Dear Dr. Eidelstein (sic),

I had not seen the article you sent me.

While I have neither the time nor the inclination to address the issues you raise in Liberty's "Letters to the Editor" column, I will point out that what you represent is a caricature of my position. You would be hard put to document your description of my views by direct references to my writing.

Albert Ellis has been misrepresenting my theory of self-esteem for more than 30 years now, and his voice speaks loud and clear through your article. Perhaps the enclosed will be of some small value.

Cordially,

Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D.

Attached article "What Self-Esteem Is and Is Not"

Dear Nathaniel,

Thank you for your prompt response to my note and for your article.

You stated: "You would be very hard put to document your description of my views by direct references to my writing." As I mentioned in my note, Bradford had dropped most of the citations which appeared in my original draft of the article.

You can find my article with the specific references intact at: http://genteman.org/edelstein.html

I am interested in achieving a better understanding of your position. Consequently, I would appreciate any feedback you wish to offer on what precisely I misunderstood.

Best, Michael

Nathaniel

You can find a copy of my article (unaltered by Bradford's changes) at http://genteman.org/edelstein.html

If this doesn't work for you, please inform me. I would be happy to send you another copy.

I received your email reply last week. I plan to respond within the next few days.

Best, Michael

Can't seem to get your article off the Net. Sorry for the bother but could you remail? Much obliged.

Best,

Nathaniel

Best, Michael

Nathaniel

Best, Michael

Thanks for the reference to the web site.

Nathaniel

Best, Michael

Since I have spelt out my position so clearly in "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem," I don't know what I could write here that [would] further clarify my theory of self-esteem.

I will confine myself to one or two fundamental points. I do not write of "rating" oneself, nor do I see the issue that way. This analogy might be helpful:

Let us say that you are in poor physical shape and also EXPERIENCE YOUR-SELF as being in poor physical shape--i.e., tire easily, have little stamina, often get short of breath, are physically weak, etc. The problem is not that you RATE yourself as being in poor physical shape, the problem is that you ARE in poor physical shape.

Then you join a gym, hire a trainer, and begin to work on improving your con-dition. You lose ex-cess weight, become more flexible, grow stronger, develop better stamina, etc. Two things happen: you become in better physical shape and you EXPERIENCE YOURSELF as being in better physical shape. Your EXPERIENCE is not the creation of mere "rating." Rather, it reflects direct perception of the facts of reality. You are observing and experiencing an OBJECTIVE CHANGE in your physical condition.

Now apply the same thinking to self-esteem.

Let us say that you spend too much of your moving through life semi-uncon-sciously; denying and disowning thoughts, feelings, and actions of yours that you do not wish to own, experience, or confront; avoiding responsibility for your choices and actions, blaming others for all your misfortunes, holding yourself accountable for nothing; surrendering to your fear of self-expression or self-assertiveness; drifting through life without focus, goal, or purpose; and permitting yourself any number of contradictions between what you know, what you profess, and what you do--in other words, living with little integrity.

As a consequence you do not feel very competent in the face of life's challenges; you do not experience yourself as very resourceful; you have very little sense of personal power; you don't feel especially effective or efficacious; you don't have much confidence in your mind (since you use it so seldom); and you are not proud of your choices and actions because you have given yourself no reason to be proud. Bottom line: you don't have much self-esteem--defined as "a disposition to experience oneself as competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and as worthy of happiness." Does this mean you are "worthless?" No. But it is safe to say that your self-esteem could not possibly equal that of someone who has lived consciously, self-acceptingly, self-responsibly, self-assertively, pur-pose-fully, and with integrity.

"Rating" is not the issue. If I am in lousy shape physically, but refuse to "rate" my condition---will that lead me to experience myself as physically fit as a person who eats wisely and exercises regu-larly? Hardly.

Ok, let's simplify all this:

Man # 1 lives consciously, self-acceptingly, self-responsibly, and with integrity. Man #2 lives too much of the time on the opposite practices. As an inevitable consequence, their experience of self is different. The first feels more competent and worthy than the second...but not becomes of some arbitrary act of "rating."

