Self-Esteem and how to gain it according to evolutionary psychology.

I've been following the work of Dr. Doug Lisle--a clinical evolutionary psychologist. I've learned a lot about how people think and why they do the things they do. One of the things he talks about a lot is self-esteem--what it is exactly and how to get it.

Humans are a social animal and, as such, we all care about our status. We all care what other people think of us, even if we pretend that we don't. And we should, because our survival may depend on it.

Because we care about our status, we've evolved an "internal audience" which is always watching and assessing us. This internal audience is almost a separate entity and it is there to basically estimate how other, real people may perceive us. Let's say you have a woman getting ready for a date. She's putting on her make up, doing her hair, trying out different outfits, etc. and then checking herself out in the mirror. The internal audience may tell her "Yes, you look good in that outfit," or it may say "No, that outfit is really unflattering on you and makes you look fat. Try a different one."

Most branches of psychology recognize the internal audience but it's often poorly understood. Cognitive behavioral therapy, for instance, calls it the "internal critic" and tends to think of it as this nebulous force that's there just to bring us down for no good reason. They teach that you need to talk back to the "internal critic." That woman in front of the mirror getting negative feedback from her internal audience, for example, is supposed to say "No, you're wrong. I look hot. He'll love seeing me in this."

The problem with that: your internal audience isn't trying to bring you down. It's trying to help you. It's not telling you that you don't look good in that outfit because it wants to hurt your feelings. It's telling you because it honestly is estimating how others will see you and therefore is providing feedback that you probably want to try a different approach to increase your likelihood of success.

When it comes to self-esteem; this is a process that is much more fluid than people realize. If you want to have a better reputation with yourself the ONLY thing the internal audience is impressed with is effort. It can't be fooled. Let's say for instance you are attempting to get into better shape. You know you are out of shape and your self-esteem has been suffering as a result. After several day of diligent effort your internal audience will begin to see that you mean business and will start awarding you with self-esteem. Let's say that you are down because you recently got dumped. If you decide to go no contact despite desperately wanting to contact the person and make it several days, your self-esteem should rise. It will also rise if you begin putting effort into improving yourself in other areas.

Just wanted to share what this.

The problem with that: your internal audience isn't trying to bring you down. It's trying to help you. It's not telling you that you don't look good in that outfit because it wants to hurt your feelings. It's telling you because it honestly is estimating how others will see you and therefore is providing feedback that you probably want to try a different approach to increase your likelihood of success.

What if your internal critic is truly dysfunctional? Perhaps it made an agreement early in life with something someone said offhand. Or, perhaps there was a primary caregiver who consistently devalued a particular character trait, or compared you to others in a way that made you feel inadequate. These things may have been entirely false, but they certainly impact behaviour later in life. Can you really trust the feedback that the internal critic is offering in such an instance? Even if you were to go along with what it's suggesting (try a different outfit, you'll have more success), does that address the underlying issue (feeling inadequate, or unattractive, for example)? In such a circumstance, you could continue trying different outfits, but it seems unlikely that you'd ever develop real self-esteem. What if your critic's main function is to bring you down. Perhaps in a more emotionally healthy individual, this would be beneficial...in instances where there wasn't a more deeply rooted issue.

I'm just curious what you think. Wondering if I've misunderstood.

Good question. What I would say is that it's unlikely that anyone's internal audience would be permanently negatively skewed from my understanding. It's designed by nature to recalibrate itself when needed. If you're interested here is a link to a YouTube presentation by Dr. Lisle on this subject. I think it would answer your question better than I could. He actually somewhat answers it within the first few minutes.

I have to agree with 90 hour sleep here, I think the point of view put forward in the video discounts so many aspects of human socialisation and development outside of our need for food, shelter and sex (and our reliance on society for those things) that it misses fundamental causes of low self esteem and self worth.

I thought the assertion that self esteem was internal then increased with external validation was misleading, as what he seemed to be saying was that how we assessed how to obtain self esteem was our understanding of what was socially acceptable, therefore it's not truly internal - that would be measuring ourselves against external expectations which aren't necessarily a reflection of our true selves, and it would therefore make our choices and preferences based on people outside of us.

