Self esteem vs Entitlement which is it?

[Gingersnap]

Recently read an article in Scientific American that was very thought provoking. It challenged some long held beliefs that were basically without studies to back them up. The main belief is the one that poor self esteem was present in those with criminal behaviors. It is their contention that this is erroneous. What do you believe?

 

[Ally C]

Hold on. I'll need to do some studying about this to back up what I say.

 

[Ally C]

Apologies

I've just re-read my last post and it sounded sarcastic. It really wasn't meant to be (and isn't), but I do think that there is an answer of sorts in there somewhere between the lines ...

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[CreamyLady]

Well, people with poor self-esteem don't always exhibit criminal behavior.

I've never thought that self-esteem was the main issue in sociopathic behavior. Rather, I think it is a lack of empathy, or even a strong moral sense. One need not have solid self-esteem to know right from wrong, or to understand that an action may cause another pain.

While it would be interesting to know exactly how self-esteem, empathy and morality all work together, I don't think any one thing is the cause. I also honestly can't think of how one would set up the research. With all the variables, the study would be cumbersome beyond belief.

 

[Pyper]

Well if these people were in a study...

They could have low self esteem because they got caught.

 

[DevilMayCare]

Gingersnap - I'd love to contribute to this thread, but I'd like to read the article you refer to for a point of reference. Can you either provide a link or which month the article appeared so I can check it out. I'm inclined to believe there is a correlation between low self-esteem and aberrant behavior, and I doubt the article would convince me otherwise. I'm willing to consider the topic further, however. Thanks.

 

[Gingersnap]

It is in this month's issue. I found it interesting in that I began to wonder if the whole theme of entitlement was even involved in self esteem. Interesting as I frequently work with Yuppies who have a great sense of entitlement but yet do not hesitate to bully others and indeed demean them in their quest to get what they wish. Just some thoughts that rolled through my head while reading is all. Thanks Devil will send you the article once I have it scanned in. Must go back to work now....

 

[DevilMayCare]

Thanks Gingersnap, look forward to getting the article.

My take on entitlement is that it arises as an issue when self-esteem is low, not high. Perhaps that's what you meant. People who demand attention are likely haunted by the fear their needs won't be met unless they take what they feel they need. Its usually an unconscious process.

Entitlement issues are often seen in narcissistic people who hunger for attention. Generally, there's an emptiness beneath the drama of their lives. They look confident and in control, but all that brouhaha masks profound insecurity.

 

[Ally C]

While it would be interesting to know exactly how self-esteem, empathy and morality all work together, I don't think any one thing is the cause. I also honestly can't think of how one would set up the research. With all the variables, the study would be cumbersome beyond belief.

Yes, but I am left wondering what (if any) reliance we can place on any social scientific research. There is the question of 'legitimacy' - the researchers may pinpoint low self-esteem as a factor, but we've only got their interpretation and / or word for it. Then there is the question of the subjects of the research. I don't suppose they all acknowledge the fact that they suffer from low self-esteem until they are actually 'diagnosed' by the sociological powers that be. No doubt, accepting for the moment 'low self-esteem' at face value, some will indeed feel they are sufferers of this condition, some will blame it [whatever 'it' may be, but then what?]. Whatever the case, the thoughts offered in this thread (from the article cited) are reminiscent of the thread(s) about the influence of pornography [see the recent one on 'A Feminist View', or something like that]. To generalise and paraphrase that thread, 'porn' is blamed in a wholesale fashion as a corrupting influence and is morally repugnant. Obviously this was countered by highlighting the fact that it is an adult choice and various freedoms were cited versus forms of censorship. Then there were all the 'in-between' views, some specific, some generalistic. It's the same with the research mentioned above. I'm sure that in some of the cases the results were entirely accurate and beyond question. I am similarly sure that in others they were woefully wrong. So my answer would be 'inconsistent' rather than 'erroneous', which isn't really much of a difference beyond choice of words - all things considered.

So can a balanced more accurate test be made? I don't know, but doubt it. Ultimately it's all about power. By that I mean the article [which I haven't read] deals with criminality, and society is concerned with governance through laws. These laws are understandably made to suit whatever culture is in question, being moderated over time. It's hard to express myself here in absolute or definitive terms, but in many respects modern society could be read as having 'relaxed' significantly from bygone days. I'm not saying that it was better way back when, if it was then it only exists in an idealised imagination which is misguided. Slightly less misguided, perhaps, is the idea that previously things were more 'black and white' [e.g. am I allowed to use that term nowadays??? I know I am, just a poor example was all]. Perhaps the politically correct bandwagon [which I try to set fire to whenever possible] has caused more damage than might be thought? I'd appreciate some more views on this thread as I think there is a real issue at stake here with regards to how 'we' exercise control. It seems [like so many threads here] that while it's perfectly reasonable to have many views on display, it's increasingly difficult to find core unquestionable 'human values', certainly when dealing with 'specifics'. Perhaps we now have a bit more autonomy as individuals? Would it be prudent to place our trust entirely at the hands of those who would rule us? If not then by default to the reasoning behind the article then the world will always be messed up ... what a low note to end on, sorry.


*Talking of messed up, I've just had a quick read through this post and it's all over the place. Apologies again, but my interest, unlike my mind, was engaged.*