Belittling Others & Condescension -The Underlying Low Self-Esteem behind it

[Guest guest]

rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote:

>

> Erica, I see that you have taken personally some of what I have

written,

> expressed below.

> And again, I commend you to www.cnvc.org, there is much for you

there, if

> you will receive it.

 

> Best,

> Elchanan

 

 

Elchanan, I think this is a great article discussing the underlying

emotions behind the words of those who chronically condescend and

belittle others. It references Nathanie Branden, the author of many

top, widely-hailed books on self-esteem issue. I do feel there is

much there for YOU, if you are willing to receive it. Warmly, Erica

--------

 

Definitional difficulties

One does not need to be a trained psychologist to know that some

people with low self-esteem strive to compensate for their deficit by

boasting, arrogance and conceited behaviour. What educated person

does not know about compensatory mechanisms?

Nathaniel Branden, 1997

One of Professor Roy Baumeister's criticisms of self-esteem is that

it is too broad a concept and so the people who can be classified as

having `high self-esteem' are a very heterogeneous group. Here's we

outline why this is an issue.

 

It is very difficult to discuss self-esteem for the simple reason

that so much as been written about it – approximately 2,000 books and

then countless articles and programmes all claiming they have

techniques to boost self-esteem.

 

For the sake of simplicity let us take the definition which is used

by the National Association for Self-Esteem (NASE). Their definition

is closely linked to Nathaniel Branden's work and they define self-

esteem as `the experience of being capable of meetings life's

challenges and being worthy of happiness'.

 

Like Branden NASE make a distinction between `authentic'

and `inauthentic' self-esteem. Those with authentic self-esteem have

an accurate perception of themselves and take responsibility for

their own shortcomings and life choices. Their sense of themselves

and self-confidence does not require that they look good in other

people's eyes. This means that they have no reason to belittle others

and so their self-esteem does not lead to arrogance.

 

Those with `inauthentic' self-esteem have a strong need to look good

in other people's eyes. This group is intent on impressing others to

feel worthy. They can be very competitive, blame others for any of

their own failures, and can puff themselves up and put others down to

feel good about themselves. So, their version of feeling worthy is

not about how they evaluate themselves but how they are seen by

others. It is external and `defensive'. Psychologists, including

Baumesiter, broadly accept there is a distinction to be made been

genuine self-esteem and `inauthentic', defensive or unstable self-

esteem.

 

The problem for the exponents of the benefits of self-esteem is that

as self-esteem is socially desirable, people with defensive,

externally based (low) self-esteem will also report `high' self-

esteem when asked. As these people appear to have a high opinion of

themselves, others may sometimes think they have high self-esteem.

However, Nathaniel Branden may well be right, in the quote given

above, that non-psychologists often understand that a person who acts

as if he or she is superior may have a chip on their shoulder. But

that still does not take away from the fact that unless researchers

control for other variables, such as the importance of other people's

opinions, no distinction will be made between those with authentic

and inauthentic self-esteem.

 

This is why Baumeister argues that one of the fundamental

difficulties with the concept of self-esteem is that it ends up being

a mixed bag of people who have realistic and genuine self of

themselves and feel worthy, as well as those who do not feel worthy

and are intent on proving their worth in the eyes of others – an

intention which can lead to all sorts of negative behaviour such as

cheating.

 

The mixed bag idea is complicated further when we realise that people

who can be classed as `narcissists' will also end up in the high self-

esteem group. We shall explore narcissism more fully in another

section but broadly it a word used to describe people who love

themselves too much. Some theorists argue that in western

individualistic society some degree of narcissism is essential for

the healthy personality. Others argue that as babies we are all

narcissistic. People with a narcissistic personality disorder are

those who exhibit a number of the following characteristics:

grandiose sense of self; fantasies of unlimited success; lack of

empathy; craving of attention, adulation etc from others;

manipulative behaviour (using others as pawns in their egotistical

quest); arrogance and the belief they are better than others;

obsessed with themselves. It is estimated that about 75% of

narcissists are male. Narcissism may be the result of an abusive

childhood but some research suggests it is genetic. The paradox of

narcissism is that narcissists belittle others in the quest to

elevate themselves but also need to see themselves reflected well in

the others that they do not rate.

