A Buddhist approach to low self-esteem

I noticed many people here say they have low self-esteem. I think most normal people have suffered from that at one time or another. So here is a very common sensical approach to it that comes from Buddhist tradition. I find it interesting that we rely so much on psychotherapy which is a, relatively, modern theory but we normally miss much simpler old traditions that could probably work better. Sometimes going back to the original ideas really helps to inspire fresh ones.

The Fascinating Buddhist Approach to Low Self-Esteem

http://www.alternet.org/health/154566/the_fascinating_buddhist_approach_to_low_self-esteem

"While many therapists have begun to incorporate mindfulness into their work, additional Buddhist practices hold potential for helping clients, particularly those suffering from low self-esteem. One of the main goals of Buddhist meditation is cultivating compassion and love, and several techniques focus on developing these qualities toward oneself."

I have no motivation to seek out a buddhist :cry:

I have no motivation to seek out a buddhist :cry:

muller39

meh.

The easiest way to get over low self-esteem is to go **** it, I only live once."

Isn't Buddhism just pleasant?

Neuro-linguistic programming does the same thing without all of the spiritual hoo-ha of Buddhism. It might work for some, but is tainted by a lack of empirical evidence for it's efficacy and it's pseudo-scientific approach.

Neuro-linguistic programming does the same thing without all of the spiritual hoo-ha of Buddhism. It might work for some, but is tainted by a lack of empirical evidence for it's efficacy and it's pseudo-scientific approach.

RationalAtheist

...kuraimen

10000 hours equates to over one year of solid, sleepless, malnourished meditation.

As I thought, there is no empirical evidence there, just lots of pseudo-science mixed with a particular partiality for spiritualism. If you actually read through some of the links you post, you'll see that wooly words abound (with a disregard for empricism) and questions are raised within these supposedly positive reports about the effectiveness of such time-intensive remedies.

(From your links: )

..."Another set of questions arises when comparing our manipulation to loving-kindness meditation as it is typically practiced.Often, the focus in LKM is on expanding compassion and care tolarger social groups, or even to disliked others. In our study werequired participants to focus on a single, neutral individual. Weobserved generalization to other, nontarget individuals at an explicit level, but these effects did not translate as strongly to implicitevaluations. Whether a meditative practice with a more expansivefocus, in which people focus not on a single individual but deliberately attempt to evoke compassion for larger numbers of people,can have effects on implicit positivity remains an open question...."

..."it is not yet known whether practiced loving-kindness meditators would show more long-lasting or stronger effects. We believe that questions such as these will guide the development of effective interventions to increase a more deeply rooted sense of connection, compassion, and concern for others in our daily lives"....

...."Yi Rao, a professor in the neurology department at Northwestern University, dismisses Davidson's study as rubbish. "The science is substandard," he says. "The motivations of both Davidson and the Dalai Lama are questionable."...

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]...RationalAtheist

10000 hours equates to over one year of solid, sleepless, malnourished meditation.

As I thought, there is no empirical evidence there, just lots of pseudo-science mixed with a particular partiality for spiritualism. If you actually read through some of the links you post, you'll see that wooly words abound (with a disregard for empricism) and questions are raised within these supposedly positive reports about the effectiveness of such time-intensive remedies.

(From your links: )

..."Another set of questions arises when comparing our manipulation to loving-kindness meditation as it is typically practiced.Often, the focus in LKM is on expanding compassion and care tolarger social groups, or even to disliked others. In our study werequired participants to focus on a single, neutral individual. Weobserved generalization to other, nontarget individuals at an explicit level, but these effects did not translate as strongly to implicitevaluations. Whether a meditative practice with a more expansivefocus, in which people focus not on a single individual but deliberately attempt to evoke compassion for larger numbers of people,can have effects on implicit positivity remains an open question...."

..."it is not yet known whether practiced loving-kindness meditators would show more long-lasting or stronger effects. We believe that questions such as these will guide the development of effective interventions to increase a more deeply rooted sense of connection, compassion, and concern for others in our daily lives"....

...."Yi Rao, a professor in the neurology department at Northwestern University, dismisses Davidson's study as rubbish. "The science is substandard," he says. "The motivations of both Davidson and the Dalai Lama are questionable."...

Well the same can be said of psychotherapy yet sometimes it works. Sciences of the mind and behavior are difficult to measure like hard sciences unless we talk about cognitive psychology which took for granted that the mind was a computer or neuroscience with its difficulty in translating reductionist approaches based on very limited measurements to observable behavior. But sometimes things work even if we lack hard empirical data at the moment.

