JR'S Free Thought Pages
Self Esteem - An Analysis
By JR, Last updated September 11, 2021, www.skeptic.ca
This critique on a little understood and misconstrued concept was written in the mid-1990s with a few minor edits since that time.
In addition to the mind numbing business and inane “leadership” models imposed on the high schools that began in the mid-1980s, the misconstrued and misguided self-esteem movement and ensuing grade inflation simply added to the deterioration of academic standards and intellectual quality of education at all levels from K-12 to university. Browse the massive “self-help” or “New Age” section of any bookstore in North America and you will likely notice two main categories: First, literally thousands of books have been written to help you lose weight; after all obesity is a global epidemic in our indulgent gluttonous hedonistic capitalist cultures. My solution: pick your parents well, eat less and exercise more; full stop. Second, thousands more of these pabulum books have been published to help you gain “self-esteem”. It’s easy to understand all the books on weight loss; after all most people look like hippos and in Western cultures, one can’t be too skinny. But why is there so much interest in promoting self-esteem? Pay attention to the word “self” in the expression “self-esteem” as you ought to do in “self-help”. What is self-esteem good for? As I will try to explain there is precious little common understanding on the matter within both the general population and academia. While some argue that high self-esteem is essential to human functioning and imbues life with meaning, others like me argue that it is of little value in the sense generally understood by most people and therefore may actually be a liability to self worth and human flourishing.
The following analysis is a response to the article "Our Urgent Need for Self-Esteem" by Nathanial Branden in Executive Excellence (May, 1994, pp. 14-15)
Psychologists, especially those who have studied psychopathological behavior such as UBC professor and expert Robert Hare, understand that some individuals desperately seek power over others, usually paired with a lack of empathy, little or no moral compass and yearning for material success and wealth. This type of individual predominates in those who are bosses, managers, ardent capitalists and so-called entrepreneurs, especially the toxic corporatist and financial predatory mutations that have emerged in recent decades. Other people do not covet power over others, only power over themselves. In fact many prefer modest contemplative, even stoical lives oriented toward helping others. Recall the messages in some of the uplifting hopeful counterculture pop songs of the 1960s and 70s that dreamed of a better world. Four of my favorites, such as Bill Withers’ Lean on Me, The Hollies, He Ain’t Heavy; He’s my Brother, The Youngblood’s Get Together and John Lennon’s Imagine. As the mid 1980s approached it became obvious that the dream of a better more caring world not only would not happen, thanks to the neo-conservative reactionary counterrevolution, it has slowly debased into the dystopian nightmare we experience today. Thanks for nothing Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney, you’ve really contributed to a downtick in our collective self-esteem.
Perhaps what leads some people needing authority over others is low self-esteem, a frequently misconceived and little understood concept that has crept into the schools and misapplied in recent years. Perhaps starting in infancy or childhood those who became hooked on power experienced a vacuum of caring, nurture, love and validation from their mothers and never learned to accept foundational moral adages such as the golden rule, simple pleasures in life, an inner tranquility, appreciation of the disappearing natural world and self-confidence. Their lives have become an endless hedonistic pursuit for external sources of self-worth, affirmation and validation.
Teachers, in an effort to strengthen self esteem, often praise a student for work that is substandard and even shoddy. In a situation such as this, should we not be fostering in our students an ability to accept criticism, be self-critical and learn from mistakes? The most common misconception about self-esteem is that it is built through the language of praise and the granting of rewards; but surely self-esteem cannot be granted like a pay-raise, prize or trophy. Certainly occasional praise, and even reward, has its place but as I will argue, they do not enhance self-esteem. Praise can help a student feel better for a short time, but it also tends to make the student's self-esteem dependent on the teacher. What students need from teachers is encouragement, not praise. They need to recognize improvement, progress and growth on their own so that their feelings of self-worth are self-authenticating and generated from the inside out. Rather than telling a math student that her work is excellent or great, the teacher should comment on her work ethic and perseverance and how these factors have contributed to her progression toward greater skill, knowledge and understanding. In other words, the student, not the teacher, must draw the inference about a student’s worth.
