The Bogus Feel/Think Continuum — What’s Wrong with Self Esteem?

“Self-Esteem produces praise junkies.”

What?  Can he say that in class?  Why, that’s academic blasphemy!  Who would dare attack self-esteem.  Isn’t it a foregone conclusion that self-esteem is good and that people with high self-esteem succeed while people with low self-esteem fail?

That was the first time that I ever heard Self-Esteem, the quasi-holy icon of pop-psychology, publicly criticized.  Even more astonishing was that the criticism came from a psychologist.  For years I had come to believe, mostly through observation, that confident people perform better than insecure people.  I mistakenly correlated confidence with self-esteem.  They are not the same thing.  For several weeks after class that day I poured through all of the literature I could get my hands on.  I argued with the professor in question and several others until I ran out of arguments, then I would formulate some more.  If Dr. Williams grew tired of my objections, it didn’t show.  He was patient and generous.  “Ha,” I thought to myself, “here is a guy with very high Self-Esteem who is criticizing Self-Esteem.  How ironic is that?”

My Self-Esteem literature searches led me to several places including a book by Maureen Stout, Ph.D, The Feel-Good Curriculum–The Dumbing Down of America’s Kids in the Name of Self-Esteem.  Here is the problem, which is still not the main topic of this blog:  Sydney J. Harris wrote,

“The whole purpose of education is to turn mirrors into windows.”

The Self-Esteem movement is a mirror cleaning, enhancing and multiplying activity.  Windows yield achievement, confidence, compassion, leadership and vision.  By their very nature, they are outward-looking, away from Self.  One of the problems is that Think and Feel have been viewed as opposite ends of a continuum.

The continuum is bogus.  A quadrant is a more accurate and clearer representation.

The critical missing element to the quadrant view is morality which would require another graph dimension.  Many world leaders, future and past, find themselves in the upper-right quadrant.  Morality makes them great; immorality makes them infamous.  The third dimension will have to be treated in another blog.

The fact is that you cannot get to the upper-right quadrant without Think Education and Think Education is incomplete without exposure to logic.  This blog is a cheap plug for my book, Joseph Spider and the Fallacy Farm. It will expose you,  your children and your grand children to logic in a unique and accessible way.  You can order the book here at Summalogica for $14.97 plus shipping or you can order it on Amazon.  Amazon will be lowering their price on the book to $15.95 by the end of the day (I hope).

Abused Women and the Anecdotal Fallacy

“You don’t like it because you are not a romantic.”

“Oh, I’m romantic all right!  Remember last year when I bought you the roses that were half price?  Seriously, how many men do you know that watch both the A&E and the other version of Pride and Prejudice on a regular basis?  Don’t tell me I’m not romantic.”

This exchange came after I finally succumbed to the pressure to watch Twilight.  Based on everything I had read about Twilight, there was little chance that I would walk away a fan.  But then again, I went to Napoleon Dynamite expecting a flop and ended up leaving the theater with sore cheeks and a sore stomach from laughing so hard.  I think I shook seats for several rows around me.  I snorted and blew snot bubbles from uncontrollable spats of laughter.  It wasn’t my pride or prejudice going in that doomed Twilight.  It was a potentially life-altering logical fallacy that has the potential to make young girls future abuse victims.

The fallacy is the Anecdotal Fallacy.  Basically, the fallacy is committed when immediate or more emotional evidence is given greater weight in an argument than what may be mountainous evidence supporting the opposite or another position.  The famous description used is the Volvo versus Saab dilemma.  Suppose that you need a new car and after weeks of research, you have narrowed your choice down to either a Saab or a Volvo.  After more methodical study, the Volvo is the clear choice.  You have read hundreds of magazine and customer reviews and nearly all of them indicate that the Volvo is the better choice.  You decide to buy a Volvo the next day.  That night, you attend a social gathering and you excitedly tell a friend of the family about your decision and your research.  The friend says, “Oh, NO!  Don’t buy the Volvo.  My sister bought a Volvo and it was nothing but trouble.  She ended up selling it for parts after three years of ownership.”  In the morning, you ignore the mountain of evidence, and because of hearing your friend’s experience, you go to the Saab dealership and buy the Saab.

