends a swollen self-image against a perceived attack. “They’ll lash out to try to head off anything that might lower their self-esteem.”

A comprehensive review of the self-esteem literature found that: “the associations between self-esteem, and its expected consequences are mixed, insignificant, or absent. This nonrelationship holds between self-esteem and teen age pregnancy, self-esteem and child abuse, self-esteem and most cases of alcohol and drug abuse.”

Trevor · April 21, 2011, 9:46pm

so what was your friend’s alternative?

statiktech · April 21, 2011, 9:56pm

Yeah, I’m not quite sure what to make of this either. Seems convincing enough, but I think it raises some interesting questions:

Do we protect an already inflated self image, or does that image become inflated in defense of itself?
Also, does the criminal behavior result in an inflated self image, or vice-versa?

At any rate, I don’t understand the comment made by your friend–

Why is the concept “backwards”?

Is he saying that self-esteem has become more of an aggressive offense than a practical defense? In other words, self-esteem refers more to a feeling of superiority than one of mere competence or proficiency?

James_S_Saint · April 21, 2011, 10:09pm

I get tempted to slap such monkeys every time they open their mouths.

During the '1970s;
“Deceive the children into having high self-esteem because believing they are poor brings bad behavior.”

During '2010s;
“Self-esteem is bad, because the children just deceive themselves (especially those Americans).”

Planets of the Apes. All hail Charlton Heston. =D>

anon · April 21, 2011, 10:16pm

“Self esteem” comes in many forms, some healthy, some not healthy. To praise or attack “self esteem” as a whole, as if it is just one thing, strikes me as very misguided.

Humpty · April 21, 2011, 10:36pm

There’s a big section in the article that I linked called “The Alternative to Self-Esteem”

There’s a big section in the article answering your questions as well, directly.

instead of just saying it’s misguided, perhaps you can read the article and say what about it is misguided

anon · April 21, 2011, 10:40pm

I did read the article, and I said exactly what I think is misguided about it.

When I have time I’ll get into more specifics.

Humpty · April 21, 2011, 10:50pm

You didn’t say exactly what you think is misguided about it haha, you just said the whole thing is misguided.

anon · April 21, 2011, 11:00pm

There’s not just one form of “self esteem”. I know I didn’t get into it, but I think I was pretty clear.

Maybe tomorrow…

felix_dakat · April 22, 2011, 2:43pm

I first encountered this line of thinking about self esteem in the newspaper editorials on child behavior by psychologist John Rosemond. Here’s an example for you consideration:

A fellow, slightly upset at my recent series of columns dealing with the myriad stupid parenting ideas that came out of the 1960s, accuses me of painting with too broad a brush. Without being very specific, he says some of the parenting changes fashioned during that decade were worthwhile. What?
In the 1960s, American parents stopped going to their elders for advice and began going instead to mental health professionals — people like me. To create a devoted client base, we had to come up with something new. So we cut from whole cloth a nouveau philosophy that was 180 degrees removed from the philosophy that had successfully guided every previous generation of parents. The centerpiece of this new point of view was the notion that high self-esteem is a good thing and parents should do all in their power to make sure their children acquire it.
Mind you, we made this up. Absolutely no empirical evidence, obtained by scientific means, existed to support this claim. It just sounded good; therefore, it was easy to market. High self-esteem is the card that supports the house of cards that is what I call “postmodern psychological parenting.” Pull that card and the whole stack falls.
The supposed merits of high self-esteem were sold on the basis of rhetoric, not evidence. The evidence, however belated, is now in, and the evidence says high self-esteem isn’t the holy grail it was promoted as being.
People with high self-regard, the evidence says, possess low regard for others. Instead of seeking opportunities to serve others, they seek to manipulate others. Furthermore, people with high self-regard tend to antisocial behavior. People incarcerated in maximum security prisons have very high self-regard, for example.
Pre-psychological parenting emphasized respect for others. People with high other-regard seek opportunities to serve; therefore, they pay attention to other people. People with high self-esteem want to be served and be paid attention to. It’s the simple difference between wanting to do for others and wanting others to do for you — obligation versus entitlement.
So, to the question, “Isn’t it possible for a child to have high self-esteem and a high level respect for others?” The answer is an unequivocal no.
Because high self-esteem has become even more American than the flag and apple pie, what I say on the subject produces what psychologists call cognitive dissonance. Parents become confused, even angry. The most common protest: “But I want my child to be confident!” There is no evidence that people who are humble, modest and possess high regard for others lack the belief they are capable of dealing with life’s challenges. The Amish do not value or promote high self-esteem (they call it “being prideful”) and they don’t think there’s a problem they can’t solve (and you’d be hard-pressed to identify one they haven’t solved).
Self-esteem doesn’t pass the common-sense test either. Would you rather be employed by, work alongside, be close friends with or be married to a person with high self-esteem or a person who is humble and modest? See what I mean?
Your common sense knows the truth, the way things really are. (And make no mistake, high self-esteem and humility do not coexist.) The problem is that America’s parenting common sense has been all but smothered by a big, wet blanket of psychobabble that was manufactured in, yep, the 1960s.
So, since belief in high self-esteem is essential to believing in the whole of postmodern psychological parenting, I maintain that the latter is completely devoid of value. It is a sham, a pig in a poke, an intellectual rip-off. It has damaged children, families, schools and culture.
I propose, therefore, that we begin the invigorating, rejuvenating process of finding our way back home.
• Family psychologist John Rosemond answers parents’ questions on his Web site (rosemond.com).