In the context of my theory of self-esteem, not to be confused with other theories, the whole issue of "rating" is a straw man.

Cordially,
Nathaniel Branden

>Let us say that you are in poor physical shape and also EXPERIENCE YOUR-SELF as being in poor physical shape--i.e., tire easily, have little stamina, often get short of breath, are physically weak, etc. The problem is not that you RATE yourself as being in poor physical shape, the problem is that you ARE in poor physical shape<

I think we may view this differently. That which we call our "experience" con-sists of our interpreta-tions of reality. We do not have a direct link into objective reality, unencumbered by our own per-ceptual-cognitive filters.

Do we agree here?

Best, Michael

I cannot undertake a detailed discussion of epistemology via email, but I thor-oughly disagree with Albert's (who I assume was your teacher or mentor)... just as [I] thoroughly disagree with the whole wave of epistemological agnosticism that has engulfed so much of 20th century philosophy.

Nathaniel

After I sent off my earlier letter to you I thought of including this point, anticipating your response, but by then it was, of course, too late...until now.

Nathaniel

My libertarian book club (San Francisco Bay Area) is considering discussing our differing views on self-esteem. They would read my recent article plus an article of yours.

The article you sent me, "What Self-Esteem Is and Is Not," seems like an excellent summary of your views. Is this article posted on a web site? If not, do you have it in electronic form and if so, can you send it to Jon Kalb <Kalb@LibertySoft.com> who would post it on the book club's web site? (If the article has been published in a journal, please send me the citation. Jon could probably locate it on the internet and create a link to it.)

Many thanks, Michael
cc: Jon Kalb

My essay is on my web site. Go to "Essays," then go to "Book Excerpts," then scroll down to "What Self-Esteem Is and Is Not."

Could I ask that our letters to each other also be read for further clarification of the issue of "rating?"

Nathaniel

Jon,

Here's the location of Branden's self-esteem article:

>My essay is on my web site. Go to "Essays," then go to "Book Excerpts," then scroll down to "What Self-Esteem Is and Is Not"<

He also requests that the email exchange I'm having with him be including in the Book Club's program. I think this is a great idea!

Michael

No, we don't quite agree so far. The differences shows up on your points 3 & 4.

After we have exercised for a while, our body FEELS better, and we, if you like, rate that feeling as good, meaning desirable. Our body feels more healthy, competent, or whatever, and we rate that feeling as good, too. And how could we do otherwise? Could we possibly attach no value significance to our change of state?

We may or may not rate ourselves as better for having achieved this improvement. After all, some people think, "Idiot! Why didn't you do this sooner?" And yet, at a deeper level, that nasty thought notwithstanding, they can't help but feel more fit, stronger, etc., and so their self-experience is changed.

Hope this is clear.

Best,
Nathaniel

Nathaniel

Nathaniel

>Yes, now I agree with 3<

In summary, you have stated you agree with 1, 2, and 3. You were referring to:

1. You set a GOAL--in your example, to increase your stamina.

2. You ACT to achieve this goal--e.g., you jog daily.

2a. If the act is physical, you also FEEL--e.g., your body feels different than it felt before jogging.

3. You OBSERVE your acts and their consequences (including bodily feelings)--e.g., "I jogged every day for the past two weeks and now I conclude (and feel) I'm in better physical condition."

You previously stated that you disagree with 4. You were referring to:

4. You RATE your acts and their consequences--e.g., "It's good that I accomplished this."

In this new light, does 4 now seem reasonable?

Best, Michael

Point #4 is tricky, not simple.

For example, a certain type of client, with a certain type of self-esteem problem, will go through 1,2, and 3, and give him/herself no credit for the achieved results, that is, never do the "rating" to which you refer.

But I have a question for you: By "good" do you mean anything other than "desirable" (by some standard) or "in accordance with some standard of value?"

I'll be out of town for a few days.