Studies have shown that rewards, as well as stress; punishments and strong emotions often lead to reduced flexibility in thinking, leading to irrational behaviour. For example, when students are granted rewards for work they are more inclined to concentrate on quantity at the expense of quality. It may have the effect of making students pick easy problems, in addition to preventing them from reflecting on the general principles involved rather than merely providing routine recipe style solutions. This may apply even if the reward is merely in the form of praise from the teacher. Praise should be given not for just solving problems, but for the ability to demonstrate conceptual clarity, rules of logic, deductive and inductive “proof”, draw valid inferences and for understanding general principles such as axioms and theorems that underpin the processes of cogent argumentation. Encouraging such creativity may be too little regarded today, perhaps as the result of the mistaken identification of creativity with the ability to produce unusual but meaningless or irrelevant material, as fostered by writers like Edward de Bono. True creativity can only be measured by the product and does not mean thinking up a thousand uses for a ball-peen hammer. It’s rather the ability to solve new problems, to induce general principles, to construct sound explanatory theories and to produce useful and novel technologies. Nor is creativity randomly tossing volumes of paint at a canvas - it is the ability to paint a picture that in some way or other moves the beholder.
It seems to me that self-esteem is a natural upshot of the realization that you have worked and thought extremely hard on an activity, problem or assignment and have done the best you can. However, students should be mindful of their all-to-human fallibility, which is aptly expressed in the dictum “to err is human” and the old paradoxical adage that "success is 99% failure". We all must eventually become aware of our limitations and be cognizant of the truism that one can put in an enormous amount of time and effort on a project and still fail. Our propensity to make mistakes is a basic human characteristic that we should accept without reacting with a self-attribution of incompetence or flawed character. Errors, setbacks and failure are situations from which we should respond positively and translate them into learning experiences. This is the essence of avoiding stupidity. In the quest for knowledge, understanding and wisdom, humility is clearly a virtue. But the equivocation of self-esteem with the self-satisfying belief that failure is "almost successful" or "in progress", and the perception that whatever we do is awesome and excellent, is a blatant misuse of language as well as an exercise in sophistry and self-deception. The "Doctor Feel-goods" and "self-help gurus" who pervade many business and business influenced education seminars these days are some of the worst proponents of this nonsense. Many self confident people over-estimate their attributes and abilities. Moreover; many of these same over-confident people are also quite stupid but unaware they are in fact stupid, in other words too stupid to realize they are stupid. 
I believe it was John Searle, the eminent philosopher of language from the University of California at Berkeley, who said that "complacency is the very opposite of the intellectual life." The well-kept secret of the intellectual life is that quality first-rate work requires an enormous amount of effort, anguish and even desperation. The quest for knowledge and truth, as well as depth, insight, and originality is not some effortless "Sesame Street" exercise.  Only an immature naivety adopts such simplistic images of the intellectual life. Besides, is it not better to be "a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied", as John Stuart Mill has so vividly stated? Our resolve to understand both the world and ourselves should not be purchased at the price of maintaining our precious consolatory beliefs and self-esteem. What we need is a sense of humility in the face of the unknown and to recognize the fallibility of much of what we claim to know. This is the essence of the scientific outlook. Only in this way can we maintain our intellectual integrity and avoid slipping into pretentious dogmatism. Furthermore, without uncertainty there would be no hope, no free will and no ethics. An essential part of wisdom is the ability to determine what is uncertain or implausible; that is, to appreciate the limits of knowledge and to understand its contingencies and probabilistic nature of our lives, regardless of the context. Paradoxically, however, while we all strive to reduce the uncertainties and unpredictable nature of our lives, ultimate omniscience in our endeavours; that is, total success, would be horrific. If there were no uncertainties about the consequences of behaviour, for example, ethics and morality would become redundant because uncertainty is a necessary precondition not only for the existence of ethical choice, but for the notion of free will. This is because the ethics of a decision is not judged post hoc on the basis of the consequences that happen to follow. But nor can ethics be reduced to an appeal to authority or the mindless adherence to religious rules and other absolute rules.
As I see it, Nathanial Branden in his paper displays a serious lack of attention to conceptual clarity and a misunderstanding of some of the most basic principles of probability theory and rules of statistical inference. Let me first deal with the latter problem. Branden, a long time disciple of Ayn Rand, is a clinical psychologist and hence sees only those people who already have problems such as anxiety and depression. He sees only those people who are in therapy. They have all engaged in negative social behaviours and they all have a negative self-image. He concludes that this self-image problem is at the basis of the behaviour - i.e., he concludes that all or most of these clients have low self-esteem. In other words, given that one has psychological problems, the probability of low self-esteem is high (i.e., P (L|S) is high where S = having problems and L = low self-esteem - the conditional probability of low self-esteem, given that one has problems). Branden's experience is with people who already have problems and want help - that is, his experience is conditional on S. However, to state that these problems are traceable to poor self-esteem is to assert that P (S|L) (the inverse conditional probability) is high, which we do not know. After all, clients come to Branden because they have problems. Branden's experience is with people who want help with their problems - that is, his experience is conditional on S. Even if we found a high P (S|L), we could still not make a causal inference: people's self-esteem may be poor because they have such problems. Branden's observations are in fact consistent with the conclusion that having low self-esteem is good for people who have problems because otherwise they would not be motivated to seek help and change their behaviours. Branden would have been much better off acknowledging the dubious nature of his claims rather than irrationally accepting a causal hypothesis. For example, self-esteem and academic achievement are quite obviously correlated. But self-esteem and academic achievement are probably not causally related in either direction. Self-esteem and academic achievement are very likely linked to variables such as intelligence and family social status. If you subtract these last two variables from the equation, the causal relationship between self-esteem and academic achievement disappears in a whiff of smoke.
