Self Esteem vs. Self Confidence - An uncommon approach

Postby marcus_gabler » Tue May 14, 2019 3:47 pm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is my approach to clarifying these two essential concepts.
I kindly ask the community to critically review and comment my thoughts.

I plan to publish this as part of a website addressing issues like emotional degeneration, systematic human irrationality, negative effects of digital lifestyle etc.
My aim is to achieve awareness by describing issues in a simple, condensed and unbiased fashion in oder to reach a wider audience than scientific/academic publications usually do.
Backing topics rather inaccessible to the average audience by clear, real life examples seems crucial to reaching people.

Doing so, I felt the need to explain underlying psychological concepts and mechanisms BEFORE pointing out the aspects of our everyday lifestyles that interact with these concepts.

Questions I might have here are:
- Are there any flaws?
- What might be suitable publications for substantiation and further reading?
(I didn't find Wikipedia very helpful. Actually, I wrote this because I couln't find a plain, simple and condensed article about it.)
- Does anyone have other simple, daily life examples that might assist the idea?

Thank you, Marcus Gabler.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Self esteem and self confidence...


...are often interchanged as terms, together with self consciousness and ego

...are frequently mixed up as concepts, not only in colloquial use but surprisingly often also in professional context

...share definitions that are often rather blurry and confusing

...are generally taken much to literally


That's why we see a need for clarification of this essential concept.


What is commonly called the human 'Ego' should rather be viewed as two individual systems: Self Confidence and Self Esteem.


Self confidence is social strength - self esteem is emotional strength.


Self confidence  is the power to achieve our goals in social interaction, best described by terms like assertiveness/assertive force or push/ability to push through. It is rather easy to consciously understand, as we all have a sense for identifying leaders and followers, people we feel and others we don't feel obliged to.

Self esteem in contrary is probably the hardest to spot human emotional system. It is commonly described as a person's feeling of self-worth and self-acceptance. This sounds like a plausible way to put it in words, but can also be highly misleading.

Shouldn't we accordingly expect people with low self esteem (LSE) to generally view themselves as total failures? Apparently, but how does this go together with certain types of people we all know who believe and act like they are something - but really are somehow pathetic beings at the same time?

​Some examples:

- The wannabe model fishing for likes on Instagram (and, not to forget, Facebook...)
- The rich 'trust fund baby' son spending rounds of champagne by the bottle, ideally served with fireworks to attract maximum attention
- The angry young man taking any accidental eye contact as a provocation
- The awful neighbor having nothing better to do than nagging about you leaving the basement light on again (no matter if the last time was months ago) or reporting anyone's parking violations.
- People simply blocking any good advice with a "You are not telling me how to..." (do my job, live my life, raise my kids...)
- The potential date that quits texting with you just because you didn't answer within 3 hours (minutes) "Where are you? ... Hello?!?!? ... OK, seems you are not interested! Have a nice life, you will never know what you're missing! [Blocked]"


Such attention seeking, bragging or hostile behavior (most likely due to their rather active and strong appearance) is hardly commonly attributed to LSE in contrary to eg. whining or resignation.  But in fact all these actions are attempts to compensate and deal with LSE, with the former being of active/strong, the latter of rather passive/weak nature.
That's why self esteem is commonly viewed as much more conscious than it really actually is.

Therefore, self esteem is probably better described as an unconscious, emotional resource for one's satisfaction and happiness and is much more a starting point than the result of each individual's actions. There is in fact not at all a necessary direct relation between success or failure on one side and satisfaction or self-esteem on the other.

Low self esteem consequently is a deficit in one's emotional foundation (with 'high self esteem' describing no or little deficit) that generates, supports and amplifies a whole range of negative feelings like anxiety, disconnection, helplessness, jealousy etc. and consequently largely influences our (social) behavior.



Someone with lower self esteem is more likely to seek others' recognition and approval whereas somebody with higher self esteem might not miss anything at all in the first place - it simply wouldn't occur to him.



