Friday, August 26, 2016

From the Summer of 1967

from youtube


A big favorite of mine.  









Anita Baker Caught up in the Rapture

from youtube




More Orders from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals August 26, 2016

From 9th Circuit Court of Appeals


11-60039 In re: Gary Ozenne, et al v. Chase Manhattan Bank, et al "Order Filed (From Chambers)"


Inbox
x

ca9_ecfnoticing@ca9.uscourts.gov

11:14 AM (5 hours ago)
to me

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 08/26/2016 at 11:09:57 AM PDT and filed on 08/26/2016
Case Name:In re: Gary Ozenne, et al v. Chase Manhattan Bank, et al
Case Number:  11-60039
Document(s):Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS, ALEX KOZINSKI, SUSAN P. GRABER, M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, RICHARD A. PAEZ, MARSHA S. BERZON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, N. RANDY SMITH, PAUL J. WATFORD, JOHN B. OWENS and MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND) The motion of John A. E. Pottow for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on August 17, 2016 shall be filed. [10102232] (WL)

Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Mr. Jeffrey S. Allison, Attorney
Honorable Randall L. Dunn, Bankruptcy Judge
Mr. Eric D. Houser, Attorney
Honorable Ralph B. Kirscher, Chief Bankruptcy Judge
Samuel Maizel
Honorable Bruce A. Markell, Bankruptcy Judge
Mr. Gary Lawrence Ozenne
Professor John Anthony Edwards Pottow
U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, 9th Circuit, Clerk of Court

Thomas R. Phinney, Attorney (daily summary)

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document Description: Main Document
Original Filename: 11-60039_Amicus Order.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:
[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1106763461 [Date=08/26/2016] [FileNumber=10102232-0] [53cdcab66e39b2e7b22b1519a118e120baa45fae8904b4b31fe6fa31c11e169118f5e2e532b13ae636f4dd07a4814fdb6c9148271c2d19257b171225e75116e6]]




Second Notice on August 26, 2016


11-60039 In re: Gary Ozenne, et al v. Chase Manhattan Bank, et al "ECF Brief Filed"


Inbox
x

ca9_ecfnoticing@ca9.uscourts.gov

3:19 PM (1 hour ago)
to me

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 08/26/2016 at 3:18:48 PM PDT and filed on 08/26/2016
Case Name:In re: Gary Ozenne, et al v. Chase Manhattan Bank, et al
Case Number:  11-60039
Document(s):Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [58] submitted by Professor John Anthony Edwards Pottow is filed.Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 25 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification, attached to the end of each copy of the brief, that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: green. The paper copies shall be printed from the PDF version of the brief created from the word processing application, not from PACER or Appellate CM/ECF. [10103030] (KT)

Notice will be electronically mailed to:

Mr. Jeffrey S. Allison, Attorney
Mr. Eric D. Houser, Attorney
Samuel Maizel
Mr. Gary Lawrence Ozenne
Professor John Anthony Edwards Pottow

Thomas R. Phinney, Attorney (daily summary)

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document Description: ECF Brief Filed Order
Original Filename: /opt/ACECF/live/forms/KhanhThai_1160039_10103030_v2Order-ECFBriefFiled_209.pdf
Electronic Document Stamp:
[STAMP acecfStamp_ID=1106763461 [Date=08/26/2016] [FileNumber=10103030-0] [4815a6bf959673fa4156e04065014f095b8b6cd1d332dabdf72c1fbecd3e97896572a97d5f56581d64e5fcd4c258c39a8904a5d86fde93851d4947a80f6e164e]]
Recipients:






Thursday, August 25, 2016

The Psychology of Self Esteem

from Wikipedia



In sociology and psychologyself-esteem reflects a person's overall subjective emotional evaluation of his or her own worth. It is a judgment of oneself as well as an attitude toward the self. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs about oneself, (for example, "I am competent", "I am worthy"), as well as emotional states, such as triumphdespairpride, and shame.[1] Smith and Mackie (2007) defined it by saying "The self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem, is the positive or negative evaluations of the self, as in how we feel about it."[2]:107 Self-esteem is attractive as a social psychological construct because researchers have conceptualized it as an influential predictor of certain outcomes, such as academic achievement,[3][4] happiness,[5] satisfaction in marriage and relationships,[6] and criminal behaviour.[6] Self-esteem can apply specifically to a particular dimension (for example, "I believe I am a good writer and feel happy about that") or a global extent (for example, "I believe I am a bad person, and feel bad about myself in general"). Psychologists usually regard self-esteem as an enduring personality characteristic ("trait" self-esteem), though normal, short-term variations ("state" self-esteem) also exist. Synonyms or near-synonyms of self-esteem include: self-worth,[7] self-regard,[8] self-respect,[9][10] and self-integrity.