Best,
Nathaniel

>For example, a certain type of client, with a certain type of self-esteem problem, will go through 1,2, and 3, and give him/herself no credit for the achieved results, that is, never do the "rating" to which you refer<

I agree. This introduces the element of choice at each point: You CHOOSE to set a goal, you CHOOSE to act to achieve this goal, you CHOOSE to observe your acts, and you CHOOSE to rate your acts. However, if you choose to do each, then (as your client illustrates), you can choose not to.

>But I have a question for you: By "good" do you mean anything other than "desirable" (by some standard) or "in accordance with some standard of value?"<

No, I don't mean anything other.

Best, Michael

Nathaniel

In the January issue of LIBERTY, Dr. Michael R. Edelstein published an article entitled "The Trouble with Self-Esteem," in which he mischaracterizes and then attacks my theory of self-esteem.

To anyone familiar with the writings of Dr. Albert Ellis, the intellectual influence on Dr. Edelstein is obvious. Dr. Ellis has been misrepresenting my views for over three decades (ever since our debate in New York City in the 1960s) and the LIBERTY article seems to follow in that tradition, although I must acknowledge that Dr. Edelstein and I are now pursuing a rather benevolent email "conversation" aimed at seeing if greater mutual understanding is possible.

In his article, Dr. Edelstein writes: "Branden maintains that we're worthwhile human beings if we make good choices, act honestly, and act with integrity. We can then esteem ourselves highly because we can tell ourselves, in Branden's words, "I coped well with the basic challenges of life."

Elsewhere in the article he implies that my approach is expressed in this view: "a person judges his performance to be good, then he forms a higher opinion of HIMSELF, not just his performance. Then he basks in the glow of contemplating what a terrific person he is. Then, he feels happier, and performs even better."

1. Nowhere do I ever state that we are "worthwhile human beings if we make good choices, act honestly, and act with integrity." That way of thinking about self-esteem is totally foreign to my approach. I never write or talk about who is or is not "a worthwhile human being." That is the way Drs. Ellis and Edelstein think about self-esteem, not the way I do. Read "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" and judge for yourself.

And "Branden" would never write or say "I coped well with the challenges of life," as, in effect, explaining why I (or whoever) enjoys good self-esteem.

2. Self-esteem is a particular way of experiencing the self. I define self-esteem as the disposition to experience oneself as competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and as worthy of happiness. I will not attempt here to summarize the entire theory and the reasoning behind it. But to clarify that my concept of self-esteem has very little to do with "rating" oneself in the way Dr. Edelstein suggests, I offer the following observations.

Let us say that you are in poor physical shape and also experience yourself as being in poor physical shape-that is, tire easily, have little stamina, often get short of breath, are physically week, etc. The problem here, obviously, is not that you "rate" yourself as being in poor physical shape, the problem is that you ARE in poor physical shape. Then, let's say, you join a gym, hire a trainer, and begin to work on improving your condition. You lose weight, become more flexible, grow stronger, develop better stamina, etc.. As a consequence, two things happen: you become in better physical shape and you experience yourself as being in better physical shape. Your experience is not the result of mere "rating." Rather, it reflects a direct perception of reality. You are experiencing an objective change in your physical condition.

"Rating" is not the issue. If you are in lousy shape physically, but refuse to "rate" your condition-will you then experience yourself as physically fit as a person who eats wisely and exercises regularly?

Now apply the same thinking to self-esteem.

Let us say that you spend too much of your life operating semi-consciously; denying and disowning your thoughts, feelings, and actions; avoiding responsibility for your choices and actions; blaming others for all your misfortunes; refusing to be accountable for anything; surrendering to your fear of self-expression or self-assertiveness so you are rarely authentic in your interactions with others; drifting through life without focus, purpose, or goals; and permitting yourself many contradictions between what you know, what you profess, and what you do. As a consequence, you do not feel very competent in the face of life's challenges; your are not proud of your choices and actions; you have little confidence in your mind (since you avoid using it); and you are unable to feel respect for yourself.

Bottom line: you don't have much self-esteem. Does this mean you are "worthless?" Of course not. This notion is the Ellis/Edelstein straw man.

