About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The self-esteem industry Nathaniel Branden helped launch fosters unrealistic assessments of self and others:

The Bullshittery of Self-Esteem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98K0MbU20jI


Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 1:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well isn't that the goblin calling the snot cauldren green coming from a guy who's only sense of self worth is derived from a false sense of superiority based on race and so called racial IQ trends.

Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Having studied under Branden while doing my internship towards my therapist's license, I can say that he was appalled at the wide spread misunderstandings of what self-esteem is. His launch of self-esteem was clear, concise and comprehensive and he carries NO responsibility for the things people made up over the years. He published and spoke again and again to correct popular misconceptions. It is as wrong to tie Nathaniel Branden's name to misconceptions about self-esteem as it would be to tie Adam Smith's name to people's misconceptions about free markets.

The big push in the school system by politicians that were enamored of what they thought was self-esteem was well-intensioned but on the wrong track. It was based upon the idea that you or someone else can create self-esteem just using positive affirmations or self-descriptions. You can no more acquire self-esteem that way, then you could acquire muscles or lose weight by talking nice to yourself. Branden was always very clear about that. The studies that followed and indicted 'self-esteem' as a failed policy were based upon that misunderstanding of what self-esteem actually is.

The youtube video put up Trun-the-racist is just a cheap ad hominem attack on Branden. Trun's grasp of self-esteem is so thin as to be non-existent - he actually thinks that one can "have self-esteem even if it is a false appraisal of ones self." And he implies this is what Branden promoted.

He gets pretty wacky when he decides he has the knowledge or credentials to address the issue of self-esteem, declaring it to be a dangerous dissociation from reality and a tendency towards emotionalism. He drones on in his strange monotone telling us that it equates to narcissism, showing Trun's failure to understand even the most basic dynamics of personality structures or disorders.

Trun's abysmal video goes on to say that the people who report the highest self-esteem have the lowest education, lowest levels of achievement, most spousal abuse, etc. He doesn't tell you that the "measure" of self-esteem used for the 'study' was nothing more than a self-report. That's right, they asked people in prisons, schools, and elsewhere, to say if they thought they were worthy... or some such question and ranked them on a Likert scale. People who have no understanding of what self-esteem is, have no idea how to accurately measure how much self-esteem a subject possesses. Somehow it escapes Trun's attention that people who feel inferior often compensate by claiming to be better than they are, but that they don't believe it and their false claims certainly aren't evidence of real self-esteem.

After that the video devolved into a racial comparison of which race did what and my distaste level grew to high to make it worth continuing.
--------------------

I'd like to repeat that Brad Trun should be banned from RoR. He uses the site to pimp for his racist videos on Youtube and that's not appropriate.
--------------------

"Arrogance, boastfulness, and the overestimation of our abilities reflects underdeveloped self-esteem rather than, as some people imagine, too much self-esteem." Nathaniel Branden

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 12/16, 3:28pm)


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 4:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good responses, Jules and Steve.

Due to distaste, I have personally decided not to watch any more Brad Trun videos. However, keeping in mind that I don't run this site (or have any personal influence on those who do), I want to say that I don't like the idea of RoR banning anyone. I would rather that everyone personally made the choice whether to boycott someone, based on exposure to that person's ideas and communication techniques. Extreme outliers, such as someone who is obviously uncivil (e.g., "You are a f#$%-ing idiot!") are the obvious exception.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/16, 4:09pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 4:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

What about this: Restrict Trun to Dissent. Otherwise it is an invitation for racists, or nazis, or communists to use ROR to advertise their videos to the world without regard to the purpose or principles that ROR stands for.

(It isn't my site either, nor do I have any special influence with the owner, so, I'm just advocating and hoping)

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 4:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just to recap the basic theory of Branden contra pop culture as it relates to self-esteem, Branden argues that self-esteem must be earned via reason and productive purpose, not just "affirmed" with mantras chanted mindlessly. This is basically just the Objectivist ethics repeated in psychological rather than philosophical terms. Branden's work played an important role in the formation of the tri-quation advanced by FranklinCovey.