History[edit]

The identification of self-esteem as a distinct psychological construct is thought to have its origins in the work of philosopher and psychologist, William James (1892).[11] James identified multiple dimensions of the self, with two levels of hierarchy: processes of knowing (called the 'I-self') and the resulting knowledge about the self (the `Me-self'). Observation about the self and storage of those observations by the I-self create three types of knowledge, which collectively account for the Me-self, according to James. These are the material self, social self, and spiritual self. The social self comes closest to self-esteem, comprising all characteristics recognized by others. The material self consists of representations of the body and possessions, and the spiritual self of descriptive representations and evaluative dispositions regarding the self. This view of self-esteem as the collection of an individual's attitudes toward oneself remains today.[11]
In the mid-1960s, sociologist Morris Rosenberg defined self-esteem as a feeling of self-worth and developed the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSES), which became the most-widely used scale to measure self-esteem in the social sciences.[12]
In the early 20th century, the behaviorist movement minimized introspective study of mental processes, emotions and feelings, which was replaced by objective study through experiments on behaviors observed in relation with environment. Behaviorism placed the human being as an animal subject to reinforcements, and suggested placing psychology as an experimental science, similar to chemistry or biology. As a consequence, clinical trials on self-esteem were overlooked, since behaviorists considered the idea less liable to rigorous measurement.[13]In the mid-20th century, the rise of phenomenology and humanistic psychology led to renewed interest in self-esteem. Self-esteem then took a central role in personal self-actualization and in the treatment of psychic disorders. Psychologists started to consider the relationship between psychotherapy and the personal satisfaction of a person with high self-esteem as useful to the field. This led to new elements being introduced to the concept of self-esteem, including the reasons why people tend to feel less worthy and why people become discouraged or unable to meet challenges by themselves.[13]
Currently, the core self-evaluations approach includes self-esteem as one of four dimensions that comprise one's fundamental appraisal of oneself, along with locus of control, neuroticism, and self-efficacy.[14] The concept of core self-evaluations as first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997),[14] has since proven to have the ability to predict several work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance.[14][15][16][17][18] Self-esteem may, in fact, be one of the most essential core self-evaluation dimensions because it is the overall value one feels about oneself as a person.[17]

Effect on public policy[edit]

The importance of self-esteem has gained endorsement from some government and non-government groups starting around the 1970s, such that one can speak of a self-esteem movement.[5][19] This movement can be used as an example of promising evidence that psychological research can have an effect on forming public policy. The underlying idea of the movement was that low self-esteem was the root of the problem for individuals, making it the root of societal problems and dysfunctions. A leading figure of the movement was psychologist, Nathaniel Branden who was quoted as saying, "[I] cannot think of a single psychological problem – from anxiety and depression, to fear of intimacy or of success, to spouse battery or child molestation – that is not traced back to the problem of low self-esteem".[5]:3
Self-esteem was believed to be a cultural phenomenon of Western individualistic societies since low self-esteem was not occurring in collectivist countries such as Japan.[20] The idea of low self-esteem and its many negative consequences led California assemblyman John Vasconcellos to work to create and fund the Task Force on Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility in California in 1986. Vasconcellos argued that this task force could combat many of the state's problems from crime and teen pregnancy to school underachievement and pollution.[5] He compared increasing self-esteem to giving out a vaccine for a disease: it could help protect people from being overwhelmed by life's challenges.
The task force created committees in many California counties and compiled a committee of scholars to review the available literature on self-esteem. This committee found very small associations between low self-esteem and its assumed consequences, ultimately showing that low self-esteem is not the root of all societal problems and not as important as the committee had originally thought. However, the authors of the paper that summarized the review of the literature still believe that self-esteem is an independent variable that affects major social problems. The task force disbanded in 1995, and the National Council for Self-Esteem and later the National Association for Self-Esteem(NASE) was established taking on the task force's mission. Vasconcellos and Jack Canfield were a part of its advisory board in 2003, and members of its Masters' Coalition included Anthony RobbinsBernie Siegel, and Gloria Steinem.[5]

Theories[edit]

