Cracks appearing in "self-esteem" orthodoxy?

Wow...

Quite a remarkable op-ed in the January 25 Los Angeles Times.

Roy Baumeister is one of a multitude of researchers who for decades have pushed the idea that low self-esteem is the root of just about all of society's ills - criminal behavior, domestic violence, teen pregnancy, poor grades, drug abuse, conservatism, etc. (Just kidding on that last one, but only a little) Witness the boundless faith of John Vasconcellos, who was a California Assemblyman when self-esteem fever was beginning to spread (early 1970s):

Vasconcellos even expressed the hope that higher self-esteem would one day help balance the state budget — a prospect predicated on the observation that people with high self-regard earn more than others and therefore pay more in taxes.

It's no wonder that with this kind of potential, the educational and psychological establishment would wholeheartedly endorse and implement programs to promote high self esteem in Americans, "undeterred", Baumeister writes, "by the weakness and ambiguity of the evidence suggesting a benefit in boosting self-esteem; we all believed the data would come along in good time."

Five years ago, Baumeister and a few others were commissioned by the American Psychological Society to "wade with an open mind" through a generation of published research "to assess the benefits of high self-esteem".

What they found was the opposite of what they expected.

Low self esteem does not lead to criminal behavior; in fact, criminals tend to have high self esteem (which is part of the problem).

What about academic achievement?

High self- esteem in schoolchildren does not produce better grades. (Actually, kids with high self-esteem do have slightly better grades in most studies, but that's because getting good grades leads to higher self-esteem, not the other way around.) In fact, according to a study by Donald Forsyth at Virginia Commonwealth University, college students with mediocre grades who got regular self-esteem strokes from their professors ended up doing worse on final exams than students who were told to suck it up and try harder.

Well, what about adults and job performance?

Self-esteem doesn't make adults perform better at their jobs either. Sure, people with high self-esteem rate their own performance better — even declaring themselves smarter and more attractive than their low self-esteem peers — but neither objective tests nor impartial raters can detect any difference in the quality of work.

In general, as it relates to achievement, high self-esteem tends to lead only to self-delusion about one's abilities, while actual ability remains unchanged. It can make someone more outgoing, but, depending on one's personality, that may not be a good thing (e.g. instead of becoming more sociable, one may become a bully).

Baumeister finally cuts to the chase (emphasis added):

In short, despite the enthusiastic embrace of self-esteem, we found that it conferred only two benefits. It feels good and it supports initiative. Those are nice, but they are far less than we had once hoped for, and it is very questionable whether they justify the effort and expense that schools, parents and therapists have put into raising self-esteem.

It's remarkable enough that somebody did this research. It's even more remarkable that the researchers were honest about what they found, given the howls of outrage that are surely coming from the entrenched interests in the education and psychology industries who just removed these guys from their Christmas holiday card lists.

What's most remarkable of all, though, is that Baumeister follows the data to the logical conclusion (emphasis added):

After all these years, I'm sorry to say, my recommendation is this: Forget about self-esteem and concentrate more on self-control and self-discipline.

Recent work suggests this would be good for the individual and good for society — and might even be able to fill some of those promises that self-esteem once made but could not keep.

Wow...

Look for the educational establishment to embrace Baumeister's recommendation eagerly, possibly as early as next century.

By the way, in 2002 Psychology Today reported on a "controversial" British study which echoes many of the findings of Baumeister & co.:

People with high self-esteem may be more of a threat to society than those with a lower sense of self-worth, according to a controversial 100-page report. Nicholas Emler, Ph.D., a social psychologist at the London School of Economics, found that people with high self-esteem are more likely to be racist, violent and criminal. Low self-esteem increases the risk of eating disorders, suicide and depression, but it is not a factor in delinquency or substance abuse, according to Emler.

Wow...

Countless Iraqis had to wait hours to vote; claim disenfranchisement

Not. But the New York Times took the liberty of suggesting it on behalf of the Sunnis:

Participation varied by region, and the impressive national percentages should not obscure the fact that the country's large Sunni Arab minority remained broadly disenfranchised - due to alienation or terror or both.

Terror, for sure, kept people away. But if the Sunnis are feeling any alienation, it's because (a) they had thrown their lot in with Saddam and his gang; (b) they have been most supportive of the imported rent-a-thugs; (c) their religious leaders continue to fan hatred of and suspicion toward Shiites, Kurds and other people groups in the country. Disenfranchisement properly defined is the suppression of the vote through the direct action of or negligence by the government. That ain't happening in Iraq (just as it didn't happen in the U.S., but that didn't keep the Left from waving the accusation as a bloody shirt ad nauseam). The government did everything it could (short of simply handing over power) to encourage participation by all factions.


In truth, what we saw Sunday was the people of Iraq (even a sizable percentage of the Sunnis) collectively giving the terrorists and other naysayers the finger.







(I thought I was being exceedingly clever and original with that "finger" quip, but it turns out that only a billion or so people had already thought of it [For example, here. Or here.]. Oh, well.)

