On the propositon that ‘knowing that you are confused is essential for learning’ there is a structural equation model, tested empirically on 200+ subjects, that concludes that the ability of knowing-that-you-don’t-understand is an essential prerequisite for learning, in the sense that people who have that ability learn much better than those who do not. Three other individual difference variables are also involved, but only come into play after the person realizes that they don’t understand something. Its called ‘Learning from instructional text: Test of an individual differences model’ and is in the Journal of Educational Psychology (1998), 90, 476-491.
Another well-known study was of students learning a computer language from a computer tutoring program, in which all their keystrokes during learning were captured for analysis, and the biggest correlation with successful learning was the number of times they pushed a button labeled ‘I don’t understand.’ (John Anderson’s of Carnegie-Mellon)
Another famous result was from the notorious California State Legislature-mandated study of self-esteem: in high school seniors, i it was found that students with the highest self-esteem when they graduated—they thought they already knew everything—were those with the lowest self esteem the next year—they couldn’t keep a job because—they thought they already knew everything.
The problem with self esteem is that you need a middling amount. Too little can lead to depression, too much can lead to narcissism and intractable ignorance.
Too little can lead to depression, too much can lead to narcissism and intractable ignorance.
Yes, and to make this more concrete, there are studies which show that since the self-esteem movement has grown, college students have become much more narcissistic. See
this article.
There’s also conflicting data about how criminality and self-esteem correlate. With some metrics self-esteem is inversely correlated with criminality but under other metrics it is postiively correlated. The positive correlation seems to win out when looks at repeat violent offenders. See 1, 2, 3 ,4. That last source is an extensive review of the literature on self-esteem and violent behavior, and suggests that a fair number of the studies which show an inverse correlation have methodological flaws or other problems. They make what seems to be a strong case that the correlation is actually positive ( I haven’t read most of the sources they cite).
That article reads like it has a very large political axe to grind. While empathy may have decreased due to some large-scale social changes, blaming the “self-esteem movement” is confusing correlation with causation. I’d be curious to know, for instance, if people in urban communities score lower empathy than people in rural communities.
It seems reasonable that a lack of empathy and grandiosity would be associated with violent behavior, but I don’t think it’s meaningful to call this “self-esteem” or blame a movement that tries to make people feel better about themselves. There’s a problem with your measure of self-esteem if it correlates with not being able to admit when you’re wrong: that shouldn’t be called self-esteem! A secure person is more likely to admit when they’re wrong.
The survey in the first article measures empathy; I don’t see the self-esteem surveys anywhere, but that last link says
it may be more correct to say that a form of high self-esteem—more precisely, a highly favorable and possibly inflated view of self that is confronted with an external threat—leads to violence.
That final article also refers to ‘egotistical’ and ‘arrogant’ as terms of “high self-esteem”. While it makes sense that egotistical and arrogant people may be more likely to be violent, it’s highly misleading to call that having high self-esteem. The article seems to be talking more about lacking the ability to react well to criticism, which sounds more like low self-esteem, not high. (That final article does note that many of the scales that measure self-esteem may be biased either negatively or positively.)
(Edited to make clear which article I mean in the last paragraph.)
While it makes sense that egotistical and arrogant people may be more likely to be violent, it’s highly misleading to call that having high self-esteem. The article seems to be talking more about lacking the ability to react well to criticism, which sounds more like low self-esteem, not high.
So, the once standard explanation of bullying was “they have low self-esteem, and do it to feel better about themselves.” This is not an explanation that plays well with actual bullies. The better explanation is “their self-esteem is higher than it should be, and they need to use violence to make up the gap.” If I think I’m level 6, but really I’m level 4, it makes sense to say my self esteem is high (too high), and whenever someone criticizes me I’ll blow up because to me it looks like they’re trying to reduce my status from level 6 to 4 (even if they just wanted to fix my spelling this one time and don’t know who I am).
People with low self esteem (you’re level 4, but think you’re level 2) aren’t likely to be violent because they don’t have anything to protect / uphold by that violence. If you criticize them, you’re reinforcing their low-status view, not contradicting it.
I think of self-esteem as a thermometer. It’s a measure of something (Your value as a person? More narrowly, your deserved social status?) A thermometer should be high when it’s hot out, and low when it’s cold.
So should someone who is a famous scientist or entrepreneur have high self-esteem? Definitely. If they don’t, they’re doing something wrong.
