Customer Reviews

The Myth of Self-esteem: How Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy Can Change Your Life Forever

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Albert Ellis performs a valuable service with this book. The mantra of "Self Esteem" has indeed become pervasive in today's society, but not due to Dr. Ellis. We are told that some children don't do well in school because they suffer from "low self-esteem," that people commit crimes for the same reason, and that if we can only figure out how to universally raise people's self esteem, all societal problems will vanish.

Last night I was reading the old book "Do What You Love, the Money Will Follow" (not written by Dr. Ellis). Good title, but by the second chapter, the author starts implying that if we're not in work we love, it must be because we suffer from (you guessed it) "low self-esteem." The rest of the book is devoted to telling us how we can supposedly "raise" it.

Ellis' point is that "self-esteem" is NOT the root cause of all mental problems, contrary to what many self-help "experts" tell us. In fact, "self-esteem" can even be counter-productive. If you have high self-esteem, for example, you may think that you "deserve" to be happy, satisfied and fulfilled no matter what job you have or what circumstances you are in. Dr. Ellis' point is that we must get away from obsessing over "self-esteem," both as individuals and as a society, and start dealing with the real false beliefs that cause us distress.

This book is not so much about not trying to achieve significant things in life as it is about not blaming ourselves when we fail, as we occasionally will.

Just what is self-esteem? Many believe we must have it; but here's a famous psychologist to say it's all a myth, and he bases his contention on the thoughts of some of the finest religious thinkers and philosophers of our times. Instead Albert Ellis in THE MYTH OF SELF-ESTEEM (1591023548 ) explains his Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy as an alternative to achieve unconditional self-acceptance, using exercises which promote such acceptance over the more commonly held self-esteem.

Many Americans are `self-esteem' nuts. They have been obsessed for long time to seek building and enhancing `self-esteem'.

But what is `self-esteem' anyway? Typically, in the mind of most people in America, it means `overall rating of your worth as a person'.

If you're an intelligent person capable of critical thinking and are willing to seriously think about the concept of this `self-esteem' stuff, you'll tend to feel that it's very confusing.

`I speak very well, so I feel good about my self'; then `I'm overweight, so I feel lousy about myself'; then `my school grade is A+, so I'm better than most people in the class'; then `I failed to enroll in Harvard, what a loser I am'; then `Cathy didn't invite me for her wedding, so I must be not good enough, I feel depressed', etc, etc. So, how much is your 'total worth'? No wonder so many people's `self-esteem' is in the hands of other people.

In order to rate your `total worth' (self-esteem) against other people, you have to enlist all of your strength and weakness and opinion of every people you know, and enlist all the attributes of other people you can imagine, and weigh them on a magic balance.

How this is possible? What's your overall worth to yourself?

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE! It's absurd to rate your `total worth'. It's absurd that `your total worth' depends on comparison with and opinion of other people.

As a person, you value your own existence, care for your own needs and naturally want to enjoy your life. So, based on reality, naturally you want to develop some skills and abilities to earn a decent living and also to seek to realize you potential. That's all. You're not perfect (not even close to being perfect). No one really is. You don't have to rate your `total worth'. The `total self-worth' in public eyes is really an arbitrary foolish idea.

This book powerfully refutes this `total self-worth' myth. But considerable intelligence is required on a reader's part to fully understand the content of the book.

I would not be surprised if only a small proportion of people in America can truly understand and appreciate this book.

I have a lot of respect for Albert Ellis and his work. He was definitely one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century. His Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) has done a lot of good for a lot of people. Unfortunately, this book is not one of his better ones. The problem is that this book is really two books in one. The first is a recapitulation of the basic teachings of REBT. He presents the principles of REBT clearly and emphatically, as he does in many of his other books. The reader gets a very clear description of REBT, especially the need to identify Irrational Beliefs (IBs) that individuals use to make themselves miserable. Ellis also buttresses his teaching with related teachings from other psychologists who teach REBT or closely-related therapies. These additional aides support the reader in understanding and internalizing what Ellis is trying to get across. The main emphasis in this book is the meaning and appreciation of three key REBT concepts: Unconditional Self-Acceptance (USA); Unconditional Other Acceptance (UOA); and, Unconditional Life Acceptance (ULA). Ellis achieves getting across the meaning and importance of these concepts.

