What would we do without New York Magazine?
Through its two advice columns, “Ask Polly” and “What Your
Therapist Really Thinks” the magazine shows us what really happens in therapy. The
earnest advice of a happy therapy patient and the insights of a real, live
therapist allow us to grasp how bad everyday therapy has become.
Then the magazine has a wonderful column about social
psychology, a column called “Science of Us.” I have often praised this
excellent compendium of the latest from social science research.
Today, I praise Jesse Singal for exposing the nonsense
that passes for psycho wisdom in our contemporary culture. Now that God has
passed away, no one turns to religion for moral teaching or for instruction on
how best to conduct one’s life. Too often one turns to the pseudo-scientific
nostrums that therapy offers to our gullible minds. Therapists
have taken over the culture and have been peddling bottles of snake oil.
Calling them placebos would be too generous.
Therapists claim that if you take this or that all of your
problems will be solved. You will be happy, healthy, wholesome and successful. For decades now therapy has been saying that this will be solved by increasing one's self-esteem.
The
concept was first conjured up by Nathanial Brandon and Carl Rogers, but now it
has been merchandized to the mass market. People have bought it. Companies have embraced it. They accept
that a good dose of self-esteem will solve all of our problems.
And now, following fast on the self-esteem movement,
we have a new obsession: grit. If self-esteemists were selling confidence, the
gritters are selling perseverance. It is fair to say that confidence is a good thing, as long as
it does not become transformed into arrogance. And it is also true that grit, or perseverance is a
good thing too, as long as we do not imagine that it alone will solve
all of our problems.
Singal summarizes:
Maybe
the biggest problem here, whether one is discussing the waning self-esteem
craze or the possibly burgeoning grit one, is the basic idea that some
behavioral-science eureka moment
will, on its own, do all or much of the work of solving big problems in
education or the justice system or any other area rife with inequities. No
problem important enough to attract the attention of social scientists is
simple enough to be solved by the latest idea to spring forth from their labs.
Things are always more complicated than “If only we could get people to be more
X, then surely we’d see improvements in social problem Y.” Social science, in
short, should be seen as just one part of the very complicated process of
solving big societal problems – not as a fountain of revolutionary One Simple
Tricks.
In other words, they are selling snake-oil, a magical cure
for everything that ails you. Strangely enough, Singal notes, the movement has
flourished even though its claims have been widely debunked. Serious
researchers like Roy Baumeister have noted that while achievement brings more
confidence, puffing up your confidence without achieving anything leaves you
deluded.
Impervious to scientific debunking self-esteem has helped found a new religion, or dare I say, a pseudo-religion, a cult that
provides moral teaching for people who believe that modern science has all the answers. Doesn't it resemble scientology? We must mention that self-esteem, as
currently presented by its proponents, offers nothing other than the
deadliest of the seven deadly sins: pride.
Singal explains:
TED
Talks aside, there’s more understanding of the ways in which the scientific
method can lead us astray, can prop up misleading notions about human nature
and behavior. So it would be nice to think that these days, something like the
self-esteem craze couldn’t happen, that we wouldn’t fall for it.
What does it look like in practice? Singal quotes from a 1991 chidren’s
book, The Lovables in the Kingdom of
Self-Esteem. I had not known about the book before, and am happy to see the
process in action. The book tells children to repeat a mantra, over and over
again. They should tell themselves that they are lovable. Even if no one loves
them. When they do it they will discover that everyone else is lovable.
The book jacket explains it all:
I AM LOVABLE!
I AM LOVABLE!
I AM LOVABLE!
By
using these magical words, the gates to the Kingdom of Self-Esteem swing open
for readers of all ages. Inside the Kingdom live twenty-four animals — the
Lovables — each one with a special gift to contribute. Mona Monkey is lovable.
Owen Owl is capable. Buddy Beaver takes care of the world around him. Greta
Goat trusts herself.
Children who were fed these nostrums might well end up believing in the dogma of multiculturalism.
Apparently, it’s all about convincing yourself to believe in
something that does not make sense. As its
proponents and detractors have noted self-esteem is a belief. You are
supposed to believe it no matter what. When the world does not affirm your high
opinion of yourself, it is testing your faith and inviting you to become even
more deluded.
The self-esteem movement invaded the nation’s public schools
and produced the millennial generation. Singal writes:
If you
grew up, or raised a child, during the 1980s or 1990s, you almost certainly
remember this sort of material, as well as goofy classroom exercises focusing
on how special each individual child was. A certain ethos took hold during this
time: It was the job of schools to educate, yes, but also to instill in
children a sense of their own specialness and potential.
If you were wondering why American millennials cannot
compete against their peers in the rest of the world, the self-esteem movement
explains it. Link here. It was not just the schools. Many corporations bought into the
illusion.
