Bad Choices, Bad Turns, Bad Relationships: The Psychology of Stubborn
By Heath Shive
​
Obstinate people think that it is a virtue to be stubborn.   

Why is it hard for us to change our minds, our jobs, our relationships, or our lives?

There is no inherent virtue in inflexibility.  After all, the chair that I sit on is unchanging – but my chair is neither faithful nor wise. 

But, scientifically, all humans might be programmed to be a little stubborn. 

Why?

To the science!

My Mug, My Chocolate, My Choice?

In a 1989 paper, economist Jack Knetsch asked one group of students to choose between a coffee mug and a chocolate bar.

Of these students, 44% wanted the chocolate bar, 56% wanted mug. 

Knetsch gave a second group only coffee mugs – but they could exchange for chocolate later, if they wanted. 

Knetsch gave a third group nothing but chocolate bars – but they could exchange for mugs later, if they wanted. 

One would expect that 44% of the students would have traded mugs for chocolate, and that 56% would have traded chocolate for mugs, right? 

No!  Only about 10% of the students wanted to exchange!

Knetsch’s experiment is used to demonstrate the endowment effect – that a person ascribes more value to something when he owns it. 

But psychologist Richard Thaler interpreted the experiment differently in his book Nudge. 

Thaler thought the experiment demonstrated “choice inertia” – that we do not like to change our minds.

We have an instinct to be stubborn.

Stubborn In The Face of Facts

Social psychologists M. Deutsch and H. Gerard performed a study on 3 different groups of college students.  The students had to estimate the lengths of some lines.

One group guessed mentally without revealing their estimate.  Another group had to write down their estimates, sign the paper, and hand these papers to the experimenter. 

All students could change their mind as new evidence was introduced.

The students that only mentally guessed were the most likely to change their minds.  But the students that wrote, singed, announced their guess were the least likely to change their decision.

The more effort we put into a decision, the more stubborn we become.

Betting On the Wrong Horse

Back in the 1960s, psychologists R. E. Knox and J. A. Inkster performed a study at a horse track.  Knox and Inkster discovered that gamblers were more confident about their bet after they made their gamble.

There was no change in facts.  The horses, the track, and the weather were all the same.  But 30 seconds after they made their bet, they were more confident of winning.

Humans can delude themselves about the facts, if it reinforces their earlier decision.

To be stubborn is to be deluded.

Conclusion

Why are we pre-disposed to stick to our choices?

There is something called prospect theory, which – and this is my translation – means that we make choices based on imagined results, rather than factual probability. 

Nobody gains skill, romance, or achievement after only one attempt.

We have to try and try again – imagining that someday we will win or that we will be proven right.  This is perseverance - and it might be a human instinct.

So what is the difference between stubborn and perseverance?

We are stubborn when we pervert our innate optimism to serve our egos, in spite of the facts and results.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Deutsch, M., and H. B. Gerard. “A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences upon Individual Judgment.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 (1955): 629-36.

Knetsch, Jack L., "The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves," American Economic Review, 1989, 79, 1277-1284.

Knox, R. E., and J. A. Inkster.  “Postdecisional Dissonance at Post Time.”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(1968): 319-323. 

Thaler, Ricard. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, 2008.     

Would You Pass the Marshmallow Test?  Success and Delayed Gratification
By Heath Shive

There are a lot of books and commercials and gurus telling us that we need to be "happy."  They tell us how to be happy, how to quest for happiness, how to attain happiness, and what is wrong with us if we are not "happy."  They seem to think that the purpose of life is to grab hold of happiness and God help you if you ever let go.

But what if happiness wasn't the point?  What if happiness was only at the end of hard work - similar to how dessert was at the end of a meal?  

And speaking of desserts, do you like marshmallows?  

Scientists at Stanford University once used marshmallows to test the willpower of children.  And then the children grew up.  What did they find?

To the science!

The Marshmallow Test

In the 1960s, the psychologist Walter Mischel devised "the marshmallow test" to measure the willpower of children. 

Mischel and other psychologists at Stanford University presented the children with a challenge: they could either eat a marshmallow now, or wait 15 minutes and eat 2 marshmallows. 

Only a third of the kids were able to resist the temptation.

This in itself isn't all that weird. 

But Mischel and the other psychologists found the same children years later and discovered something peculiar. 

