In fact, I would say that if you don't start out with a decent amount of self-esteem it's about impossible to build back up.
I guess I'm not a good representative if this is true on average. I'm not experienced enough with psychology/neurology to actually suggest anything. On the other hand I could but it's not that the odds are against me, they're totally unknown to me.
I would say at least in cursory observations of people that is true, but then I also think there is environmental considerations. Broken people tend to hang out together creating a greater case for it. Well-adjusted people tend to hang out with like people. I'm sure that if I were a totally well-adjusted person and hung out with less damaged souls then I would have an idea of it being far lower or very exceptional. Whereas, because I tend to hang out with people that have similar backgrounds to my own it seems higher. Its the fish tank effect.
I wanted to post a comment about my disagreement with many "self-[stuff]" concepts, that are so commonly appear in various self-help media. I consider them extremely harmful. To me, those concepts are on the same plane as any spiritual stuff.
But I can't really write a more detailed comment than the paragraph above because.. I never really thought about self-esteem before I heard the word and subsequently the definition. From what I see though, it's seemingly a never ending maze of finding something.. but.. I can't be sure of what to find and where to find it. There's a very noticeable lack of clarity, as if magic is supposed to happen by invoking certain rituals. At least it's how the self-help books describe it. In practical terms, I seem to lack any perception of self-esteem.
Does anyone else share the same sentiment?
Self-esteem is just how you think about yourself and how you view your interaction with the world as well as the conceptions you have of yourself that make up your internal dialogue about yourself. It is deeply cultural and is also based on a host of things like how you grew up, your perceived gender, and much more. If you don't have a very high opinion of yourself it can be hell to raise it. In fact, I would say that if you don't start out with a decent amount of self-esteem it's about impossible to build back up. Indeed the old saying goes, "It's easier to raise quality kids than fix broken adults."
If you're really honest about your willingness to be rational, it seems like this could be kind of depressing.
We aren't always rational, we do things that make us comfortable and keep us safe and able to function. I think if we died our ego and super ego to rationality we all might as well have a mass suicide party and go together because that's about the mood we would all be in.
I think this stems from the idea that, "I'm ok" which is the basis of most people's conception of themselves. As long as they are, "OK" then their opinions stem from that simple idea. In order to change that you have to give them something compelling that will leave them being "OK" (or safe) but will modulate their opinion on things. It really has to do with what motivates people and how they look at the world around them. Then, you have to meet them where they are in their experience. I can deliver a message 9 different ways and get 9 different responses. At scale that's huge. This is why we have so many channels and so many ways of saying the same thing. I know people that will never like black people because they got harassed in highschool. Look at how insular the techworld is to non-tech people and people of color. Think about communities where people focus on personal development and advancement. All in all, none of this will change until you understand what motivates people and make your argument align with where they live and realize that there are some people that will never change because to give up their beliefs means that they might die/not exist in their private internal space of, "I'm ok."
My mother would rather keep her prinicples of being against homosexuality than accept her son for who I am. That's just life.
I think I've caused enough kerfluffles around here that many people know me but I'm Cameron. I've been on the site almost a year I think. BA and MA in Political Science. I have a regular interest in philosophy and I found out about the site from a disparaging article on Slate.com. I'm one of the weird spiritual people on her practicing western esoterica. In the past I've worked in media and PR. Currently, I'm a novelist in Tacoma, WA, USA and host of The Cameron Cowan Show, every monday and friday on youtube (fresh shows in August!) For more information, clips and All The News You Need To Know In 10 Minutes or Less (and why you should care about it), see me at CameronCowan.net! Thanks for reading!
Let me approach this from another angle. I've been playing the flute since I was 5. Counting the several competitions and the 5 hours a day I used to practice. I've spent more than 10K hours. I probably passed that when I was 12 or 13. I've now gotten to the place where I can go for a few weeks at a time and then pick up the flute and be able to play it with aplomb and ease without degradation in skill. Learning does take a long time and even though music is/was still my life, it can be a slog and there isn't really a faster way to do it especially on very complicated things (like being a novelist) because of the nature of forging the new pathways in our brains.
In my mind this is a great argument for broad-based classical education that touches on a variety of subjects and lets students then specialize in a field of study. It gets your brain ready for learning, gives you plenty of knowledge and helps you with your communication skills so that you can do what I do: explain really complicated things to a general audience. It also gives you the chance to speak knowledgeably with other knowledge brokers. In some ways, that is what our society has lost with excess specialization. Look at this site, how many people would benefit from a holistic education in philosophy but are unwilling to put in the hours and study it takes to learn about the conundrums of philosophy?
I think is a great argument for broad education.
I'm glad you're talking about this because I spent a good deal of Highschool (age about 15-18) working on how I related with people and social situations and now I do it with aplomb, grace, and ease. Very good!
I've never studied any branch of ethics, maybe stumbling across something on Wikipedia now and then. Would I be out of my depth reading a metaethics textbook without having read books about the other branches of ethics? It also looks like logic must play a significant role in metaethics given its purpose, so in that regard I should say that I'm going through Lepore's Meaning and Argument right now.
Oxford's Rhetoric could be helpful in this area.
Tell us about your feed reader of choice.
I've been using Feedly since Google Reader went away, and has enough faults (buggy interface, terrible bookmarking, awkward phone app that needs to be online all the time) to motivate me towards a new one. Any recommendations?
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
I think it's generally a good thing to try diet and exercise before having one's manhood removed for a longer life. And according to your data, it wouldn't do most of us much good on account of the fact that a majority, if not all, of the men on this site are already well past puberty. However, this was an interesting journey.