Self-esteem as a target for empirical research is clearly problematic because of its vagueness. Exactly what is it about which a person is self-esteeming? Is it simply a generalized self-confidence? I will more fully deal with this conceptual difficulty shortly, but one thing is certain: precious little evidence suggests that self-esteem leads to higher achievement. A person might cherish family, God and Country; she might hold herself in high regard both athletically and intellectually but these sentiments may not necessarily translate into becoming a superior student, athlete or citizen. In fact, the relationship between self-esteem and achievement might be an inverse one ("almost" because any serious lack of self-esteem would surely lead one nowhere). Insecurity, humility and self-doubt also advance hard work and achievement; and they place self-esteem on a realistic foundation. The relationship between self-esteem and achievement may, at the very least, be reciprocal. The way to achieve self-esteem is through hard work, skills and accomplishments, not through self-aggrandizement, self-esteem workshops or self-help gurus.
Those who are self-satisfied and pleased with themselves and their accomplishments may do little else than flaunt themselves - this notion of self-esteem ("never say die", "every person is special", "always feel powerful", "every man a king") is the hallmark of capitalist psycho-babble and the North American narcissistic psyche and entrepreneurial mystique. Unfortunately this optimism and power of positive thinking usually have precious little to do with reality and the world as it is. The relatively poor showing of North American students in standardized tests compared with students from other cultures has become commonplace. Less familiar (and fewer) are observations gleaned from studies correlating self-esteem and educational performance. Those who perceive themselves winners are bottom feeders and those who think themselves losers are the winners. International studies of science and mathematics skills clearly show that North Americans are the most self-assured and self-confident - yet demonstrate the lowest achievement. Asian students and their parents, however, are the most insecure, humble and self-doubting - but their students invariably finish at the top. The parents especially have little use for vague concepts such as “self-esteem”. In recent studies (International Assessment of Mathematics and Science, Princeton, ETS, 1989 and Learning Mathematics, Princeton, ETS, 1992) North American high school students were near the bottom whereas Koreans were the highest achievers. When these students were asked whether they "are good at mathematics", the results were, to me at least, not surprising. The North American students believed they were the best, while Koreans, who far out-performed the Americans, thought they were not particularly good at Math. Despite their poor overall performance (second from the bottom) about two-thirds of Americans felt they "are good at Mathematics". Only 23% of their Korean counterparts, the highest achievers, shared this same conviction. More than one parent of an exchange student from Japan, Korea and Taiwan expressed little interest in my grandiose claims about how well their kids were performing in my Math 12 and Advanced Placement Calculus courses. The common response was, “yes, that’s fine but what can he/she do to improve him/her self?” The onus for performing well was always placed on the student, never the teacher. When I was a student there were always mediocre teachers - in addition to many excellent and inspiring ones - even at the University level. But I never let poor or incompetent teachers deny me success in the courses I studied; there were always other avenues to achieve success.
Returning to Branden, his lack of intellectual responsibility is not limited to his abuse of causation and ignorance of probability theory and statistical inference. It also spills over into his use of language and subsequent lack of conceptual clarity. He does not define his terms, employs vague language and has a propensity to make categorical statements without supporting evidence. For example, Branden makes no effort to inform us as to the meaning of "self-esteem"; nor does he list any criteria for judging someone as having low or high self-esteem? What could he possibly mean by the nebulous claim "lacking positive self-esteem, psychological growth is stunted"? Branden makes all sorts of wild assertions about the virtues of self-esteem. He declares that self-esteem makes us "more ambitious, more communicative, more flexible, more expressive and outgoing, more honest and open, more loving" and "resides in the core of one's being". Is this not demanding a lot of an abstraction? And what could he possibly mean by the opaque expression "the core of one's being"? Finally, Branden claims that self-esteem is an important ingredient for those competitive members of a free market capitalistic system, an immoral undemocratic system that often crushes those who cannot or choose not to be competitive or exploitive.
What, then, could Branden possibly mean by self-esteem? John Rawls (1971), in his major work A Theory of Justice, argues a case for individuals choosing their own way and framing their own conception of the good life. At the same time he maintains that there are goods, so-called primary goods, that anyone will need whatever his or her conception of the good life. These include the social goods, rights and liberties, power and opportunities, income and security, and, most important of all, self-esteem.
