'The death' of what esteem?

[Jose Perez]

 

In this video (

) Stefan and Michael mischaracterise the concept of self esteem. Associating self esteem with external or social standards of achievement is completely mistaken and naturally leading to the kind of empirical problems mentioned. Self esteem is qualitative in nature, not quantitative or comparative; it is measured from the *true self* and thus cannot respond to subjective, social consensual or aesthetic standards - small children's behaviour in learning basic skills is a primary and significant example. This is Nathaniel Branden's own definition:[/font]

 “Self-esteem is the disposition to experience oneself as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness. It is confidence in the efficacy of our mind, in our ability to think. By extension, it is confidence in our ability to learn, make appropriate choices and decisions, and respond effectively to change. It is also the experience that success, achievement, fulfillment – happiness – are right and natural for us. The survival-value of such confidence is obvious; so is the danger when it is missing.”

 

[Jose Perez]

Also, being an experience that is true, self esteem is not the sort of thing one verbalises to others in order to attract them, let alone puts on the pages of Match.com as Michael suggests.

[LovePrevails]

 

I found the video a very interesting perspective, the view that you should look and assess your actions in isolation, not hinge your entire self-image upon them seems a very sensible and zen-like approach, which is also the basis of offering specific criticism or praise in books like NVC, and also How To Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids Will Talk

 

However, I think it misses the main way people categorise self-esteem, which is a general view of how people tend to think of themselves. Bad or Good? Worthy or Unworthy? On a day to day basis, an average - some days I have higher or lower self-esteem than others.

I have more self-esteem in general since I discovered how much service my skills can be to others because I feel I have something to offer the world, That makes me feel better about me.

Is that fallacious thinking?

[Jose Perez]

Again, the view that self esteem has to do with judging one's actions - and the value systems behind it - is mischaracterising the concept of self esteem. You draw it from your value of being helpful to others, Stefan draws it from playing well the piano or speaking mandarin... Nathaniel gets also plenty of followers (girls!) who draw it from certain ideals and aesthetics, and they're mischaracterising it too... 

You seem to agree with the idea that you can experience self esteem - even if I think this is not what Branden defined, in my opinion - so then you cannot simultaneously say that it makes sense to destroy the concept.

If self esteem does not represent anything, and one's relationship with oneself is to be reduced and atomised into actions then I would be really interested in hearing from Stef why a concept such as marriage still supposedly stands.

[LovePrevails]

 

Again, the view that self esteem has to do with judging one's actions - and the value systems behind it - is mischaracterising the concept of self esteem. You draw it from your value of being helpful to others, Stefan draws it from playing well the piano or speaking mandarin... Nathaniel gets also plenty of followers (girls!) who draw it from certain ideals and aesthetics, and they're mischaracterising it too... 

You seem to agree with the idea that you can experience self esteem - even if I think this is not what Branden defined, in my opinion - so then you cannot simultaneously say that it makes sense to destroy the concept.

If self esteem does not represent anything, and one's relationship with oneself is to be reduced and atomised into actions then I would be really interested in hearing from Stef why a concept such as marriage still supposedly stands.

 

I'm just saying that self-esteem is a phrase which is individually defined, how it is defined will determine whether you think it is a helpful turn of phrase or not.

 

[Jose Perez]

 

I'm just saying that self-esteem is a phrase which is individually defined, how it is defined will determine whether you think it is a helpful turn of phrase or not. 

 

You did not bring up an opinion on the interview – and on self esteem – on the basis that self esteem is just a personal definition, of course. Yes, fallacious thinking.

[LovePrevails]

 

 

I'm just saying that self-esteem is a phrase which is individually defined, how it is defined will determine whether you think it is a helpful turn of phrase or not. 

 

You did not bring up an opinion on the interview – and on self esteem – on the basis that self esteem is just a personal definition, of course. Yes, fallacious thinking.

 

Alright, thank Joseito, I didn't come here for an argument. No need to be agressive, which i have found your posts to be.

[Jose Perez]

 

 

 

I'm just saying that self-esteem is a phrase which is individually defined, how it is defined will determine whether you think it is a helpful turn of phrase or not. 