But for the same reasons, a 14-year-old who is an idiot and bullies other kids should not be very proud of himself, and should instead be trying to change himself into something worth being proud of.
I think of self-esteem as a thermometer. It’s a measure of something (Your value as a person? More narrowly, your deserved social status?)
What do you mean by “deserved” social status? Status is decided by those that grant it. And if people decide to grant status to Joe because Joe coerces them to, Joe’s status is granted by his peers and thus deserved. That is, self-esteem is your vision of the esteem others give you.
Now, is Joe someone you or I would like to be around? No. But that doesn’t mean he has low self-esteem, or that he isn’t proud of himself.
Along slightly different lines, look at self-esteem as self-description. If I describe myself as “good-looking,” and someone points out that my ears are grotesquely large, that will conflict with my self-description. If I describe myself as “bad-looking,” the same comment with reinforce my self-description. If I describe myself as “assertive” and someone cuts in front of me, in order to maintain that description I need to rebuke them. If I describe myself as “submissive,” then when someone cuts in front of me I might sigh, but if I do more it’ll conflict with the self-description.
Typically, when converting self-description to self-esteem, one would say that good-looking is higher than bad-looking, and assertive is higher than submissive. A bully halts criticism and commands respect- the features of being held in high esteem- but obtains that esteem through violence and domination. At each instant, when someone is deciding how to respond to praise or an insult, they don’t have time to run a calculation of which response will work better for them: they consult their self-esteem and see if what’s happening matches what they expect to happen.
When I say “deserved”, I mean MORALLY deserved. And yes, this is a shorthand for a mind-bogglingly complex set of concepts… but the same goes for most words. If you really want to get into what sort of characteristics would make one deserving of social status, we could do that; but I really think it’s a waste of time.
It should really be enough to point out some obvious examples where actual status does not equal deserved status. Alan Turing deserved more social status than he had: After making some of the most important contributions to scientific knowledge in history and at the same time helping to literally save the world from fascism, he was driven to suicide in prison after being chemically castrated. Donald Trump has more social status than he deserves: He is a famous billionaire and TV star even though he is an incompetent narcissist born into wealth who has never made a real contribution to humanity in his life.
It should really be enough to point out some obvious examples where actual status does not equal deserved status.
If you couldn’t use the word “deserved,” could you still write this sentence? Easily: “Here are some examples of people that I hold in higher or lower esteem than I think society in general holds them.”
You could gloss it that way, but you’d miss something very important: I think I’m RIGHT to do so. I don’t think it’s just some subjective esteem that I randomly happen to hold for some people over others. I think that it is IRRATIONAL to esteem Donald Trump (and yes, I think that most people are irrational; why else would I be on Less Wrong?).
Do capitalized words, and the confidence they represent, result in a more precise map of the territory? Or do they convince us to draw our map to suit them, rather than to suit the lay of the land?
That’s a very good point. Part of the issue may be connected to the fact that no one seems to have an agreed definition of self-esteem. You seem to be doing the same thing here when you say “There’s a problem with your measure of self-esteem if it correlates with not being able to admit when you’re wrong: that shouldn’t be called self-esteem!” We need to be careful to not argue over definitions.
Yes, tabooing “self-esteem” might be useful. Knowing when you’re confused, being able to admit when you’re wrong, and being able to handle criticism are important characteristics that I value, and these characteristics seem to be tied to learning.
I would suspect that these characteristics are associated with having a stable sense of your own value: that last article mentions a study that associates high and stable self-esteem with being less violent, but high and unstable self-esteem with being more violent.
My understanding is that the ‘self-esteem movement’ tends to go for relentless, effectively information-free affirmations, based on an ideology that people need to be told they’ve done a good job whether or not they actually have. Handing out halos like nametags, in other words. It is not hard for me to imagine that such a thing could lead to unwillingness to accept criticism, in the same sense that obsessively sheltering children from any possible irritant leads to allergies.
It is certainly more ideal for a person to have high self esteem and also the security to admit fallibility, but the two are not mutually exclusive. Self esteem is exactly what it sounds like—how highly a person values themselves regardless if their belief is justified in the right context, morally or not (What Vaniver says goes into this better). Self esteem that is incongruent with reality or the context is the issue here, which is why programs that simply seek to boost self esteem without also teaching proper skills that can justify high self esteem can create narcissistic individuals. Your comment below identifies this by indicating instability.
