Comments on: Self-Esteem

By: a different chris

a different chris — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:55:52 +0000

>but yes indeedy, I find that big-time optimists and those with very strong self-images are quite willing to shed blame, Yeah, my co-worker is amazingly exactly like that!! He clearly has an oversupply of self-esteem. For example, he currently thinks it’s all my fault that the project is behind!! But I know damn well that he’s the problem in its entirety, and I’m going to make sure our boss is aware of it so I don’t lose my bonus… I’m so glad I’m a realist.

By: Another Damned Medievalist

Another Damned Medievalist — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:28:22 +0000

Funny—the only self-esteen programs I can think of that seem to do real good are the very nderfunded Outward Bound type, where troubled kids/teens have to meet real challenges, often by working together. That’s so different from the kinds of things we see for mainstream kids, where the challenges are often removed. When my kid stepbrother was in school, about 20 years ago, his report cards had three columns: Below-, at- and above grade level. He was consistently getting the full range of Bs and Cs below grade level. My parents were happy, he was happy, and he dropped out of high school.

By: x

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:13:07 +0000

Er, des, not sure I get your joke but I sure don’t get the parallel. Perhaps I came off sounding like a jerk, but what I meant was simply what Pierre said above about the kind of self-esteem that’s useful. I wouldn’t put self-control or self-discipline above that, in terms of psychological approaches. That’s all. Didn’t mean anything particular by that “portion of income” comment, only that I wish it was true that a higher self-esteem is not such a significant advantage. I don’t see psychotherapy as an artificial route to self-esteem, I’m not talking of the “you’re fabulous” kind of crap. I’m talking of the kind that can help people in dealing with some bad stuff. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t wish they didn’t have to go through any of that, therapy and what led to it, in the first place, and not just for financial reasons, obviously.

By: kharris

kharris — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:19:07 +0000

As regards the debate over whether high(er) self-esteem is a good or bad thing..isn’t there room for both? The contrast between claims for benefits from better self-esteem first being made for classes of people who had suffered some form of abuse, and recent studies showing that those at the higher end of the self-esteem scale are delusional, seems to make perfect sense. If there is evidence that those who think particularly well of themselve add to the misery of those around them, while those who think particularly badly of themselve keep their misery at home, is that so hard to make sense of? Not that my personal experience means diddly (‘cause my level of self-esteem may be improperly calibrated), but yes indeedy, I find that big-time optimists and those with very strong self-images are quite willing to shed blame, take advantage…the whole insufferable routine.

By: des von bladet

des von bladet — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:52:29 +0000

I’m with X and Njorl for sure: it’s like when everyone’s being all “Oh obesity causes health problems why do you all eat so much all the time” and I’m like, “Way to help the starving childrens in Africa, dude!”. As someone who?s been spending a significant portion of his income on food for the past ten years, which is to say, I humbly beg to differ.

By: pierre

pierre — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:43:47 +0000

Comment #1: The original vision for self-esteem training and its importance sounded wonderful, necessary, utopian. Every implementation as far as I can tell has been embarrassing and asinine. How to resolve the evident contradition? Perhaps “self-esteem” is a threshold quality. Above a certain amount, one can be a strong element of the social fabric. Below a certain amount, one is likely to accept/attract/encourage all sorts of negative behavior patterns. But any self-esteem above the threshold is surplus, and in large amounts may lead to other problems, like sucking at video games. The various self-esteem programs that have been put in place seem then to have made an error by taking the general approach of “hey there person you are fabulous!” which was a bit too vague; they should instead have been zeroing in on something like: “everybody knows they deserve to not have the shit beaten out of them daily by a family member, right? OK, moving on …” Comment #2: “Paranoia is having all the facts.”—William S Burroughs

By: x

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:13:41 +0000

Hmm, marty, the article does mention depressed people, “young women with eating disorders”, victims of bullying, etc.. Those are things that do occur among all age and social groups. It’s not like “regular” school children are a world apart from the rest of humanity.

By: x

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:03:47 +0000

‘I imagine now that we’ll have people relying on poor performance in video games by egomaniacs to dismiss the victimized with “Just get over it.”’ Eh, that’s what crossed my mind too after reading the article… It seems too dismissive of issues associated with really, really low self-esteem. A higher degree of self-esteem prevents people from being depressed, having an eating disorder, self-harming, abusing drugs or alchool and wanting to kill themselves, and that’s supposedly not such a big advantage? As someone who’s been spending a significant portion of her income on therapy for the past ten years, I humbly beg to differ. Self-discipline my ass. Maybe what is meant by “high-self esteem” here is more like arrogance or over-inflated sense of self. That’s what’s the opposite of humility in the good sense. You don’t have to think you’re worthless to not be an arrogant prick. What about a reasonable in-between? There’s not just too high or too low.

By: marty

marty — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:48:08 +0000

Not sure what you’re referring to here Njorl. All the studies, programs, and work being referred to here has to do with regular old public school children as a whole, not specific subgroups.

By: Njorl

Njorl — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:18:48 +0000

I think this dismissal of self-esteem is just as bad as the hype for it. Originally, self-esteem enhancement projects were for people with crippling emotional problems – severe physical and sexual abuse victims. After consistant victimization, these people would come to believe that they deserved this kind of treatment, and would engage in behaviour that would bring it about. I imagine now that we’ll have people relying on poor performance in video games by egomaniacs to dismiss the victimized with “Just get over it.”

By: Njorl

Njorl — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:02:23 +0000

“Optimism: The belief that everything will turn out for the best – irrational bordering on insanity” – K9 (from Dr. Who)

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:49:53 +0000

Judith Martin (“Miss Manners”) once remarked that The problem with the guilt-free society is that we have all this unallocated blame lying around.

By: Ayjay

Ayjay — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:48:19 +0000

ayjay: does that imply that depression is just the ability to see things as they really are, rather than through the fuzzy optimistic haze most people manage? Yeah, that’s the idea. According to this line of research—which may or may not be in conflict with “self-esteem” problem—seeing things through a “fuzzy optimistic haze” is useful and even evolutionarily adaptive: “positive illusions” keep people going through difficult and stressful times. The depressive who can’t manage those illusions sees things as they are and is therefore, um . . . depressed. I don’t know how good all those studies are, but Solomon’s The Noonday Demon is a great book.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:44:14 +0000

Pascal would say yes. I’m not Pascal.

By: Nick Kiddle

Nick Kiddle — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:01:48 +0000

ayjay: does that imply that depression is just the ability to see things as they really are, rather than through the fuzzy optimistic haze most people manage?