In fairness to the "affirmation" crowd, Objectivists will yield that one must at least have enough "seed" of self-esteem to value one's own life as one's own ultimate value to provide the motivation needed to choose to think and to choose to live.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/16, 4:35pm)


Post 6

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Branden treats self-esteem as a primary concept, when it (like all feelings) is derivative. He's an emotionalist and an idealist who wants people to believe that reading his books is key to attaining this thing called self-esteem. It's just a byproduct of one's own nature, circumstances, and choices. Should I suppose that since Nathaniel Branden is an author on self-esteem, he has more self-esteem than anyone who has never read self-esteem books? I think not.

I'd rather read a book called The Psychology of Accepting Reality. Anything inconsistent with reality and the concepts derived from it through reason is invalid philosophically and unnecessary psychologically.

The responses race equalitarians give when their views on race are challenged are plainly indicative of their emotionalist and idealist psychology. If positive claim X about race makes them feel uncomfortable or conflicts with their ideal of all races being innately equal, then positive claim X is transmuted into a normative claim in the mind of the reality evader so that the claim and the individual making it can be denounced via a moral rationalization that is irrelevant to the claim's objective truth or falsehood.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 5:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Trun writes, "Branden treats self-esteem as a primary concept, when it (like a feelings) is derivative."

This is too confused to be right or wrong. What is a "primary concept"? Deriviative of what?
------------

"He's an emotionalist and an idealist who wants people to believe that reading his books is key to attaining this thing called self-esteem."

Wrong.
------------

"It's just a byproduct of one's own nature, circumstances, and choices."

Wrong. It is the result of the way one uses ones consciousness (living consciously), and the choices made in the areas of personal integrity, personal responsibility, self-assertiveness, self-acceptance, and living purposely.
-------------

"Should I suppose that since Nathaniel Branden is an author on self-esteem, he has more self-esteem than anyone who has never read self-esteem books?"

What a stupid question. Self-esteem is what it is, regardless of what is written by any author. Branden's self-esteem is very healthy, and that certainly doesn't discredit what he says.
-------------

"I'd rather read a book called The Psychology of Accepting Reality. Anything inconsistent with reality and the concepts derived from it through reason is invalid philosophically and unnecessary psychologically."

If Trun-the-racist had actually read Branden he would know that two of the key pillars to self-esteem are "self-acceptance" which is about accepting the reality of ones short-comings, and "living consciously" which is about using your mind to grasp reality instead of avoiding or denying or rationalizing it.

Nothing that Branden has ever advocated would match up to being inconsisten with reality. Trun, in everything I've read, has no grasp of psychogy at all. And he is quite comfortable about saying things about Branden that are untrue.

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 5:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How's this for reality brad? You are a racist loser who will never go anywere in life unless you wake up and actually are able to start percieving objective reality. Until you do your world view will be colored through myopic lenses blaming everyone and everything that is in your own eyes inferior to your tainted mind. You will achieve nothing, produce nothing of value and live a bitter unfullfilled life.

Post 9

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 6:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

Just remember that new members can't even post "happy birthday" without an approval.   I'm hoping Dean will use as much discretion as I plan to when it comes to video links from members we aren't familiar with.

I don't mind the pimping so much as the ignorant disparagement's.  Thanks for the re-cap, Steve. I won't bother watching.





Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 7:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I restricted Brad to dissent a few days ago.  I assume that's why this was posted in dissent.

On the topic of self-esteem, I agree with Steve's posts.  The self-esteem fad pushed by schools is the opposite of Branden's concept of self-esteem.  Unfortunately Brad is not just uninformed on the topic, he is proudly ignorant.  Instead of offering a real analysis or a rational objection, he has only offered emotionalism.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm happy to hear Trun is restricted to dissent. That does seem like the best choice.

Post 12

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 10:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad,

If your evaluation of Branden's concept of self-esteem is any indication of the care you take in evaluating other issues like the significance of racial disparities in IQ, then I'm not surprised that people don't take you seriously. I had to laugh when I listened to your comments. Obviously, you didn't bother to read the very book that you were criticizing, because your comments have nothing to do with Branden's theory.