The kids who showed self-control grew up to be more accomplished both socially and academically.  On the average, the kids had higher SAT scores, greater educational attainment, and a lower body mass index. 

Is there a correlation between success and delayed gratification?  

Conclusion

There was a book - a bestseller 20 years ago - entitled The Millionaire Next Door.  The authors Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko found that the majority of millionaires in their study didn't become rich by being doctors, lawyers, and CEOs. 

The majority of millionaires lived in modest houses and had ordinary careers.  The millionaires "next door" became wealthy by a lifetime of frugality and savings.  For a middle-class American, it would take 40 years of chronic investment to be a millionaire...but that's precisely how most millionaires acquired their wealth!  

Not glamorous.  Just delayed.  Success by constant willpower and self-discipline. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources: 
Mischel, Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B.; Raskoff Zeiss, Antonette (1972). "Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 21 (2): 204–218.

Stanley, Thomas J. & William D. Danko.  The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy.  Longstreet Press, 1996.   

Mom Lied!  Looks Do Matter! The Science of Superficial Judgments
By Heath Shive

The great entrepreneur Helena Rubinstein once said, “There are no ugly women, only lazy ones.”

Rubinstein’s words apply to men as well. 

Not all of us are born with the DNA of a bikini model or Adonis, but all of us can work at improving our appearance.

Because all of us will be judged on our appearance.   

I read Rubinstein’s quote in a book by Neil Strauss, author of the best-seller The Game – a book about the world of pick-up artists.    

Originally, Strauss had been a short, out of shape guy with thinning hair and bad clothes.  But Strauss exercised, lost weight, shaved his head for a bolder look, grew a beard to hide his weak chin, and bought trendier clothes. 

And his love life improved.

Why?

To the science of superficial judgments!

The Great Fudge-Poo Experiment of 1986?

Back in 1986, psychologists Paul Rozin, Linda Millman, and Carol Nemeroff published a hilarious series of experiments on the laws of contagion and laws of similarity. 

In one experiment, subjects were offered a piece of high-quality square-shaped fudge. The subjects ate the piece and rated their desire to eat another piece. Then two additional pieces of the same fudge were presented – one fudge piece was shaped like a muffin and the other shaped like dog poop.

The experimenter truthfully told the subjects that the fudge was exactly the same.  The subjects rated their desire to eat more of each shape (muffin-shape first, then dog feces), indicated the one they preferred, and were then asked to take a bite from the preferred piece.

The subjects rated their preference on a 200-point scale.  A -100 was to describe the worst possible experience, 0 was neutral, and +100 was highest (most pleasurable) rating.

The subjects rated the poop-shaped fudge as 47 points worse than the original square fudge…even though it was the same fudge!

There were more experiments in this study – which should be used in every Psych 101 course – but Rozin, Millman, and Nemeroff made their point. 

Humans have an instinct to judge everything based on appearances. 

Can any of us change our instincts?

Conclusion

My previous blog – The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit – discussed the amazing power of a business suit to enhance the social prestige of young black men on the streets of Chicago.

In another blog – The Science of Cars and Sex Appeal – a scientific study demonstrated how a sports car can enhance a man’s sex appeal to women. 

Appearances matter. 

Appearances do not change your morality, your ability, your kindness, or your work ethic. 

Appearances do change how people treat you.

That’s just reality. 

And since we live on world surrounded by 7 billion other people – all of whom will judge us at first based on what we look like – it behooves us to take our appearance seriously.

We may not be able to change our instincts.  However, we could try to master them to our advantage.   

LIKE SCHOLAFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Rozin, Paul & Millman, Linda & Nemeroff, Carol. (1986). Operation of the Laws of Sympathetic Magic in Disgust and Other Domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  50 (4), 703-712. 

The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit: The Primary Prejudice Is About Money?
By Heath Shive

In 2012, Trayvon Martin – a young black man – was wearing a hoodie as he walked home.  George Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious, so he accosted, fought, and fatally shot Martin. 

Would Martin be alive today if…he had worn a suit? 

In 2014, Eric Garner was strangled fatally when police arrested him for allegedly selling “loosies” on the street.  Would Garner still be alive if he had been wearing a suit? 

Both of these cases made national headlines with a media spotlight on race relations in America.

But was racism the real prejudice?

Justine Damond was shot and killed by a rookie police officer in Minneapolis in 2017. 
But, she was white, a woman, unarmed, and in an affluent neighborhood! 