The problem with this is also that it makes no mention of importance on who sets those guidelines - there are countless people walking around with templates for acceptability and love which are incredibly damaging to themselves, as what they've been taught has often rejected aspects of themselves - this leads to a fractured sense of self and effectively two realities, some or all aspects of the internal world which is never revealed (as this has been adapted to fit expectations), and the external reality which governs what we do and don't reveal of ourselves. The two very often are in conflict, and create huge amounts of conflict and shame in people, and lead to low self esteem.

I do agree that the internal critic has been misrepresented, as this is just your ego trying to protect you - however I don't think it's wise to assume that it is right in it's assessment. We learn ego when we're very young - what's acceptable, what's not, what makes us good, what makes us bad, what gives us belonging, what doesn't, what makes us loved and unloved.

So for example, someone could grow up with an impatient disconnected parent and grow up with the belief that 'if I say how I feel, that is bad and I won't be loved'. This is taken into the unconscious and into adulthood, and there is often a great sense of shame with expressing emotions and thoughts as a result, obviously the ego/internal critic is wrong, and there's an internal wound that needs to heal before the belief can be changed.

I absolutely agree that we can't just say the polar opposite of our negative thoughts and expect our belief system to change, but it does have to be investigated, felt and healed to move on from it - awareness is the agency of change including the origin and repercussions.

This is not to say that I think that we're islands, quite the opposite - as a social species we do need validation, but that validation I believe does need to reflect who we truly are rather than the expectations of those around us, if we use those expectations to define us that really is a road to misery and loneliness.

Just my tuppence, interesting video though thank you. :)

I have to agree with 90 hour sleep here, I think the point of view put forward in the video discounts so many aspects of human socialisation and development outside of our need for food, shelter and sex (and our reliance on society for those things) that it misses fundamental causes of low self esteem and self worth.

 

I thought the assertion that self esteem was internal then increased with external validation was misleading, as what he seemed to be saying was that how we assessed how to obtain self esteem was our understanding of what was socially acceptable, therefore it's not truly internal - that would be measuring ourselves against external expectations which aren't necessarily a reflection of our true selves, and it would therefore make our choices and preferences based on people outside of us.

 

The problem with this is also that it makes no mention of importance on who sets those guidelines - there are countless people walking around with templates for acceptability and love which are incredibly damaging to themselves, as what they've been taught has often rejected aspects of themselves - this leads to a fractured sense of self and effectively two realities, some or all aspects of the internal world which is never revealed (as this has been adapted to fit expectations), and the external reality which governs what we do and don't reveal of ourselves. The two very often are in conflict, and create huge amounts of conflict and shame in people, and lead to low self esteem.

 

I do agree that the internal critic has been misrepresented, as this is just your ego trying to protect you - however I don't think it's wise to assume that it is right in it's assessment. We learn ego when we're very young - what's acceptable, what's not, what makes us good, what makes us bad, what gives us belonging, what doesn't, what makes us loved and unloved.

 

So for example, someone could grow up with an impatient disconnected parent and grow up with the belief that 'if I say how I feel, that is bad and I won't be loved'. This is taken into the unconscious and into adulthood, and there is often a great sense of shame with expressing emotions and thoughts as a result, obviously the ego/internal critic is wrong, and there's an internal wound that needs to heal before the belief can be changed.

 

I absolutely agree that we can't just say the polar opposite of our negative thoughts and expect our belief system to change, but it does have to be investigated, felt and healed to move on from it - awareness is the agency of change including the origin and repercussions.

 

This is not to say that I think that we're islands, quite the opposite - as a social species we do need validation, but that validation I believe does need to reflect who we truly are rather than the expectations of those around us, if we use those expectations to define us that really is a road to misery and loneliness.

 

Just my tuppence, interesting video though thank you. :)

When you say "your true self" what do you mean? You mean who you truly want to be, your own preferences, etc independent of society? What I would say to that is this sense of self doesn't develop in a vacuum. We are a social animal and as such our true sense of self is going to be at least somewhat informed by other people.

Interesting point about asking "who sets the guidelines?" My answer would be the people we care about. The people we want to be our friends, the people we want to have as trading partners, and the people who we want as mates. We may not have a perfect sense of what their criteria is but we usually at least have a decent idea that gets better as we get both positive and negative feedback. The internal audience isn't always right but it's job is to give it's best guess, basically.