The primary position of self-esteem in a democratic society is obvious when we realize that, for Rawls, to enjoy self-esteem is to feel secure that one's conception of the good life is worth carrying out and to be confident of one's abilities to do so. It is interesting that Rawls, in his discussion of self-esteem, uses the terms self-esteem and self-respect interchangeably. This, I think, entails some minor conceptual confusion. Self-respect, it would seem, is to have a sense of one's dignity as a person. It is adversely affected when one's moral or political rights are impugned - if people treat one as a means to their own ends, for instance, wilfully break their promises to one, subject one to degradation, humiliate one, patronize one. People can have a lively sense of self-respect, their antennae quivering at any possible infringement of their rights or moral imperatives but suffer from low self-esteem, believing, for instance, that nothing that they set out to accomplish could ever turn out well owing to their own inadequacies. Conversely, I may be bursting with optimism and self-esteem but yet have little self-respect. Think of Charlotte Lucas, who marries Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice. Or, if I may digress for a moment, consider a person who acquires his self-esteem from his position in a bureaucratic authority structure but yet compromises his principles by turning a blind eye to an injustice inflicted upon one of his subordinates or who uses such a position for his own glory or may even adopt a overly submissive attitude toward others in the organization to earn their approval. The strategies of many modern managers are often undemocratic and morally dubious by their manipulation and coercion of individuals within the organization, using them as mere instrumentalities, often with the crudest utilitarian justification underlying those strategies. Writers about management conceive of themselves as morally neutral entities whose skills enable them to devise the most efficient means of achieving whatever end is proposed. But the manipulation of human beings into compliant patterns of behaviour is not only antithetical to the democratic spirit, but diminishes the self-esteem and self-respect of those who are the victims of such strategies. Democratic communities, including our public schools, if they expect to survive and function as such, surely expect that their citizens will stand up for their principles and challenge any incipient injustice or undue authoritarianism. Submissiveness, subservience, passive acquiescence, conformity and credulity must all be labelled political vices in a democratic community whatever their value in authoritarian and hierarchical organizations. We know from bitter experience (Germany in the 1920's and 1930’s, for example) and from research findings, that organizations and institutions may well diminish those positive qualities of confidence, independence of thought, and the like which are the hallmarks of self-esteem, and induce in their members feelings of inadequacy, dependence and "learned helplessness". It seems to me that if all members of an institution participate in its policy and decision making process, then they can directly bear the moral responsibility for those decisions and, yes, enhance their self-esteem.
In light of the above, it would seem that one should examine the sources of one's self-esteem and, via a process of reflection and self-assessment, evaluate the authenticity of such sources - could not this reflective self-examination be a source of self-esteem? This will often be a painful process, requiring honesty and intellectual integrity in facing up to a possible self-deception or self-serving bias. Is there any reason why a person should not take pride in honestly examining his or her way of life, trying to root out false beliefs and self-deception and trying to face unsavoury truths about the world and oneself? For one to have reasonable self-confidence and self-acceptance one does not have to do well in some things, only to believe that one does. And there are many ways by which people can be brought to hold false beliefs. If a student, for example, is brought to develop a self-image that is far from reality, this might ultimately result in lower self-esteem when the distortion comes crashing down on him ("excessive pride cometh before a fall"). Those people who continually hold themselves in high self-esteem and who always appear to be optimistic and cheerful risk living in a dangerously rose-tinted universe in which they have difficulties in remembering past failings and overestimate their own competence and self-efficacy. After all, the pursuit of an enigmatic happiness is an illusion; perhaps contentment is a better word for a satisfied mind. In addition, they frequently overestimate their control over events often to the point of perceiving completely random events as subject to their will, give unrealistic positive evaluations of their achievements and believe others share their embellished opinions of themselves.
Simply put then, people with positive self-esteem have a favourable opinion of themselves. They see themselves, for instance, as having worthwhile ends in view and the necessary dispositions and capacities to pursue them; or as having achieved something worthwhile; or as the possessors of some desirable attribute, like good looks, intelligence, athletic ability, or as coming from a "good family" or the belief that one is divinely created in the image of their God.  Those people who have low self-esteem may see their ends as unworthy, or valueless, or they may be totally bewildered because there is no order to their life. They may, on the other hand, see themselves as, for example, overly emotional, or too lacking in rational self-control to carry through a project, however worthy its conception might be. They may have a poor opinion of themselves because they feel they have accomplished little or nothing of any worth, or because they see themselves as personally unattractive or lacking social status. Whether people are right in these positive and negative judgments is another matter. Someone who thinks she is unintelligent may be mistaken; and the individuals are not perhaps the final authorities on the worthiness or unworthiness of their own ends. What matters for self-esteem - however high or low - is that one should believe that one is such and such. However, as I have already mentioned, this is not to suggest that it is all right for one's self-esteem to be based on any beliefs whatsoever, particularly dubious or false ones.