Aum · April 22, 2011, 3:45pm

for the record, i think your point is pretty clear

there’s a world of difference between genuine and artificial forms of self-esteem

Humpty · April 22, 2011, 5:00pm

That point is addressed in the article as well. Your idea makes the whole theory unfalsifiable, because all reported cases of high-self esteem in people whose behavior is unacceptable and doesn’t fit into your paradigm are dismissed as artificial self-esteem. Only the successful cases of highly-self-esteemed people are accepted as evidence for the case for self-esteem, and all evidence against the case is discarded.

As a matter of fact, the stuff I quoted in the OP refers directly to that:

The authors concluded that “aggressive, violent, and hostile people consistently express favorable views of themselves.” It’s therefore pointless to treat rapists, murderers, and muggers by convincing them that they are superior beings, for this is precisely what such criminals typically believe already.

These researchers considered the possibility that in such cases observable high self-esteem was a disguised form of low self-esteem, but were unable to find any corroboration for it. The authors conclude that “the societal pursuit of high self-esteem for everyone may literally end up doing considerable harm.” According to American Educator, psychologist and researcher Roy Baumeister has “probably published more studies on self-esteem in the past 20 years that anybody else in the U.S. (or elsewhere).” As Baumeister has observed, many violent crimes result when an individual defends a swollen self-image against a perceived attack. “They’ll lash out to try to head off anything that might lower their self-esteem.”

You see that part I bolded and underlined? That’s the part.

It’s also known as the No True Scotsman fallacy.

anon · April 22, 2011, 5:52pm

These “researchers” don’t know what they’re observing. That’s not my fault, it’s theirs. Fallacy indeed. People who are “involved with aggressive behavior” have low self-esteem by any standard. Anyone who seriously considers bragging, for instance, to be the best indicator of “self-esteem”, has likely never even taken an introductory psychology course, and never observed everyday human behavior.

In another thread here, I wrote:

I don’t believe that self-esteem, self-respect, and confidence are necessarily related to what we call “selfishness”. I believe I am using the word conventionally:

Selfish
–adjective

devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

Synonyms: self-interested, self-seeking, egoistic; illiberal, parsimonious, stingy.

In fact, I believe that selfishness lowers self-esteem, self-respect, and confidence. I think anyone who chooses to look at the people they know around them will likely find this to be true. The people I know who most clearly exhibit an admirable degree of self-esteem, self-respect, and confidence, are those who live a relatively unselfish, purposeful life.

Self-esteem is not necessarily at the expense of others - unless you choose to define it that way in which case no discussion is possible.

Humpty · April 22, 2011, 6:01pm

so what ur saying is…that…the data doesn’t matter and any evidence against ur case you discard because it’s doesn’t meet your random standard of “genuine,” just as i said. yeah, that’s the No True Scotsman fallacy.

if every piece of evidence against your case is tautologically inauthentic, it’s a non-falsifiable theory. you’ve framed your whole paradigm to be unfalsifiable.

anon · April 22, 2011, 6:03pm

Data? There are four elements to this puzzle: selfishness, selflessness, confidence, and lack of confidence. This is not a difficult thing to unravel. There are 16 possibilities for combinations here. This is testable, and not unfalsifiable.

anon · April 22, 2011, 6:06pm

Oh wait it’s not 16, is it?

Humpty · April 22, 2011, 6:08pm

The DATA that I referred to contradicts this directly.

Humpty · April 22, 2011, 6:11pm

Do I have to keep quoting the same thing over and over again?

Researchers at Case Western Reserve University and the University of Virginia conducted a comparison of evidence from a variety of studies concerning individuals involved with aggressive behavior of all kinds: assault, homicide, rape, domestic violence, juvenile delinquency, political terror, prejudice, oppression, and genocide. In some studies, self-esteem was specifically measured; in others it was inferred. The authors concluded that “aggressive, violent, and hostile people consistently express favorable views of themselves.” It’s therefore pointless to treat rapists, murderers, and muggers by convincing them that they are superior beings, for this is precisely what such criminals typically believe already.

These researchers considered the possibility that in such cases observable high self-esteem was a disguised form of low self-esteem, but were unable to find any corroboration for it. The authors conclude that "the societal pursuit of high self-esteem for everyone may literally end up doing considerable harm."4 According to American Educator, psychologist and researcher Roy Baumeister has “probably published more studies on self-esteem in the past 20 years that anybody else in the U.S. (or elsewhere).” As Baumeister has observed, many violent crimes result when an individual defends a swollen self-image against a perceived attack. “They’ll lash out to try to head off anything that might lower their self-esteem.”

Hell, they even give a SOURCE! Click the link to the article, it’s the 4th source. That’s what the “4” means.

anon · April 22, 2011, 6:13pm

How was self-esteem measured?

Humpty · April 22, 2011, 6:21pm

I don’t know, why don’t you check out the source?