I do wonder if Dr. Lisle tends to slightly underestimate past hurts. I don't know though. Do you think for instance that if someone had a mother who made him/her feel inadequate that the person will ALWAYS feel that way no matter how much good feedback they get unless they somehow go in and "heal" this past hurt? That I'm not sure about. I think the person may always feel resentment toward his/her mother, may always be a little bothered about it, but won't be immune to contrary signaling.

Thank you for the response--I'm sure I missed some of your points but you really made me think.

I agree with this to a point. First you have to figure out whether you are hearing a genuine internal audience or where it’s part of issues you have - for example I know I am too hard on myself about certain things and one reason I have to be careful about that is because that so easily can translate into my being too critical of my husband and especially young son. And I don’t want him to be overly critical either. I am a big fan of self talk as a way to prevent expressing frustration or even anger when it’s not appropriate or will come across as too intense. As far as self esteem what I think is the most helpful is setting attainable goals and reaching them especially short term goals. That sense of accomplishment to me is really valuable for self esteem.

And comparison? Normal but to me mostly unhelpful unless it’s a person who inspires you and is rooting for you socthst the comparison is part of a healthful interaction.

When I was single long after many friends got married I was also financially independent and enjoying a stressful but successful career. And my major goal remained marriage and motherhood. I remember having dinner with a friend one night- I was in my mid 30s and he was in his esrlyv30s. He told me he and his wife were looking to buy their first house. He said “you know it’s the natural progression of things - you get married and have kids and buy a house”. He didn’t mean it as compared to me but that’s when my internal voice reminded me that what I was doing was not natural. So I didn’t think that was a way to build self esteem.

I'm apologising in advance as I'm very sleep deprived so I hope I can put some thoughts coherently together!

He seemed to be claiming that survival and reproduction were the only motivating factors, however if you take out aspects such as expression, validation (of the true self), nurturing, growth, contribution, connection, there is little left of the human spirit to give itself meaning. I think one of the main issues that I have with it is that even if he's incorporating some of the elements above, he's suggesting that it can and should be obtained through supplication and external validation which I can't get on board with (I've rambled on this below, sorry for the disjointedness...).

So while survival and reproduction are basic motivators, my opinion is that it's a huge simplication that this is what keeps us hanging around on earth. There have been various studies (I don't know them off the top of my head but google will help on this one) that have shown that without these attributes such as nurturing, emotional connection etc that despite a seemingly healthy start to life, our physiology itself is damaged by the lack of these elements and we actually get extremely ill, growth is stunted and there have been some to show a decreased longevity.

I think that also there's a differentiation between surviving and thriving. Personally I would argue that the additional elements (not exhaustive) I listed are essential for survival, how many people each year commit suicide due to an utter sense of loneliness, isolation and lack of connection? I would actually hate to see those numbers.

Absolutely I agree that the self doesn't exist in a vacuum and we're all connected, however when we're initially born we're socialised into a set of rules or a template that we all live by, and this varies by family, culture, religion, and the ideas contained within them. When we're children we don't have the power of independent thought until (if memory serves) approximately 8 years old, so until then we're really just sponging up what makes us good, and what makes us bad - these become our primary coping mechanisms, behaviours and tendencies that vary according to influence.

I would highlight that these are unconscious mechanisms, we're not conscious of the choices that we're making - for example a child acting out has no rational thought that they're acting out because they're missing connection from their parent and that they need to be heard. They're just reacting to a set of circumstances and that's what works for them.

Those behaviours that we develop carry on into adult life, and often it takes events external to us to make us aware of what issues we may have and where they come from, what purpose they serve. So in the example I gave of hiding emotion or thoughts, it may take continuous failed or abusive relationships until a person realises that in not being able to express themselves they have no boundaries, and they depend upon others to define who they are. This is just one example of problems that are commonplace in society.

When this happens and we can begin to connect the dots to behaviour that is actually detrimental to us and is harming us, we then have the ability to choose - but it's important to note that before this we're often entirely unconscious of it's influence.

There's a great analogy about binoculars, where when you're looking through the binoculars you can't see the perspective of the binoculars, as you'd have to step away from them to see your own perspective. The perspective on the perspective if you like. Often, it takes traumatic events for this to happen which make our usual coping mechanisms fail, and we're floundering trying to find other ways to cope.