As a senior high school mathematics teacher, I always encouraged my mostly college bound Math 12 and AP Calculus students to be sceptical, question everything and learn to think for themselves. Nothing else can enhance one’s self-esteem and sense of self-worth more than independence of thought ruled by evidence, logic, scientific and philosophical inquiry and critical thinking. But the intellectual life can be a treacherous and hard road to travel. As the great philosopher Spinoza once wrote, “Anything excellent is as difficult as it is rare”.
Most Canadians, Americans and many others throughout the world in our troubled and perilous times live out their lives by using the tools of modern technology coupled with their often distracted and addictive minds mired in medieval conceptions of religion and other irrational and often frightening superstitions. These fallacies and silly beliefs are typically exacerbated by a tightly held political conservatism which more than anything else destroys the promise of possible enlightened political, economic and societal advancement. Even after 500 years of the scientific revolution and humanist enlightenment most of us continue to hold to ancient belief systems and are not much better than emotionally reactive god fearing apes, some with nuclear weapons.
It has always seemed to me that people believe what they want to believe, because that is how they construct their self-images and worth (aka self-esteem). Any interlocutor who tries to change those beliefs runs into furious defensive opposition as anyone who has attempted to engage in rational dialogue with Christian solicitors at the front door. They invariably appeal to opaque or abstruse concepts and non-evidential and anti-science premises such as supernatural entities and biblical imperatives that I do not accept.
From my personal experience it is very rare to change another’s mind about anything. Only you can decide if and when you wish to reconsider a currently held belief which is usually not motivated by reason and evidence but likely incited a dramatic or traumatic life experience that shifts your consciousness into doubting previously held beliefs and world views. Such traumas and life’s distress are likely what induce people to re-evaluate their generally emotionally held beliefs, challenge their thinking about life and about themselves. It seems we only learn from ourselves by re-examining our thoughts and beliefs. Moreover, this is the same for self-esteem which cannot be simply given to you from an outside source. It must come from self-reflection and self-examination. Clear thinking is critical thinking performed with rationality, logic, Occam’s razor and appeals to evidence.
The scientist, for example, allows any held belief to be rejected before the superior force of evidence and verifiable fact. But for the religious believer — for that is what all faith dominant beliefs are, whether religious or otherwise— will be undeterred by facts, cogent argument and evidence.
Laziness, both physical and intellectual, is a common human weakness, a flaw for which there is no excuse. Face realities and the truth, regardless how unpleasant. Gaining knowledge is very difficult, often frustrating toil; wisdom is even more demanding. But the effort will reward you in countless ways, enabling confidence and self-esteem. But be prepared to admit you are wrong when confronted with counter-evidence and sound counter argument. The scientific process of modifying your beliefs and world view protects you from the emotional turbulence of feeling attacked personally when reality bites and renders your beliefs and ideas in error and demands you modify or correct them. Remember, our objective as rationalists, realists and critical thinkers holding to the scientific model is to maintain truth and the most accurate description of reality available to us.
In his book L’Homme Révolté (The Rebel), Albert Camus made a very important distinction between two perspectives of reality and meta-reality, those who are “rational” or those who are “irrational”. The conflict between people of faith and others who value evidence as do scientists, 95% of whom are agnostic or atheist such as Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman or Steven Weinberg are the ideals that Camus was describing in the aforementioned book. Science is a method of logical and empirical inquiry with the objective of discovering truth and reality, results that have by repeated experimentation shown to be reproducible by peers and thereby considered scientifically proven facts and theories. For example, consider science’s successes in enabling engineering innovations, advancements in medical procedures and remedies - in addition to a multiplicity of technological developments at least until such time as new data calls them into question - as with supremely accurate Newtonian physics and Maxwell’s electromagnetism, which were refined with Einstein’s discoveries.
Medical quackery, pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo such as astrology and creationism, religious obscurantism, QAnon conspiracy lunatics and dubious conspiracy theories about 9-11 are perhaps minor obstructions to the intellect and public good. However, the damage they inflict to both the public good and the wellbeing of individuals holding to them is still real, like the damaging effects on our politics and communities by the anti-democratic capitalist dictatorship of money and workers and especially in the United States by the entire complex of biases, delusions, lies and hucksterism of an imbecilic Donald Trump and his cult of neo-fascist pinhead demagoguery. This kind of rubbish stupefies the running of our public realm and circumvents the potential for advancing enlightened societal intelligence, progress and genuine democracy.
