Top 10 Myths of Popular Psychology

[fossilhound]

I don't know which part embarrasses me more: the fact that I had to read that three times to get the joke or the fact that I laughed hard enough that I couldn't breathe.

Finally! Somebody gets me

 

[fossilhound]

I think the whole problem is that the term "bottled-up anger" is a poor analogy. What we think of as "bottled-up" anger is really anger that we keep alive by the way we interpret our thoughts.

I often have episodes where I think about some injustice that I suffered ten or twenty years ago, and become furious. In order to deal with this anger, I've found that I merely have to stop thinking about the thing that makes me angry. There's no need to "release" this anger as if it's somehow under static pressure in there.

Very true. We feed anger ourselves until it becomes a brute that takes us over. The trick is to starve the brute and free ourselves of the monster that indwells us.

 

[Thethirdeye]

That is exactly what I meant, while I personally doubt the utility of the PDs, the individuals I met who were diagnosed with NPD all had low self esteem, and in fact at least two of the criteria would indicate a low self esteem.

So if you want to play word games go right ahead. I know what the common usages of self esteem are ... we can discuss them if you wish.

Well it might be true that some narcissistic people have low self-esteem because it is well known that narcissism need evaluation from the social group. Some people like to call it explicit high-self esteem but I believe that the evaluation from the social group is just common thing between explicit self-esteem and narcissism. While implicit self-esteem might be better because the person doesn't need the social group for evaluation of his importance as a person, that doesn't imply that he shouldn't care what others think about him. I think realistic view of oneself is better choice. People should not evaluate their self-esteem according to their self image, (it is common mistake and myth that good looking people should be more liked than bad looking people and I believe that this has evolutionary root.). So, some narcissists might have low-self esteem or fears about being inferior. Some people think that their looking is the most important for their self-esteem. There are many people and many worldviews. While I am not PhD as you are, because I can see that the terminology you use is professional, I have been interested about psychology. I think that self-esteem have big influence in the social life of the people and how are they perceived. Self-esteem gives the feeling of authority and it lures people. It makes people more charming.
But the way people get it, that is the most important thing.

It is good to have high self-esteem because somebody deserve it as award.
It is good to have high self-esteem when somebody dates a partner.
High self-esteem makes people more sexually appealing than low self-esteemed people.
High self-esteem is not deserved if somebody dominates other or makes fun of him. (bullies)
High self-esteem should be raised if somebody helps or makes good things.
High self-esteem is not deserved if somebody just looks good, but is not good and fair person.
High self-esteem should not be low if somebody doesn't look good according to some standards for good looking, etc etc...

There are many factors, and it is more ethical decision who deserves high self-esteem and who not.

I believe that critical thinking would best help to someone. With that tool
everybody should know if he really deserves his high self-esteem.

Sincerely TheThirdEye

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Actually (and again, this is anecdotal), violence, threats, swearing, being loud, making trouble for someone, etc. can be cathartic and calming.

If you hit someone who deserves it, or otherwise do something bad to them, your anger is released. You feel avenged. The balance is righted. You go back to emotional homeostasis.

EMM, actually you just summarized there what is the problem with that myth. Sure, it feels good. But therein lies the problem. By keeping "letting it out" you create basically a Pavlovian reflex that getting angry is good.

ETA: basically do that enough and next time those thoughts of past injustices come around, instead of just stopping thinking of themselves, like aggle-rithm correctly pointed out, now you'll work yourself up for that feel-good release. Or just start thinking of such angry stuff when you wouldn't have before, just because they lead to such a release that feels good. And in the process maybe even teach your body to get more primed for fight-or-flight for that "letting it out" in situations which otherwise wouldn't even be an issue at all.