And is the problem of your low self-esteem merely a result of "self-rating?" If you could somehow avoid such "rating," would you feel as happy with yourself as a person who lived consciously, self-acceptingly, self-responsibly, self-assertively, purposefully, and with integrity?

Note I am not saying that you "should" damn yourself as a worthless human being (which is what Ellis/ Edelstein suggest is my position). I am saying that over time our choices and actions irresistibly affect how we think and feel about ourselves. Ellis/Edelstein seem to be saying that if only we abstain from "self-rating," our rationality or irrationality need have no effect on our sense of self. (To say it again: Self-esteem is a particular way of experiencing the self.)

No psychotherapist in his right mind would ever suggest that one "should" feel self-damnation. If there is anything therapists agree on, it is that self-acceptance is the necessary foundation of healthy change and growth. In several of my books I have written about the importance of self-acceptance and the counter-productiveness of self-repudiation or self-damnation -- see, for example, "How to Raise Your Self-Esteem" and "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem."

If someone wants to challenge my theory of self-esteem, I will welcome the opportunity to learn. But first, let's be clear on what I've said and not said.

Nathaniel Branden

I appreciate your further clarifying your position in "For the Record." Rather than my asking questions about your clarification, I would prefer to return to the thread we established in our email exchange.

If this is fine with you, I will await your response to my last query in that ex-change.

Best, Michael

But the posting I copied you is important because it more clearly establishes the wider context in which I see our disagreements as well as your misrepresentation of my viewpoint. It cannot simply be dismissed.

Nathaniel

Yes. However, since my response to these other issues would be based on having a better understanding of your position, I prefer to continue along the lines we've been addressing. It sounds like this would be OK with you.

Due to some deadlines, I may not be able to get out my next reply until sometime next week. I appreciate your patience.

Best, Michael

Nathaniel

I agree. Consequently, I have made this revision: "I jogged every day for the past two weeks and now, based on how I feel, I observe I've increased my stamina and am in better physical condition."

In context, we have:

1. You set a GOAL--in your example, to increase your stamina.

2. You ACT to achieve this goal--e.g., you jog daily.

2a. If the act is physical, you also FEEL--e.g., your body feels different than it felt before jogging.

3. You OBSERVE your acts and their consequences (including bodily feelings)--e.g., "I jogged every day for the past two weeks and now, based on how I feel, I observe I've increased my stamina and am in better physical condi-tion."

If you now agree with 1-3, on to 4:

4. You RATE your acts and their consequences--e.g., "It's good that I'm in better physical condi-tion."

Does 4 seem okay?

Best, Michael

I rescind my agreement with your formulation of #3--"I jogged every day for the past two weeks and now I conclude (and feel) I'm in better physical condition." This implies that the shift in self-perception is the result of noting that one has jogged the past two weeks, which is not my position at all. I would say that what you are noting is the change in your experience of your own body. If, for example, you jogged for two weeks but experienced no change in your physical condition, you might credit yourself with trying but there would not be change in the experience of your physical condition.

Nathaniel

Onward and upward!

Nathaniel

Onward and upward!<

We have agreed on 1-4:

1. You set a GOAL--in your example, to increase your stamina.

2. You ACT to achieve this goal--e.g., you jog daily.

2a. If the act is physical, you also FEEL--e.g., your body feels different than it felt before jogging.

3. You OBSERVE your acts and their consequences (including bodily feelings)--e.g., "I jogged every day for the past two weeks and now, based on how I feel, I observe I've increased my stamina and am in better physical condition."

4. You RATE your acts and their consequences--e.g., "It's good that I'm in better physical condition."

Thus far we have said nothing about self-esteem directly, which occurs at #5:

5. You RATE your TOTAL SELF based on the rating of your acts and their consequences--e.g., "I am a good or worthy person because I'm in better physical condition." This global rating or judgment creates what is called high self-esteem.

Do we agree here?

Michael

What you suggest might be more true of pride, but not of self-esteem. Pride pertains to the pleasure we feel in response to something we have done that we evaluate as good.

The distinction between pride and self-esteem is discussed in SIX PILLARS.