It’s bad enough that malicious power-seeking corporate leaders, banking mafia, billionaires and their sock puppet politicians and special interests will work to divide the citizenry by appealing to their competing bigotries, fears, superstitions, mental laziness and ignorance - all for the sake of their profit before all else careerist self-aggrandizing agendas. They succeed in their rapacity and corruption without us making it easier for them by deluding ourselves with irrational beliefs and conspiratorial fantasies. Thinking and the intellectual life is freedom, but only when it is done right. Learning how to think clearly and critically is how one gains self worth, confidence and self–esteem and the composure that flows from it. The status quo always needs to be challenged as atrophy, complacency and the “iron law of oligarchy” invariably settle in.
Irving Janis in his 1972 book Victims of Groupthink used the word groupthink to describe the deterioration of a groups' cognitive efficiency, attention, critical acumen and judgment that results from implicit constraints and pressures.  People tend to gravitate to groups whose attitudes and beliefs are similar to their own thus diminishing anxiety about possible inconsistencies and contradictions concerning those beliefs. Group attitudes are more prone to engaging in risky activities and more willing to take extreme measure than those of individuals to meet their ends and, as many psychological studies have shown, membership in a group severely reduces individual responsibility. Many others have also commented on the irrationality of group behaviour. Charles Mackay's classic Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Gustav Le Bon's The Crowd, Elias Canetti's Crowds and Power and Friedrich Nietzsche’s writings come to mind. Madness, said Nietzsche, is the exception in individuals, but the rule in groups. Freud wrote that groups are impulsive, changeable, irritable and extraordinarily credulous. Groupthink is the false illusion of invulnerability - the reluctance of members of a group to challenge the status quo, the opinions of the leader or to play the devil's advocate when it is so often justified. People would rather conform than dissent. For example, the lack of preparedness of the Americans at Pearl Harbour (12/7/41) was the result of a refusal by the commander's subordinates to disagree with his complacency in the face of evidence of an impending attack. In Arthur Schlesinger's account of the Bay of Pigs fiasco in the early 1960s he later expressed regret with his decision not to speak out in spite of the fact in private he vehemently disagreed with the group during the crucial discussions in the Cabinet Room over strategy.
The impetus behind groupthink is the effort to minimize anxiety and preserve self-esteem. The various devices employed to enhance self-esteem play the same role in groups as they do in individuals; that is, the distortion of reality in order to preserve heightened self-esteem and reduced anxiety. They facilitate an escape into the self-satisfying, consolatory refuge of consensus and the status quo. By cramping its attention and hobbling its information-seeking, the group preserves its cosy unanimity. Loyalty to the group requires that members not raise embarrassing or sensitive questions, attack weak arguments, or raise issues about conceptual clarity and tenuous evidence. Most people are extremely reluctant to challenge another person's beliefs primarily because they quite naturally try to avoid potential conflict with others and to do so is to risk being disliked. 
How often have you noticed that leaders of groups or committees prefer to surround themselves with "team players" - people who are conformists, true believers and who suppress their scepticism? Many of you have likely read Eric Hoffer's great little 1951 book, The True Believer. Consider, for example, the political games one must play in order to secure an administrative position - tell them what they want to hear! Bertrand Russell once stated that critical thinkers are never popular, particularly in bureaucracies, because, as he put it, they cause "administrative difficulties".
Janis' solution to groupthink is the designation of at least one member of a group as a deviant - an outsider - a critical, impartial observer of what goes on in the group, raising objections, looking for hidden premises and biases, clarifying issues, pointing out conceptual confusion and analyzing weak or fallacious arguments. In short, one who is willing to "rock the boat"? The devil's advocate can save the group from itself, making sure it faces uncomfortable facts and considers unpopular views, thus maintaining some sense of the group's intellectual integrity. Any worthy scientific community operates in this fashion - always probing, looking for objections and possible refutations or falsifications of a hypothesis or theory.  Intellectual virtues such as these are what made scientists such as Charles Darwin, for example, such esteemed and admired figures of history. Most great men and women like Darwin were not daydreamers or greed ridden parasites chasing the almighty dollar but rather counterculture radicals of action such as Emile Zola, Eugene Debs, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Ghandi. These were courageous deeply ethically charged men who never feared the beckoning calls of “Hello Darkness, my old friend” and the profound message of “Bridge over Troubled Waters”.