Damond was wearing pajamas at the time of her shooting.  Would she be alive today if…she had been wearing a pantsuit?

To the science of a young black man in a suit!

The Chicago Study

In Chicago, researchers Uri Gneezy, John List, and Michael K. Price created an experiment.  In the experiment, a tester (working for the scientists) would walk around in Chicago and ask people for directions to a local landmark.  The study would measure 2 things: whether the people responded to the question, and how long they talked to the tester. 

There were 40 testers consisting of 8 groups of 5 each, divided by race (white and black), age (20 and 50), and gender (male and female). 

There were a total of 3,000 respondents and here are the results.

• 20-yr old black female: 60% of strangers responded for an average of 20 seconds  
• 20-yr old white female: 75% responded; average of 24 seconds  
• 20-yr old black male: 31% responded; average of 13 seconds  
• 20-yr old white male: 52% responded; average of 16 seconds  
• 50-yr old black female: 63% responded; average of 20 seconds
• 50-yr old white female: 63% responded; average of 24 seconds  
• 50-yr old black male: 61% responded; average of 20 seconds  
• 50-yr old white male: 59% responded; average of 20 seconds

A 20-year old white female had the highest response rate and response time.

A 20-year old black male had the lowest response rate and time.

True to stereotype, right?

But did you notice something non-stereotypical?

• A 20-year old white male had a lower response rate and time than a 20-year black female, 50-year old black female, and a 50-year old black male
• A 50-year old black male had a higher response rate and time than a 50-year old white male.
• And 50-year old white women and black women had the same response rates.

The prejudice in action was not simply about race. 

So the researchers went one step farther.

The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit

The researchers sent the 20-year black male testers back into the streets for another test run. 

But this time, they didn’t wear hoodies.  The young black men wore…business suits.

The results?

In the words of Uri Gneezy and John List in their book The Why Axis: “Indeed, this time, the young black men were treated quite well and received the same quality information the young women had received.”

The young black men’s response rates and times roughly equaled the highest rates of the entire study!

All it took was a business suit!

Conclusion

Uri Gneezy and John List include this study – among many others – in their incredible book The Why Axis.  The book is about discrimination in all its economic aspects.  And some of their findings are not only relevant, but surprising as well.

Really, what is a suit?  A suit means a "successful" job at a "successful" wage.  It means money.  A suit carries a prejudice - it creates a standard appearance for success.  Without a suit, how important can you be?    

We talk about race a lot in this country, but do we dare to ask: what were they wearing?  Is the primary prejudice in this country an economic one? 

Clothes don’t make the man.  But clothes do change our perception.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Gneezy, Uri, & John List. The Why Axis: Hidden Motives and the Undiscovered Economics of Everyday Life. PublicAffairs, 2013.       
 
 
 

Gift Giving Psychology (Part 3): Family Is A Better Investment Than Friendship 
By Heath Shive

We've seen that there's a psychology to gift giving.  First, we looked at the norm of reciprocity.  Then we looked at the "foot-in-the-door" technique.  

Today, we look at the science behind the adage, "Blood is thicker than water."  Or - as I say it - family is a better investment than friendship.

There’s the old Biblical proverb, “It’s better to give than receive" (Acts 20:35). 

But kids will tell you something different – it is way more fun to receive gifts!  

There’s a scientific way to maximize your gift-receiving selfishness!

To the science of family and friends!

Gift Giving Psychology

In 2003, psychologists Gad Saad and Tripat Gill performed a study on young adults to determine how much they spent on gifts and also who received the most expensive gifts. 

Specifically, Saad and Gill were predicting that the gift's price would correlate with genetic relatedness. In their paper, genetic relation was measured as the value r, where r equaled the amount of shared genetic material. 

For example, your parents would have an r value of 0.50, because you share 50% of your DNA with each parent.  Siblings would also have an r value of 0.50.  Grandparents (r=0.25), aunts/uncles (r=0.25), half-siblings (r=0.25), cousins (r=0.125), step-relations (r=0), and friends (r=0) were also included.

As Saad and Gill predicted, the study results showed that the closer the genetic relation, the greater the gift. Close family (r = 0.50) received $73.12 on mean average.  Moderately close family (r = 0.25) and distant family (r = 0.125) received $19.03 and $18.56 respectively.      

How Does This Help Me?