 

You did not bring up an opinion on the interview – and on self esteem – on the basis that self esteem is just a personal definition, of course. Yes, fallacious thinking.

 

Alright, thank Joseito, I didn't come here for an argument. No need to be agressive, which i have found your posts to be.

 

Argument? Aggressive? Are you sure you're not defining those concepts in a non-helpful way for yourself?

[LovePrevails]

haha, well thank you for confirming my suspicions. good day.

[Marc Moini]

 

 In this video (

) Stefan and Michael mischaracterise the concept of self esteem. Associating self esteem with external or social standards of achievement is completely mistaken and naturally leading to the kind of empirical problems mentioned. Self esteem is qualitative in nature, not quantitative or comparative; it is measured from the *true self* and thus cannot respond to subjective, social consensual or aesthetic standards - small children's behaviour in learning basic skills is a primary and significant example. This is Nathaniel Branden's own definition:

 “Self-esteem is the disposition to experience oneself as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness. It is confidence in the efficacy of our mind, in our ability to think. By extension, it is confidence in our ability to learn, make appropriate choices and decisions, and respond effectively to change. It is also the experience that success, achievement, fulfillment – happiness – are right and natural for us. The survival-value of such confidence is obvious; so is the danger when it is missing.”

 

 

I found the video a very interesting perspective, the view that you should look and assess your actions in isolation, not hinge your entire self-image upon them seems a very sensible and zen-like approach, which is also the basis of offering specific criticism or praise in books like NVC, and also How To Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids Will Talk

However, I think it misses the main way people categorise self-esteem, which is a general view of how people tend to think of themselves. Bad or Good? Worthy or Unworthy? On a day to day basis, an average - some days I have higher or lower self-esteem than others.

I have more self-esteem in general since I discovered how much service my skills can be to others because I feel I have something to offer the world, That makes me feel better about me.

Is that fallacious thinking?

 

Hi Joseito, Hi Antony,

I prefer when people get along, so maybe you and LovePrevails will both agree with this: the way I understand it from reading Nathaniel Branden, self-esteem is not directly dependent on any specific achievement, it is the reputation we keep with ourselves and thus to raise or lower it significantly a number of different successes or failures (in our own evaluation) are required. It is an aggregate opinion resulting from multiple experiences over the course of a lifetime.

Here is what I posted in another thread:

 

I want to point out how Nathaniel Branden warned against confusing high self-esteem with conceit, which I find is exactly what Stef and his interviewee are doing in the video you linked to. Here is the article by Nathaniel Branden (he discusses this specific point on pages 5 and 6): 

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/discussions/self-esteem/what-self-esteem-is-and-is-not/ 

Best wishes,

Marc

 

[anarky102]

 

  It is also the experience that success, achievement, fulfillment – happiness – are right and natural for us. The survival-value of such confidence is obvious; so is the danger when it is missing.”

 

Doesn't this mean assigning value though? That is what dr. eldstein is arguing against, whereas EVERYTHING, is in a state of flux.

[Formelyknown]

I would say that self-esteem is the involontary emotional response to our own confidence of our abilities.

[Jose Perez]

 

 

  It is also the experience that success, achievement, fulfillment – happiness – are right and natural for us. The survival-value of such confidence is obvious; so is the danger when it is missing.”

 

Doesn't this mean assigning value though? That is what dr. eldstein is arguing against, whereas EVERYTHING, is in a state of flux.

 

As always, values can be objective or subjective, true or false. The only survival-value of false values is that of being accepted by others, which has nothing to do with an objective appreciation and experience of success, achievement, fulfillment...  Michael is arguing against an idea of self esteem based on these false, social or aesthetic values, which is the usual misconception – and a very sad misconception.

To follow Stef's own example in the video. I'd say Isabella experiences high self esteem when playing the piano so "badly". On the other hand, skilled and successful piano players (whom I have met many) generally lose their basic ability to think and be connected to reality – as a result of having to compulsively meet the non-objective standards of others in their career – and so experience a low self esteem regardless of their reports and achievements.