Everybody likes to be appreciated - LSE people yearn for it.



That said, social networks (let's say, for example... Facebook) appear to be LSE stations to fill up one's empty self-worth tank by receiving likes, comments and follows. But sadly, such seemingly positive input does not improve the very self esteem itself, at best it only provides momentary satisfaction. Instead, the LSE person will always have to come back for more with addictive tendencies, possibly even crippling any self esteem muscles he might have had.

In a way, trying to acquire self esteem on Facebook is like trying to lose weight by watching sports. But of course nobody would consciously use Facebook with such intention - folks are simply driven.



Real self esteem only comes from within and therefore has to be built up instead of taken in - (hence the 'self'!)



Now, attention seeking might seem immature or pathetic, but nevertheless is harmless to others.


But harming others sadly is actually the most impactful LSE behaviour! Humiliating, discrediting or dominating others are LSE driven attempts to compensate deficits. Without being able to really look inside such minds, it figures that such person's own value is perceived as increased in relation to the low/lowered value of their counterparts/victims.
Plus the feeling of power itself becomes an emotional value and goal - instead of just power being a means to succeed. Think of that bad kid making you eat worms in primary school - or the evil emperor slashing his people so they shall finally love him!



The blueprint of a...



​... born victim is one with LSE and no self confidence. 

... toxic person is one with LSE and some self confidence.

... a**hole is one with LSE but high self confidence. 

... evil person is one with low LSE, high self confidence and little/no empathy.



In essence, low self esteem is largely underrated, as it could be called the root of most (if not all) of what is commonly known as evil, and should be addressed proactively by societies.

But sadly, our world is moving exactly the oposite way, and only few of us are lucky enough to be prepared not to lose self esteem or empathy in the challenges of today's life, from digital interaction to increased competition and pressure.
marcus_gabler
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:47 am
Likes Received: 1


#1

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Wed May 15, 2019 8:18 am

marcus_gabler wrote:I kindly ask the community to critically review and comment my thoughts.


Okay

I plan to publish this as part of a website addressing issues like emotional degeneration...


Let’s start with emotional degeneration. Where is the scientific research on that term? Who is a current leader in the field of ‘emotional degeneration’? Do you have a scientific study I can read by that researcher on the topic?

From the above, I can suggest ways I would approach delivering your content.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10241
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1048

#2

Postby Livetowin » Wed May 15, 2019 12:27 pm

There are a number of problems with your outline here. Your examples go off in the weeds by breaking down low self-esteem (LES) as different grades of this issue, which I fundamentally disagree with. Plus you add your own terms to muddy the definitions. "Born victim" and "Toxic person" are very broad descriptions that might be in the lexicon of today's youth, but they reflect attitudes of those delivering that description and not thoughtful reflections of what is actually occurring. In fact many of today's youth use those kinds of terms to deflect their own issues by hammering harsh labels onto others. Unfortunately social media has created allot of snarky expressions that too many kids take to heart and use in harmful ways to hurt themselves when feelings become involved.

I would also lose the other colorful terms like "a**hole", because what you're describing is how you're feeling towards someone, NOT what they are to themselves. People with low-self-esteem tend to use these terms when they feel challenged in a moment. But the person whom they identify as the aggressor may not be doing anything of the sort. It can quite easily be them doing it to themselves and deflecting that blame unto others. Remember people with a poor self-image often can not see how much of that is self-inflicted. The most innocent and well intended conversation can be met with contempt if a person is predisposed to look for a negative message.

I would also stay away from Facebook terms to offer thoughtful reflections on behavior. Regardless of its use, the only way you can really define people is by meeting them and seeing them in a natural environment. Making leaps of logic on someone's state of mind from texts or how they function on a social page is not giving a study much objectivity.

In fact writing is some of the worst ways to communicate, because it lacks tone and context which leaves intent to the definition of every person that reads it. I utilize that rationale in my job. If I have an email exchange with clients and the tone begins to steer into a defensive posture, I will hop off email and make a phone call so a more casual and better contextualized conversation can be had.