The more I think about your most recent email the more futile the whole endeavor seems to be. I cannot continue as if I had not written "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem." I do not concede that the book is unclear.

Nathaniel

The notion originally sparking our exchange was not that your writings were unclear, but rather that I had misunderstood them. Consequently, you are helping me think more clearly [about] your principles.

The purpose of my basic questions is to get a better grasp on how you see the fundamentals, so I may then represent your ideas accurately in my writing and speaking.

Best, Michael

Nathaniel

Are we getting anywhere?

I appreciate your bearing with me through what may have seemed like a grade-school course in self-esteem. However, I'm now ready to proceed to high school!

Pride pertains to the past, e.g., "I have" [done such and such].

Self-esteem pertains to the future, e.g., "I can." At least, that pertains to the self-efficacy aspect of self-esteem.

Self-esteem also, of course, pertains to the present, as in "I am comfortable with my ability to meet challenges," or "I am confident in my judgment and my ability to make appropriate decisions and choices," or "Happiness, success, love, feel natural and appropriate to me."

Forget about "I'm this wonderful person!" That's just NOT IT!

Please bear with me so I may understand fully your last point. Do bad people exist? Is everyone good? What are your criteria for determining if an individual is a good or a bad person?

By "good" people I mean people who try to live consciously and responsibly, are not knowingly cruel or irresponsible, operate with integrity, and so forth certainly anyone who tries conscientiously to live by my six pillars I would call good. But again, I don't often think in terms of "this is a good person." I more likely think "This is a person I enjoy being with"--"This is a person I admire"--"This is a person I perceive to behave honorably."

One reason why I do not focus much on the self as such, in this context is, for one, as I say above, the same action came come from many different motives; and also the self is in a continual state of development or at least flux, it is not stationery and cast in cement.

I am most likely, now that I think on it, to call a person "good" if he or she seems very honest when it comes to self-examination, and also appears to have "not a mean bone in his/her body."

I tell you where I think "good" and "bad" is most likely to come up--not when I am evaluating somebody else, but when I --or anyone--is evaluating their own actions. Self-esteem, I wrote somewhere, is the product of thousands of choices, decisions, and actions, few of which we even remember. But if I do my best to be rational (when it may not be easy)--this is only one example--and I give myself credit in some form for this honesty, which in most instances is a subconscious process, I believe, then cumulatively I am affecting the way I experience myself. I can not overemphasize the importance of my statement that self-esteem is a particular way of experiencing the self.

Written in a mad rush. Excuse the typos!

Nathaniel

>I am most likely, now that I think on it, to call a person "good" if he or she seems very honest when it comes to self-examination, and also appears to have "not a mean bone in his/her body"<

If a person considers himself as "good" if he is "honest in self-examination" and has "not a mean bone in his body," then could we say this person thinks well of himself?

Best, Michael

Nathaniel

In other words such a person indeed thinks well of himself, but not ONLY such a person might think well of himself. Example, a person knows that for some reason he can at times be unkind and struggles to understand and correct his behavior--I would call him "good" in spite of his shortcomings. I would not necessarily call him "bad" if he lacked the desire for self-improvement because who knows what kind of unconscious pattern he might be trapped in? That's why I avoid talking about "good" or "bad" people.

You ask how I would define "a good human being."

I don't know that I've spent much time thinking about a formal definition, but it would go something like this:

I would call a person "good" to the extent that, within the limits of his understanding and knowledge, he strove to live consciously, self-responsibly, and with integrity; who was compassionate; whose values were life-supporting.

I say "to the extent" because obviously goodness and the various traits listed above all are based on a continuum.

Anyway, I'm not going to go into my reasons here since you didn't ask me that, but I'm merely going to respond to your request for something like a definition.

Hope this is useful.

Cordially,
Nathaniel

Let's say your criteria for a good person (stated above) = "x . Aren't you saying when a person does x, this is good, and then this makes him a good person? Aren't you first rating his x behaviors, and then rating his total self based on the rating of these behaviors? Please clarify.

Best, Michael

I understand you're answering questions about your writings on the internet for Laissez Faire Books. It may prove interesting if I participated to discuss our differing thoughts on self-esteem.