Many early theories suggested that self-esteem is a basic human need or motivation. American psychologist Abraham Maslow included self-esteem in his hierarchy of human needs. He described two different forms of "esteem": the need for respect from others in the form of recognition, success, and admiration, and the need for self-respect in the form of self-love, self-confidence, skill, or aptitude.[21] Respect from others was believed to be more fragile and easily lost than inner self-esteem. According to Maslow, without the fulfillment of the self-esteem need, individuals will be driven to seek it and unable to grow and obtain self-actualization. Maslow also states that the healthiest expression of self-esteem is the one we take deserve from others. It is more than just renown or flattery. Modern theories of self-esteem explore the reasons humans are motivated to maintain a high regard for themselves. Sociometer theory maintains that self-esteem evolved to check one's level of status and acceptance in ones' social group. According to Terror Management Theory, self-esteem serves a protective function and reduces anxiety about life and death.[22]
Self-esteem is important because it shows ourselves how we view the way we are and the sense of our personal value. Thus, it affects the way we are and act in the world and the way we are related to everybody else.[13]
Carl Rogers (1902-1987), an advocate of humanistic psychology, theorized the origin of many people's problems to be that they despise themselves and consider themselves worthless and incapable of being loved. This is why Rogers believed in the importance of giving unconditional acceptance to a client and when this was done it could improve the client's self-esteem.[13] In his therapy sessions with clients, he offered positive regard no matter what.[23] Indeed, the concept of self-esteem is approached since then in humanistic psychology as an inalienable right for every person, summarized in the following sentence:

Measurement[edit]

Self-esteem is typically assessed using self-report inventories.
One of the most widely used instruments, the RSES (Rosenberg, 1965) is a 10-item self-esteem scale scores that requires participants to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements about themselves. An alternative measure, The Coopersmith Inventory uses a 50-question battery over a variety of topics and asks subjects whether they rate someone as similar or dissimilar to themselves.[24] If a subject's answers demonstrate solid self-regard, the scale regards them as well adjusted. If those answers reveal some inner shame, it considers them to be prone to social deviance.[25]
Implicit measures of self-esteem began to be used in the 1980s.[26] These rely on indirect measures of cognitive processing thought to be linked to implicit self-esteem, including the Name Letter Task.[27] Such indirect measures are designed to reduce awareness of the process of assessment. When used to assess implicit self-esteem, psychologists feature self-relevant stimuli to the participant and then measure how quickly a person identifies positive or negative stimuli.[28] For example, if a woman was given the self-relevant stimuli of female and mother, psychologists would measure how quickly she identified the negative word, evil, or the positive word, kind.

Development across lifespan[edit]

Experiences in a person's life are a major source of how self-esteem develops.[5] In the early years of a child's life, parents have a significant influence on self-esteem and can be considered a main source of positive and negative experiences a child will have.[29] Unconditional love from parents helps a child develop a stable sense of being cared for and respected. These feelings translate into later effects on self-esteem as the child grows older.[30] Students in elementary school who have high self-esteem tend to have authoritative parents who are caring, supportive adults who set clear standards for their child and allow them to voice their opinion in decision making.
Although studies thus far have reported only a correlation of warm, supportive parenting styles (mainly authoritative and permissive) with children having high self-esteem, these parenting styles could easily be thought of as having some causal effect in self-esteem development.[29][31][32][33] Childhood experiences that contribute to healthy self-esteem include being listened to, being spoken to respectfully, receiving appropriate attention and affection and having accomplishments recognized and mistakes or failures acknowledged and accepted. Experiences that contribute to low self-esteem include being harshly criticized, being physically, sexually or emotionally abused, being ignored, ridiculed or teased or being expected to be "perfect" all the time.[34]
During school-aged years, academic achievement is a significant contributor to self-esteem development.[5] A student consistently achieving success or consistently failing will have a strong academic effect on their individual self-esteem.[35] Social experiences are another important contributor to self-esteem. As children go through school, they begin to understand and recognize differences between themselves and their classmates. Using social comparisons, children assess whether they did better or worse than classmates in different activities. These comparisons play an important role in shaping the child's self-esteem and influence the positive or negative feelings they have about themselves.[36][37] As children go through adolescence, peer influence becomes much more important. Adolescents make appraisals of themselves based on their relationships with close friends.[38] Successful relationships among friends are very important to the development of high self-esteem for children. Social acceptance brings about confidence and produces high self-esteem, whereas rejection from peers and loneliness brings about self-doubts and produces low self-esteem.[39]
Adolescence shows an increase in self-esteem that continues to increase in young adulthood and middle age.[6] A decrease is seen from middle age to old age with varying findings on whether it is a small or large decrease.[6] Reasons for the variability could be because of differences in health, cognitive ability, and socioeconomic status in old age.[6] No differences have been found between males and females in their development of self-esteem.[6] Multiple cohort studies show that there is not a difference in the life-span trajectory of self-esteem between generations due to societal changes such as grade inflation in education or the presence of social media.[6]
High levels of mastery, low risk taking, and better health are ways to predict higher self-esteem. In terms of personality, emotionally stable, extroverted, and conscientious individuals experience higher self-esteem.[6] These predictors have shown us that self-esteem has trait-like qualities by remaining stable over time like personality and intelligence.[6] Although, this does not mean it can not be changed.[6] Hispanic adolescents have a slightly lower self-esteem than their black and white peers, but then slightly higher levels by age 30.[40][41] African Americans have a sharper increase in self-esteem in adolescence and young adulthood compared to Whites. However, during old age, they experience a more rapid decline in self-esteem.[6]