 

[Jeff Corey]

While we're on popular myths, not all conditioning is Pavlovian (classical or S->R conditioning). Behavior controlled by its consequences illustrates operant conditioning.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I guess it's debatable which kind is predominantly at play in the scenario I was describing. At some point, I doubt that anyone will plan ahead (consciously or subconsciously) to get angry. I can see it becoming essentially a S->R kind of response, where the stimulus is just getting angry at something. If you repeat enough times that the correct response is to basically to go full tilt on the anger, I can see how it would just start happening automatically.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I guess it's debatable which kind is predominantly at play in the scenario I was describing. At some point, I doubt that anyone will plan ahead (consciously or subconsciously) to get angry. I can see it becoming essentially a S->R kind of response, where the stimulus is just getting angry at something. If you repeat enough times that the correct response is to basically to go full tilt on the anger, I can see how it would just start happening automatically.

"Getting angry" is a response, not a stimulus.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I dunno, I've been angry before and it seems to me like there are sensations and actual chemical stimuli (e.g., the adrenalin) which can very well be a stimulus.

 

[Emet]

I dunno, I've been angry before and it seems to me like there are sensations and actual chemical stimuli (e.g., the adrenalin) which can very well be a stimulus.

Adrenaline is released as a response to a stimulus.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes, I didn't think that it just randomly happened by itself. But my point is that essentially everything you do is part of a feedback loop. What you've done up to moment X or the state you're in, are inputs for what you'll do next. Things which are a response in one step, become part of the input data for the next step.

E.g., take aggle-rithm's apt advice that basically if you find that some thoughts make you angry, you should stop thinking them. Those thoughts are in themselves a response to something, but a stimulus for the response of getting angry. That getting angry is in turn a response to something (those thoughts), but itself input data for the decision of what to do next.

Basically we're a more complex circuit than something where you push a button, goes "ding-dong" and that's it. In a human that response becomes itself a stimulus -- or call it "cause", "input", or whatever, if you don't like "stimulus" -- for something else down the line.

 

[MatildaGage]

This time, however, I called 311 (the hotline for government services) and reported the firefighters for their awful behavior towards me.
Anyone else have a story about when expressing anger in some way made you feel better and was the right thing to do?

I tend to think that action was half responding to your anger and half trying to prevent it from happening to someone else in the future.

There is something to be said for not protecting people from the natural consequences of their actions, which to me is somewhat separate from just venting your anger.

Not quite the same as dropping a bunch of f-bombs, punching them out, or other sorts of ineffective uncontrolled behaviors.

 

[Dancing David]

While I am not PhD as you are, because I can see that the terminology you use is professional, I have been interested about psychology.

Wow, I can't wait to tell my folks!

I only have a bachelors.

 

[Dancing David]

I dunno, I've been angry before and it seems to me like there are sensations and actual chemical stimuli (e.g., the adrenalin) which can very well be a stimulus.

Stimulating, arousing, maybe.

 

[Dorian Gray]

There are several issues that I don't agree with, in the myth 3. While there are many factors that contribute to the self-esteem of the people and there are several "types" of self-esteem (implicit and explicit) we cannot say that self-esteem is always effect of some other external cause. It is true that it is a myth that high self-esteem always result with good behavior, but it is not true that low self-esteem has positive side. I know that one PhD said that low self-esteemed people are better in a relationship than high self-esteemed people, because they are more loyal, but I don't remember that she had evidence for her claim. This study should also confirm that self-esteem doesn't make people act better. Because of their behavior and other circumstances they raise their self-esteem, or just have some kind of unrealistic self-esteem. The authors of the same study don't distinguish high self-esteem with narcissistic personality disorder. So after all, high-self esteem can be cause of better relationship, better charm, better communication skills and greater sense of strong character. People can express better their intelligence when they are relaxed and have realistic view of their capabilities so we cannot say that there is not difference between good high self-esteem, and low self esteem. High self-esteem is always better.
The antisocial/social behavior depends more of the morals, worldview and the temperament (character) of the person, not the high/low self-esteem. There are passive-aggressive low self-esteemed people, and aggressive high self-esteemed people. This study (only myth 3) has some misleading and fancy statements that are not enough evidence-based according to my opinion. It sounds interesting because it is "contra" of the popular high self-esteem movement. It is dumb to believe that self-esteem is the cause of everything, but our self-esteem has great influence in our lives.