The only good minority is a liberal minority

So suggests Harley Sorenson, in an attempt to explain why liberals aren't cheering the fact that President Bush has done more to elevate women and minorities to positions of power than any other president:

It is a week to do a liberal's heart good. The star of the show last week was Condoleezza Rice, a black woman. The chief supporting actor was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Jewish woman. The occasion was the ceremonial swearing in of Rice as U.S. secretary of state. Ginsburg is the Supreme Court justice who administered the oath.

This week, if all goes as planned, Alberto Gonzales will win Senate approval to become our next attorney general. Gonzales is Hispanic and was born into poverty.

And, ending yesterday, elections were held in Iraq.

For these reasons, you'd expect liberals to be jumping up and down with joy. Don't liberals support diversity and racial equality? Don't liberals support free elections in other free nations?

The answers are yes and yes. So why aren't we cheering?

Well, in a small way, we are. No matter how you might suspect President George W. Bush's motives, you have to give him credit for his actions. He's done a marvelous job of putting minorities into positions of power.

However, one could argue (and I do), that Rice and Gonzales are the wrong minorities.

You can continue reading if you like, but the remainder of Sorenson's essay is a boilerplate rehash of the Left's accusations against the Bush administration. Good grief -- he even resurrects Scott Ritter as a witness for the prosecution.

School district needs to get a C-L-U-E

Schools in Lincoln (RI) have decided that they will no longer hold spelling bees. Their reason for doing so ought to take your breath away:

The administrators decided to eliminate the spelling bee, because they feel it runs afoul of the mandates of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

"No Child Left Behind says all kids must reach high standards," Newman said. "It’s our responsibility to find as many ways as possible to accomplish this."

The administrators agreed, Newman said, that a spelling bee doesn’t meet the criteria of all children reaching high standards -- because there can only be one winner, leaving all other students behind.

"It’s about one kid winning, several making it to the top and leaving all others behind. That’s contrary to No Child Left Behind," Newman said.

A spelling bee, she continued, is about "some kids being winners, some kids being losers."

As a result, the spelling bee "sends a message that this isn’t an all-kids movement," Newman said.

Read on, because it gets better (or worse, depending on your perspective). This school district has completely bought into the asinine philosophy that competition among kids is harmful to self-esteem, and thus should be avoided.

Beyond that, I had to laugh at the logic quoted above. They think that "No Child Left Behind" literally means that no child is allowed to do any better than any other.

Nonsense like this isn't limited to Rhode Island; it shows up in varying degrees across the fruited plain. It's just one of a multitude of reasons we are homeschooling our little one.

(Credit: Best of the Web)

PP president Feldt resigns, leaving behind well-oiled killing machine

Gloria Feldt's legacy, as recounted by CNSNews:

As CNSNews.com reported last week, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is performing more abortions than ever -- in fewer clinics -- and relying increasingly on the revenue generated from abortions, according to its Fiscal Year 2004 annual report.

With other services becoming marginalized in Planned Parenthood's overall business, the organization relied on abortion for 34 percent of its clinic income from July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004, up from 32 percent in Fiscal Year 2002 and FY 2003.

After a spike in private contributions two years ago, Planned Parenthood saw those donations drop 17 percent last year, but U.S. taxpayer assistance in the form of government grants reached record levels.

So close....

I normally don't like to recommend The Onion, a news satire site, due to their overreliance on vulgarity as a basis for their humor, but their piece on the Inauguration Day protests is worth a look.

The counter-inauguration protests held in Washington Wednesday were one person short of success, analysts reported Thursday.

"It's a pity that so many people who support our cause didn't make it out," said Jet Heiko, who organized the protest through his website TurnYourBackOnBush.org. "If one more person had come through for us, Bush would have had a moment of clarity and changed his entire approach to governing America."

"I guess that one person who didn't show had other plans," Heiko said.

Protesters who lined the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route and turned their backs on the president's motorcade had the stated goal of "forcing President Bush to respond to widespread criticism of his administration." To the disappointment of Heiko and his fellow protesters, Bush was able to continue to ignore widespread criticism, because of the one person who didn't show up.

Advocacy journalism at its finest

Knight-Ridder offers up what is supposedly a straight-news story about the controversy surrounding Michael Crichton's new book, State of Fear. It takes but a few seconds of reading to see which camp the article's author, Seth Borenstein, is in; no attempt whatsoever is taken to provide a balanced view of the controversy. Quick summary: Crichton's opponents are motivated by science, Crichton's supporters are motivated by politics.

Against Crichton, Borenstein lines up "sixteen of 18 top U.S. climate scientists" who disagree strongly with the science in the novel. Only one of the sixteen is identified (a physics professor); no word on who the others were, or what their credentials are ("top" is a subjective term which, roughly translated, usually means those who agree most strongly with one's views), or how they were selected out of the multitude of qualified scientists for interview.

Sigh. Did you know that liberals consider the mainstream media to have a conservative bias?

Another conservative pundit payola scandal?