Shame[edit]

Shame can be a contributor to those with problems of low self-esteem.[42] Feelings of shame usually occur because of a situation where the social self is devalued, such as a socially evaluated poor performance. A poor performance leads to higher responses of psychological states that indicate a threat to the social self namely a decrease in social self-esteem and an increase in shame.[43] This increase in shame can be helped with self-compassion.[44]

Real self, ideal self, and dreaded self[edit]

There are three levels of self-evaluation development in relation to the real self, ideal self, and the dreaded self. The real, ideal, and dreaded selves develop in children in a sequential pattern on cognitive levels.[45]
  1. Moral Judgment Stages: Individuals describe their Real, Ideal, and Dreaded Selves with stereotypical labels, such as "nice" or "bad". Individuals describe their Ideal and Real Selves in terms of disposition for action or as behavioral habits. The Dreaded Self is often described as being unsuccessful or as having bad habits.
  2. Ego Development Stages: Individuals describe their Ideal and Real Selves in terms of traits that are based in attitudes as well as actions. The Dreaded Self is often described as having failed to meet social expectations or as self-centered.
  3. Self-Understanding Stages: Individuals describe their Ideal and Real Selves as having a unified identity or character. Descriptions of the Dreaded Self focus on a failure to live up to one's ideals or role expectations often because of real world problems.
This development brings with it increasingly complicated and encompassing moral demands. Level 3 is where individuals' self-esteem can suffer because they do not feel as though they are living up to certain expectations. This feeling will moderately effect one's self-esteem with an even larger effect seen when individuals believe they are becoming their Dreaded Self [45]

Types[edit]

High[edit]

People with a healthy level of self-esteem:[46]
  • Firmly believe in certain values and principles, and are ready to defend them even when finding opposition, feeling secure enough to modify them in light of experience.[13]
  • Are able to act according to what they think to be the best choice, trusting their own judgment, and not feeling guilty when others do not like their choice.[13]
  • Do not lose time worrying excessively about what happened in the past, nor about what could happen in the future. They learn from the past and plan for the future, but live in the present intensely.[13]
  • Fully trust in their capacity to solve problems, not hesitating after failures and difficulties. They ask others for help when they need it.[13]
  • Consider themselves equal in dignity to others, rather than inferior or superior, while accepting differences in certain talents, personal prestige or financial standing.[13]
  • Understand how they are an interesting and valuable person for others, at least for those with whom they have a friendship.[13]
  • Resist manipulation, collaborate with others only if it seems appropriate and convenient.[13]
  • Admit and accept different internal feelings and drives, either positive or negative, revealing those drives to others only when they choose.[13]
  • Are able to enjoy a great variety of activities.[13]
  • Are sensitive to feelings and needs of others; respect generally accepted social rules, and claim no right or desire to prosper at others' expense.[13]
  • Can work toward finding solutions and voice discontent without belittling themselves or others when challenges arise.[47]

Secure vs. defensive[edit]

A person can have a high self-esteem and hold it confidently where they do not need reassurance from others to maintain their positive self view, whereas others with defensive, high self-esteem may still report positive self-evaluations on the Rosenberg Scale, as all high self-esteem individuals do; however, their positive self-views are fragile and vulnerable to criticism. Defensive high self-esteem individuals internalize subconscious self-doubts and insecurities, causing them to react very negatively to any criticism they may receive. There is a need for constant positive feedback from others for these individuals to maintain their feelings of self-worth. The necessity of repeated praise can be associated with boastful, arrogant behavior or sometimes even aggressive and hostile feelings toward anyone who questions the individual's self-worth, an example of threatened egotism.[48][49]

Implicit, explicit, narcissism and threatened egotism[edit]

Implicit self-esteem refers to a person's disposition to evaluate themselves positively or negatively in a spontaneous, automatic, or unconscious manner. It contrasts with explicit self-esteem, which entails more conscious and reflective self-evaluation. Both explicit self-esteem and implicit self-esteem are subtypes of self-esteem proper.