Well the same can be said of psychotherapy yet sometimes it works. Sciences of the mind and behavior are difficult to measure like hard sciences unless we talk about cognitive psychology which took for granted that the mind was a computer or neuroscience with its difficulty in translating reductionist approaches based on very limited measurements to observable behavior. But sometimes things work even if we lack hard empirical data at the moment.

kuraimen

Agreed - sometimes it works, but more often than not is has little effect, aside from wasting time. Many different approaches might suit many different states of mind and any one approach with no supporting empirical data might be as much use to an individual as whistling in the wind.

NLP reduces the spiritual ideas with your described Buddhist approach to more testable and empirical ones. That is why NLP has fallen from favour, since there is no valid scientific result to support it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

If things work, then the data should back this up. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then the claim should be viewed with skepticism until there is evidence. The thing I find unpalatable about your claim is the insistence on a specific religious intervention.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Well the same can be said of psychotherapy yet sometimes it works. Sciences of the mind and behavior are difficult to measure like hard sciences unless we talk about cognitive psychology which took for granted that the mind was a computer or neuroscience with its difficulty in translating reductionist approaches based on very limited measurements to observable behavior. But sometimes things work even if we lack hard empirical data at the moment.

RationalAtheist

Agreed - sometimes it works, but more often than not is has little effect, aside from wasting time. Many different approaches might suit many different states of mind and any one approach with no supporting empirical data might be as much use to an individual as whistling in the wind.

NLP reduces the spiritual ideas with your described Buddhist approach to more testable and empirical ones. That is why NLP has fallen from favour, since there is no valid scientific result to support it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

If things work, then the data should back this up. If there is no evidence to support a claim, then the claim should be viewed with skepticism until there is evidence. The thing I find unpalatable about your claim is the insistence on a specific religious intervention.

Religion like it or not is an universal human phenomenon. What we call "spiritual" provides powerful meaning to lots of people. Something like that could prove much more effective if someone finds spiritual meaning in it than if they regard it as a cold scientific procedure. Who knows maybe that extra meaning spirituality provides is what sets the neural connectivity predisposed for it to work. In the end I wouldn't discard something if it works to help some people even if it involves religion or spiritual believes.kuraimen

Thankfully, religion is not universal. An ever-increasing number of people freely reject religion in their search for truth.

Cold scientific procedures have proven efficacy and are testable. Powerful spiritual feelings are just that. The power of the mind is verifiable, as 15% placebo efficacy bears out in clinical trials. Such methods are not easily related to spiritualism, but the hope of a cure and comfort of personalised treatment - even if it's from a chalk pill. Should we praise the wonders of chalk because of this, or look for the real reasons people get better?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Religion like it or not is an universal human phenomenon. What we call "spiritual" provides powerful meaning to lots of people. Something like that could prove much more effective if someone finds spiritual meaning in it than if they regard it as a cold scientific procedure. Who knows maybe that extra meaning spirituality provides is what sets the neural connectivity predisposed for it to work. In the end I wouldn't discard something if it works to help some people even if it involves religion or spiritual believes.RationalAtheist

Thankfully, religion is not universal. An ever-increasing number of people freely reject religion in their search for truth.

Cold scientific procedures have proven efficacy and are testable. Powerful spiritual feelings are just that. The power of the mind is verifiable, as 15% placebo efficacy bears out in clinical trials. Such methods are not easily related to spiritualism, but the hope of a cure and comfort of personalised treatment - even if it's from a chalk pill. Should we praise the wonders of chalk because of this, or look for the real reasons people get better?

Practically all current moral principles sprang from a religious tradition even on those atheist countries so religion is still pretty relevant socially IMO.

I never said that we shouldn't look for the explanations of a phenomenon. I would love to see them but if we have to discard something just because it is not measurable at the moment then we would discard any new phenomenon we observe without further consideration. Humanity subsisted thousands of years without the tools or the scientific method to measure things, many wisdom and knowledge comes from ancient traditions. Should we discard all that just because they didn't use a computer to process data or because they didn't measure brain activity? Seems ridiculous to me. Maybe the use of this methods will inspire a scientist to create more and better experiments or theories to explain the phenomenon. Not to mention many phenomena are so complex that there's not even a ceteris paribus approach to experimenting with them so they will always fall on the "weak" sciences area.