The second "book" found within this volume are a few chapters that seem entirely out of place. These are chapters in which Ellis compares REBT to the teachings of ancient writers, religious figures, or more recent philosophers. For example, Ellis compares his definitions of USA, UOA and ULA with similar teachings from Kierkegaard, Spinoza, Buddha or Jesus, for example. Not surprisingly, most of these figures end up falling short of Ellis concepts. Why? Because they obviously were not writing with Ellis' yet uncreated notions in mind. Nevertheless Ellis excoriates them for their shortcomings. His doing so reduces each personage to a caricature based on whether or not they meet Ellis' criteria for matching Ellis' teachings, all the while ignoring the rest of that particular persons influence and importance. Spinoza, what a jerk, he did not really teach USA, but only a watered down version of it. Also, in some instances, Ellis actually misquotes the passage he is criticizing. For example, the New Testament passage where Jesus says "whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven", Ellis quotes as "whatever you lose on earth will be lost in heaven". The former and correct one refers to whatever the church allows on earth will be valid in heaven. Those are completely different meanings. If he is misquoting that text that badly, I have to wonder how accurate some of his other quotes may be. Also, Ellis manages to use for his examples some rather difficult passages from his selected targets. I have a hard enough time understanding what Buber is saying in some of his "I-Thou" statements; now I need to compare the incomprehensible with Ellis claims that it is not up to snuff.

In sum, this is a good book to learn and understand the basic principles of REBT. As for the comparative analysis - skip it.

Everything went well, the product arrived on time, and in the condition I was expecting.

Though I have great respect for Dr. Ellis, he totally blows it with his title. His description of Unconditional Self Acceptance IS self esteem. What he calls USA is what shrinks call self esteem! There is a mistaken definition of esteem based on accomplishment, this is not now and has never been self esteem!!!!! Try the Self-Esteem Game, it proves my point.

PS what he calls self esteem I call narcissism. That said, I only disagree with his terminology, not his theory.

This book continues on from earlier works by attempting to further define and strengthen arguments for accepting 'USA'. I say 'attempt'. The approach in this book seems to be going through one philosophical or religious stance after another, and judging it based on the 'USA' concept. Ellis doesn't simply evaluate these beliefs on the support of 'USA' alone. It's whether or not they practice HIS version of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. He even evaluates other doctors, such as David Burns (Feeling Good) on if they support HIS interpretation of USA! And you'd better not believe in God. Ellis seems to make the very idea of a belief in God irrational. And you'd have thought the whole field of CBT, or REBT, originated entirely from him, rather than from a number of different individuals at different times. He can't stop talking about himself, or how much better his theories are from everybody else's. Oh, and calling your potential readers and clients 'whiners' at every breath isn't very compassionate, either.

This is my opinion:
I'm not sure how this man gets away with implying that he is debunking a myth. Contrary to statements in the book, psychologists have told us for DECADES (largely to Mr. Ellis' own influence) that it ISN'T true that our worth as human beings is related to our accomplishments in life. Dr. Ellis, you can't debunk something that has already been debunked, so just stop it! Perhaps if you had published this book about 30 years earlier, it could have been called debunking, but certainly not now. I think the main reason he did what he did is that he needed an eye-catching title.

In spite of the fact that ideas of unconditional self-acceptance have permeated our culture, it doesn't seem to be doing us much good, and so now we have a tidal wave going in the reverse direction. People are beginning to see the illogic in it.

Notice that there are many psychologists who tell us that we are o.k. just who we are, while at the same time they are endlessly striving for bigger, more influential roles in society. They are intelligent, witty, and insightful, make good money, wear nice clothes and dine in classy restaurants. I am not necessarily calling it hypocrisy, but I WOULD call it denial. The next time your psychologist tells you that you are worthy of love and friendship, ask him or her ,"Oh, really? Do you love me? How about dinner and a movie tomorrow night?" or "Great. My other friends and I are getting together for the game tomorrow night. My apartment is tiny and in a bad part of town, but we would like it very much if you would come. Can you make it?" Without a long list of accomplishments, maybe you can learn to like or even admire yourself, but your psychologist certainly doesn't have to.

I am not saying that thoughts of unconditional self-acceptance cannot help sustain us during the more difficult times of our lives, but I don't think that this way can sustain us forever. Man cannot live on bread alone.

Some people do appear to like themselves, even when their list of accomplishments is quite small - unless you would call social skills an accomplishment. Being able to relate well to people is an ability that not all of us have, and those of us who do have it seem to weather the storms better than those who don't.

I think that Dr. Ellis' ideas have some value, but I am not sure how much. From all appearances, his ideas have helped some people, although I think most of those who were "helped" were those whose lives were fairly normal and who just needed some help getting over the humps. The author can talk a good game, but for me it just doesn't hold water. You can try to change human nature, but it usually doesn't work.