The Twilight Anecdotal Fallacy

For most abuse situations, there was ample evidence that abuse was statistically probable long before there was any commitment or involvement between the victim and the perpetrator.  A friend recently told me of her aunt who was getting involved with a man who had a history of abusing women.  When confronted about the statistical likelihood that she would become a victim of abuse, her aunt said, “He would never do that to me.  It’s different between us.”  As you read this, ask yourself how this is going to end for the aunt.  Let me add some more evidence.  The man was incarcerated for abuse in the past, and he has shoved some of the female relatives of the aunt.  If you conclude from the evidence that there is a high statistical probability that the aunt will be abused, you are correct.  Mountains of evidence point to a high probability of abuse, yet the aunt is sure that she is can escape high statistical probabilities.  Everyone thinks they are the exception.  The affliction of supposed clairvoyance born of emotional connection is hardly a teenage-only malady.

Bella and Edward

Here is Bella’s evidence: Edward has killed humans in the past.  The taste of human blood is the only thing that really satisfies.  Her blood is beyond delicious and Edward has said that he may not be able to stop himself if he gets a taste.  He has warned her to stay away from him.  He has told her that he is dangerous.  He is exciting.

At one point in the dialogue between the two she is asked, “Are you afraid?”  Her response is, “No.”  Somehow, in spite of the evidence that she should be afraid, the only evidence that mattered was, “He is exciting.”

It’s a story.  Who really cares?

In the bedroom of one of my friend’s daughters (she’s 13) hangs a poster of Edward over her headboard.  If the light from her window hits the poster just right, you can see several good-night kiss marks on Edward’s face.  Edward will come along someday.  He always does.  The dangerous thing for my friend’s daughter is that Edward, true to form, will be problematic.  He may be violent, addicted to substances or media or have multiple other vices, and he will be exciting.  When he comes along, she will recognize him as Edward and will respond like Bella, “I’m not afraid.  He wouldn’t hurt me; I just know it.”

The antidote for the Anecdotal Fallacy is logic training.  Imagine a father/daughter, mother/daughter discussion where both parent and child could intelligently discuss fallacies and their application.  They could both watch the movie, recognize the fallacy and then enjoy the movie for its entertainment value (if any).  Later, when Edward comes courting, he is seen for what he is and will have to continue his search elsewhere.

Crystal Ball — The Future of Learning

I’m taking a break from my normal Teen Fallacy blog due to a conversation I had with my wife over dinner last night.  For the last several weeks I have immersed myself in what I perceive are mega trends in learning.  I was lamenting the fact that although I would grade my teaching at the university high on a curve, I would have to grade my instruction low on an absolute standard.  Said another way, I get good interaction from students.  I watch for yawns, and other signs of boredom or confusion and I am able to change direction, modify my approach and get everyone reengaged.  That is above average performance.  However, when compared to what the offering could be, my performance is woefully inadequate.  I told my wife that the standard text book/professor model of education is losing ground and is in serious jeopardy of becoming obsolete.  The model looks like this:

I stand before the class and transmit what I know about a given topic in the form of a lecture.  The book author, who knows more than I do, intends to transmit her knowledge to the students.  Both I and the book author make attempts at interaction.  An accreditation team comes in at the university’s behest, collects a fee and blesses the educational delivery according to non-market driven standards.  I suppose that the accreditation team is there to make sure, that since university education is a monopolistic enterprise, that educational standards are met.

I told my wife that I would design an educational offering entirely differently.  I would design it taking into consideration the following realities:

• 58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school.
• 42% of college graduates never read another book.
• 80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year.
• 70% of US adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
• 57% of new books are not read to completion.
• Most readers do not get past page 18 in a book they have purchased.

Source: Teaching Sells by Brian Clark

Do these data scare anyone?  Consider two interpretations for the above data.

Interpretation 1.  Readers are leaders!  Without book reading, we will end up with a nation of nincompoops who will be unprepared for life’s realities.  The future is bleak indeed.

