5 ms·

Um, if 70% to 80% of people have "low self-esteem", isn't that just "normal" self-esteem? Please don't take my comment as snark, I'm asking this in all serious

by rmah 4y ago

Um, if 70% to 80% of people have "low self-esteem", isn't that just "normal" self-esteem? Please don't take my comment as snark, I'm asking this in all seriousness. When most people possess some psychological trait, perhaps we should ask ourselves if this is just the way people are? And perhaps the cure is worse than the disease? Is it possible that encouraging typical people to have "higher self esteem" will result in increased narcissism, entitlement or overconfidence? And maybe that overconfidence, when it hits the reality that they are not, in fact, better (along some arbitrary axis) at something vs most other people, their ego shatters? I don't know, but... To be clear, I'm not trying to assert a position here. I'm open to being very wrong about the thesis behind the above questions.

zdragnar 4y ago
I suspect that percentage varies significantly between geographic and cultural regions. Further, "normal" typically means that not only is a status common, but that it does not interfere with daily life. Even if 100% of kids have low self esteem, it is "low" and not "normal" because, by definition, it interfers with common social interactions and daily tasks.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Even if 100% of kids have low self esteem, it is "low" and not "normal" because, by definition, it interfers with common social interactions and daily tasks. What does "interfers with common social interactions and daily tasks" mean? It's hard to talk about self-esteem in a superlative way (you can be too cocky), so let's talk about another trait: attention. I'm sure that everyone could do better in life if they have superhuman levels of attention, but most people only have normal levels of attention. If with superhuman levels of attention you could study and get 95% on a test, but with average levels of attention you could only study enough to get 80% on a test, does that mean count as "interfering" with your academic ability? Is it just some arbitrary grade cut-off? What if you're so attention deficient that you can't focus on a task for more than 10 minutes, but it's fine because you also happen to be a genius that only needs 10 minutes of studying to get 80%?
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    There are formal definitions for attention deficit disorder, no need for the contrived example.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >There are formal definitions for attention deficit disorder Have you looked at the DSM-5? The wording there is vaguer than you think. For instance >1. Inattention: Six (or more) of the following symptoms have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is inconsistent with developmental level and that negatively impacts directly on social and academic/occupational activities: > a. Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, at work, or during other activities (e.g., overlooks or misses details, work is inaccurate). What does "negatively impacts" mean? What does "often" mean? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519712/table/ch3.t3/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519712/table/ch3.t3/
    - banannaise 4y ago
      A lot of ADHD/autistic folks (including me) will note that a primary frustration with the DSM-5 is that it defines our conditions in terms of the things that frustrate other people rather than in terms of what we actually experience and how it affects us. Lots of our behaviors "interfere with common social interactions"... if that interaction is with a neurotypical person who expects us to conform to their values. Differences in values and communication style are framed as something diseased that we need to change, rather than something different where we need to create mutual understandings.
concinds 4y ago
I like those questions. "Normal" just means norm, so yes, it's the norm to be relatively-to-significantly emotionally unhealthy. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to achieve a world where 80-90% of the world has secure, high self-esteem, and treats the remaining 10% of people with kindness and patience. > Is it possible that encouraging typical people to have "higher self esteem" will result in increased narcissism, entitlement or overconfidence? Absolutely; that's what the "self-esteem movement" in U.S. schools last century did, which is now widely denounced as harmful, and it's a perfect example of bad cultural change that wasn't deeply informed by psychology but instead on emulating behaviors. Low self-esteem is in the unconscious mind. You can try to think and behave like a confident person, but it's all a facade, a new set of learned coping mechanisms, unless you develop deeper self-awareness of your psyche and "do the inner work." "Good" cultural change means promoting true psychological awareness and inside-out change. Here's a more detailed example if you want: Pleasant emotions occur when our emotional needs are satisfied. Unpleasant (not "negative") emotions point to unmet emotional or physical needs (that include shame, i.e. low self-esteem). All emotions are useful since they tell you what your emotional needs are and how well they're satisfied. If you're mostly unhappy, you either have low self-awareness (of your thoughts, emotions, and needs at any given time), i.e. you have difficulty consciously identifying what your needs are; or, you can identify them but lack the (learnable) problem-solving skills to satisfy these needs. There are superficial emotional needs, and you can learn to "dig down" to the primary emotional needs that cause them. Sometimes, part of your unconscious can still feel deep unworthiness despite objectively impressive real-world achievements; that can be fixed by integrating that part of your subconscious that is stuck in the past, and bringing it back in line with the rest of your unconscious through inner work. Children have developmental emotional needs, which most of them, most of their teachers, and most of their parents are unaware of, and teaching these needs to all of them would help them do better. Groups (families, classrooms, companies) range from high-nurturance (helps people satisfy their emotional needs) to toxic (prevents people from satisfying their needs); high-nurturing groups (e.g. classrooms) have many traits in common. Group toxicity is generally caused by group leaders being emotionally unhealthy, i.e. having a poor ability to satisfy their own emotional needs effectively. If the culture was promoting these ideas, I don't think that would be a cure worse than the disease. Going back to the article: building confident children means improving families' nurturance levels, teaching kids how to recognize their own needs and their child's developmental needs, and how to meet them; building children that do that inner work, and who then won't be afraid of "looking dumb" in the first place; and will be secure enough that they won't feel shame if someone dislikes them, and can try to achieve mutual respect with whoever dislikes them without losing their integrity or boundaries. Sounds far deeper and more meaningful than what the article proposes, no? Here's a resource that might interest you: http://sfhelp.org/site/premises.htm http://sfhelp.org/site/premises.htm and http://sfhelp.org/cx/skills/dig.htm http://sfhelp.org/cx/skills/dig.htm (the whole site looks very old; but it was recommended to me by someone on /r/Buddhism years ago and is filled with gems).
quickthrower2 4y ago
We are probably confusing two things in this comment: * The healthy level of self esteem. (Normal as in ideal) * The median level of self esteem. (Normal as in compared to others) So we probably need better words. "SubOptimal" "Optimal" vs "Average" "Above Average" etc.? A good comparison is what is the normal amount of sugar to consume per day? What is the healthy amount?

