Self-Esteem: too much of a Good Thing?

Hello all,

What follows is the text of an article in the latest New Zealand Skeptic by Jim Ring about self-esteem. Unfortunately it isn't on the net, and so a massive page of text is all we have.

He goes of the boil in the latter third of his article, but I am interested in what people think about the first two-thirds. Has he understood Branden's ideas? Can violence and the anti-competition measures in schools arise from a belief in too much self esteem?

Hayden

Self-Esteem: too much of a Good Thing?

Jim Ring

THE IDEA that low self-esteem is the cause of violent behaviour has been current for some time. Many years ago I attended numerous education meetings where I heard that certain (male) individuals "lacked self-esteem" when it seemed patently obvious that this was not true. I argued that these individuals greatly esteemed many of their own behaviours - it was just that these behaviours were those the counsellors thought should be deplored.

The result was that schools developed programmes to en- courage pupils to make lists of their wonderful features and to compose poems of self-celebration. Parents and teachers were afraid to criticise children, or to let them take part in exams and competitions as this could turn them into violent thugs. It became important above all that children never experienced failure.

Scientific American (April 2001) had an article entitled Violent Pride: Do people turn violent because of self-hate or self-love? by Roy F Baumeister. This dealt with the
problem of violent young men and characterised them as being usually egoists with a grandiose sense of personal superiority and entitlement; yet counselling textbooks say such people really suffer from low self-esteem.

Although it was a "well-known fact" that low self-esteem causes violence, Baumeister was unable to find a formal statement of the theory, let alone any evidence to support it. According to Baumeister: "...we found no indicators that aggressive male bullies are anxious and insecure under a tough surface."

Self-esteem can be measured using a questionnaire with such examples as:

• How well do you get along
with other people?

• Are you generally successful
in your work or studies?

Baumeister et al also tested for narcissistic tendencies in a similar manner. People with high selfesteem were not necessarily narcissistic - most could recognise that they genuinely were good at some things but not all.

A study on men imprisoned for violent crimes showed these had the highest mean score for narcissism (among prisoners), though their score for self-esteem was about in the middle. Narcissism correlated very strongly with violent behaviour.

The idea that low self-esteem is the underlying cause of "just about every psychological problem" originates with Nathaniel Branden (originally Nathan Blumenthal), psychotherapist and author of several books on the subject. According to Branden: "faulty self-esteem [is] a flawed self-concept, intellectual self-doubt, a sense of unworthiness or guilt, an experience or inadequacy, a feeling that 'something is wrong with me' or that 'I am not enough.' " But of course if the concept is made as broad as this everybody must experience low self-esteem at times.

Nash published Branden's first book on the topic. The Psychology of Self-Esteem, late in 1969, but it was taken up by Bantam and over a million paperback copies were sold worldwide. In 1977 Branden started a series of intensive "workshop" courses to teach his ideas. The course was called Self-Esteem and the Art of Being. Originally the attendees were psychotherapy students. These people spread the gospel and the idea really took off.

Branden had been a member of the Ayn Rand inner circle and, although 20-odd years younger, was her lover for a considerable period. This grand idea, of the importance of low self-esteem, was formulated by or with Rand sometime in 1955, certainly before the spring of 1956. But we have only Branden's word that he had any involvement then - about 14 years before he published anything on the subject. Rand would later claim that Branden had stolen her idea; after Branden rejected her sexually she became extremely bitter. However when Atlas Shrugged (which seems to have introduced the idea) was published, it was dedicated to both her husband and her lover!

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged contains a speech by John Galt, Rand's superman hero that sets out three principles as the supreme and ruling values of human life:

1. Reason

2. Purpose

3. Self-esteem

I regret that I was unaware of the Ayn Rand connection around 25 years ago, when I was involved in education and attacking the idea that low self-esteem was the problem with difficult boys. Rand's anti-communism of course made her "Right Wing". The "LeftWing" trendy types that were pushing faulty self-esteem as the cause of problems with difficult adolescents would have been horrified at the connection. I had found Atlas Shrugged and other Rand books unreadable; recently I had to read some Rand to write this essay but did not enjoy the experience. I still have not finished any of her books.