Besides if "lack of empirical evidence" is your complain. Then there is even less empirical evidence that links humans with hominid ancestors so that will also fall in the realm of "pseudoscience" from that point of view.

Practically all current moral principles sprang from a religious tradition even on those atheist countries so religion is still pretty relevant socially IMO.

I never said that we shouldn't look for the explanations of a phenomenon. I would love to see them but if we have to discard something just because it is not measurable at the moment then we would discard any new phenomenon we observe without further consideration. Humanity subsisted thousands of years without the tools or the scientific method to measure things, many wisdom and knowledge comes from ancient traditions. Should we discard all that just because they didn't use a computer to process data or because they didn't measure brain activity? Seems ridiculous to me. Maybe the use of this methods will inspire a scientist to create more and better experiments or theories to explain the phenomenon. Not to mention many phenomena are so complex that there's not even a ceteris paribus approach to experimenting with them so they will always fall on the "weak" sciences area.

Besides if "lack of empirical evidence" is your complain. Then there is even less empirical evidence that links humans with hominid ancestors so that will also fall in the realm of "pseudoscience" from that point of view.

kuraimen

Morals are a requirement of social interaction and pre-date language, according to sociological thought. Moral behaviour exists in species outside humans, so please don't confuse any religious origins you think they might have.Religion might still be relevant to many, but it clearly is not universal.

Embracing any ideas with unbridled enthusiasm does not give them objective credibility. We don't need computers to provide empirical evidence. Statistics are easy to gather and success can be measured in plain terms, without getting all mystical. It seems ridiculous to me that you think technology is the only means of assessing valid action. We should dis-regard ancient traditions if they don't provide us with tangible benefits. In fact, it is plainly demonstrable that adherence to tradition can impede progress and knowledge acquisition.

The methods you describe did inspire the NLP methods that relate so closely to them. Those NLP methods have proven unreliable and of little value, under appropriate scrutiny. I argue that there is no "phenomenon" here, and certainly no miracle cure, since no objective evidence suggests that there is.

Please quantify your statement about the lack of empirical evidence that links humans to other species over evidence to support faithful meditation as a direct cure for depression, else I'll think you mis-understand what scientific discovery and evidential rigour is all about. With that view, it must be very easy for you to confuse pseudo-science with actual science.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

Practically all current moral principles sprang from a religious tradition even on those atheist countries so religion is still pretty relevant socially IMO.

I never said that we shouldn't look for the explanations of a phenomenon. I would love to see them but if we have to discard something just because it is not measurable at the moment then we would discard any new phenomenon we observe without further consideration. Humanity subsisted thousands of years without the tools or the scientific method to measure things, many wisdom and knowledge comes from ancient traditions. Should we discard all that just because they didn't use a computer to process data or because they didn't measure brain activity? Seems ridiculous to me. Maybe the use of this methods will inspire a scientist to create more and better experiments or theories to explain the phenomenon. Not to mention many phenomena are so complex that there's not even a ceteris paribus approach to experimenting with them so they will always fall on the "weak" sciences area.

Besides if "lack of empirical evidence" is your complain. Then there is even less empirical evidence that links humans with hominid ancestors so that will also fall in the realm of "pseudoscience" from that point of view.

RationalAtheist

Morals are a requirement of social interaction and pre-date language, according to sociological thought. Moral behaviour exists in species outside humans, so please don't confuse any religious origins you think they might have.Religion might still be relevant to many, but it clearly is not universal.

Embracing any ideas with unbridled enthusiasm does not give them objective credibility. We don't need computers to provide empirical evidence. Statistics are easy to gather and success can be measured in plain terms, without getting all mystical. It seems ridiculous to me that you think technology is the only means of assessing valid action. We should dis-regard ancient traditions if they don't provide us with tangible benefits. In fact, it is plainly demonstrable that adherence to tradition can impede progress and knowledge acquisition.

The methods you describe did inspire the NLP methods that relate so closely to them. Those NLP methods have proven unreliable and of little value, under appropriate scrutiny. I argue that there is no "phenomenon" here, and certainly no miracle cure, since no objective evidence suggests that there is.

Please quantify your statement about the lack of empirical evidence that links humans to other species over evidence to support faithful meditation as a direct cure for depression, else I'll think you mis-understand what scientific discovery and evidential rigour is all about. With that view, it must be very easy for you to confuse pseudo-science with actual science.