This also means that being unable to react well to criticism does not indicate low self esteem—you cannot assume a connection, let alone directionality based on your purported view of self esteem.
Its called ‘Learning from instructional text: Test of an individual differences model’ and is in the Journal of Educational Psychology (1998), 90, 476-491.
On the propositon that ‘knowing that you are confused is essential for learning’ there is a structural equation model, tested empirically on 200+ subjects, that concludes that the ability of knowing-that-you-don’t-understand is an essential prerequisite for learning, in the sense that people who have that ability learn much better than those who do not. Three other individual difference variables are also involved, but only come into play after the person realizes that they don’t understand something. Its called ‘Learning from instructional text: Test of an individual differences model’ and is in the Journal of Educational Psychology (1998), 90, 476-491.
Another well-known study was of students learning a computer language from a computer tutoring program, in which all their keystrokes during learning were captured for analysis, and the biggest correlation with successful learning was the number of times they pushed a button labeled ‘I don’t understand.’ (John Anderson’s of Carnegie-Mellon)
Another famous result was from the notorious California State Legislature-mandated study of self-esteem: in high school seniors, i it was found that students with the highest self-esteem when they graduated—they thought they already knew everything—were those with the lowest self esteem the next year—they couldn’t keep a job because—they thought they already knew everything.
The problem with self esteem is that you need a middling amount. Too little can lead to depression, too much can lead to narcissism and intractable ignorance.
Yes, and to make this more concrete, there are studies which show that since the self-esteem movement has grown, college students have become much more narcissistic. See this article.
There’s also conflicting data about how criminality and self-esteem correlate. With some metrics self-esteem is inversely correlated with criminality but under other metrics it is postiively correlated. The positive correlation seems to win out when looks at repeat violent offenders. See 1, 2, 3 ,4. That last source is an extensive review of the literature on self-esteem and violent behavior, and suggests that a fair number of the studies which show an inverse correlation have methodological flaws or other problems. They make what seems to be a strong case that the correlation is actually positive ( I haven’t read most of the sources they cite).
That article reads like it has a very large political axe to grind. While empathy may have decreased due to some large-scale social changes, blaming the “self-esteem movement” is confusing correlation with causation. I’d be curious to know, for instance, if people in urban communities score lower empathy than people in rural communities.
It seems reasonable that a lack of empathy and grandiosity would be associated with violent behavior, but I don’t think it’s meaningful to call this “self-esteem” or blame a movement that tries to make people feel better about themselves. There’s a problem with your measure of self-esteem if it correlates with not being able to admit when you’re wrong: that shouldn’t be called self-esteem! A secure person is more likely to admit when they’re wrong.
The survey in the first article measures empathy; I don’t see the self-esteem surveys anywhere, but that last link says
That final article also refers to ‘egotistical’ and ‘arrogant’ as terms of “high self-esteem”. While it makes sense that egotistical and arrogant people may be more likely to be violent, it’s highly misleading to call that having high self-esteem. The article seems to be talking more about lacking the ability to react well to criticism, which sounds more like low self-esteem, not high. (That final article does note that many of the scales that measure self-esteem may be biased either negatively or positively.)
(Edited to make clear which article I mean in the last paragraph.)
So, the once standard explanation of bullying was “they have low self-esteem, and do it to feel better about themselves.” This is not an explanation that plays well with actual bullies. The better explanation is “their self-esteem is higher than it should be, and they need to use violence to make up the gap.” If I think I’m level 6, but really I’m level 4, it makes sense to say my self esteem is high (too high), and whenever someone criticizes me I’ll blow up because to me it looks like they’re trying to reduce my status from level 6 to 4 (even if they just wanted to fix my spelling this one time and don’t know who I am).
People with low self esteem (you’re level 4, but think you’re level 2) aren’t likely to be violent because they don’t have anything to protect / uphold by that violence. If you criticize them, you’re reinforcing their low-status view, not contradicting it.
I think of self-esteem as a thermometer. It’s a measure of something (Your value as a person? More narrowly, your deserved social status?) A thermometer should be high when it’s hot out, and low when it’s cold.
So should someone who is a famous scientist or entrepreneur have high self-esteem? Definitely. If they don’t, they’re doing something wrong.
