Steven Hayes | The Art to Achieving Better Self-Esteem - The Art of Charm Ep.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2024
- Many of us grew up in a world that praised the idea of having high self-esteem - but what exactly is self-esteem, why have we been wrongly focused on it for so long, and what do we need to focus on moving forward?
What to Listen For
-Why is artificially inflating self-esteem dangerous and how can you avoid doing it to yourself and your kids?
-What is that self critical voice we all hear and how does it affect our self-esteem?
-What is imposter syndrome and how does artificially inflated self-esteem contribute to it?
-Dr. Hayes explains the root of the word confidence and why many people who appear confident actually are not
-How is social media making it difficult for people to be self compassionate and true to themselves?
-What are the three components of self-compassion and how can you implement them today to improve your confidence and quality of life?
-Dr. Hayes explains how to strip your inner critic of its power
-Is there such a thing as too much self-compassion?
-Why is it important to determine your values and how can they help you navigate through daily life and the biggest challenges we all face?
Artificially inflating someone’s self-esteem is never advisable. On one end it can lead to a collapse of the person’s identity the moment he faces significant stress because there is no foundation for that view he holds of himself. On the other end it can lead to arrogance and entitlement when a person expects the world to be handed to her simply because she thinks she’s “the best.”
We all face challenges in life that push us to our limits and beyond, so why not equip ourselves with the tools necessary to endure the resulting pain and move forward with our lives?
One of those tools is self-compassion, a term not many of you might not be familiar with just yet.
There are 3 components to self compassion: (1) be kind to yourself, (2) realize everyone is dealing with these struggles, and (3) be present with what you feel - don’t exaggerate your feeling or play them down. If you can cultivate self-compassion you will accept that your life will not always be rainbows and butterflies, your thoughts and feelings can’t always be positive, and you can be patient with yourself during stressful times..
Resources from this Episode
Is Self Compassion More Important Than Self Esteem by Steven Hayes, Ph. D.
www.huffpost.com/entry/is-sel...
www.stevenchayes.com/
Alex Banayan Episode: theartofcharm.com/podcast-epi...
The Third Door by Alex Banayan: thirddoorbook.com/
Self-compassion protects against the negative effects of low self-esteem: A longitudinal study in a large adolescent sample by Sarah Marshall: www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Steven Hayes TED Talk: • Psychological flexibil...
Check in with AJ and Johnny!
AJ on Facebook
/ ajharbinger
Johnny on Facebook
/ john.dzubak
Keep up with The Art of Charm
The Art of Charm Challenge
theartofcharm.com/challenge
The Art of Charm Insiders
theartofcharm.com/insiders
The Art of Charm Bootcamp
theartofcharm.com/personal-bo...
Best of The Art of Charm Podcast
theartofcharm.com/category/be...
The Art of Charm Toolbox
theartofcharm.com/category/to...
On social media:
Instagram - / theartofcharm
Twitter - / theartofcharm
Facebook - / theartofcharm
ENJOYING WHAT YOU HEAR?
Your reviews are essential to us and for those discovering The Art of Charm.
Go to theartofcharm.com/mobilereview to share your Art of Charm experience.
I see this interview is 5 years old, yet it is so apt today for my 16-year old son who is struggling. Thank you so much for this, it is completely relevant for him, and I have emailed it to him in hopes he might some day decide to give it a listen. 🙏🏻 From someone who did.
Woah Steven Hayes!! He's one of the masters in psychology.
This is incredible and so important. Thinking you need to approve of yourself completely just makes you approve of yourself less! Being a healthy human is about making peace with all of yourself, but knowing you can act in the way you want because you have proved you are able to, not relying on pumping your emotions and views to make yourself feel good.
First thanks a lot for inviting him and expanding this topic in a right way. Please don't ever delete the video.
This is why Shakespeare should always be number one on the literary canon in all high schools - Master of studying the range of emotions and intricacies of self and relationships.
Couldn’t agree more. 💪
Í just want to say thank you.
Thank you! Did you have a favorite takeaway?
This was really good, guys!! Thanks for posting it!
Quality quality stuff, guys. Thank you 🙏
I can't believe this only has 41 likes and 1512 views. Great info. Thank you...
I haven't finished the whole video. But it is so so helpful and inspiring.
amazing video guys. Thanks a lot for putting this stuff out there
Thanks!
34:09 great thought experiment
Steven is brilliant.
Best episode. Steven hayes is GOAT
love
Estaré ETERNAMENTE AGRADECIDA por todo lo que enseña este señor y los involucrados en ACT. Es tan frustrante recibir una ayuda equivocada y buscar la felicidad entendida como euforia y placer. ¡Es hora de aceptar la vida! Me estoy finalmente involucrando con voluntad para conseguir una vida realmente plena y llena de lealtad a mí misma. No para solo tener placer superficial y vivir porque me ha tocado.
No es minimizar tu respuesta, pero ¿Como sabes que eso es lo real o lo último? ¿No es aceptar el sufrimiento, otra forma de estar enjaulado en el pensamiento? ¿Cambiar una creencia asfixiante por otra menos asfixiante? Decir que la llave esta en los valores es como una salida forzada hasta cierto punto. Creo yo.