Please let me know if you'd like me to take part.

Best, Michael

The Laissez Faire forum is not a place for debates. Its purpose is to sell THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-ESTEEM.

Nathaniel Branden

Sorry for the delay in responding. I lost track and for awhile I thought it was your turn to respond to me.

It seems to me the term "a good person" means just about the same as "a worthwhile person." If you disagree, what distinctions do you make?

Best, Michael

Nathaniel

Dear Dr. Branden,

I'd like to know your thoughts on RET (Rational Emotive Therapy), founded by Albert Ellis (&, BTW, author of Is Objectivism a Religion?).

I picked up a book of his, the to the point but not-so-scholarly How to Stubbornly Refuse to Make Yourself Miserable About Anything--Yes, Anything. His approach appeals to me because

1. He stresses the importance of believing things that are true, and says that having false beliefs in the form of "I must/should" are the source of much misery.

2. He says that it's "immoral" to make yourself miserable about something.

Wow! His ethics must be somewhat egoistic, then. Anyway, I'd like to know what you think.

Sincerely,
Brian Schwartz

I am not much an admirer of Albert Ellis for many reasons, which does not mean he does not have some good ideas. I have to mention that he has been misrepresenting my ideas for decades, ever since we had a debate in NYC in the mid sixties, so that naturally influences me to some extent.

You might want to check my web site for my answer to his and colleague Edelstein's attacks on my theory of self-esteem. Certainly his therapy has helped some people. But I find this work shallow psychologically. His notions of why people do the things they do has always struck me as oversimplified in the extreme. Philosophically, you may or may not know that he is passionately anti-Objectivist, epistemologically, metaphysically, and ethically.

Nathaniel Branden

In your article, "What Self-Esteem Is and Is Not, (1997?, p.1)" you state: "And yet, of all the judgments we pass in life, none is more important than the judgment we pass on ourselves."

What is the relationship, in your view, between "the judgment we pass on ourselves" and how we feel about ourselves?

Michael

But of course we do judge our actions, or behaviors, and if we judge too many of them negatively, self-esteem suffers and this means, among other things, that one's feelings about oneself suffer.

I notice that you keep raising new questions but do not respond to or comment on the things I have already written to you.

Nathaniel

I keep raising questions because unless I clearly understand your premises, I will not really know what I'm commenting on. I understand your frustration with my approach and appreciate your bearing with me.

Have hope, since I think I'm getting the picture and will shortly be more forthcoming with comments!

Best, Michael

Nathaniel

I appreciate the recommendation. Unfortunately, I do not own PILLARS. The writings of yours I have are: THE DISOWNED SELF (1980), HONORING THE SELF (1985), THE POWER OF SELF-ESTEEM (1992), THE ART OF LIVING CONSCIOUSLY (1997), and "What Self-Esteem Is and Is Not" (1997?).

In THE POWER OF SELF-ESTEEM (1992), you state: "We should judge ourselves by that which is in our volitional control, as I have already stressed." (p.52) I'm still unclear about your view of "volitional control." If judging ourselves is in our volitional control, this implies that we can choose to judge ourselves or choose not to judge ourselves. I suspect you disagree with me here. If so, in what sense is it in our "volitional control?"

Best, Michael

However, I must stop here. I don't wish to be discourteous but I must tell you I cannot believe that I have been carrying on this exchange with someone who has not read "The Six Pillars of self-Esteem." I would never have even begun with you if I had known this.

I really must call it a day.

Nathaniel

I appreciate the time you've taken for our exchange. It's given me a fuller understanding of your thinking. Perhaps we can continue once I've read SIX PILLARS.

As I mentioned some time ago, the Genteman Book Club, a libertarian-oriented book club in the San Francisco Bay Area that I belong to, is planning a program featuring a discussion of self-esteem. The meeting will be held on Wed. 13 June @ 7:30 pm in Emeryville, CA (near the Bay Bridge). If you plan to be in the area, please join us! Let me know if you're interested, so I may give you directions.

Best, Michael