Narcissism is a disposition people may have that represents an excessive love for one's self. It is characterized by an inflated view of self-worth. Individuals who score high on Narcissism measures, Robert Raskin's 40 Item True or False Test, would likely select true to such statements as "If I ruled the world, it would be a much better place."[50] There is only a moderate correlation between narcissism and self-esteem;[51] that is to say that an individual can have high self-esteem but low narcissism or can be a conceited, obnoxious person and score high self-esteem and high narcissism.[52]
Threatened egotism is characterized as a response to criticism that threatens the ego of narcissists; they often react in a hostile and aggressive manner.[12][53][54]

Low[edit]

Low self-esteem can result from various factors, including genetic factors, physical appearance or weight, mental health issues, socioeconomic status, peer pressure or bullying.[55]
A person with low self-esteem may show some of the following characteristics:[56]
  • Heavy self-criticism and dissatisfaction.[13]
  • Hypersensitivity to criticism with resentment against critics and feelings of being attacked.[13]
  • Chronic indecision and an exaggerated fear of mistakes.[13]
  • Excessive will to please and unwillingness to displease any petitioner.[13]
  • Perfectionism, which can lead to frustration when perfection is not achieved.[13]
  • Neurotic guilt, dwelling on or exaggerating the magnitude of past mistakes.[13]
  • Floating hostility and general defensiveness and irritability without any proximate cause.[13]
  • Pessimism and a general negative outlook.[13]
  • Envy, invidiousness, or general resentment.[13]
  • Sees temporary setbacks as permanent, intolerable conditions.[47]
Individuals with low self-esteem tend to be critical of themselves. Some depend on the approval and praise of others when evaluating self-worth. Others may measure their likability in terms of successes: others will accept themselves if they succeed but will not if they fail.[57]

The three states[edit]

This classification proposed by Martin Ross[58] distinguishes three states of self-esteem compared to the "feats" (triumphs, honors, virtues) and the "anti-feats" (defeats, embarrassment, shame, etc.) of the individuals.[4][59]

Shattered[edit]

The individual does not regard themselves as valuable or lovable. They may be overwhelmed by defeat, or shame, or see themselves as such, and they name their "anti-feat". For example, if they consider that being over a certain age is an anti-feat, they define themselves with the name of their anti-feat, and say, "I am old". They pity themselves. They insult themselves. They feel sorry. They may become paralyzed by their sadness.[58][60]

Vulnerable[edit]

The individual has a generally positive self-image. However, their self-esteem is also vulnerable to the perceived risk of an imminent anti-feat (such as defeat, embarrassment, shame, discredit), consequently they are often nervous and regularly use defense mechanisms.[60] A typical protection mechanism of those with a Vulnerable Self-Esteem may consist in avoiding decision-making. Although such individuals may outwardly exhibit great self-confidence, the underlying reality may be just the opposite: the apparent self-confidence is indicative of their heightened fear of anti-feats and the fragility of their self-esteem.[4] They may also try to blame others to protect their self-image from situations which would threaten it. They may employ defense mechanisms, including attempting to lose at games and other competitions in order to protect their self-image by publicly dissociating themselves from a 'need to win', and asserting an independence from social acceptance which they may deeply desire. In this deep fear of being unaccepted by an individual's peers, they make poor life choices by making risky choices.[59][60]

Strong[edit]

People with strong self-esteem have a positive self-image and enough strength so that anti-feats do not subdue their self-esteem. They have less fear of failure. These individuals appear humble, cheerful, and this shows a certain strength not to boast about feats and not to be afraid of anti-feats.[59][60] They are capable of fighting with all their might to achieve their goals because, if things go wrong, their self-esteem will not be affected. They can acknowledge their own mistakes precisely because their self-image is strong, and this acknowledgment will not impair or affect their self-image.[60] They live with less fear of losing social prestige, and with more happiness and general well-being.[60]However, no type of self-esteem is indestructible, and due to certain situations or circumstances in life, one can fall from this level into any other state of self-esteem.[58][60]

Contingent vs. non-contingent[edit]

A distinction is made between contingent (or conditional[61]) and non-contingent (or unconditional[62]) self-esteem.
Contingent self-esteem is derived from external sources, such as (a) what others say, (b) one's success or failure, (c) one's competence,[63] or (d) relationship-contingent self-esteem.
Therefore, contingent self-esteem is marked by instability, unreliability, and vulnerability. Persons lacking a non-contingent self-esteem are "predisposed to an incessant pursuit of self-value."[64] However, because the pursuit of contingent self-esteem is based on receiving approval, it is doomed to fail. No one receives constant approval and disapproval often evokes depression. Furthermore, fear of disapproval inhibits activities in which failure is possible.[65]
"The courage to be is the courage to accept oneself, in spite of being unacceptable. . . . This is the Pauline-Lutheran doctrine of 'justification by faith.'"Paul Tillich[66]
Non-contingent self-esteem is described as true, stable, and solid.[67] It springs from a belief that one is "acceptable period, acceptable before life itself, ontologically acceptable".[68] Belief that one is "ontologically acceptable" is to believe that one's acceptability is "the way things bewithout contingency".[69] In this belief, as expounded by theologian Paul Tillich, acceptability is not based on a person's virtue. It is an acceptance given "in spite of our guilt, not because wehave no guilt".[70]
Psychiatrist Thomas A Harris drew on theologian Paul Tillich for his classic I'm OK – You're OKthat addresses non-contingent self-esteem. Harris translated Tillich's "acceptable" by the vernacular "OK", a term that means "acceptable".[71] The Christian message, said Harris, is not "YOU CAN BE OK, IF", It is "YOU ARE ACCEPTED, unconditionally".[72]
A secure non-contingent self-esteem springs from the belief that one is ontologically acceptable and accepted.[73]

