genme ([info]genme) wrote,
@ 2006-05-01 08:45:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
you have to love yourself ...
If you saw the Today show, you saw that I tussled a little with the other guest about the statement "You have to love yourself before you can love someone else." She clearly believed this statement, and I bet if you did a poll you would find that the majority of Americans believe it too.

Of course, there's no evidence to support that it's true. Narcissists -- people who really love themselves -- are horrible relationship partners. My friend Keith wrote a great book on this (called _When You Love a Man Who Loves Himself_). Narcissists lack empathy; they play games; they cheat.

And as Keith also likes to say, "If I had to name the top ten things necessary for a good relationship, loving yourself would not be on the list." That's because most of the time, a good relationship requires *not* putting yourself first. Good marriages are based on compromise. And I don't think it's any coincidence that the divorce rate has stayed high (despire people marrying later, and thus probably wiser) at the same time that the self-emphasis has grown. Previous generations didn't worry much about loving themselves.

Some research does show that low self-esteem people are more likely to doubt their partner's affection, but this doesn't mean that they love their partner any less, and they don't choose bad partners (contrary to another popular belief). And high self-esteem people aren't much better -- they get mean and defensive when they are challenged.

Much more important for relationship success is a variable called attachment style, which is about how you relate to others (rather than your self-feelings). Having a good match of attachment styles predicts relationship success much better than the self-esteem of the partners.

The popularity of this statement might have started in therapy sessions, where people with serious addictions were told that they needed to get themselves together first before they started a relationship. But that's not the same as loving yourself first, and there's no reason it needs to apply to everyone.


(Post a new comment)


[info]sanpaku
2006-05-01 04:56 pm UTC (link)
Well, again, there's being OK with who you are then there's the extreme. I don't think it's especially controversial to think that people who really hate themselves get involved in abusive situations because they are desperate for validation. A little bit of self-respect can go a long way.

I did pick up on you nailing that woman. It wasn't entirely fair. It's the Today show, not the seminar table, Jean! But it was kinda stupid of them to interview you in that format. My point, though, is that I knew you were going to bite her head off when she said that because... this narcissism thing hits close to home for you. I do have to ask how much of this project was born of experiences with a certain somebody. Maybe that's for a phone call.

Anyway, I wonder if garden-variety self-respect and what you call narcissism really are different values of the same variable or are different things. The show put you (and your boom cars) into saying that narcissism, antisocial behavior, and "loving yourself so you can love others" are the same kind of thing.

I mean on one level this is just an outgrowth of a long-term historical emphasis on the autonomy of the individual. The reason self-love wasn't as important in the past wasn't because people were more altruistic; it was that they believed God was punishing your worm-ridden flesh for original sin -- human life itself wasn't valued and by extension what you as an individual could accomplish was limited to silly accomplishments in a fallen world. Laying it on a little thick, perhaps, but again: the development of self-respect is an achievement of humanism that none of us would renounce. Certainly those of us with Pee Aitch Dees feel we have the right to pontificate and regard it as our right...

I dunno. I never thought of myself as an existential optimist, and neither did you! But you're doing it for me. So there you go.

Did you look at those 1920s ads yet?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]genme
2006-05-02 02:33 pm UTC (link)
I just couldn't let the statement go -- first of all, she had no clue what she was talking about. She was repeating something she read on a greeting card or something. I spend 4 pages in the book discussing why that statement isn't true, so it would have been misrepresenting myself to sit there as she said that.

And no, it has nothing to do with my own experiences -- I wasn't thinking about that at all. I was thinking about my friend and colleague Keith's extensive research on how narcissists are horrible relationship partners, and the research showing that high self-esteem and narcissistic people become abrasive under threat. If I seemed offended, it was because the other guest obviously didn't know any of the actual research on the topic, and it always frustrates me when people are so insistent about something with no basis in fact.

Actually, it is controversial to believe that people who "hate" themselves get involved in abusive sitatuons because they are "desperate for validation." This is psychobabble that gets repeated in the media that isn't actually true. The research that finds that low self-esteem people are more likely to doubt their partner's affection also finds that low self-esteem people do NOT choose worse partners.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]sanpaku
2006-05-02 02:50 pm UTC (link)
I don't know from worse partners, but we all know people who stick with bad situations because they think they can't do better, and we usually think they are wrong. Those people are usually female and the situation is often abusive. Anecdotal, so take it as you wish. One of those things that feels pretty ubiquitous.