But for the same reasons, a 14-year-old who is an idiot and bullies other kids should not be very proud of himself, and should instead be trying to change himself into something worth being proud of.
What do you mean by “deserved” social status? Status is decided by those that grant it. And if people decide to grant status to Joe because Joe coerces them to, Joe’s status is granted by his peers and thus deserved. That is, self-esteem is your vision of the esteem others give you.
Now, is Joe someone you or I would like to be around? No. But that doesn’t mean he has low self-esteem, or that he isn’t proud of himself.
Along slightly different lines, look at self-esteem as self-description. If I describe myself as “good-looking,” and someone points out that my ears are grotesquely large, that will conflict with my self-description. If I describe myself as “bad-looking,” the same comment with reinforce my self-description. If I describe myself as “assertive” and someone cuts in front of me, in order to maintain that description I need to rebuke them. If I describe myself as “submissive,” then when someone cuts in front of me I might sigh, but if I do more it’ll conflict with the self-description.
Typically, when converting self-description to self-esteem, one would say that good-looking is higher than bad-looking, and assertive is higher than submissive. A bully halts criticism and commands respect- the features of being held in high esteem- but obtains that esteem through violence and domination. At each instant, when someone is deciding how to respond to praise or an insult, they don’t have time to run a calculation of which response will work better for them: they consult their self-esteem and see if what’s happening matches what they expect to happen.
When I say “deserved”, I mean MORALLY deserved. And yes, this is a shorthand for a mind-bogglingly complex set of concepts… but the same goes for most words. If you really want to get into what sort of characteristics would make one deserving of social status, we could do that; but I really think it’s a waste of time.
It should really be enough to point out some obvious examples where actual status does not equal deserved status. Alan Turing deserved more social status than he had: After making some of the most important contributions to scientific knowledge in history and at the same time helping to literally save the world from fascism, he was driven to suicide in prison after being chemically castrated. Donald Trump has more social status than he deserves: He is a famous billionaire and TV star even though he is an incompetent narcissist born into wealth who has never made a real contribution to humanity in his life.
If you couldn’t use the word “deserved,” could you still write this sentence? Easily: “Here are some examples of people that I hold in higher or lower esteem than I think society in general holds them.”
You could gloss it that way, but you’d miss something very important: I think I’m RIGHT to do so. I don’t think it’s just some subjective esteem that I randomly happen to hold for some people over others. I think that it is IRRATIONAL to esteem Donald Trump (and yes, I think that most people are irrational; why else would I be on Less Wrong?).
Do capitalized words, and the confidence they represent, result in a more precise map of the territory? Or do they convince us to draw our map to suit them, rather than to suit the lay of the land?
That’s a very good point. Part of the issue may be connected to the fact that no one seems to have an agreed definition of self-esteem. You seem to be doing the same thing here when you say “There’s a problem with your measure of self-esteem if it correlates with not being able to admit when you’re wrong: that shouldn’t be called self-esteem!” We need to be careful to not argue over definitions.
Yes, tabooing “self-esteem” might be useful. Knowing when you’re confused, being able to admit when you’re wrong, and being able to handle criticism are important characteristics that I value, and these characteristics seem to be tied to learning.
I would suspect that these characteristics are associated with having a stable sense of your own value: that last article mentions a study that associates high and stable self-esteem with being less violent, but high and unstable self-esteem with being more violent.
My understanding is that the ‘self-esteem movement’ tends to go for relentless, effectively information-free affirmations, based on an ideology that people need to be told they’ve done a good job whether or not they actually have. Handing out halos like nametags, in other words. It is not hard for me to imagine that such a thing could lead to unwillingness to accept criticism, in the same sense that obsessively sheltering children from any possible irritant leads to allergies.
It is certainly more ideal for a person to have high self esteem and also the security to admit fallibility, but the two are not mutually exclusive. Self esteem is exactly what it sounds like—how highly a person values themselves regardless if their belief is justified in the right context, morally or not (What Vaniver says goes into this better). Self esteem that is incongruent with reality or the context is the issue here, which is why programs that simply seek to boost self esteem without also teaching proper skills that can justify high self esteem can create narcissistic individuals. Your comment below identifies this by indicating instability.
This also means that being unable to react well to criticism does not indicate low self esteem—you cannot assume a connection, let alone directionality based on your purported view of self esteem.
I have a copy of this if anyone wants it.