Now you know who to invite into your life!  If you have to choose between your aunts and high-school friends, it’s better to involve your aunts.  If you have to choose between your favorite sibling and your best friend for your maid-of-honor/best man, choose your sibling.

Saad & Gill’s study showed other patterns too:

• Children spend a little more money on their mother than on their father
• On average, brothers spend more money on their siblings than sisters
• Women spend as much money on close friends as they do on siblings, but men spend more money on siblings than friends
• Males spend more money on step-relations than females
• When it comes to grandparents, grandsons spend more money on grandpa, but granddaughters spend more money on grandma

Conclusion

Saad and Gill’s study is far from exhaustive – it was one study of one group from one city.  There are bound to be cultural and individual differences.  But compare the results above with your own experience.  Pretty close, right? 

Who spends more money on your wedding: your parents or college buddies?  Who will donate a kidney: your family or your friends?

In “The Dukes of Hazzard,” Boss Hogg once said, “Blood is thicker than water, but money is thicker than blood.”

Scientifically, money is not thicker than blood.  Family is always a good investment. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources: 
Saad, Gad and Tripat Gill, “An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective on Gift-Giving among Young Adults,” Psychology & Marketing 20 (2003): 765-84. 

Gift Giving Psychology: The Norm of Reciprocity
by Heath Shive

In the 1970s, the Hare Krishna were experts at collecting donations.  They looked strange, would chant in airports, and had a tendency to "weird" people out.  So, how did they do it?   

They used the psychology of the norm of reciprocity.  

So this Christmas, how can you protect yourself from this psychological trick?

Let's find out.

To the science of gift giving!

The Norm of Reciprocity: Society’s Guilt Trip

The Hare Krishna were a very visible religious movement in the 1970s, especially in airports.  When it comes to the art of persuasion, you wouldn’t expect a chanting, orange-clad, stubble-headed pagan to be an expert - but their organization made millions!

It was the famous psychologist Robert Cialdini who discovered that they used a powerful technique called the norm of reciprocity.

But first, what is a "norm"?  As described in the fascinating book Age of Propaganda, a norm is a specific guide to conduct.  A norm is how society tells you to act normally – like tipping 15% at a restaurant, sneezing into your elbow, or not cutting in line. 

The norm of reciprocity is simply this: If I give you something, you are obligated to give me something in return.  The norm of reciprocity regulates exchange in a culture.

The Power of Flowers

Psychologist Robert Cialdini – who spent hours at the airport observing Krishnas in action – discovered that the sect used the norm of reciprocity to “guilt trip” people into giving money. 

How?

They would simply give you a flower.

The Krishna member would spy a “victim,” who would suddenly find a flower pressed into his or her hand.  If the target attempted to give it back, the Krishna would refuse by saying, “It is our gift to you.” Only then did they request a donation.

The gift of a flower established a feeling of obligation.  The targeted “victim” would feel compelled to donate – thus fulfilling the norm of reciprocity. 

The Power of a Free Coke

In fact – even if you dislike someone – the norm of reciprocity can work. A study by Dennis Regan published 1971 illustrates this.  In his experiment, two male students were surveyed for their “aesthetic judgments.”  However one of the students was an accomplice who intentionally either made himself likable or unlikable. 

After five minutes, sometimes the accomplice would leave and come back with two Cokes…offering the other Coke to the other student.  At the end of the study, the accomplice asked the real student if he would like to buy some raffle tickets. 

The results showed that when the accomplice gave the other student a Coke, he sold nearly twice as many tickets compared with no Coke – whether the accomplice was likable or not!

Conclusion

So beware of gifts!  Those “free” cheese samples at the grocery, those “free” mailing labels from a nonprofit, and that “free” drink from someone in a bar.  Beware that invitation to a distant cousin’s or college friend’s wedding.  Beware of those “free” pill samples given by a pharmaceutical rep.

Because every gift gives twice - it gives a gift...and an obligation.     

The norm of reciprocity is supposed to establish a fair exchange for a better society.  Ironically, the norm of reciprocity can be used to cheat people too. 

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:

Cialdini, Robert.  Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.  Rev.ed. Collins, 2007. 
  
Pratkanis, Anthony, & Elliot Aronson.  Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion.  W.H. Freeman and Company, 1991. 

Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627-639. ​

The Ghost of Your Ex: Country Music and the Law of Contagion
By Heath Shive 

Country artist Jason Aldean has a song out called Drowns the Whiskey.  He sings: "Maybe it's the bar or the stool I'm on/Maybe it's the band and the sad old song/ That keeps me buying rounds." 

The "sad old song" is not literally making him drink.  It's the association between the song...and her.  This is actually a rule in psychology known as the Law of Contagion. 

To the science! (And a sad old story) 

Once Upon a Time 

Once upon a time, I was crazy for a woman.  I drove half-way across the state and back just to spend evenings with her!  Crazy! 

She told me that I had better like country music – it was a “deal-breaker.”  I didn’t hate country music.  It just hadn’t appealed to me earlier.  But lo and behold, I came to like the stuff!  Even put a country station on my car’s radio button.   

But, the candle that burns twice as bright lasts half as long.  A while later, she and I parted ways. Not long after, I was listening to country music…and I couldn’t stand it.  Changed the music station on my radio button.

But why? 

“Country music” itself was not responsible for my broken heart.  I didn’t have a torrid affair with Reba McEntire or Miranda Lambert – though I would invite both of them to try (wink).

But she loved country music – therefore country music had been compromised.

Sounds crazy, but it actually has to do with an idea in psychology called the law of contagion – an idea that first got its start as a law of sympathetic magic!

Don’t believe me?

To the science and magic!

The Science of Roach Juice

Back in 1986, psychologists Paul Rozin, Linda Millman, and Carol Nemeroff published a hilarious series of studies on the laws of contagion and laws of similarity. 

In one experiment, students were asked to taste and rate 2 kinds of juice (apple and grape) from 2 different glasses.  Afterwards, one juice glass was touched by a sterilized, dead cockroach and the other was touched by a plastic candle holder.  Do I have to say it?  The students rated the “roached” juice with intense dislike – even though, scientifically speaking the juice was fine. 

But here’s the trick.  Fresh juice was then poured into new glasses!

Whichever juice had touched the roach in the previous experiment was subsequently judged worse than the original rating! 

This was fresh juice in a new glass – but the memory of contamination remained and conditioned the students’ judgments.

The Law of Contagion

The law of contagion states that a lasting connection is created between 2 objects that have been in contact with each other – or at least, if we “connect” them mentally.  The law of contagion is generally ascribed to James George Frazer – author of the seminal work The Golden Bough.   

It’s a magic trope.  If an evil person dies in a house, then you get a haunted house.  Or conversely, a saint’s bones or relics have benevolent powers. 

But Rozin, Millman, and Nemeroff showed that there were psychological underpinnings to the idea, or that the “magic” involved was only a reflection of real and unconscious instincts. 

Conclusion

Our ancient ancestors didn’t have hygiene science or even soap!  Dangerous contagion was real and all around.  It shouldn’t surprise us that an instinct developed to urge us in the right direction. 

But that instinct can be evoked in crazy ways.  And I was pretty crazy about her…once upon a time.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:

Rozin, Paul & Millman, Linda & Nemeroff, Carol. (1986). Operation of the Laws of Sympathetic Magic in Disgust and Other Domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  50 (4), 703-712. 

The Power of Charisma: How Do They Do It?
By Heath Shive 

Charisma projects outward from an individual and stimulates us.  A charismatic person can seduce people one-by-one or on a massive scale.

Robert Greene – author of the The Art of Seduction – tells us that a Charismatic relies on the power of words because words are the quickest way to create emotional stimulation. Words can elevate, energize, and motivate.

But which words?  And how?

Maybe charisma is just narcissism – extroverted and eloquent narcissism.

To the science!

Bragging Is Better?

In 1992, psychologists Lynn Miller, Linda Cooke, Jennifer Tsang, and Faith Morgan performed some studies on the nature of “positive” disclosure versus “boastful” disclosure.  Both positive and boastful disclosures involve communicating your achievements, but boasting adds an element of competition and “one upmanship.”  Boasting implies that you beat somebody.

In one of the studies, the researchers had the study subjects respond to characters who disclosed in either a boastful, positive, or negative fashion.  The respondents rated both the boasters and positive disclosers as more competent than the negative “wimpy” (my word) disclosers.

Later, respondents rated the positive discloser to be more “socially involved.”

But the boasters were rated as more competent! 