This is why the question 'who sets the guidelines?' is so important, because these templates that we're born into aren't stored inside us as a matter of our choosing, and relying on external feedback to validate our choices is really setting itself up for a very codependent cycle.

The difference in connection to friends/family/lovers when you are able to express your true self outside of your unconscious template, is that you're not in a vacuum at all, you then obtain validation for who you already are, not in order to define who you are. This is true unconditional connection, and thriving.

I don't think that past traumas or behaviour that we've developed that is harmful to us is irreparable at all, however I think that the only way to become aware of them is to access the self in it's true form without this idea that there are some parts of you that are good, and some parts of you that are bad - shame of the self is one of the biggest problems I think that we face.

Healing past hurts is absolutely possible, one you're aware you can do something about it, it's only when we're unaware that we're unaware we get stuck in cycles.

I think in terms of the hang up there is about 'not blaming mum and dad' which was quite a culture at one point, number one - sometimes, it has to be acknowledged that it is their fault, and number two, sometimes they're as unaware and unconscious as we were before we were, and likely their parents before them, it's a knock on effect through generations - some compassion is necessary here, but this often needs to be worked through as the healing process begins.

It's like families that are obese throughout generations - there's such a small percentage of people for whom this is a genetic thing (I think it's like 3% or something), the fact is it's the family culture - each child learns how to cook from his/her parents, and this is passed down and passed down. It's not an absolute, it's a tendency that keeps getting repeated.

I hope some of that makes sense, as I say, very sleep deprived here - trying to get my body clock back in order before going back to work! :)

I'm apologising in advance as I'm very sleep deprived so I hope I can put some thoughts coherently together!

 

He seemed to be claiming that survival and reproduction were the only motivating factors, however if you take out aspects such as expression, validation (of the true self), nurturing, growth, contribution, connection, there is little left of the human spirit to give itself meaning. I think one of the main issues that I have with it is that even if he's incorporating some of the elements above, he's suggesting that it can and should be obtained through supplication and external validation which I can't get on board with (I've rambled on this below, sorry for the disjointedness...).

 

So while survival and reproduction are basic motivators, my opinion is that it's a huge simplication that this is what keeps us hanging around on earth. There have been various studies (I don't know them off the top of my head but google will help on this one) that have shown that without these attributes such as nurturing, emotional connection etc that despite a seemingly healthy start to life, our physiology itself is damaged by the lack of these elements and we actually get extremely ill, growth is stunted and there have been some to show a decreased longevity.

 

I think that also there's a differentiation between surviving and thriving. Personally I would argue that the additional elements (not exhaustive) I listed are essential for survival, how many people each year commit suicide due to an utter sense of loneliness, isolation and lack of connection? I would actually hate to see those numbers.

 

Absolutely I agree that the self doesn't exist in a vacuum and we're all connected, however when we're initially born we're socialised into a set of rules or a template that we all live by, and this varies by family, culture, religion, and the ideas contained within them. When we're children we don't have the power of independent thought until (if memory serves) approximately 8 years old, so until then we're really just sponging up what makes us good, and what makes us bad - these become our primary coping mechanisms, behaviours and tendencies that vary according to influence.

 

I would highlight that these are unconscious mechanisms, we're not conscious of the choices that we're making - for example a child acting out has no rational thought that they're acting out because they're missing connection from their parent and that they need to be heard. They're just reacting to a set of circumstances and that's what works for them.

 

Those behaviours that we develop carry on into adult life, and often it takes events external to us to make us aware of what issues we may have and where they come from, what purpose they serve. So in the example I gave of hiding emotion or thoughts, it may take continuous failed or abusive relationships until a person realises that in not being able to express themselves they have no boundaries, and they depend upon others to define who they are. This is just one example of problems that are commonplace in society.

 

When this happens and we can begin to connect the dots to behaviour that is actually detrimental to us and is harming us, we then have the ability to choose - but it's important to note that before this we're often entirely unconscious of it's influence.

 

There's a great analogy about binoculars, where when you're looking through the binoculars you can't see the perspective of the binoculars, as you'd have to step away from them to see your own perspective. The perspective on the perspective if you like. Often, it takes traumatic events for this to happen which make our usual coping mechanisms fail, and we're floundering trying to find other ways to cope.

 

This is why the question 'who sets the guidelines?' is so important, because these templates that we're born into aren't stored inside us as a matter of our choosing, and relying on external feedback to validate our choices is really setting itself up for a very codependent cycle.

