What has always puzzled me about statements about self-esteem is that it's never seemed, in my case, to be remotely consistent over time. My self-esteem fluctuates wildly depending on the statements of others, my apparently random moods, my physical health, my stress levels, and what I had for breakfast. If the study is right, does that mean I should tell myself nice things when I've just gotten a compliment and feel pretty happy and don't have a cold or too much work and I just ate a stack of pancakes? Or will those statements backfire on me the next time I get a poor grade on a paper or too much work for my energy level?
What has always puzzled me about statements about self-esteem is that it's never seemed, in my case, to be remotely consistent over time.
Same here... I seem to believe that I'm both a genius and an idiot, that I'm both good at Magic and bad at Magic, and many other such apparent contradictions.
From the NHS Behind the Headlines blog:
Something about the hypothesis sounds familiar:
What do you think? Is this plausible, or is it an attempt to shoehorn one of those trendy heuristics-and-biases-related hypotheses into a study on self-esteem? If you accept the validity of the study and its conclusion, does it influence LW's Rationalists Should Win self-help philosophy? What if it is literally true that some people are more lovable and some less, and that this has unavoidable effects on self-esteem? Do low self-esteem rationalists need different techniques from those with high self-esteem?