Importance[edit]

Abraham Maslow states that psychological health is not possible unless the essential core of the person is fundamentally accepted, loved and respected by others and by her or his self. Self-esteem allows people to face life with more confidence, benevolence and optimism, and thus easily reach their goals and self-actualize.[74]
Self-esteem may make people convinced they deserve happiness.[74] Understanding this is fundamental, and universally beneficial, since the development of positive self-esteem increases the capacity to treat other people with respect, benevolence and goodwill, thus favoring rich interpersonal relationships and avoiding destructive ones.[74] For Erich Fromm, love of others and love of ourselves are not alternatives. On the contrary, an attitude of love toward themselves will be found in all those who are capable of loving others. Self-esteem allows creativity at the workplace, and is a specially critical condition for teaching professions.[75]
José-Vicente Bonet claims that the importance of self-esteem is obvious as a lack of self-esteem is, he says, not a loss of esteem from others, but self-rejection. Bonet claims that this corresponds to Major depressive disorder.[13] Freud also claimed that the depressive has suffered "an extraordinary diminution in his self-regard, an impoverishment of his ego on a grand scale....He has lost his self-respect".[76]
The Yogyakarta Principles, a document on international human rights law addresses the discriminatory attitude toward LGBT peoples that makes their self-esteem low to be subject to human rights violation including human trafficking.[77] and World Health Organizationrecommends in "Preventing Suicide[78]" published in 2000 that strengthening students' self-esteem is important to protect children and adolescents against mental distress and despondency, enabling them to cope adequately with difficult and stressful life situations.[79] How this might be done, and whether it would be effective is unclear.
Other than increased happiness, higher self-esteem is also known to be correlated with a better ability to cope with stress and a higher likeliness that the individual takes on difficult tasks relative to those with low self-esteem.[80]

Correlates[edit]

From the late 1970s to the early 1990s many Americans assumed as a matter of course that students' self-esteem acted as a critical factor in the grades that they earn in school, in their relationships with their peers, and in their later success in life. Under this assumption, some American groups created programs which aimed to increase the self-esteem of students. Until the 1990s little peer-reviewed and controlled research took place on this topic.
Peer-reviewed research undertaken since then has not validated previous assumptions. Recent research indicates that inflating students' self-esteem in and of itself has no positive effect on grades. Roy Baumeister has shown that inflating self-esteem by itself can actually decrease grades.[81][82] The relationship involving self-esteem and academic results does not signify that high self-esteem contributes to high academic results. It simply means that high self-esteem may be accomplished as a result of high academic performance due to the other variables of social interactions and life events affecting this performance.[5]
"Attempts by pro-esteem advocates to encourage self-pride in students solely by reason of their uniqueness as human beings will fail if feelings of well-being are not accompanied by well-doing. It is only when students engage in personally meaningful endeavors for which they can be justifiably proud that self-confidence grows, and it is this growing self-assurance that in turn triggers further achievement."[83]
High self-esteem has a high correlation to self-reported happiness; whether this is a causal relationship has not been established.[5] The relationship between self-esteem and life satisfaction is stronger in individualistic cultures.[84]
Additionally, self-esteem has been found to be related to forgiveness in close relationships, in that people with high self-esteem will be more forgiving than people with low self-esteem.[85]
People with low self-esteem are more likely to minimize the consequences of risky behavior, rationalize decisions, and remain convinced that certain behaviors will cause no harm to themselves, nor to others. This may contribute to behaviors like drinking, taking drugs and engaging in early sexual intercourse as well as other risk taking behaviors.[5]

Neuroscience[edit]

In a 2014 research conducted by Robert S. Chavez and Todd F. Heatherton, it was found that self-esteem is related to the connectivity offrontostriatal circuits. Frontostriatal pathway connects medial prefrontal cortex, which deals with self-knowledge, to the ventral striatum, which deals with feelings of motivation and reward. Stronger anatomical pathways correlated with higher long-term self-esteem, while stronger functional connectivity correlated with higher short-term self-esteem.[86]

Criticism and controversy[edit]