 

The difference in connection to friends/family/lovers when you are able to express your true self outside of your unconscious template, is that you're not in a vacuum at all, you then obtain validation for who you already are, not in order to define who you are. This is true unconditional connection, and thriving.

 

I don't think that past traumas or behaviour that we've developed that is harmful to us is irreparable at all, however I think that the only way to become aware of them is to access the self in it's true form without this idea that there are some parts of you that are good, and some parts of you that are bad - shame of the self is one of the biggest problems I think that we face.

 

Healing past hurts is absolutely possible, one you're aware you can do something about it, it's only when we're unaware that we're unaware we get stuck in cycles.

 

I think in terms of the hang up there is about 'not blaming mum and dad' which was quite a culture at one point, number one - sometimes, it has to be acknowledged that it is their fault, and number two, sometimes they're as unaware and unconscious as we were before we were, and likely their parents before them, it's a knock on effect through generations - some compassion is necessary here, but this often needs to be worked through as the healing process begins.

 

It's like families that are obese throughout generations - there's such a small percentage of people for whom this is a genetic thing (I think it's like 3% or something), the fact is it's the family culture - each child learns how to cook from his/her parents, and this is passed down and passed down. It's not an absolute, it's a tendency that keeps getting repeated.

 

I hope some of that makes sense, as I say, very sleep deprived here - trying to get my body clock back in order before going back to work! :)

Seems a lot of what you talk about reinforces the need for autonomy. A sense of self that can rely and depend on others as part of healthy relating dynamics, but isn't defined by those relationships. It feels the importance of the society that it belongs to, but is capable of functioning and thriving independently when required by circumstance (or choice for that matter).

A strong sense of self is at least partially derived from that feeling of autonomy. Self-esteem can't really be self-esteem if it's almost entirely reliant on external feedback. By it's own definition it requires a relationship with one's self. An autonomous relationship.

But don't you agree that everything we do and everything that motivates us really does come down to the drive to survive and reproduce? It may sound oversimplified but I'm not sure that I can name anything we do that truly transcends this.

 

When you say "your true self" what do you mean? You mean who you truly want to be, your own preferences, etc independent of society? What I would say to that is this sense of self doesn't develop in a vacuum. We are a social animal and as such our true sense of self is going to be at least somewhat informed by other people.

I'd definitely agree with that...

 

I do wonder if Dr. Lisle tends to slightly underestimate past hurts. I don't know though. Do you think for instance that if someone had a mother who made him/her feel inadequate that the person will ALWAYS feel that way no matter how much good feedback they get unless they somehow go in and "heal" this past hurt? That I'm not sure about. I think the person may always feel resentment toward his/her mother, may always be a little bothered about it, but won't be immune to contrary signaling.

Probably depends on the type and degree of ''trauma''. I've seen enough evidence in my own experience (with myself and closer personal relationships) to suggest that it's always necessary to heal the past hurt. That no amount of outside influence can do that for you. I think some people find a lot of comfort in the external feedback...but what kind of foundation does that provide? It's possible that the external feedback may help you find some awareness...but I'm not sure it's good for much else. I think anyone that has less superficial wounding would require more.

It's possible for a person to have self-esteem without forgiveness...but I don't think true healing can't be accomplished without it. Resentment is toxic to humans. And if one is carrying it around through life, there are bound to be relational difficulties that arise as a direct result. I'm no expert, but I feel like these past resentments often create emotional patterns that can prevent people from enjoying healthier relationships. Often resentment creates space for projection (it's not my fault -- which is likely, but also tends to rob people of their own potential to work through things), and I'd wonder if that behaviour isn't a bit contrary to a healthy sense of self as well. Emotionally healthy people with healthy sense of self aren't prone to holding on to negativity.

Just my two cents...

90 hour sleep - you just summed up what I was trying to say in about 4 sentences, I must learn to be concise! lol!

I hear what you're saying regarding resentments, my initial instinct on this is to say that people who are resentful/angry tend to be disguising past hurts that they haven't truly dealt with and healed from. Those kinds of emotions are usually guarding from a vulnerability of ours that we haven't dealt with, and definitely we tend to be on guard and project this if we get triggered in circumstances that are similar to the original trauma, but out of context.