Rand frequently used archaic meanings for common English words. Few skeptics would quibble about basing their ideas on reason, but today this means that we organise our ideas to avoid contradictions. Rand's philosophy involved a resurrection of the mediaeval idea of Rationalism, which meant something quite different - that one can acquire true knowledge of the world simply through thought. Modern science has rejected this idea - and Rand largely rejected science.

The Baumeister studies are very relevant to New Zealand today, but I suspect that few teachers or social workers involved with difficult and violent young males have even heard of them.

Jim Ring is a Nelson Skeptic.

Post 1

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:37pm

I'm working on an article that, among other things, discusses violence and aggression. In short, I disagree with the ideas attributed to Branden as presented here. Whether or not the presentation is accurate I do not know.

Maybe I haven't read Rand enough, or read her more than Ring did, but I didn't pick up on the anti-science bit. That most of her hero tended to be scientists or engineers seems to discredit the assertion.

Post 2

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 9:06pm

Hayden, I suggest you read Nathaniel Branden's books "The 6 Pillars of Self Esteem" and "The Art of Living Consciously" . These books give his updated and better thought out arguements on the importance of self esteem, why you can't have enough of it and how to go about improving it. The older book "The Psychology of Self Esteem" is not considered by Branden to be anywhere near his final words on the subject. There isn't anything of merit to debate here because Jim Ring does not have enough understanding of either Branden's self esteem theories or the elements Rand's ideology on which they are built to even comment on their legitimacy or on their being proven or disproven. The important issue is : What IS Self Esteem? Nathaniel Branden's definition of this state of mind is entirely different from the one used in this study. If you want I can go into that a little bit, but I am not going to address anything in this article because quite frankly I don't feel like reading any of it again.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 5/31, 9:12pm)

Post 3

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 9:14pm

Sarah: There is nothing in Ayn Rand that is anti science and she was quite clearly against Rationalism. So that remark in the above article was entirely false.

- Jason

Post 4

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 7:26am

Robert Campbell and Walter Foddis have an excellent article in The Navigator addressing this question. It is here.

Thanks,
Glenn

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 6/01, 7:29am)

Post 5

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 8:09pm

Hayden, long time no see.

Seems to me Mr Ring has spent too much time in the Nelson sunshine.

Self-esteem can be measured using a questionnaire with such examples as:

• How well do you get along
with other people?

• Are you generally successful
in your work or studies?

If that's how the Baumeister system judges self-esteem it's way wrong. Self-esteem is a personal, private, thing. You don't get it from measure it from how well you get along with other people, quite the reverse. Likewise with work situation. If you're stuck in an illiterate, politically correct, post-modernist school and you thrive in it that's more an indication of low-rank independence and self-esteem.

THE IDEA that low self-esteem is the cause of violent behaviour has been current for some time.
The result was that schools developed programmes to en- courage pupils
were afraid to criticise children, or to let them take part in exams and competitions
It became important above all that children never experienced failure.

The schools have a worthy aim, to help facilitate the growth of self-esteem. However, clearly their plan is madness. We grow, not by avoiding pain, but by overcomming it. To sanatise challenge is to sanatise victorious spirit. But Ring objects to the worthy aim, he thinks that...

that these individuals greatly esteemed many of their own behaviours - it was just that these behaviours were those the counsellors thought should be deplored

Deadly wrong. The self-esteem of a Hitler, Stalin or Capone is an entirely different proposition to that of a John Galt. Self-esteem requires that we be true to 'thine own self', not 'thine own empire', 'thine own power-base', 'thine own bank balance' or whatever else of the endless substitutes men have fabricated.

This 'self' is in all men, it is our common denominator beneath our individual personalities. It is objective: we all have the souls of the Aristotlean rational animal. We must be true to this and the moral code it implies. 'Self' is an objective concept, not a subjective one. It doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean and neither therefore does self-esteem.

