June 08, 2005

you're special

There's been a lot of serendipity in things I've been reading on the web lately. Sometimes things reinforce each other, sometimes they contradict. It's easy to see the connections, a lot harder to come to any useful conclusions. But here's what I've seen today.

An article in USA Today tells of a program designed for Girl Scouts to improve self-esteem of 8 to 14-year olds, in which the girls create a "Me-O-Meter" for each to show how "awesome" she is. I do see a small problem with the Girl Scouts' program, in that most other studies I've seen say that it's after puberty that girls, especially, tend to begin to think worse of themselves. I haven't seen evidence one way or the other about whether gains in self-esteem in childhood persist through adolescence and into adulthood. Still, it's the younger girls they get to work with, and you have to start somewhere.

A larger problem is whether the program will do any good. The article goes on to quote a study in Scientific American ("Exploding the Self-Esteem Myth.") The authors found pretty much no correlation between self-esteem and success academically, on the job, or in love. They also found no connection between the hgher self-opinions of people with higher self-esteem and objective rankings. (That is, people with higher self-esteem are more likely to describe themselves as attractive or popular, neither of which correlate with objective reality. They conclude,

"We have found little to indicate that indiscriminately promoting self-esteem in today's children or adults, just for being themselves, offers society any compensatory benefits beyond the seductive pleasure it brings to those engaged in the exercise."

It's easy enough to find anecdotal evidence that there really is a lack of self-esteem in adults. When a large number of people find it difficult to think of a mere three positive things to say about their own bodies, it's hard not to think something is wrong. Also, the authors of that study did find one correlation: people with higher self-esteem tend to be happier.

It's "indiscriminate promoting of self-esteem" the Scientific American article decries. Helping people who actually have a problem isn't indiscriminate. Neither is wanting to help your friends think as much of themselves as you do of them - and maybe come a little closer to happiness in the process.

Come to think of it, I like Mr. Rogers's approach too. I think he might have liked blogs, with their capability to show that other people have some of the same doubts and oddities you thought only you did.

Please don't think it's funny, when you want an extra kiss, There are lots and lots of people who sometimes feel like this.
Posted by dichroic at June 8, 2005 02:00 PM
Comments

You know, there's a difference between self-esteem and sheer arrogance, though. I'll have to look at that article more carefully, but I would think that having good self-esteem would certainly play into one's successes in life, be they in terms of employment or love or whatever. Confidence is derived from self esteem, and confidence is an attractive thing to people. Deluded vanity, on the other hand, attracts no one except the face looking back at you from the mirror.

Posted by: swoop at June 8, 2005 02:35 PM

I think self-esteem, or a lack thereof, comes more from person's relationships with others (particularly parents), as opposed to academic or work-related success. I think programs such as those described in the USA Today article do more harm to our children than good. I know a young adult who grew up getting trophies and awards because "everyone is special" and she has horrible self-esteem. I believe some of that has to do with the fact she was never required to engage with others, make a decision, face a fear or rely on herself. She stuggles to do these things now and her self-esteem is finally increasing. It's not good to throw your kids to the wolves, but excessive coddling is just the opposite end of that same spectrum and often has similar results.

Posted by: Cruel-Irony at June 8, 2005 03:19 PM

Umm...what age do you think of as pubescent? Because I hit puberty (or it hit me) like a freight train at 9-10. Very few girls are not at least in the throes of it by 14. So it seems like 8-to-14 is about ideal as well as being GSUSA's main demographic.

Posted by: Mris at June 8, 2005 04:07 PM


Being an Alky in recovery I have found that even hugs between the same sex folks are good.

Everybody getting a prize or award if baloney as far as I can see. I have attended children's parties where everyone got a prize and heard someone say, "Don't matter whether you try or not, you still get a prize."

Posted by: Denver doug at June 8, 2005 04:53 PM

For me, lack of self-esteem was a Yoda thing. 'Do or do not do, there is no try.' I only did things I knew I could do. Actually, only things I could ACE. It was (sometimes still is) very hard for me to try something I'm not sure I'd do well right away. So I think a healthy self-esteem allows people to give new things a whack because it doesn't destroy them to not succeed right away.

And you know how I feel about all this rah-rah crap. What reason to strive for excellence if you get a medal for just showing up? ~LA

Posted by: LA at June 8, 2005 05:55 PM

I have enormous self-esteem (some might say too much) and I couldn't think of three good things to say about my body. I can give you one: It works surpisingly well given how I treat it.

Posted by: at June 9, 2005 11:16 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?