Don't mind my mentioning the other thing. It's just that there's only one person I've ever heard you refer to repeatedly as a consummate narcissist, and not in a good way. :-) I'm not accusing you of circumstantial ad hominem; I just can't help making the connection.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

put it in the So Crate
[info]flw
2006-05-01 05:29 pm UTC (link)
The Today Show is not exactly the place to say, "And what exactly do you mean by that?"

No place for a Socratic style "Please define your terms."

What you are up against here is a silly, idiotic catch phrase. The kind of thing that Orwell despised. Some sort of vapid non-sense to fill the air and get people to nod their heads. How can you defeat that in eight seconds on the Today Show? You can't. Period. I don't envy you the task you've set before yourself!

Even if you were afforded time to present a "counter argument"... There really is no countering such meaningless that spews from people's mouths like twittering birds... Poo-tee-weet! It means nothing! In any case, if you presented a cogent argument, that person could then turn around and say, "Yes, that's exactly what I meant when I said that." Then they are a simple, honest, straight-talkin' type of person, and you are a Poindexter who prattles on bleah, bleah, bleah. And THEY get credit for what you said!

But there is hope! Did you see The Simpsons last night?

Oh, and I got the book and have started reading it!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: put it in the So Crate
[info]varro
2006-05-01 06:43 pm UTC (link)
I think Lisa punctured the self-esteem bubble pretty well last night - self-esteem is earned by learning from both your successes and your failures.

The problem is that people want kids to learn self-esteem before dealing with success or failure....and when the kids fail, it's very disillusioning - they believe it's because they're incompetent, and they avoid putting themselves in situations where they could fail, and could learn something from failure.

At least that's the way I think I was raised.

(P.S. - The book is on its way from Amazon....)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: put it in the So Crate
[info]genme
2006-05-02 02:39 pm UTC (link)
You're so right -- it's amazing the meaningless phrases people repeat. They don't think about what they are saying at all. "You can be anything you want to be." So completely untrue, yet endlessly repeated. There was an episode of the new show "Sons & Daughters" in which a mom repeats this phrase and her son says he wants to be a T-Rex. His uncle says, "You can't -- they're extinct." The mom yells at the uncle and calls him a "dream-killer" -- that he shouldn't tell her kids they can't be something.

Damn! I didn't see the Simpsons last night. Quick summary, please?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: put it in the So Crate
[info]flw
2006-05-02 03:18 pm UTC (link)
Principal Skinner is fired because he gets into a hilarious PC Logic Trap at a Museum. He says that girls aren't as good at math as boys are... then he goes to hilarious extremes to try to prove that he's on "their" side, and so on. It's classic. Sorry you missed it. At one point he says, "I'm sorry I made light of the difference between boys and girls... that... doesn't... exist?" or something similar.

So, they fire him and bring in a principal (Frances McDormand) who separates the school into a Boy's School and a Girl's School. The Boy's School immediately lapses into a Lord of the Flies like realm of Hellish cruelty.

Lisa sits at her desk in the mural walled, bean bag ensconced girl's school and thinks to herself, "Finally, I am going to learn something without all those infuraiting boys around."

Well, the teacher asks a question, and some girl gives an answer. Lisa points out that it is a wrong answer and the Teacher says, "Lisa, there are no wrong answers."

"But isn't that what math is all about?"

"Lisa, that's a male view about math. What I want to know is: How does math make you feel? What do you smell when I say, 'Seven?' What color is 'Five plus Five?'"

Then they all get up and start dancing and singing a song about how the right answer isn't important. What's important is that they feel good about themselves. Oh! I wish I remembered the words for you! It was hilarious!

So, Lisa sneaks into the boy's school to take math. She is joyous at one point because after giving a wrong answer, "I was wrong and no one cared about my feelings!"

Naturally, she becomes the best student.

So many great things in that episaode. Maybe someone taped it. You should see it. If only to get verification that there are people out there who know what it is that you are getting at.

(and on a side note... I know what you are getting at and it is a great point. It truly crosses all boundaries. It is something that everyone can get behind.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…