What Isabella would call self esteem (Nathaniel's definition) is not what the piano player – or Michael or Stef – would call self esteem. 

 

[Jose Perez]

 

I would say that self-esteem is the involontary emotional response to our own confidence of our abilities.

 

I like this definition, but it has the same problem I mentioned before. Abilities can be differentiated by purpose, and if the purpose is that of meeting the false or aesthetic values of others it can never lead to self esteem.

However, if by abilities you mean those whose purpose is survival, objective needs, the fulfillment of one's own needs and goals, taking pleasure in one's being and existence... (which can include pleasing others too, of course), then I very much like this definition because it suggests that self esteem is an objective feeling/experience of the self, much like love is an objective feeling/experience of another person.

[anarky102]

 

 

 

  It is also the experience that success, achievement, fulfillment – happiness – are right and natural for us. The survival-value of such confidence is obvious; so is the danger when it is missing.”

 

Doesn't this mean assigning value though? That is what dr. eldstein is arguing against, whereas EVERYTHING, is in a state of flux.

 

As always, values can be objective or subjective, true or false. The only survival-value of false values is that of being accepted by others, which has nothing to do with an objective appreciation and experience of success, achievement, fulfillment...  Michael is arguing against an idea of self esteem based on these false, social or aesthetic values, which is the usual misconception – and a very sad misconception.

To follow Stef's own example in the video. I'd say Isabella experiences high self esteem when playing the piano so "badly". On the other hand, skilled and successful piano players (whom I have met many) generally lose their basic ability to think and be connected to reality – as a result of having to compulsively meet the non-objective standards of others in their career – and so experience a low self esteem regardless of their reports and achievements.

What Isabella would call self esteem (Nathaniel's definition) is not what the piano player – or Michael or Stef – would call self esteem. 

 

While I can appreciate your saying, I think value, or things such as isabella feeling happy are key words, whereas eldstein is stressing no evaluation at all. I sense that your making an argument for "nathaniel branden's" self esteem, if I interpret correctly here. Frankly though, if you are talking about task orientation, then I really like the book "Flow". The interviewees in that book make mention, that they would do what they do, even if you were not paying them. I think it is a good companion to eldstein's book, not that I am affiliated in any way with either.

The only place where I would part company with eldstein though, is with regard to discussing early childhood experiences. In his book, he deems this as unnecessary, and perhaps at a point, because you do have to take responsibility for your life, but I feel the same way as stef, that it IS about relationships, and those things should be explored and resolved. Please correct me if I misquote anything here, but this is my understanding.

 

[Jose Perez]

 

While I can appreciate your saying, I think value, or things such as isabella feeling happy are key words, whereas eldstein is stressing no evaluation at all. I sense that your making an argument for "nathaniel branden's" self esteem, if I interpret correctly here.

 

Sure, the problem is that Stefan and Michael are also making an argument about Nathaniel's self esteem. They're mischaracterizing it first, then declaring it dead or useless. To be honest I don't even think Nathaniel Branden fully understands or lives his own concept, which is completely understandable for anyone.

 

Frankly though, if you are talking about task orientation, then I really like the book "Flow". The interviewees in that book make mention, that they would do what they do, even if you were not paying them. I think it is a good companion to eldstein's book, not that I am affiliated in any way with either.

 

I have read that book. Any obsessive compulsive person would also do what they do even without getting payed. It just doesn't go deep enough in to the causes. Children often get into states of flow precisely in order to escape the interactions – with parents and caregivers – that are undermining their self esteem in the background.

 

The only place where I would part company with eldstein though, is with regard to discussing early childhood experiences. In his book, he deems this as unnecessary, and perhaps at a point, because you do have to take responsibility for your life, but I feel the same way as stef, that it IS about relationships, and those things should be explored and resolved. Please correct me if I misquote anything here, but this is my understanding.

 

Yes, I agree completely that it is about relationships. The high self esteem of children is eroded and damaged through the toxic interactions with parents and others in childhood. It's a very unfortunate infectious cycle.