So I would clean up the verbiage and avoid generalities in examples where definitions of who is inflicting could be misconstrued by the reader based on how they're feeling, which could be the real problem.
Livetowin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:18 pm
Likes Received: 85

#3

Postby marcus_gabler » Wed May 15, 2019 2:18 pm

Hey Richard, good to hear from you again.
And good you didn't give up on me after your last comment in October. :-)

I plan to publish this as part of a website addressing issues like emotional degeneration...


Let’s start with emotional degeneration. Where is the scientific research on that term? Who is a current leader in the field of ‘emotional degeneration’? Do you have a scientific study I can read by that researcher on the topic?

Please don't hang too tight on that term.
I used it because I hoped most would feel what I mean, and it wasn't a core part of this post anyway.
(On a sidenote, this your comment here as well as you last one might result from one of my communication deficits, which would be interesting to discuss via PM also...)

Here are some terms that might be clearer:
- empathy loss
- shallow values (materialism, status) vs. emotional values (genuine social connections, fulfillment)
- cultural impoverishment (as in CGI replacing plot in movies, talent culture replacing creativity in music)
- digital dopamine (as in Facebook)
- time compression
- more singles, less sex, less family life
- social isolation
- amygdala size corelating with decreased cognitive flexibility and conservatism
- relatively new phenomenons like "ghosting", "Phantom vibration syndrome" or "resting bitch face"
etc etc etc

I cant PM you yet, maybe you can PM me, so I can share my website under construction...

I doubt there is real scientific research about the dynamics and complexity of how low our emotional life will go.
That's exactly what I am an activist for.

Some exerpt/abstract:
- There is a long term, negative trend of our mental well-being
- Digital technology dramatically accelerates this trend
- Emotional degeneration may, beyond individual's issues like e.g. depression or solitude cause effects of unforeseen global scale (namely political/social) 

Time Compression is the main driver of higher stress levels, supporting impulsive, aggressive and overall irrational behavior. At the same time, less and less de-stressing activities (sports, social interaction, sex...) are performed.

Digital communication and social media are not only spoiling our real life social skills and supporting empathy loss. They especially weaken our ability to achieve and maintain self esteem. Low self-esteem (LSE) can bring out the worst in humans, as it makes people humiliate others. This way, LSE is probably the biggest driver of what is commonly called evil.

Additional but secondary drivers are urbanization, paleo clashing (conflicts between evolutionary determined behavior and contemporary lifestyle), cultural and mental impoverishment and even prosperity. 

The Emotional Climate tilts when the deficits acquired by digital generations are passed on to their kids directly with upbringing. As the fundament of one's self esteem and social behavior is shaped during childhood, spoiled parenting will have much greater impact on future generations than digital lifestyle has right now (see Millenials).

Best case, things will get worse only gradually, like they did for the last few decades: An even more 'strictly business' life, more stress, less social relationships, fulfillment and happiness.​

What really worries me are the dynamics of increased aggressive potentials, empathy loss and lower self esteem, as any of these alone breeds all kinds of irrational if not toxic behavior, let alone their combination. The infamous example of such combination is the situation in Germany before World War II - and we can't help noticing similar tendencies right now.

Or even more simple: Stressed and emotionally unbalanced people make more irrational and more biased decisions and thus might vote badly. You may wanna google "anti social punishment" which relates to this.
I somehow doubt the common consensus that economics are the very reason for the rise of racism and
populism. The world has never been more prosperous and dissatisfied at the same time today than ever before.

From the above, I can suggest ways I would approach delivering your content.


This post was mostly for getting feedback on my way to explain self esteem.

There is a lot more to be said, hope we can PM.
marcus_gabler
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:47 am
Likes Received: 1

#4

Postby marcus_gabler » Wed May 15, 2019 2:52 pm

Hey, thanks for your comments!

