Earlier this year I had the occasion to do some reading on self-esteem, self-confidence, and self-love. I think this critique is a bit divorced from what the psychologists are actually saying.

For starters, the "movement" is definitely aware of your dichotomy. The terms of art are contingent and non-contingent. It considers contingent self-esteem to be fragile because real lives contain setbacks. Its position is basically Stoicism: prefer an inner well-being, unperturbed by circumstances. Don't get overwhelmed by the ups and downs. It also contains echoes of Christianity: inherent dignity of all life, unconditional acceptance and love of all God's creatures.

Narcissism is in your relationship to how people perceive you... that would be squarely in the "contingent" category.

We might argue that of course a highly successful person feels inadequate; if he could be satisfied at all he would have been satisfied many achievements ago, and stopped there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-esteem#Contingent_vs._non...

> divorced from what the psychologists are actually saying

Let me throw out the possibility that what the psychologists are saying, and the nth-hand version that teachers pick up and teach to the kids, may differ on key details. I don't think it's even rare for high-minded ideas to be garbled by the time they trickle down into classrooms. Feynman had amusing/dismaying stories about what made it into science textbooks, for example (and textbooks are theoretically written by the experts): https://rangevoting.org/FeynTexts.html

That's pretty much where I was going.

The psychology and underlaying theory looks sound, and is indeed very aligned with the Stoic approach. Problem is that the classroom implementation ended up almost a full 180 degrees out of phase.

Thanks for that link - I'd honestly not thought to read the wiki page on it but it looks quite comprehensive.

The discussion of narcissism on that page is a bit different to the one I'd been working with (which was based on a lot of reading about cluster-B personality disorders including Narcissistic Personality Disorder) which might explain the discrepancy. But then, I'm not a professional so I'm happy to be corrected. (Edit: Of course as a professional I'm even more happy to be corrected, that's how you become less wrong!)

Edit: I was basing my understanding of "what psychologists are actually saying" on a bunch of kids books we have which have a page at the back written by psychologists (I haven't checked their credentials) which lines up with my 'unfounded optimism' definition of 'good self esteem'. I know there are other interpretations once you get to legitimate psychology and stoicism actually seems fairly effective.

> Self esteem devoid of any underlying achievement is hollow. In the end you're basically manufacturing narcissists, with a fragile falsely inflated self image covering a chasm of insecurity.

Precisely.

At the same time, I think that social connections divorced from physical reality -- as is on the Internet -- compound this to the nth degree.

I can pretend to be an amazing dancer or boxer or chef on Facebook, but it's a very different thing when I need to demonstrate those skills as part of a community that actually Does That Thing.

To provide an example, I recall a few years back, at a dance social, meeting some kid from the Air Force that was an excellent case-study. He showed up, started dancing with partners, and it was obvious from the first (music) sentence in the first song that he simply did not know how to dance.

At all.

Like, when experienced dancers come from other styles, you can tell that they know how to dance. Maybe not this specific style, but they've got fundamentals. Ballerinas are particularly graceful, Latin dancers have a really specific flavor, ballroom people have really great structure, etc.

This dude was not a dancer.

Now, this is okay! The first rule of social dancing is that you want to welcome new dancers. But he was rude to every person that tried to help him out with picking up the basics, insisting that he was already a great dancer and that he didn't need the help.

Falsely inflated self-image, meet room full of follows that aren't interested in having their feet crushed.

Don't know what happened to him after that, but imagine if his bubble had never faced critique -- and this was from a community that bent over backwards to be nice to newcomers.

Dancing for leisure is practiced by anyone, and people can be good dancers because "good" is defined differently for something so universally practiced.

Like, is your mom or grandma a good cook? How many Michelin stars would her kitchen get? :)

Not saying this person wasn't a prick, just that dancing is hard to get an idea of how good you are at without already accepting that you suck at it while being repeatedly told how you are a good dancer (and if you are simply willing to let go on a dance floor as a male, you were likely to be termed a good dancer in my youth).

> if you are simply willing to let go on a dance floor as a male, you were likely to be termed a good dancer in my youth

Can confirm. My strategy for single dancing was quite literally "do arbitrarily chosen motions in rhythm to the music with a straight face", and even when I chose motions I thought were silly (like pantomiming scooping ingredients into a bowl and stirring them), I never got the impression that anyone thought it was silly, and I started getting lots of people telling me that I'm a good or even a really good dancer.

My experience is that, if you move a lot, do it with an approximately correct rhythm, and do it with energy and enthusiasm, and you don't actually bump into people or fall over, then people will be pleased. It is possible that I've developed actual skill, but I think the above is most of it.

It does not translate into being good at dancing with a partner, except by implying basic proficiency with movement and rhythm.

> The first rule of social dancing is that you want to welcome new dancers.

The second rule (which, really, overlaps a lot with the first rule) of social dancing is that you don’t, ever, offer unsolicited coaching in the context of social dance. And part of that is because almost no one is in the mental place in that context to take it well.

I don't have much experience, but two different dancing groups I attended started each night with an hour-long "lesson" with a teacher, after which the rest of the night was free dancing (well, one group charged an admission fee, but I mean no one was giving directions). Looking at a couple of other groups' websites, it seems like this is common.

I suppose you could use "whether someone attended the 'lesson' period" as a sign of whether they will take coaching well.

I do have a fair amount of experience (several years of social dancing, ballroom performance, competitive ballroom formation team, and ballroom teacher training), and, sure, the “lesson before social dance” pattern is common, but you'd be much better to take “did they specifically ask me for feedback or coaching” as a sign of whether they will take coaching well. (Unless you are identified as an instructor for the lesson — in which case they've asked by attending — the same rule applies in the lesson, too.)