 

Copyright: Carol Craig, Centre for Confidence and Well-Being, 2006

[Guest guest]

-

Erica

[Raw Food] Belittling Others & Condescension -The Underlying Low

Self-Esteem behind it

 

 

Erica,

 

Good points, all. I've found Elchanan, to me, to be very self-suffiant,

often arrogant, in the way he address the group, or individuals, as to his

point of view. However, when I look at it from HIS point of view (having

listened to the teleconferences mentioned by various members of this group),

I see it as him passing on knowledge and information. Why is this? Through

my own studies, both prior to, and following, learning about raw foods, I've

come to see that Elchanan really knows his stuff. It's true that sometimes

he approaches this knowledge from the point of view that " well, if it makes

sense to me and others, it should make sense to you " , but that doesn't make

it any less valid. I approach it from a different point of view (that of

" this is one way I understand it, here is another way, perhaps you

understand it differently " - I'm libra, hehe), but ultimately, our views are

the same.

 

It is hard, sometimes, to take on board information which is given in a

" take it or leave it " fashion. It is hard, especially, when that information

is give in a " this is right, get over it " fashion ) No doubt, the

information could be given in a far more PC way, but the fact remains that

the information is true.

 

I'm sure, that in this day and age, there are many people who may find

communication with others difficult at best. There are many of us who could

take a lesson from those with a good handle on diplomacy and " pc-ness " . That

aside, there are some things of which there is truth, and non-truth. A wise

teacher of mine, at high school, no less, told me once that he did not like

maths (he was an english teacher), because there were too many variables,

yet there was only one singular way in which one could be " right " , ie, one

correct answer. He prefered teaching english, as any answer may be

interpreted to be correct. I found myself preferring maths, as I did not

like the ambiguity of english, or any other subject where one could have a

different answer, and yet be " correct " .

 

Homo sapiens, or, the human species, must be the same, just as each breed of

dog, cat, and panda, are the same. Essential food for humans, therefore,

must be specific, and as obvious, as a particular breed of bamboo for

pandas, and a particular breed of eucalypt for koalas. My son has shown me

true health, in that his intake and output always show true health for

humans, him being an infant. " fruit, and veges (via the mother, until the

infant is ready to digest the lettuce, etc, on their own) " seems to be the

optimal diet for any human, taste and bias aside.

 

I know that it is natural for us to want to be different - " surely I know

more than my parents; surely I am more well adjusted or developed than my

son " , but the reality is, and this is recognised even by mainstream doctors,

that homo sapiens IS, and always will be, a species of animal. Our needs

will always be the same, until evolution says otherwise.

 

An incredibly hard fact to grasp, that we are, and always will be, the same,

physically, as our forebears. We always want better, for ourselves, and for

our offspring. I want my son to be so incredibly far and beyond ourselves in

both intelligence, and physical prowess. How I would love to bask in his

glory, and believe it to be so ) But the fact remains that he is homo

sapiens; I am homo sapiens; WE are homo sapiense. Therefore what is optimal

for one of us (fruit and tender greens) is optimal for ALL of us (fruit and

tender greens).

 

Try it for a week, and see how you feel )

 

Caron

[Guest guest]

> Good points, all. I've found Elchanan, to me, to be very self-

suffiant,

> often arrogant, in the way he address the group, or individuals, as

to his

> point of view. However, when I look at it from HIS point of view

(having

> listened to the teleconferences mentioned by various members of

this group),

> I see it as him passing on knowledge and information.

 

Caron, there is nothing wrong with passing on information. Nor,

disagreeing. Since some grow deficient on just greens and high

fruits, I would definitely say that your conclusion is clearly not

true at all in today's world. Especially since fruits and greens are

simply not the same as they were " in the beginning " .