Talk about a straw man. Amazing, just amazing!

Post 13

Friday, December 16, 2011 - 10:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Typical of a small mind bill.
Hey brad drugs are bad mmmmmkaaaaayyy?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There's a difference between genuine self-esteem and pseudo self-esteem. What Brad is criticizing is pseudo self-esteem, whereas Branden is defending genuine self-esteem. Genuine self-esteem, which is based on a realistic assessment of one's own virtues and achievements, has to be earned. Pseudo self-esteem does not.

Pseudo self-esteem is what the racist experiences when he considers himself superior to the members of other races because the members of his own race have a greater number of accomplishments. He thinks, in effect, "I'm better than those black (or white) people because my (white or Asian) race has accomplished more than theirs." This is one of the very points that Rand makes in her essay on racism. The racist derives an unearned sense of pride or self-esteem from the achievements of other members of his race (country, tribe or family).

Not surprisingly, I didn't hear Brad criticize that view of self-esteem. ;-)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 12/17, 11:20am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 12:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William,

Psychological identity is another component of the package deal that comprises "racism" as the term is commonly used and abused. My views on race are an application of my own independent thinking on the subject. That's not the case for most people who espouse race equalitarianism, which is unfounded scientifically but reinforced socially and accorded the status of a pseudo-truth, not as a consequence of factual correctness but of political correctness. The person who succumbs to group-think in believing, without evidence, in innate equality because it feels good, is of a similar mindset as a person succumbs to group-think in believing, without evidence, in the superiority of his race because it feels good. I advocate objectivity.

As for my alleged mischaracterization of Branden, obviously any pseudo-Objectivist would advocate in words more than foundationless feel-good emotionalism. Overall, I think favorably of The Psychology of Self-Esteem. I don't care for his self-help books, which are more manipulative. Penn & Teller claim he inspired the failed "self-esteem industry" at schools. etc. I have no first-hand knowledge of the extent to which he did or approved of it. I claim he overemphasizes self-esteem and overestimates himself.

(Edited by Brad Trun on 12/17, 12:37pm)


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 2:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad wrote,
As for my alleged mischaracterization of Branden, obviously any pseudo-Objectivist would advocate in words more than foundationless feel-good emotionalism.
What is that supposed to mean? You did mischaracterize him.
Overall, I think favorably of The Psychology of Self-Esteem.
Then why did you equate his view with pseudo self-esteem? Are you now backtracking and withdrawing your original criticism?
I don't care for his self-help books, which are more manipulative. Penn & Teller claim he inspired the failed "self-esteem industry" at schools. etc.
Then Penn & Teller didn't read him either.
I have no first-hand knowledge of the extent to which he did or approved of it.
You would if you bothered to read the very book that you now claim to "think favorably of."

Post 17

Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 4:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William,

By way of analogy, you can't hold Marx entirely blameless for Stalinism just because the Communist Manifesto didn't specifically call for mass killings. Branden planted some seeds for the institutionalized emphasis on self-esteem. How much blame he deserves for how self-esteem has been wrongly promoted to artificially inflate egos and self-importance, I do not know. At least some blame, I suspect.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 4:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Trun, your analogy is bizarre and wrong.

Let's say that Jefferson was the first to explain certain forms of political freedom. Does that mean he is to blame in any way if FDR abused the concept of freedom to promote an idea of redistribution to give people "freedom" from hunger?

If some nut job says that gravity is the cause of alcoholism, does that mean Newton was partially to blame for the wrong idea about gravity?

That thinking is just weird.

Branden NEVER associated self-esteem with the foolish feel-good positive affirmations that were implemented in schools.

You continue to attack Branden without knowing what he said - shame on you for that.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 4:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A personal reply to Joe, a reflection on SOLO, and an analysis of efforts to thwart reasoned discourse on RoR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6k2LLJTTD4


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.