 Studies have shown that rewards tend to devalue particularly those activities deemed worth doing in their own right. Even though rewards seem to facilitate performance on very easy tasks, they impair it on more difficult and challenging ones. These studies have further shown that the higher the incentive, the worse people perform. The psychological literature as previously related shows that the use of awards, prizes, and other material inducements, particularly once accepted, tend to devalue any activity or project which is worth doing in its own right or which has intrinsic value for the person involved in the activity or project. People commonly protect their intellectual and emotional self-esteem by creating barriers to any challenges to their set of beliefs by falling into the logical fallacy of conformation bias. If you would like to test your vulnerability to conformation bias and aversion to the availability of counter-evidence, try answering this little puzzle.
The following four cards are laid on a table, each with a number on one side and a letter on the other side.
A D 3 7
The question to be answered is: Which and only which cards have to be turned over in order to establish the truth of the following hypothetical?
Any card with an A on one side has a 3 on the other side
Don't feel badly if you are wrong and your self-esteem is deflated; most people do not get this right. Among other cognitive flaws, this little experiment highlights the preponderance of the confirmation bias fallacy so prevalent in the world, notably with religion and other dogmatisms. We tend to look only for what confirms what we already believe and rarely for disconfirmations or refutations.
 This psychological malady of generally incompetent and dumb people overestimating their ability is referred to as the Dunning-Kruger Effect, an affliction suffered by many wealthy privileged silver spoon assholes such as Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Elon Musk. People with high self confidence and rose tinted spectacles optimism rarely second guess themselves. They are the embodiment of the amoral conservative and limousine liberal “what’s in it for me?”, “I want it all’ and “you only live once” capitalist culture; as if in a perpetual cocaine induced psychosis, impulsiveness, narcissism, credulity and naive idealism ignoring long-term plans for instant gratification, realistic self evaluation and commitment. Self-confident people, wealthy or not, are easy prey for multilevel marketers, financial scams such as lotteries, gambling and reverse mortgages, religious cults and other hucksters and con men and cannon fodder of ruthless cockroach capitalism. Too much misdirected and misconstrued self-esteem can make people crash and burn. I recommend Albert Ellis’ The Myth of Self-Esteem: How Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy Can Change Your Life Forever, Prometheus Books, 2005.
 The Sesame Street Syndrome in education tends to be consistent with the thinking of some behaviourists. In general, it teaches students that there are facile, correct answers to most questions, that facts themselves have intrinsic value, that student's enduring questions are gratuitous - since grownups are willing to do all the asking and answering, that critical thinking is an inconvenience, because there's no time for it, that making mistakes is bad and failure should be avoided at all costs. It seems to me that life suggests the very opposite of these conclusions. Facts without purpose or thought are trivial; the assumption that there is a right answer in every intellectual pursuit is misleading at best, even in the pure sciences; critical thinking and free inquiry are necessary components in any democratic community and the ability to tolerate setbacks and failure is essential to all progress. The complex problems we face today cannot be answered by appeals to absolutes and dogmatism - what we need is rational, critical inquiry augmented by thoughtful, creative and imaginative approaches to the solution of our many complex social and environmental problems. With the present state of education, as I see it, and what is now being proposed for the immediate future, these serious global problems are likely to remain unsolved.
 According to Janis, the members of a group may develop an illusion of invulnerability coupled with extreme optimism; they ignore inconvenient facts; their belief in their own morality may lead them to commit immoral acts as a means to an end; they hold stereotyped views of rival or enemy groups whom they regard as evil or weak; individual members attempt to silence dissent from others in the group; each member suppresses his own doubts in order to conform; there is an illusion of unanimity resulting from this suppression; and finally, they protect other members by concealing information not in line with the group’s views. Moreover, when a leader of a group chooses an advisory committee, he is unlikely to select people who have divergent views from his own or people who are more intelligent or more powerful in argument than him. To protect their self-esteem leaders are likely to surround themselves with acolytes, thus exacerbating the tendencies already mentioned. In addition, when a committee has a leader, the members will want to please him, particularly if he can influence their careers. This can be particularly pernicious, for the more the disciples agree with the leader, the more extreme and dogmatic are his own views likely to become and hence the other members make even more extreme statements, thus resulting in a vicious circle.
 According to Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy, State and Utopia, self-esteem is essentially a comparative notion; that is to say, "we evaluate how well we do something by comparing our performance to others, to what others can do." (p. 240) For example, the ability to speak a common language or the ability to walk cannot serve as a basis for self-esteem, since "self-esteem is based on differentiating characteristics; that's why it's self-esteem."(p. 243) So the putative fact held by Christians, for example, that all humans have been created by God, or have the feature of being Kantian bearers of the moral law, cannot establish the alleged necessary inappropriateness of human low self-esteem, and hence cannot serve as a basis for enhancing one's self-esteem.