It is no slight achievement to look oneself in the mirror without blinking. Men will bend over backwards and devise a hundred different evasions and fabrications which they will try to convince themselves and others into believing in as 'pride' and 'self-esteem'. Mr Ring sanctions this subjective appraisal.

Rationalism, which meant something quite different - that one can acquire true knowledge of the world simply through thought. Modern science has rejected this idea - and Rand largely rejected science

Quite wrong. There is room in this world for Sherlock Holmes and for Lord Rutherford of Nelson, the deductive and the inferential reasonings. They merely deal with specialised patterns of reality, they do not conflict with each other. Ayn Rand did not reject science except as being in any way primary in our cognition. Philosophy is primary and provides the basis for science to follow. True knowledge does come from simply through thought, such questions 'what is measurement' are needed before science can get underway so how could science be primary?

Post 6

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 10:34am

Hayden Wood writes: "Has he understood Branden's ideas? Can violence and the anti-competition measures in schools arise from a belief in too much self esteem?"

My answers to those questions are "no," and "no".

There is are major differences to consider when looking at Dr. Branden's work in the area of self-esteem, and what has been presented by the self-esteem movement as a whole, which has taken many dilutions and twists- some of which are as far as 180 degrees in opposition to Branden's positions.

The core of Branden's work lies in his definition of self-esteem as consisting of two primary components:

"Self-esteem is the experience of being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness. It consists of two components: 1) self-efficacy -- confidence in our ability to think, learn, choose, and make appropriate decisions; and 2) self-respect -- confidence in our right to be happy; and in the belief that achievement, success, friendship, respect, love and fulfillment are appropriate to us. " (Source: Nathaniel Branden website, http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ess12.html )

In over 3 decades of practice and research, he went on further to identify 6 "pillars" of practice which are essential in the development of healthy self-esteem.

The above information is not frequently referenced in other approaches to self-esteem.

In Branden's approach, one cannot develop "too much self-esteem," because that would not be self-esteem- it would be pseudo self-esteem, and that is an entirely different thing.

In the latter part of the article, the author brings up the possibility of Ayn Rand being the true originator of the self-esteem concept. This does not allow for the great significance of Dr. Branden's two primaries for self-esteem, the development of which is, if not completely proprietary, very damn close to it. How Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism (and Branden's work with her during its development) relate to self-esteem seems pretty obvious, from a general historical and developmental perspective; it is clearly foundational, alone because it is reason- and reality- based. That is significant enough. Historically, it seems clear that Ayn Rand thought for a time that psychology is a pseudo-science, although it also seems that later on she modified her views.

One thing that is very clear in Dr. Branden's approach to developing self-esteem: it requires effort, which is very different than putting up mirror frames in elementary school bathrooms telling students how special they are.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 6/02, 10:36am)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 6/02, 11:02am)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 6/02, 11:06am)

Post 7

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 5:44pm

Thank you all for your responses, they ar just what I was after. I suspected that since Mr Ring didn't understand Rand (or even really read her) that he probably didn't understand Branden either but was unsure how.

Sarah, good luck with your article.

Jason, thanks for your comments. I won't make you reread the article, but I'll read Branden's updated books.

Glenn, that Navigator article was brilliant, thanks for finding it.

Rick, long time no see indeed. Thanks for your comments.

Rich, thanks for your points and the link to Nathaniel Branden's website.

Hayden

Post 8

Friday, June 24, 2005 - 3:51pm

Not only is Rationalism, as Ring defines it, not Rand's, it's also not medieval. Rationalism came along in the 17th century, the classic example being Descarte's deduction of the external world from the fact of his consciousness.

Where does Ring get these dates?

Finally, "rational animal" wasn't Aristotle's definition of "man." His was "two-footed footed." I don't know of anyplace where he uses this phrase, as a definition or not.

Peter

Post 9

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 8:09am