@@modelo61 No mencioné que fuera a aceptar de manera mental (cosa imposible en última instancia). Y si me involucro correctamente, entendiendo realmente como es (y no con un esfuerzo mental para evitar sufrimiento) pues no hay problemas.
@@modelo61 O sea (espero entender bien tu comentario) no es simplemente pensar que los valores son mi salvación y ya está. Si no a realmente comprometerme con soltar y actuar de forma intuitiva y no forzada.
This is my first exposure to ACT and Hayes. Thank you for the introduction!
I'm glad he redefines values. I can see getting stuck there.
The 'clown suit in my head' creates a massive guilt trip with Values and Goal Setting: "If you valued ______ you would _______. Since you never ____ your values must not mean that much. Or if you do Value ____ and don't ______, then you must be hopelessly: lazy, selfish, hopeless, undisciplined, etc.
The approach of accepting rather than removing is interesting. It is certainly a futile attempt to try to remove, however, who can say that this self that remains standing is the real one? Maybe we have to go further with the issue of the transcendent self and accept that thought, whatever it is, is not showing who we really are. That would be truly revolutionary, the other thing is to still live in the trap.
Act works
Positive thinking is good but..... More important from establishing how do you want to feel is establishing WHY do you want to feel this way.
Yes! It’s about observing and navigating rather than trying to control them.
1:24 in ... This is a great topic.
my problem is not the negative voice inside my head, its the negative voices outside my head!
phella in your case c- commitment, stands for committing to move in to relationships that you value, belong in, grow from/with
One with Dave Goggins is a good one to check out for the outside voices.
Science ditched the cult of self esteem a long time ago. It left generations without RESILIENCE. You need skills to cope with real life. ACT is for real life
I couldn’t agree more. ACT is quite a powerful tool for modernity
I think there is definitely truth in being realistic about yourself. But what if you really are skilled in a certain area? What if you are say the "Michael Jordan" of what you do and have been told that by many people. You may also have credentials to back up your accomplishments. While being humble is important, it is also important to acknowledge the truth where it exists (even if it means acknowledging that you have been very successful in your field). To not do so would be to deny the truth in some sense. You needn't be cocky, but you also needn't play down your abilities to such a degree that you can't function. I think it is very important to have faith in your strengths, accept your weaknesses and then if you choose to, go about enhancing them with appropriate action. I would argue that it is not so much about getting RID of self-esteem as it is about keeping it in check. Sort of a yin-yang scenario. If you feel yourself becoming too big for your boots, reel yourself back in. If you are being overly critical of yourself and want to feel good by giving your best at an exam or presentation, then go for it. I'm a firm believer that life is about opposing forces and we are at constant play with them. While I feel ACT is very useful for a lot of issues, especially social anxiety, I also feel that a lot the principles it propagates can be turned on themselves. The title of this podcast, "Self-esteem is bullshit" is an absolutist statement, something that I feel ACT discourages. So Dr. Hayes' individual experience may have taught him that self-compassion is more important than self-esteem but other folks run the risk of blindly believing someone else's story and the lessons it taught that person. Just as artificially blowing up your self-esteem can be detrimental, it can be equally detrimental to go on a "self-compassion" high and try to artificially cultivate self-compassion. So we must be MINDFUL of this contradiction. We can easily swing both ways. We want to believe one extreme because it gives us comfort. The truth however, lies somewhere in the middle. People should learn about life by living it, not trying to conceptualize it. When the time comes, you will learn to make adjustments as and when needed. As long as you're not an asshole to the people around you, I think there is no harm in being confident in your abilities. This doesn't mean that you're a perfect person. Quite the opposite. It means that you are, like everyone else, imperfect but still willing to learn from your mistakes and the lessons life teaches you.
Calling self-esteem bulls**t as a click-bait ploy is the real bulls**t. A respect-worthy professional would not stoop so low.
I can understand how you might think that, but the whole video is about how the Self-esteem movement is flawed. He wrote a famous article with that title. He’s an accomplished therapist who created the ACT, acceptance commitment therapy to combat the self-esteem movement.
How do you know that suffering is real and that you should accept it? Isn't it another layer fo the onion?
None of these people have read Nathaniel Branden. Overall still worth a listen.
Why do they have to though, it‘s also just one theory out of many
Yes they have, (at least Hayes did) and Branden was wrong. That's the whole point.
An email exchange with Hayes
Below is part of an email exchange with Dr. Steven Hayes, a creator and proponent of something called relational frame theory, a somewhat inexplicable (to me at least) psychological theory that attributes how we behave through a behavioristic analysis of language. It has even given birth to a therapeutic approach called ACT, which presumably will cure all that psychologically ails you. The problem is that modern neuroscience tells us that much of our behavior is caused by non-conscious and affective events that have little or nothing to do with language. Would it not be prudent, I asked, that your procedure be a little informed by the facts of how the human mind works from affective neuroscience? To which I got this paean to the pragmatism of prediction.