Livetowin wrote:There are a number of problems with your outline here. Your examples go off in the weeds by breaking down low self-esteem (LES) as different grades of this issue, which I fundamentally disagree with.

>>> Sorry, I dont get you here...


Plus you add your own terms to muddy the definitions. "Born victim" and "Toxic person" are very broad descriptions that might be in the lexicon of today's youth, but they reflect attitudes of those delivering that description and not thoughtful reflections of what is actually occurring. In fact many of today's youth use those kinds of terms to deflect their own issues by hammering harsh labels onto others. Unfortunately social media has created allot of snarky expressions that too many kids take to heart and use in harmful ways to hurt themselves when feelings become involved.


I plan to address a non academic, common audience with no specific psychological knowledge, probably just more interested in such topics and with a higher portion of "inventor" or "visionary" minds than average.

I use these terms because I hope many people will understand what I mean WITHOUT having to look up scientific terms first. If you have an idea about what I might mean by those terms, they can't be all wrong. If you know better terms, let me know, especially for a**hole, which you are right isn't my perfect choice either. Maybe Egoist?
As a result of your comment, i put those terms in quotation marks for now which actually looks (aka feels) a lot better :-)

I would also stay away from Facebook terms to offer thoughtful reflections on behavior. Regardless of its use, the only way you can really define people is by meeting them and seeing them in a natural environment. Making leaps of logic on someone's state of mind from texts or how they function on a social page is not giving a study much objectivity.

In fact writing is some of the worst ways to communicate, because it lacks tone and context which leaves intent to the definition of every person that reads it. I utilize that rationale in my job. If I have an email exchange with clients and the tone begins to steer into a defensive posture, I will hop off email and make a phone call so a more casual and better contextualized conversation can be had.


I can't agree more about impersonal / digital communication.
I do exactly the same - calling when texting turns bad...
Facebook / social media are amongst my main target issues.
Facebook terms?
Maybe "born victim" is used by the youth, but it should be clear in the context that I dont wanna humiliate anyone.
But I believe "Toxic personality" is not really a common term amongst youngsters, I believe it is actually rather sophisticated and only used by few who had enough reflection on things to realize the nature of such people.
Try Youtube and you will get videos EXACTLY describing the issue.

So I would clean up the verbiage and avoid generalities in examples where definitions of who is inflicting could be misconstrued by the reader based on how they're feeling, which could be the real problem.


Yes, such misunderstandings have to be avoided wherever possible.
I am constantly streamlining my writing to prevent it to be attacked on the formal level, which might keep people away form the very content.

However, my style still has to be appealing (as opposed to dry/academic), which is a challenge...

Thanks, Marcus.
marcus_gabler
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:47 am
Likes Received: 1

#5

Postby Livetowin » Wed May 15, 2019 5:36 pm

marcus_gabler wrote:I plan to address a non academic, common audience with no specific psychological knowledge, probably just more interested in such topics and with a higher portion of "inventor" or "visionary" minds than average.

I use these terms because I hope many people will understand what I mean WITHOUT having to look up scientific terms first. If you have an idea about what I might mean by those terms, they can't be all wrong. If you know better terms, let me know, especially for a**hole, which you are right isn't my perfect choice either. Maybe Egoist?
As a result of your comment, i put those terms in quotation marks for now which actually looks (aka feels) a lot better :-)


I think instead of using "a**hole", I would be more specific and point to the action. A good example might be , " People who are incredibly judgmental or critical to others without provocation or sound reason." Just saying the name can be translated any number of ways with today's audience. If we're talking about how to define behavior, you want to target the behavior in question and how it relates to your premise.

marcus_gabler wrote:Maybe "born victim" is used by the youth, but it should be clear in the context that I dont wanna humiliate anyone.
But I believe "Toxic personality" is not really a common term amongst youngsters, I believe it is actually rather sophisticated and only used by few who had enough reflection on things to realize the nature of such people.
Try Youtube and you will get videos EXACTLY describing the issue.