The Charisma of Popularity

In 2011, psychologists Mitja Back, Stefan Schmukle, and Boris Egloff performed a study on the first impressions that popular people make.  They gathered 73 college students on their first day of class (so that they didn’t know each other). All the students had to introduce themselves individually in front of the class.  Immediately after this introduction, the rest of the class evaluated the student (no pressure!).

Then, each student had to fill out a questionnaire at home which determined whether the student’s personality was – among other things – self-centered (narcissist) or self-transcendent (nice).

The most popular people in the class were of 2 types: extraverts and the self-centered.  Extraverts were considered popular because they were seen as more fashionable, more self-assured, had a friendly facial expression, strong voice, and an original introduction.

Self-centered people were popular for the exact same reasons!
 
Perhaps at first, we can be attracted to self-centered people not because they are self-centered, but because they superficially seem to be like extraverts!

But whereas extraverts genuinely like other people, self-centered people view others as being inferior.

But Sooner or Later

In 1998, psychologist Delroy Paulhus performed a study on 124 college students, who were divided into groups.  Each group contained a narcissist.  At the end of the 1st meeting, the narcissists were considered intelligent, confident, and entertaining.  The group seemed to enjoy their presence.

But by the 7th meeting, narcissists were not liked at all.

Conclusion

Robert Green warns that charisma is as volatile as the emotions it stirs.  Too much charisma for too long creates fatigue, and a desire for calmness and order.

So when I hear someone say “charisma,” I think “narcissist who talks well…for now.”

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Back, M.D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010b). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance.  European Journal of Personality. 3, 225-238.

Miller, Lynn, & Cooke, Linda & Tsang, Jennifer & Morgan, Faith.  (1992). Should I Brag?  Nature and Impact of Positive and Boastful Disclosures for Women and Men.  Human Communication Research.  18 (3).  364-399.

Paulhus, D. L. (1998).  Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197-1208.
​

There's a Formula for Self-Esteem?
By Heath Shive

Worried about your self-esteem?  You are not alone. 

The term “self-esteem” was coined by the great psychologist William James over a hundred years ago in his masterpiece Principles of Psychology. 

To James, your self-esteem could be determined by a simple equation: 
Self-esteem = Success / Pretensions

So you could increase your self-esteem in two ways.  As Alain de Botton – author of the book Status Anxiety – writes, “On the one hand, we may try to achieve more; and on the other we may reduce the number of things we want to achieve.” (Italics added).

“Success” is usually defined as more money, more prestige, more status, more sex, more power, more influence, more fame, more achievements, etc.

For more self-esteem, you could increase your success.  Or…you could also reduce your pretensions. 

How so?

To the philosophy!

Pretensions and the F-word

Pretensions are simply what you think you should have. 

You drive a minivan, but you think you deserve a SUV (even though both just carry your butt to the same place).  You think your kids should be in private school (even though plenty of kids are going to public and doing just fine).  You think you should be promoted (even though your work performance isn’t the best). 

As Mark Manson – author of The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck – writes: “It has become an accepted part of our culture today to believe that we are all destined to do something truly extraordinary.  Celebrities say it.  Business tycoons say it. Politicians say it.  Even Oprah says it (so it must be true).”

Even if people didn’t say such platitudes, then commercials, TV and movies would blast the same message at you anyway. Manson writes: “Everyone and their TV commercial wants you to believe that the key to a good life is a nicer job, or a more rugged car, or a prettier girlfriend…The world is constantly telling you that the path to a better life is more, more, more…”

According to James’ equation, as you increase  your pretensions you decrease your self-esteem!

So Manson advocated that people not give “a f*ck” (i.e., reduce your pretensions), then the “stress and anxiety of always feeling inadequate and constantly needing to prove yourself will dissipate” so that “the knowledge and acceptance of your own mundane existence will actually free you to accomplish what you truly wish to accomplish, without judgment or lofty expectations.”

Conclusion

Lowering your goals to the point where they are already met is the definition of the word "mediocrity." 

But James, Manson, and de Botton are not advocating mediocrity.  They are preaching independence.

Then, your self-esteem will be created, maintained, and fueled entirely by you.  This will probably not reduce work and pain – but it could decimate your anxiety. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
De Botton, Alain.  Status Anxiety.  Pantheon Books, 2004.

James, William.  The Principles of Psychology.  H. Holt and Company, 1918.

Manson, Mark.  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life.  HarperOne, 2016.