 

The problem is not with anything listed in your email. I heartily

agree with you on most counts.

 

But tell me, just because you personally think that Elchanan is

always right, does that justify belittling others? Does that justify

poor treatment of others who disagree? Does that justify being

egotistical and rude to others? That is what we are discussing. You

and I clearly disagree about diet and I see none of that in your

email. I also see that you agree that Elchanan comes off this way.

Whether someone is right or wrong is irrelevant to whether they treat

others with maturity and respect.

 

Thank you,

erica

[Guest guest]

But the fact remains that he is homo

> sapiens; I am homo sapiens; WE are homo sapiense. Therefore what is

optimal

> for one of us (fruit and tender greens) is optimal for ALL of us

(fruit and

> tender greens).

 

You are right - one diet is best for all. But just because Doug Graham

thinks it's " fruit and tender greens " , doesn't mean that he is the

authority on the issue. Here is a man afraid to even get his B12

tested. I agree there is one diet for all, but it simply your opinion

that that diet should be 80% fruit. Experience proves otherwise for

many. One week is hardly indicative of a great long-term diet. I can

water fast for a week and feel great, but obviously that doesn't mean

water alone is the ideal food for me. That's all I'm saying. :-) Erica

[Guest guest]

That's a good point Erica. In the short term a water fast is great. But

in the long run, it's not the permanent ideal diet for most people. A

lot of diet experts disagree with each other on the proper diet. Dr.

Gabriele Cousens and Dr. Fuhrman have a different perspective on the

ideal diet than Dr. Graham.

 

In fact, I read Dr. Fuhrman where he said in an interview or something

that T.C. Fry may have suffered from a lack of B12. I just have no idea

who is right and who is wrong. The best we can all do is listen to our

own bodies. It is possible that different raw diets may work for

different folks.

 

Most of what Elchanan says, I find myself agreeing with. Modern science

tells us to have an ideal weight (BMI) and eat fruits and vegetables and

nuts but not eat too many calories. To the extent we can live up to this

lifestyle, we feel better I think.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

Erica wrote:

> thinks it's " fruit and tender greens " , doesn't mean that he is the

> authority on the issue. Here is a man afraid to even get his B12

> tested. I agree there is one diet for all, but it simply your opinion

> that that diet should be 80% fruit. Experience proves otherwise for

> many. One week is hardly indicative of a great long-term diet. I can

> water fast for a week and feel great, but obviously that doesn't mean

> water alone is the ideal food for me. That's all I'm saying. :-) Erica

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

A

> lot of diet experts disagree with each other on the proper diet.

Dr.

> Gabriele Cousens and Dr. Fuhrman have a different perspective on

the

> ideal diet than Dr. Graham.

>

> In fact, I read Dr. Fuhrman where he said in an interview or

something

> that T.C. Fry may have suffered from a lack of B12. I just have no

idea

> who is right and who is wrong. The best we can all do is listen to

our

> own bodies. It is possible that different raw diets may work for

> different folks.

>

> Most of what Elchanan says, I find myself agreeing with. Modern

science

> tells us to have an ideal weight (BMI) and eat fruits and

vegetables and

> nuts but not eat too many calories.

 

And we are to eat healthy fats... I agree with Elchanan and most

other rawfoodists a lot, too. I don't think the issue is over what we

agree on. And I heartily agree with your post. Who DOES Know? Nobody.

Erica

[Guest guest]

-

Erica

>But tell me, just because you personally think that Elchanan is

always right, does that justify belittling others? Does that justify

poor treatment of others who disagree? Does that justify being

egotistical and rude to others? That is what we are discussing. You

and I clearly disagree about diet and I see none of that in your

email. I also see that you agree that Elchanan comes off this way.

Whether someone is right or wrong is irrelevant to whether they treat

others with maturity and respect.