I completely appreciate and like your approach to keeping things in laymen terms. All the more reason to keep it as specific as possible and not let your audience create a narrative off a generality. I think it becomes even more critical when you consider how much people (of all ages) are so involved in political and social debates. For example a person who is against abortion might consider someone who is for it to be "toxic". But is the action of that person they disagree with truly toxic or are we having a difference of opinion? And if you have two insecure people talking about that topic, it really leaves the tracks. So to me the term "toxic" is so broadly used, it often does not come down to what a person is actually doing, so much as how the person disagrees and thus labels it to fit their emotions.

I like what you're doing here and its encouraging to see this kind of effort being made to bring awareness to the public. I certainly support what you're doing. But I would add I hope you bring into that conversation the need for people to first be accountable for themselves. How people feel in any given circumstance can often to be tied directly to how they feel about themselves. There's a coping mechanism in play here that applies to self preservation even when a person does not feel good about themselves.

So a natural inclination for a person with low self-esteem is to look for the "villain" outside of themselves. Its challenging to ask a person who is already fragile to examine themselves when they already carry the burden of feeling flawed. But if we do not take that step to define personal responsibility, then how can we find good measure to apply that to others, if we are not first in line to accept that standard?

These are the reasons why I do not promote labels or use general terms. When it comes to behavior, it should always be definable by specific actions. Because ultimately what you want to do is assist people in overcoming their own dysfunctional thinking. If they see something that appears wrong in front of them, you want to make sure they're looking through a lens not colored by their own issues that prevent them from seeing things as they actually exist. Defining the action allows people to explore themselves in that conversation and thus a new awareness (and way of thinking) is brought to light.
Livetowin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:18 pm
Likes Received: 85

#6

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Thu May 16, 2019 1:04 am

marcus_gabler wrote:
Please don't hang too tight on that term.



I asked for the current leader in the academic/scientific field of “emotional degeneration” for a reason. I asked, because I don’t believe that line of research exists, but I was willing to accept the possibility. That is not the only term you have thrown out there that you have just pulled out of the air.

A piece of advice. If you want to promote that you take academic work and simplify it for the laymen, then focus on that. Use terms that actually exist. Don’t make up terms that mean nothing, but sound like they might be academic.


I am constantly streamlining my writing to prevent it to be attacked on the formal level, which might keep people away form the very content.

However, my style still has to be appealing (as opposed to dry/academic), which is a challenge...

Thanks, Marcus.


Keep streamlining. What you are currently writing is easily attacked. On the one hand you want to say that definition and the distinction between self esteem vs self confidence is very important, but at the same time you obscure and complicate the writing by throwing out made up terms that only serve to distract and serve no purpose. “Emotional degeneration” doesn’t sound like language for laymen and it doesn’t sound intellectual either.

Here is another question. Who is a leading researcher on self esteem in 2019. If you intend to convert academic work into the language of laymen, it is advisable to know what the leaders of the field that have published academic papers are saying, right? Can you share with us an academic article you found interesting on the subject and tell us your thoughts on the publication? It would be fun to discuss in here. Maybe as a group we could develop some questions and reach out to the author.

As for the PM, I’m not sure what purpose it serves. The very benefit of a public forum is that we all get to share our opinions and bounce ideas off one another. It is a collective effort. PM reduces the number of minds working on an issue. Livetowin would not be able to contribute, other readers would not benefit, etc.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10241
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1048

#7

Postby marcus_gabler » Fri May 17, 2019 6:36 am

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:
As for the PM, I’m not sure what purpose it serves. The very benefit of a public forum is that we all get to share our opinions and bounce ideas off one another. It is a collective effort. PM reduces the number of minds working on an issue. Livetowin would not be able to contribute, other readers would not benefit, etc.


I wanted to give you the URL of my website so you can see the big picture.

I am not pulling terms out of the air.
I want to reach the hearts of people, and this is rather a journalist tasks than an academic.