by rmah 4y ago

zdragnar 4y ago

I suspect that percentage varies significantly between geographic and cultural regions. Further, "normal" typically means that not only is a status common, but that it does not interfere with daily life. Even if 100% of kids have low self esteem, it is "low" and not "normal" because, by definition, it interfers with common social interactions and daily tasks.

gruez 4y ago
>Even if 100% of kids have low self esteem, it is "low" and not "normal" because, by definition, it interfers with common social interactions and daily tasks. What does "interfers with common social interactions and daily tasks" mean? It's hard to talk about self-esteem in a superlative way (you can be too cocky), so let's talk about another trait: attention. I'm sure that everyone could do better in life if they have superhuman levels of attention, but most people only have normal levels of attention. If with superhuman levels of attention you could study and get 95% on a test, but with average levels of attention you could only study enough to get 80% on a test, does that mean count as "interfering" with your academic ability? Is it just some arbitrary grade cut-off? What if you're so attention deficient that you can't focus on a task for more than 10 minutes, but it's fine because you also happen to be a genius that only needs 10 minutes of studying to get 80%?
- zdragnar 4y ago
  There are formal definitions for attention deficit disorder, no need for the contrived example.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >There are formal definitions for attention deficit disorder Have you looked at the DSM-5? The wording there is vaguer than you think. For instance >1. Inattention: Six (or more) of the following symptoms have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is inconsistent with developmental level and that negatively impacts directly on social and academic/occupational activities: > a. Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, at work, or during other activities (e.g., overlooks or misses details, work is inaccurate). What does "negatively impacts" mean? What does "often" mean? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519712/table/ch3.t3/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519712/table/ch3.t3/
  - banannaise 4y ago
    A lot of ADHD/autistic folks (including me) will note that a primary frustration with the DSM-5 is that it defines our conditions in terms of the things that frustrate other people rather than in terms of what we actually experience and how it affects us. Lots of our behaviors "interfere with common social interactions"... if that interaction is with a neurotypical person who expects us to conform to their values. Differences in values and communication style are framed as something diseased that we need to change, rather than something different where we need to create mutual understandings.