Interpretation 2. Book reading is certainly declining, but overall reading is not declining or at least not as quickly.  People are learning through reading alternate sources and accumulating information in more robust ways now than ever in the history of the world.  I can dig my heels in and fight for last century’s way of learning or I can get on board.

I told my wife that I was frustrated that I could not get on board fast enough to create the next century’s learning environment.  Her response was interesting.  She said, “I don’t know, I guess that I am old-fashioned, but there is something about going to class and interacting with a professor, and there is something about reading a book that I would miss.

How old is old?

I asked her what she meant by “old.”  The current educational model is not that old.  There are striking similarities between the current model and that of a Ford assembly plant during the industrial revolution.  It is a nice pattern to follow if you are trying to get as many people through a system for the lowest possible cost.  Emulating the Ford production line also requires standardization which is devastating to education.

Before the assembly line model, rich people hired mentors.  These mentors were well educated, well traveled teachers that would direct self-study and world discovery.  This model worked amazingly well for all who could afford it.  It produced Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and others.  It had an astonishingly high success rate.  Not even Harvard can brag about the average capability of its graduates like George Wythe can (Wythe was Jefferson’s mentor).

The internet has made possible the return of the great mentors with one radical exception: you don’t have to be rich to be mentor educated! For example, MIT has published their entire curriculum on line.  With guidance, you could have an MIT quality education.  MIT did this because they see the future and know that the one who presses the accelerator also gets to steer the car.

One compelling bit of evidence of revolutionary change

Suppose you have high school diploma and spent two years in college then dropped out.  You dropped out because you were distracted by your fascination with kondrabots.  You end up moving back into your parent’s house and do nothing but learn more about kondrabots.  You have an internet connection and a computer so you go on line to connect with others who like kondrabots.  You start a blog, become an aggregator, and before long, you have a sizable following.  Across the country in Cambridge, Mass, the distinguished professor Harold H. Hannah sits at the head table at a banquet in his honor.  His colleagues have recognized and appreciated his work on kontrabots.  He has published in all of the major journals and is a frequent guest lecturer to peer audiences.

One day, Labron James is a guest on the Rachel Ray show.  They do some cooking together and, as they wait for the dough to rise, Rachel Ray asks Labron what he likes to do in his spare time.  Labron says, “You know, I’m really into kondrabots.”  The press hears this and having never heard of a kondrabot before, they go in search of a kondrabot expert.  They find exactly two experts, you and Professor Harold H. Hannah.  Whom do they go to as the expert?  Before internet and blogging, they would go to Dr. Hannah.  Now they go to you.  You are more relevant and you have, by far, the largest following.  What of the anointing from the academy?  Its significance has diminished, and if the trend continues, it will carry less relative credibility in the future.

The point is that weapons of influence and persuasion have changed.  Good educational curricula must adapt to the new reality.

Conspiracy Theory

I was expaining all of this to a PhD friend.  I said that in the immediate to near future, many smart employers, when evaluating capabilities and qualities of job candidates, are going to look less at whether or not the candidate graduated from the assembly line academy and more at whether or not the candidate is educated.

My friend agreed and said, and here comes the conspiracy theory, “The trend in the United States is for the government to take over private sector employment.  One certainty is that the government will have hiring standards, and due to the incestuous relationship between the academy and the government, those hiring standards will include exclusion for every candidate who does not have the blessing of the academy (a degree from an accredited university).”

I remain unconvinced for a number of reasons.  I believe in markets.  It takes tremendous effort (thousands of pages of legislation) to fight them.  Markets will naturally reward people, companies and nations that promote freedom, but that is the topic for another blog, probably on www.vulcanbusiness.com.

Conclusion

What you have just read is a cruddy educational offering.  If done correctly, it would take place in a learning community with several learning modes and ample communion.  I can see it, and I will get there.  To the credit of my academic friends and colleagues, most of them see it too and stand ready to adapt.  I am full of hope for the future.  The internet has yet to have its greatest impact in the world.  Of course there are negative aspects to internet expansion.  There is no greater purveyor of decadence, yet neither is there a greater disseminator of greatness.