Nobody needs a study to see our emotional and social life is eroding.
These are not terms, these are words and language.

I was rather hoping for feedback about my concept...

The funny thing is that there is a pattern.
Feedback here and elsewhere hardly ever deals with what i write but with how i write.

Maybe my writing has room to improve, but this pattern might also say something about why/how
people comment in the first place...
marcus_gabler
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:47 am
Likes Received: 1

#8

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Fri May 17, 2019 7:57 am

marcus_gabler wrote:I was rather hoping for feedback about my concept...


The concept of a website where laypeople can read about psychology is solid. Check out psychologytoday.com. People take academic works and turn them into readable “pop psychology” articles. They reach millions, discussing dry academic topics like self esteem.

The funny thing is that there is a pattern.
Feedback here and elsewhere hardly ever deals with what i write but with how i write.


That should tell you something about where you need to focus your energy. Until how you write improves, what you write isn’t going to get the results you would like. No worries, I’m in the same boat.

As for not needing a study to know emotional life is eroding, fair enough...but then don’t promote the site as using or converting dry/academic work into journalistic reads. Instead, start a Marcus Gabler purely editorial opinion website. In other words, don’t try to conflate your personal opinion as being associated with academic work. And then you can coin and develop whatever terms you like as no one will mistake what you are writing to have a basis in academia.

I think that is key. If you are authentic that all you are doing is writing your personal opinions based on your general knowledge, then it will resonate with a certain limited audience. Like any editorial page, you will attract followers that agree with your opinions.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 10241
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1048

#9

Postby Candid » Fri May 17, 2019 3:05 pm

marcus_gabler wrote: this is rather a journalist tasks than an academic.


But you are neither a journalist nor an academic.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:start a Marcus Gabler purely editorial opinion website. In other words, don’t try to conflate your personal opinion as being associated with academic work. And then you can coin and develop whatever terms you like as no one will mistake what you are writing to have a basis in academia.

I think that is key. If you are authentic that all you are doing is writing your personal opinions based on your general knowledge, then it will resonate with a certain limited audience.
User avatar
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8264
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Reading, England
Likes Received: 335

#10

Postby marcus_gabler » Fri May 17, 2019 3:16 pm

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

I asked for the current leader in the academic/scientific field of “emotional degeneration” for a reason. I asked, because I don’t believe that line of research exists, but I was willing to accept the possibility. That is not the only term you have thrown out there that you have just pulled out of the air.

A piece of advice. If you want to promote that you take academic work and simplify it for the laymen, then focus on that. Use terms that actually exist. Don’t make up terms that mean nothing, but sound like they might be academic.



Why do you even stick to my words being a "term" after i told you it is only language?
I dont pull these words out of the air, i use them because i find them appropriate.
Try not to be all black and white at least.
I am fully aware of surrounding issues of misinterpretation etc.
But we are already now going around in circles if you aren't considering my content and stick all to
formal issues, that I again am aware of but are simply another story to me right now.


I am constantly streamlining my writing to prevent it to be attacked on the formal level, which might keep people away form the very content.

However, my style still has to be appealing (as opposed to dry/academic), which is a challenge...

Thanks, Marcus.



Keep streamlining. What you are currently writing is easily attacked. On the one hand you want to say that definition and the distinction between self esteem vs self confidence is very important, but at the same time you obscure and complicate the writing by throwing out made up terms that only serve to distract and serve no purpose. “Emotional degeneration” doesn’t sound like language for laymen and it doesn’t sound intellectual either.

Here is another question. Who is a leading researcher on self esteem in 2019. If you intend to convert academic work into the language of laymen, it is advisable to know what the leaders of the field that have published academic papers are saying, right? Can you share with us an academic article you found interesting on the subject and tell us your thoughts on the publication? It would be fun to discuss in here. Maybe as a group we could develop some questions and reach out to the author.


I was searching for usable content, but every thing I found so far seems to be blurry as I wrote in the introduction.
That's why I was asking HERE if someone knew something CLEAR and maybe even addressing the common confusion.