Beliefs can often be reduced to a self-serving bias in the sense that many people evince a "cognitive conceit" by overestimating the accuracy of their beliefs and judgments. People rarely change their beliefs, including those concerning their own abilities because they hate to admit they are wrong. People tend to believe exactly what they want to believe! (The reader may be familiar with C.S. Peirce's essay "The Fixation of Belief") People strive to maintain their beliefs at the expense of the truth. They will go to great lengths to avoid evidence that will refute their arguments or falsify their beliefs, looking only for evidence (which is often distorted) to confirm what they already believe to be true. People would rather cling to their treasured, often false, beliefs rather than admit that they might be wrong and (gulp!) lower their self-esteem. Every known logical fallacy is employed to prop up dubious, implausible beliefs and hence avoid the loss of prestige and self-esteem.
Psychological studies have confirmed that even when people are confronted with overwhelming counter-evidence and counter-arguments to their beliefs, they not only ignore or refuse to believe the recalcitrant counter-arguments and counter-evidence, but they dig in their heels and become more steadfast in their prior beliefs (the "boomerang effect"). The need for some people to continually prop up their self-esteem and protect the emotional investment that they have in their beliefs - particularly those of the "transcendent" or "metaphysical" variety - often override any concrete evidence which might possibly falsify those same beliefs.
People's opinions about others, as well as about themselves, are extremely resistant to change. Moreover, they often distort new evidence in order to avoid an incongruence, incoherence or inconsistency with the beliefs they presently hold - often all in the name of nurturing their precious self-esteem. People also excel at inventing explanations for events, actions or phenomena so that they are in line with their pre-existing beliefs. These explanations are often facile, simplistic efforts to "explain away" any attempts to question their beliefs (e.g., "It's the work of the Devil" or "It was inevitable"). These efforts often employ fallacious devices such as non pro causa (or post hoc fallacy) - the fallacy of false cause. This device is often exploited in order to avoid having to accept personal responsibility for some action or occurrence. Also, contrary to popular opinion, the willingness to change one's mind or alter or modify a belief is a sign of rationality - not weakness!! In summary, beliefs are remarkably resistant to change because (1) People consistently avoid exposing themselves to evidence that might disprove their beliefs, (2) On receiving evidence against their beliefs, they often refuse to believe it, regardless of the strength of the counter-evidence, (3) the existence of a belief distorts people’s interpretation of new evidence in such a way as to make it consistent with the belief, (4) people selectively remember items that are in line with their beliefs, (5) people excel at inventing facile explanations to account for their irrational beliefs and (6) they have a desire to protect their self-esteem at any cost.
 Self-esteem often collapses into what psychologists refer to as self-serving biases. A self-serving bias is the propensity to perceive oneself favourably. These biases arise from many different sources and situations and are often exercises in wishful thinking and self-deception. You have surely noticed the tendency of many people to always attribute their successes to their own personal characteristics but blame the system, society, a teacher, fate or bad luck when they fail (for example, Adam's excuse in the Garden of Eden: "The woman whom thou gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate", I failed that test because Mr. Smith sucks as a math teacher, the insurance claimant who testifies "A pedestrian hit me and went under my car" or the most lame excuse of all, the classic "it was the will of God"). Athletes are notorious for using this mechanism when they attribute their marvellous play and victories to skill and their losses to fate, chance, or some other bogus external factor or paranormal phenomenon. (I lost the match because my racket was defective and my biorhythm was in a weak phase). Both brainwashed Catholic Latino and Protestant American born pro baseball players are notorious for this inane behaviour as they point to the sky following a home run. Paradoxically since their omnipotent and omniscient God determines everything that happens in the Universe, this strange behaviour is absent when they strike out or fumble a routine ground ball. Free will and determinism become convenient interchangeable philosophical positions that can be mobilized to justify or explain the situation in which one finds oneself. This is the quintessence of ignorance, stupidity and the vacuity of thought.
What I’d like to see in the next Oxford English Dictionary Edition
Self-esteem (n.) synonyms: self-confidence and sense of entitlement (aka asshole)
1. Unwarranted self-importance and over-confidence
3. Arrogance and the Dunning-Kruger effect
4. A delirious delusional state of mind; psychosis
5. Bullshitting yourself (aka self-deception)
6. As the great philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) claimed, people who are stupid and ignorant tend to be self confident, overestimating their minimal abilities and have high self esteem whereas highly intelligent competent people tend to be full of doubts about the same.
7. Self-esteem tends to makes people lazy, complacent, over-confident, arrogant, ignorant overestimating their abilities and intelligence
8. Don’t worry; be happy! (ask Bobby McFerrin)