I will give you an example:
Walk in a bar, insecure about yourself. Try a conversation with a woman/man.
You are going to sound very bad and non-charming. But if you feel secure and good about
yourself the odds for you to make better conversation with that person are better.

There are many factors that can cause low self-esteem and there are many psychological dysfunctions caused by low self-esteem.
So low self-esteem might lead to many great psychological problems. Low self-esteem can be caused by many other negative factors in our lives, so we are confronting with very complex issue that needs more research and understanding. The psyche is very difficult for analyzing and objective measuring, because there are many factors that we are not aware of when we make study about the "Self-esteem". People cannot know how others feel about self, and their self-worth, nor they can "measure" the self-esteem on some kind of self-esteem scale. For now there are little evidence based psychological studies (cognitive-behavior therapy, neuroscience and similar) because we still don't know what self-esteem really is, what is intelligence (EQ, IQ, and nurture/nature causes of intelligence) nor do we know what "illnesses" can be caused by low self-esteem.

One potential flaw is that it's just as possible that psychological problems cause low self esteem.

 

[Jeff Corey]

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
A guy who believed in fairies in a garden.

 

[Thethirdeye]

One potential flaw is that it's just as possible that psychological problems cause low self esteem.

Sure. But here we should define what psychological problem means.
Obsession and Compulsion are psychological problems, so and depression so the worries about the tomorrows exam. They are all psychological "problems" but their meaning and pathology is different.
So low self-esteem is caused by psychological problems sometimes, sometimes not. It depends of many factors

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

To the posters above:

Yes, you are right. Calling 311 to report someone who deserves to be reprimanded is actually an example of a very calm and constructive expression of anger.

It isn't at all "venting".

Ok, scratch that as an example.

Does anyone have a story about when you exploded and it was the right thing to do? Did you ever punch out someone who really and truly deserved it and feel no regret over it later? Did you ever beat someone or otherwise attack them (physically, verbally, emotionally, etc.) and have it go well?

I suspect that, by the very nature and definition of it, the answer is "no".

Who knows, though, maybe it is valid to do it in certain situations...some situations...

 

[rjh01]

To the posters above:

Yes, you are right. Calling 311 to report someone who deserves to be reprimanded is actually an example of a very calm and constructive expression of anger.

It isn't at all "venting".

Ok, scratch that as an example.

Does anyone have a story about when you exploded and it was the right thing to do? Did you ever punch out someone who really and truly deserved it and feel no regret over it later? Did you ever beat someone or otherwise attack them (physically, verbally, emotionally, etc.) and have it go well?

I suspect that, by the very nature and definition of it, the answer is "no".

Who knows, though, maybe it is valid to do it in certain situations...some situations...

To every rule, there is an exception. This is my exception.
I was about 10 years old. We had a male teacher who was big, well much bigger than me. I was probably not very fit. However the teacher was a bully. One day I snapped and throw a punch at him. I doubt that it hurt. He however lost it completely. He hit me several times around the ears. I thought he was going to puncture my ear drums and send me deaf. He also threatened to send me down one class. I knew he could not do this.

So how can I say that what I did was the right thing to do? Because for the rest of the year he did not bully me again. He was much more friendly towards me.

 

[Orphia Nay]

To every rule, there is an exception. This is my exception.
I was about 10 years old. We had a male teacher who was big, well much bigger than me. I was probably not very fit. However the teacher was a bully. One day I snapped and throw a punch at him. I doubt that it hurt. He however lost it completely. He hit me several times around the ears. I thought he was going to puncture my ear drums and send me deaf. He also threatened to send me down one class. I knew he could not do this.

So how can I say that what I did was the right thing to do? Because for the rest of the year he did not bully me again. He was much more friendly towards me.

Maybe his superiors found out he hit you, and he had to behave himself or lose his job.

 

[zooterkin]

To every rule, there is an exception..

If you mean to refer to "it's the exception that proves the rule", then I think you misunderstand what it means.