concinds 4y ago

I like those questions. "Normal" just means norm, so yes, it's the norm to be relatively-to-significantly emotionally unhealthy. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to achieve a world where 80-90% of the world has secure, high self-esteem, and treats the remaining 10% of people with kindness and patience. > Is it possible that encouraging typical people to have "higher self esteem" will result in increased narcissism, entitlement or overconfidence? Absolutely; that's what the "self-esteem movement" in U.S. schools last century did, which is now widely denounced as harmful, and it's a perfect example of bad cultural change that wasn't deeply informed by psychology but instead on emulating behaviors. Low self-esteem is in the unconscious mind. You can try to think and behave like a confident person, but it's all a facade, a new set of learned coping mechanisms, unless you develop deeper self-awareness of your psyche and "do the inner work." "Good" cultural change means promoting true psychological awareness and inside-out change. Here's a more detailed example if you want: Pleasant emotions occur when our emotional needs are satisfied. Unpleasant (not "negative") emotions point to unmet emotional or physical needs (that include shame, i.e. low self-esteem). All emotions are useful since they tell you what your emotional needs are and how well they're satisfied. If you're mostly unhappy, you either have low self-awareness (of your thoughts, emotions, and needs at any given time), i.e. you have difficulty consciously identifying what your needs are; or, you can identify them but lack the (learnable) problem-solving skills to satisfy these needs. There are superficial emotional needs, and you can learn to "dig down" to the primary emotional needs that cause them. Sometimes, part of your unconscious can still feel deep unworthiness despite objectively impressive real-world achievements; that can be fixed by integrating that part of your subconscious that is stuck in the past, and bringing it back in line with the rest of your unconscious through inner work. Children have developmental emotional needs, which most of them, most of their teachers, and most of their parents are unaware of, and teaching these needs to all of them would help them do better. Groups (families, classrooms, companies) range from high-nurturance (helps people satisfy their emotional needs) to toxic (prevents people from satisfying their needs); high-nurturing groups (e.g. classrooms) have many traits in common. Group toxicity is generally caused by group leaders being emotionally unhealthy, i.e. having a poor ability to satisfy their own emotional needs effectively. If the culture was promoting these ideas, I don't think that would be a cure worse than the disease. Going back to the article: building confident children means improving families' nurturance levels, teaching kids how to recognize their own needs and their child's developmental needs, and how to meet them; building children that do that inner work, and who then won't be afraid of "looking dumb" in the first place; and will be secure enough that they won't feel shame if someone dislikes them, and can try to achieve mutual respect with whoever dislikes them without losing their integrity or boundaries. Sounds far deeper and more meaningful than what the article proposes, no? Here's a resource that might interest you: http://sfhelp.org/site/premises.htm http://sfhelp.org/site/premises.htm and http://sfhelp.org/cx/skills/dig.htm http://sfhelp.org/cx/skills/dig.htm (the whole site looks very old; but it was recommended to me by someone on /r/Buddhism years ago and is filled with gems).

quickthrower2 4y ago

We are probably confusing two things in this comment: * The healthy level of self esteem. (Normal as in ideal) * The median level of self esteem. (Normal as in compared to others) So we probably need better words. "SubOptimal" "Optimal" vs "Average" "Above Average" etc.? A good comparison is what is the normal amount of sugar to consume per day? What is the healthy amount?