As for the PM, I’m not sure what purpose it serves. The very benefit of a public forum is that we all get to share our opinions and bounce ideas off one another. It is a collective effort. PM reduces the number of minds working on an issue. Livetowin would not be able to contribute, other readers would not benefit, etc.


Again, i wanted to give oyu my URL, which is under construction and not public yet.
I am sure you would understand better if you know what this is all about.
marcus_gabler
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:47 am
Likes Received: 1

#11

Postby Candid » Fri May 17, 2019 3:31 pm

I'm curious as to why you're undertaking this task.

The academics and the writers of popular self-help books have it covered, and there are loads of websites, forums and personal opinions online already.

You might want to consider that your approach is 'uncommon' because it's wrong.
User avatar
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8264
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Reading, England
Likes Received: 335

#12

Postby marcus_gabler » Fri May 17, 2019 3:43 pm

Candid wrote:
marcus_gabler wrote: this is rather a journalist tasks than an academic.


But you are neither a journalist nor an academic.



True. I am actually best described as an activist. So what?
Apart from not having authoritative proof, that doesn't mean my stuff is not worth to be considered or even wrong.
FYI, what I actually have is a lifelong development in rationality, de-biasing, general BS-detection etc.
I am savvy of the principles of evolutionary psychology, System 1 vs. System 2 and other relevant concepts.

If you would focus on my content rather than on my background or style, you will hopefully see that what I am writing
makes sense. Or if not, tear THAT apart - instead of judging my book by the cover. :)


Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:start a Marcus Gabler purely editorial opinion website. In other words, don’t try to conflate your personal opinion as being associated with academic work. And then you can coin and develop whatever terms you like as no one will mistake what you are writing to have a basis in academia.

I think that is key. If you are authentic that all you are doing is writing your personal opinions based on your general knowledge, then it will resonate with a certain limited audience.


Very well. But that is exactly what I think am doing.

I thought I have my findings evaluated by some pros here, nothing more.
I hope that's not too much to ask for.

All I am asking for is your support, because the underlying issue (not self esteem, but our emotional world going south, as described above) is worth it.
marcus_gabler
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:47 am
Likes Received: 1

#13

Postby marcus_gabler » Fri May 17, 2019 4:03 pm

Candid wrote:I'm curious as to why you're undertaking this task.

The academics and the writers of popular self-help books have it covered, and there are loads of websites, forums and personal opinions online already.

You might want to consider that your approach is 'uncommon' because it's wrong.


I googled the topic over and over but always run into confusing definitions.
I am pretty sure there must be some works out there explaining the subject clearly.
That's why I was asking for assistance in my introduction if someone could point me to some content that makes my definition superfluous. Because then my definition is no longer needed and I can simply link to it.

Remember my subject is not self esteem or psychological definitions.

My subject is what i call emotional climate change.

It has to do eg. with smartphones supporting empathy loss, communication skill loss and low self esteem.
With phenomenons like "road rage" that are indeed not academic terms but nevertheless indicators of what i call
emotional degeneration, because nobody told me a better term or word yet.
With the uncomfortable pace of ALDI checkout and the preassure from customers behind you getting impatient if you
can't keep the pace or entered you card PIN wrongly.
With everything in our societies supporting stress and little supporting genuine social interaction.

Please, tell me what's the appropriate term for all this?
What should I google?
Is there research on how cold, shallow and emotionally empty our life's and societies are getting?

Please understand me...
marcus_gabler
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:47 am
Likes Received: 1

#14

Postby Candid » Fri May 17, 2019 5:23 pm

marcus_gabler wrote:What should I google?


Your own website, presumably. Or anomie.

Is there research on how cold, shallow and emotionally empty our life's and societies are getting?


I suppose that must depend on what circles you mix in. I find most people friendly.
User avatar
Candid
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8264
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Reading, England
Likes Received: 335


Next

Return to Psychology

cron