Singal explains:
The
self-esteem craze changed how countless organizations were run, how an entire
generation — millenials — was educated, and how that generation went on to
perceive itself (quite favorably). As it turned out, the central claim
underlying the trend, that there’s a causal relationship between self-esteem
and various positive outcomes, was almost certainly inaccurate. But that didn’t
matter: For millions of people, this was just too good and satisfying a story
to check, and that’s part of the reason the national focus on self-esteem never
fully abated. Many people still believe
that fostering a sense of self-esteem is just about the most important thing
one can do, mental health–wise.
Psychologist Jean Twenge examined the effort to inculcate
belief and declared that it was making people delusional. For the record, when
you hold to a delusional belief you reject the notion that it can be disproved
or discredited by reality. When a schizophrenic believes that the voice of God
is whispering in his ear nothing you can say or do will shake his belief. Since
the culture is currently having a national debate about facts, we should note
that self-esteemist cult followers will never accept a fact that would disprove its
dogmas.
In Singal’s words:
Take,
for example, research Twenge and others have conducted on the frequency of
certain feel-good sentences phrases in English-language literature — sentences
like Believe in yourself and
anything is possible, and You
have to love yourself first before you can love someone else. “Those
phrases are taken for granted as advice we give teens and adults,” explained
Twenge, “but they’re very modern. At least in written language, they were very
uncommon before about 1980, and then became much more popular. They’re all very
individualistic, they’re all very self-focused, they’re also all
delusional.
Given the evidence demonstrating that it has been oversold,
the self-eseteem movement requires that people take it all on faith. The more
grandiose its claims the more people are enticed to believe in it, without question.
Strangely enough, it's not news. Writing in the New York Times in 1990, Lena Williams
explained:
IT is
being called a vaccine against drug abuse, teen-age pregnancy, welfare
dependency and other social ills. But some experts are calling it little more
than yet another ''feel good'' approach to life's travails.
At
issue is the age-old concept of self-esteem, defined by the Second College
Edition of Webster's New World Dictionary as ''belief or pride in oneself.''
But the California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social
Responsibility reported recently that there's a lot more to it than that.
She continued:
Hundreds
of school districts have added self-esteem motivational materials to their
curriculums. American employers have turned increasingly to consultants who say
they can raise employees' morale and work performance through self-esteem
techniques. New companies have formed, devoted to teaching on self-esteem
themes, and hundreds of books on self-esteem and self-enhancement have been
published.
And she added the following version of the “I am lovable”
mantra:
In his
self-esteem course at Apollo High School in Simi Valley, Calif., Geoff
Schofield was taught such maxims as, ''It doesn't matter what you do, but who
you are.''
''It
helped me a great deal,'' said Mr. Schofield, who is 21 years old now and is an
apprentice plumber. He is not upset that his friends are swapping campus-life
stories while he is fixing sinks. ''I'm learning a skill and I'm earning
money,'' he said.
Astonishingly, Schofield does not even understand that when
you are a plumber... what you do matters. It must matter. If you cannot fix the
leak you are a lousy plumber. You might not even be a plumber. But, dismissing
the verdict offered by your performance and achievement, pretending that it
does not matter… will lead you down the road to cultural perdition.
6 comments:
Singal: "[T]he central claim underlying the trend, that there’s a causal relationship between self-esteem and various positive outcomes, was almost certainly inaccurate."
I disagree. There is a correlation. What was "inaccurate" was the interpretation of the direction of causality. Positive outcomes tend to yield self-esteem, not the reverse.
It's a very common mistake, like Bill Clinton believing that homeownership yields stable, crime free neighborhoods - instead of the reverse. We know how that worked out: 2008.
Huh? Singal's point, repeating the point that Roy Baumeister made and that I echoed, was that they had merely gotten the direction of the causality wrong. There's no disagreement.
I'm interpreting "inaccurate" from a statistical perspective. The observed correlations probably aren't far from the "true" value, hence "accurate". The problem, as I see it, is the causal interpretation is invalid; ie, the theoretical construct is wrong. Very different things in my world.
But we're talking past one another in different languages.
Hey wait a minute, I thought I got a trophy for coming here!?!?!?
The whole self esteem thing is just behavioural based validation. And it feeds ones pride - that's why we feel good. I have people (strangers) approach me looking to build their self esteem - when I don't respond according to the expected norms - their "self esteem" is visibly lowered - their pride was hurt and their self esteem is lowered.
This book covered the relationship of pride and self esteem. They are basically the same - I concluded after reading the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Sin-Pride-Self-Acceptance-Identity-Psychology/dp/0830827285/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496264241&sr=8-1&keywords=sin+pride+and+self+acceptance
It seems like pride is associated with self-esteem, or at least as long as you have
"pride in what you do", you are likely to have self-esteem. But if you can gain self-esteem independent of action, its harder to see how that works.
My understanding for the whole "self-esteem" movement is that self-esteem promotes autonomy, so you're not as dependent upon the opinions of others, so when everyone else is jumping off a bridge you have an independent innervoice that can say "That's stupid" and you can walk away.
So that sort of self-esteem isn't based on what you do, but your prudence to know what not to do.
Post a Comment