The American psychologist Albert Ellis criticized on numerous occasions the concept of self-esteem as essentially self-defeating and ultimately destructive.[87] Although acknowledging the human propensity and tendency to ego rating as innate, he has critiqued the philosophy of self-esteem as unrealistic, illogical and self- and socially destructive – often doing more harm than good. Questioning the foundations and usefulness of generalized ego strength, he has claimed that self-esteem is based on arbitrary definitional premises, and over-generalized, perfectionistic and grandiose thinking.[87] Acknowledging that rating and valuing behaviours and characteristics is functional and even necessary, he sees rating and valuing human beings' totality and total selves as irrational and unethical. The healthier alternative to self-esteem according to him is unconditional self-acceptance and unconditional other-acceptance.[88] Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy is a psychotherapy based on this approach.[89]
Psychologist Roy F. Baumeister and John Tierney (journalist) argue that the benefits of self-esteem can be significantly counter-productive, and that parental guidance towards self-esteem may thwart actual practices of self-control.
"There seem to be only two clearly demonstrated benefits of high self-esteem....First, it increases initiative, probably because it lends confidence. People with high self-esteem are more willing to act on their beliefs, to stand up for what they believe in, to approach others, to risk new undertakings. (This unfortunately includes being extra willing to do stupid or destructive things, even when everyone else advises against them.)...It can also lead people to ignore sensible advice as they stubbornly keep wasting time and money on hopeless causes"[90]

False attempts[edit]

For persons with low self-esteem, any positive stimulus will temporarily raise self-esteem. Therefore, possessions, sex, success, or physical appearance will produce development of self-esteem, but the development is ephemeral at best.[91]
Such attempts to raise one's self-esteem by positive stimulus produce a "boom or bust" pattern. "Compliments and positive feedback" produce a boost, but a bust follows a lack of such feedback. For a person whose "self-esteem is contingent", success is "not extra sweet", but "failure is extra bitter".[65]

As narcissism[edit]

Life satisfaction, happiness, healthy behavioral practices, perceived efficacy, and academic success and adjustment have been associated with having high levels of self-esteem (Harter, 1987; Huebner, 1991; Lipschitz-Elhawi & Itzhaky, 2005; Rumberger 1995; Swenson & Prelow, 2005; Yarcheski & Mahon, 1989).[92]:270 However, a common mistake is to think that loving oneself is necessarily equivalent to narcissism, as opposed for example to what Erik Erikson speaks of as "a post-narcissistic love of the ego".[93] A person with a healthy self-esteem accepts and loves himself/herself unconditionally, acknowledging both virtues and faults in the self, and yet, in spite of everything, is able to continue to love her/himself.
In narcissists, by contrast, an "innate uncertainty about their own worth gives rise to...a self-protective, but often totally spurious, aura ofgrandiosity"[94] – producing the class "of narcissists, or people with very high, but insecure, self-esteem... fluctuating with each new episode of social praise or rejection."[2]:479 Narcissism can thus be seen as a symptom of fundamentally low self-esteem, that is, lack of love towards oneself, but often accompanied by "an immense increase in self-esteem" based on "the defense mechanism of denial by overcompensation."[95] "idealized love of self...rejected the part of him" that he denigrates – "this destructive little child"[96] within. Instead, the narcissist emphasizes his virtues in the presence of others, just to try to convince himself that he is a valuable person and to try to stop feeling ashamed for his faults;[13] unfortunately such "people with unrealistically inflated self-views, which may be especially unstable and highly vulnerable to negative information,...tend to have poor social skills."[2]:126

Nathaniel Brandon 
also  from WikiPedia 


Psychology of self-esteem[edit]

Branden argued that self-esteem is a human psychological need and that to the extent this need remains unmet, pathology (defensiveness, anxiety, depression, difficulty in relationships, etc.) tends to result.[12] He defined self-esteem formally as "the disposition to experience oneself as competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and as worthy of happiness",[13] and proposed that, while others (parents, teachers, friends) can nurture and support self-esteem in an individual, self-esteem also relies upon various internally generated practices. These consisted, in Branden's framework, of six "pillars" of self-esteem:[14]
  • Living consciously: the practice of being aware of what one is doing while one is doing it, i.e., the practice of mindfulness.
  • Self-acceptance: the practice of owning truths regarding one's thoughts, emotions, and behaviors; of being kind toward oneself with respect to them; and of being "for" oneself in a basic sense.
  • Self-responsibility: the practice of owning one's authorship of one's actions and of owning one's capacity to be the cause of the effects one desires.
  • Self-assertiveness: the practice of treating one's needs and interests with respect and of expressing them in appropriate ways.
  • Living purposefully: the practice of formulating goals and of formulating and implementing action plans to achieve them.
  • Personal integrity: the practice of maintaining alignment between one’s behaviors and convictions.
Branden distinguished his approach to self-esteem from that of many others by his inclusion of both confidence and worth in his definition of self-esteem, and by his emphasis on the importance of internally generated practices for the improvement and maintenance of self-esteem. For this reason, he at times expressed lack of enthusiasm about the teachings of the "self-esteem movement",[14] which he is sometimes credited with having spawned (he was sometimes referred to as “the father of the self-esteem movement”).[15]

