Sunday, December 09, 2007
Shielding Children From Failure
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Self-Image vs. Self-Esteem
There seems to be a difference in understanding these days between "self-esteem" and "self-image." Liberals seem to think they need to hide negative information from people (mostly children) and get rid of competition so as to not hurt the "self-esteem" of children and others. This is not the way to help people live better lives. There is a difference between "self-esteem" and "self-image," and that is "truth." "Self-image" is your own opinion of your talents and abilities based on your learning and experience. "Self-esteem" seems to be your opinion of your talents and abilities based on HIDING the truth from you and keeping you away from ANY kind of competition. This will not work because it gives you a FALSE image of your talents and abilities, based on NOTHING. You must judge your talents and abilities based on TRUTH, not ignorance of shortcomings. The trend toward eliminating competition in sports is evidence of that. What is the PURPOSE of sports, except to allow "the cream to rise to the top?" What is the purpose of playing a game such as baseball or football if there's no score? Believe me, the players know the score, even if those in charge don't keep track of it. They KNOW who made the most scores, even if those "in charge" want to keep that information from them. The article linked below mistakes "self-esteem" for "self-image," but otherwise is mostly right. Those who want to completely eliminate competition and keep negative information from people to avoid "hurting their self-esteem," are wrong, and are systematically hurting the people they try and instruct. A good "self-image" comes from becoming superior at what you do, and by knowing it. It does NOT come from making decisions based on LACK of information about your own talents and abilities and by AVOIDING all kinds of competition. (Kid's Health,
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Personal Motivation in a Philosophy
It has been 50 years since the publication of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged. Many people reject, out of hand, Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism because they don't agree with EVERY tenet of it. I don't agree with every word she says, either. But her philosophy was, in the main, correct and I have used it (mostly) as a guide for my life and my "method of operation." When I was studying personal motivation back in the sixties, I didn't realize that her philosophy was pure personal motivation. It took me a few years to make the connection although I have used most of the tenets of Objectivism to guide my life. It is the fiftieth year since the publishing of her "seminal work," "Atlas Shrugged," in which the "producers of society," those who produce all the things that make life better for all of us (they have all the original ideas and hire all the people necessary to produce them) while being systematically looted by those who are jealous of their success, but who cannot equal it and want an unearned share "went on strike" (the producers) and refused to produce for them any more. Naturally, this caused the collapse of society and then those same "producers" rebuilt it without the input of the "looters." This book literally changed my life. It should be a "must read" for everybody who is living under today's march toward the collectivism (socialism) she abhorred. Before I read this book, I had to ask, "What is happening today that alarms you?" of her. I don't need to ask that today. (Colorado Freedom Report, 10/10/07)