 

Whether or not he's always right, I can't say. I said he knows his stuff

when it comes to health. I also said that he seems to be arrogant at times,

I did not say I think he belittles others, or even that he IS arrogant, it's

just that his way of " speaking " (ie writing) sometimes comes across that

way. It's just a matter of diplomacy - sometimes he's very diplomatic,

sometimes not, but he's not cruel.

 

I think it's more a matter of some things being hard to hear. As my brother

says, sometimes the truth hurts. We all have things about ourselves that we

aren't particularly fond of, and it's nice to be able to pretend they don't

exist...something that's very hard to do when someone else points them out

to us. This doesn't mean they're belittling or insulting us, it just means

that the particular description they used feels like an insult because of

how we feel in ourselves. A description of how something is can only be

insulting if the descriptee feels that it is a negative trait. For example,

if I painted my house purple, and wanted it to look purple, and someone told

me it was a lovely shade of blue, I could feel insulted or upset because I

want it to look purple. Or I could use it as a learning experience, and

choose a more purple shade of purple.

 

Personally, if someone said to me " you're very angry " , I'd probably say

" you're right, any suggestions as to how to change it? " (or " f*ck off " ,

depending on just how angry I was, hehe), because I recognised that about

myself a long time ago and, like my health, it's something about myself that

I want to change. Another work in progress )

 

Caron

[Guest guest]

> Whether or not he's always right, I can't say. I said he knows his

stuff

> when it comes to health. >

> I think it's more a matter of some things being hard to hear. As my

brother

> says, sometimes the truth hurts. This doesn't mean they're

belittling or insulting us, it just means

> that the particular description they used feels like an insult

because of

> how we feel in ourselves.

 

I disagree with you. I think he's knowledgeable about health, too.

Nobody would doubt that. what that DOESN'T mean is that others aren't

equally knowledgeable, others who may or may not agree with him. Dr.

Schulze has reversed AIDS, brain cancer, Lou Gherig's, and plenty of

other illnesses, 100x over. He preaches a lot of things different

than Elchanan, but a lot things the same. to disregard such

experiences is arrogance, not knowledge, at it's finest. Also, why

would you indicate at all that Elchanan has the " truth " about other

members on this board, and yet he will clearly not discuss the

possibility of his own shortcomings - and dismiss it as " untruth " ? I

guess he is lucky to have a devoted friend such as you, who is far

superior at diplomacy, but that truly does not address the problem.

Erica

[Guest guest]

-

Erica

>I disagree with you. I think he's knowledgeable about health, too.

Nobody would doubt that. what that DOESN'T mean is that others aren't

equally knowledgeable, others who may or may not agree with him. Dr.

Schulze has reversed AIDS, brain cancer, Lou Gherig's, and plenty of

other illnesses, 100x over. He preaches a lot of things different

than Elchanan, but a lot things the same. to disregard such

experiences is arrogance, not knowledge, at it's finest.

 

I know plenty of people who've had cancers cured by surgery, chemotherapy

and radiation treatments, and many who have never had another cancer. Does

that make them healthful lifestyles or even good treatments? Not by a long

shot. One destroys the body, leaving disfiguring and often painful scars;

one pumps the body full of poison, destroying tastebuds (and other sensory

organs), making life painful at best; the other is just as bad, and can

cause all sorts of other problems. Just because something appears to have

the desired effect, does not mean it's good. The side effects can be just as

bad, if not worse than, the original problem. This is true in all areas of

life. The trick is figuring out the way that works, AND improves quality of

life, with minimal or no side effects. This can be done by personal

experience, or it can be done by listening to people who know their stuff,

or a combination of all of the above.

 

>Also, why

would you indicate at all that Elchanan has the " truth " about other

members on this board, and yet he will clearly not discuss the

possibility of his own shortcomings - and dismiss it as " untruth " ? I

guess he is lucky to have a devoted friend such as you, who is far

superior at diplomacy, but that truly does not address the problem.

 

Again, I said he knows his stuff about health. Please don't put words in my

mouth.

 

Caron