WaPo's Howard Kurtz is set to reveal that conservative pundit Maggie Gallagher, who writes on marriage issues for a living, had a contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the administration's initiative. The received over $21,000 over the course of the contract. (Drudge, naturally, already has a scoop on this)

Given the scandal surrounding Armstrong Williams, this will probably hit the fan hard on Wednesday.

But is there really a story here?

Gallagher, alerted by Kurtz that the story was coming, has already published an explanation of what the contract was all about. Unless there is more to the story than Gallagher reveals, this may be much ado about nothing. But that won't prevent the media from going all out to make much ado about it.

Michael Moore reacts to Oscar snub

Actually, no word from him yet. His website is still trumpeting his Best-Picture win at the People's Choice Awards earlier this month. Said Moore:

It was a stunning moment for us.

What is even more stunning (or perhaps, concerning the source, not) is the fact that Mr. Moore is bragging about the results of a vote that is as genuinely indicative of "the people's" sentiment as online polls are. Competitions like this hinge on who can "get the vote out" better than anyone else.

Euthanasia movie headlines Oscar nominations

(Warning: Reveals despicable plot twist in a movie that is currently in theaters. If you're bothered by this, stop reading here -- although I think people need to know the facts about this wolf-in-sheep's-clothing movie.)

In this year's Oscar nominations, Hollywood apparently has decided not to take sides in the Mel Gibson v. Michael Moore debates (The Passion of the Christ received three minor nominations: Cinematography, Makeup, Original Score; Fahrenheit 911 received no nominations -- not even as Documentary). Instead, this year's awards will take up euthanasia as its cause of the moment, nominating Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby for five major awards (plus other minor awards).

This movie, ostensibly a boxing movie, favorably depicts the killing of a person (the female lead, played by Hillary Swank) who has decided that, because of a debilitating injury, life isn't worth living anymore. You can be sure that without this plot twist -- which most reviewers are glossing over (see, for example, this review in Variety) -- a boxing movie would not be receiving this kind of critical acclaim.

More commentary on this by Debbie Schlussel, Life Site, WorldNetDaily.

The first step toward ending tyranny

Boortz suggests that the first step toward ending tyranny is to do away with one of tyranny's greatest enablers:

As for George Bush, during his speech he said that "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world." Well, may I be so bold as to offer a suggestion on how to do that? Start building a new international coalition of nations to eventually replace the United Nations. Call it the "Freedom Alliance" or something like that. Membership will be open to any nation who's leaders are chosen in free and open elections, and with a government structure that guarantees a rule of law and economic liberty for its citizens. Let the United Nations be the gathering place of petty tyrants. We need something better. Now's as good a time to start as any.

High noon coming in judicial filibuster conflict

Perhaps as soon as next month.

OT: The storm appears to be passing

...the GoogleStorm, that is. This blog post from last July has several pictures of the president, and one of them has been coming up in a Google image search (although I'm not sure which search term is bringing it up). Although the picture itself was hosted on another site, the fact that my page displayed the picture was sufficient for the search. Any time somebody clicked on the thumbnail of the picture, the archive page containing the post recorded a hit (since Google displays the context of the image). I've been getting over a hundred hits per day on that archive page this week, presumably because of the inauguration.

But today, about four hours ago, the 'blizzard' abruptly stopped. That may have something to do with the fact that the July post is now loading a local copy of the photo in question -- a change I made about 2 hours before the hits stopped. Is Google so on the ball that they noticed a change in my page? Shrug. All I know is that maybe.... just maybe.... I can return to some well-deserved obscurity.


UPDATE: Well, that was wishful thinking. Sigh.

"I wish Bush (or Kerry) had said..." --- Now they can!

Someone has come up with an amusing image generator for George Bush and John Kerry. You select the pose and the background, then enter some text, and BOOM -- you get something like this:

Lots of potential for either support or mockery of these guys, but I've got to say that <whine> the vast majority of the Bush poses are much less flattering than the vast majority of Kerry's poses </whine>.

University honors teacher who killed her baby

From CNSNews:

Villanova University on Thursday will dedicate a new section of its library to a star professor and student favorite who committed suicide in August 2003 while in jail. Mine Ener was behind bars after admitting she had killed her 6-month old, Down Syndrome-afflicted daughter by slashing the baby's throat.

Ener's friends say she suffered from post-partum depression as a result of her child's intensive health care needs and the feeling that the little girl would face a lifetime of misery.

I wonder how willing they would be to celebrate Andrea Yates, who similarly did her deed as an act of mercy.

Child advocates are understandably outraged at the inappropriateness of Villanova's action:

Child advocate and parenting education expert Dom Giordano said that while it's reasonable to sympathize over the depression Ener was experiencing, it is not acceptable for Villanova University to honor her.

"A lot of women have varying degrees of postpartum depression and they don't kill their child," Giordano told the Cybercast News Service. "What they ought to do is honor her by putting this money toward a research endowment at Villanova, toward post-partum depression ... that helps get the word out about how to avoid consequences like this."