"I understand behavior when I can predict and control behavior with precision, scope, and depth. That is behavior analysis as I understand it. You understand behavior when you've modeled the mechanical system. But why stop at those three? Why not say "to understand behavior you have to understand biochemistry?" Sure that underlies the brain systems you point to. But why stop there? Why not say "to understand behavior you have to understand subatomic particles?" Doesn't that underlie the physical and chemical systems that underlie the biological systems you are speaking of? How can your understanding be firm if you do not know what underlies it? That is the import of your statement: "To understand behavior you have to understand all three." OK -- so be consistent. Follow out the logic of what you believe.
The key is this last sentence, whether one should follow the logic of what one believes, or (as I would have it) the logic of what one sees. If you have a broader vision of the very large to the very small, one's logic would doubtless become a lot better, though the procedures it would support would likely, like understanding the processes of disease and the procedures it engenders (vaccinations, antibiotics), be a whole lot different. The true logic that Hayes was hinting about was a bit different, namely that different levels of perspective are really complex, and that they cause us to lose focus on the subject at hand. This is the time worn argument against reductionism, which is a philosophy of science that assumes that reducing the whole to its parts causes you lose perspective on what's truly important (namely the prediction), and (shudder) will cause you to look up the world as a mere collection of atoms. This is a common logical scarecrow used to frighten those who care about explanations, and is nonsense.
Every child in an elementary science class learns about things from the large to the small, but learns not the intractable minutiae of calculation, but rather metaphors that encapsulate the large and the small in a phrase. Called 'level adequate' concepts by the early neuroscientist Erich von Holst, it gives us a metaphorical perspective of the world that integrates many levels of observation. You don't have to be a brain scientist to understand the mind, nor a rocket scientist to understand physics. Because neuroscience is a relatively young field, it has not yet formed the level adequate descriptions of how the brain works that can sweep away the postures of those who would figuratively shut us indoors without air. In time, I will be looking forward to finally breathing free.
more level adequate thinking and its attendant ironies from Dr. Mezmer’s World of Bad Psychology, at doctormezmer.com
I'm sure the neurosciences have interesting things to teach us about the mind. So does psychology. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Also, you say yourself that you don't understand relational frame theory. How can you criticize something you don't even understand?
Your argument about neuroscience is psychologism and runs into a logical issue. You run into a chicken or the egg issue with, ironically, language when you begin to use non-psychological means to explain psychology. We use psychological language and philosophical language as a guide to research and discover things about the brain. Neuroscience doesn’t actually come up with these terms. Hegelian Johann Eduard Erdmann coined the term psychologism and if you want to learn more, his arguments are timeless because they can now explain some of the logical issues with trying to use neuroscience to “prove” or “tell us” about psychology. Stephen Hayes, Russ Harris, and probably most of the big names in ACT wouldn’t claim that ACT can help with all psychological issues, Russ Harris is explicit about saying that if it works for you then use it. For example, ACT would be difficult to use with children that have not developed cognitively or that are non-verbal. But ACT, like CBT which has even larger research basis, does focus on thoughts as triggers to feelings and then behaviors, they just approach them different ways. The neuroscience hasn’t “proven” that actions are more affective or cognitive, we do know there are drivers that are not conscious, but it is actually a dualistic philosophy to try to separate the two from each other. What neuroscience is also showing is that affective and cognitive responses work simultaneously in parallel and that it is actually a western philosophical idea that you can just separate parts of the body or brain to study them. Neuroscience actually runs into this issue because the bias that you bring into the study or scan can effect the conclusion. If you are doing a brain scan with a philosophical position of dualism that the brain should be separated into affective and cognitive parts, then you’ll come up with conclusions that one is more important than the other. ACT is helpful for some folks because of the relationship language and cognitions have with subconscious affective responses and associations. Another dualistic argument is that the brain is separated into a top-down or bottom-up conscious vs unconscious duality, when actually they are likely working together and can effect each other. ACT does focus on using the conscious language to make changes to our associations in language to help regulate the affective side. That doesn’t exclude the fact there may be other treatments that make the unconscious or what we don’t have language for to become cognitive and turn into behavior. ACT would say if we have a fear of sharks, it’s because we likely haven’t been traumatized by sharks, but have been told pain occurs when we are stung, sharks hurt worse than being stung, so the language of stung, worse, and avoid bees and sharks would create an association to have an affective fear response. By changing our relationship with this language it will change the affective response. It’s one way of many to respond and change behaviors. I’d argue it’s actually impossible to expect neuroscience to magically come up with its own descriptions in a vacuum. Your argument actually runs into the same reductionism that psychology and neuroscience can actually be separated out and that neuroscience can magically live in its own world and come up with descriptions. ACT, and probably what Stephen Hayes was trying to say in the email, views things as not being dualistic and so language could be considered both affective and cognitive at the same time, just as unconscious and conscious processes work together and do not need to be separated. Of course if you look at a brain scan, it might show an “affective” or “cognitive” side of the brain light up more, but approaching it with a dualistic reductionist thinking could mislabel the process as being affective or cognitive rather than just a process working in parallel. I’d argue our need to separate out cognitive and affective processes are getting in the way of learning more with neuroscience.