Mode of therapy[edit]

While Branden began his practice of therapy as, primarily, a cognitivist,[1] starting in the 1970s he rapidly shifted toward a decidedlytechnically eclectic stance, utilizing techniques from gestalt therapypsychodrama, neo-Reichian breathwork, Ericksonian hypnosis, as well as original techniques such as his sentence completion method, which he favored. In a piece from 1973, he characterized his mode of therapy as consisting of four aspects: education, emotional unblocking, stimulation of insight, and encouragement of behavior change. In contrast to the exclusively experiential or exclusively cognitive (insight-oriented) methods of the day, Branden saw his mode of therapy as distinguished in part by "the integration of the emotional and the cognitive, the practice of constantly moving back and forth between the experiential and the conceptual."[16]
Sentence completion, a method that figured prominently in Branden's mode of therapy, is an example of this dual focus. In its most common variation, it consists of a therapist giving a client an incomplete sentence—a sentence stem—and having the client repeat the sentence stem over and over, each time adding a new ending, going quickly, without thinking or censoring, and inventing endings when stuck. In this way, a therapist can facilitate the generation of awareness and insight (for example, with a stem such as, "If my fear could speak, it might say—"), and shifts in cognitive-motivational structure (for example, with a stem such as, "If I were to be kinder to myself when I'm afraid—"). By improvising a succession of such stems, many based on endings generated by a previous stem, a therapist can, according to Branden, lead a client on a sometimes dramatically emotional journey of self exploration and self-discovery.[16]
Eventually, Branden integrated techniques from the field of energy psychology, such as Thought Field Therapy and Seemorg Matrix work, into his practice, viewing psychological trauma (which such techniques target) as a significant barrier to growth and development. He has described human problems as occurring both "above the line"—that is, in the realm of cognition and volitional behavior—and “below the line”—that is, in the realm of unconscious trauma stored in the body.[17]

Personal life[edit]

Branden married Barbara Weidman in 1953, with Rand and Rand's husband Frank O'Connor in attendance. Branden would later state the marriage was unwise, and troubled from the beginning.[18] In the context of these troubles, and Rand's reported frustrations in her own marriage, Branden and Rand—who had a passionate philosophic bond—developed amorous feelings for each other, and, with the reluctant permission of their spouses, began a love affair in 1954.[18][19] The affair lasted until the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957, after which, according to Branden, Rand became depressed, and the affair, practically speaking, ended.[18]
Branden reported that in this period Rand began seeking a resumption of their affair; his own marriage, meanwhile, was deteriorating, although he and Barbara were becoming closer as friends.[18] Branden then met and fell in love with a young model, Patrecia Scott (née Gullison). The two began a secret affair in 1964. In the summer of 1965, Nathaniel told Barbara of the affair and the two separated (and subsequently divorced).[20][21] Despite Rand's romantic involvement with Nathaniel, her close intellectual collaboration with him, and her strong public endorsements of him, both Brandens kept Nathaniel's affair with Patrecia secret from Rand, fearing her reaction.[22] In 1968, four years into the affair, Barbara Branden informed Rand of it.[23][24] In response, Rand morally condemned the Brandens and dissociated herself from them in an article for her journal, The Objectivist, which, without revealing the existence of her romantic involvement with Branden, accused him of "deliberate deception" and financial misdealings in their business partnership.[25][26]
Branden at this point moved to California with Patrecia; the two married in November 1969.[27] In March 1977, Patrecia died in a freak drowning accident, falling into a pool after presumably suffering a mild epileptic seizure.[28] Branden subsequently married businesswoman (and later psychotherapist) Estelle Devers in December 1978.[29] The two later divorced, though they remained friends.[30] Branden subsequently married Leigh Horton.[31]
Branden retained a relationship—sometimes friendly, sometimes acrimonious—with his first wife, Barbara, who wrote a successful biography,The Passion of Ayn Rand, which presented her version of Branden's relationship with Rand and the bitter breakup. The book was made into a motion picture in 1999 titled The Passion of Ayn Rand, starring Helen Mirren as Rand and Eric Stoltz as Branden.[32]
Nathaniel Branden died December 3, 2014, due to complications from Parkinson's disease.[33][34][35]


See also[edit]