Morality exists without religion but human morality historically comes together with religion. If you read Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel he makes a pretty strong case there. All human cultures after they become numerous enough develop religious institutions. Because it is a way for 1) to explain the world around them and 2) to substitute instinctual empathic ties that come more naturally in small groups but that are difficult to reproduce in big groups that go beyond Dunbar's number (the cognitive limit to great significant human relationships) therefore they are used to form moral codes. This all comes from anthropological and scientific studies, you can't just imagine religion is useless because it isn't, there's a reason it exists. And even if religion springs only in big enough groups spirituality is something you can basically find in any culture. I think the NLP methods are wrong they forget one of the main variables when dealing with religious meditation traditions and that's: emotion. Emotions have been ignored in mind studies for a long time due to their difficulty to be measured reliably but emotions exist, they provoke real physiological events in the brain and in the body. They are even the basis of our rational selves like recent psychological research from Daniel Kahneman shows. There's little NLP methods can do to reproduce the emotional intensity a true religious or spiritual experience provides. So how can they expect to reproduce such a thing with that? It would be like trying an ocean currents experiment in a glass of water, you're ignoring a lot of variables that are affecting what happens. What is objective credibility in your view? why is objective credibility only measured with empirical evidence? Some of the world's best scientific theories were developed without any empirical data before hand but using imagination and rational thought. If not, ask Einstein. Not everything in science is empirical measurements or is discarded using empirical tools, a lot of science is theoretical. kuraimen

I never said religion was useless, but I don't think religion owns morals. I also don't think religion should get exemption from evidential rigour because of some esteemed place it might have in society. Different religions adopt different moral positions, but the golden rule is endemic in all cultures - with or without religion.

Emotions are considered deeply in NLP - they are the foundation and principle for action in this psychological method. I have no idea why you think otherwise.

Religious and spiritual experiences are nowhere near the sole providers of strong emotional responses. It is somewhat disingenuous to think they are. People can achieve all sorts of transcendence without faith, such is the power of the mind. Conversely, most religions enhance their own methods with group behaviour, repetition, visual, auditory and olfactory cues to support them in attaining guided experiences for their flocks. Religion is not too big to be criticised and can be viewed with a skeptical mind.

The magic of science is that all ideas are encouraged if they might lead to discovery, but only accepted with valid supporting evidence. Einstein made assertions, then qualified them, asked others to criticise his results and even pointed out the inconsistencies himself. His ideas would not be as esteemed, had we not been able to repeatably and consistently reproduce the theorised results with accuracy. All of science is theoretical, but scientific theories are the closest approximations to absolute knowledge that we can ever have. Even so, those theories are constantly sought to be tested, challenged and improved if necessary. Pseudo-science and the refusal to justify wild claims flies in the face of the unbiased scientific method.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Morality exists without religion but human morality historically comes together with religion. If you read Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel he makes a pretty strong case there. All human cultures after they become numerous enough develop religious institutions. Because it is a way for 1) to explain the world around them and 2) to substitute instinctual empathic ties that come more naturally in small groups but that are difficult to reproduce in big groups that go beyond Dunbar's number (the cognitive limit to great significant human relationships) therefore they are used to form moral codes. This all comes from anthropological and scientific studies, you can't just imagine religion is useless because it isn't, there's a reason it exists. And even if religion springs only in big enough groups spirituality is something you can basically find in any culture. I think the NLP methods are wrong they forget one of the main variables when dealing with religious meditation traditions and that's: emotion. Emotions have been ignored in mind studies for a long time due to their difficulty to be measured reliably but emotions exist, they provoke real physiological events in the brain and in the body. They are even the basis of our rational selves like recent psychological research from Daniel Kahneman shows. There's little NLP methods can do to reproduce the emotional intensity a true religious or spiritual experience provides. So how can they expect to reproduce such a thing with that? It would be like trying an ocean currents experiment in a glass of water, you're ignoring a lot of variables that are affecting what happens. What is objective credibility in your view? why is objective credibility only measured with empirical evidence? Some of the world's best scientific theories were developed without any empirical data before hand but using imagination and rational thought. If not, ask Einstein. Not everything in science is empirical measurements or is discarded using empirical tools, a lot of science is theoretical. RationalAtheist

I never said religion was useless, but I don't think religion owns morals. I also don't think religion should get exemption from evidential rigour because of some esteemed place it might have in society. Different religions adopt different moral positions, but the golden rule is endemic in all cultures - with or without religion.

Emotions are considered deeply in NLP - they are the foundation and principle for action in this psychological method. I have no idea why you think otherwise.

Religious and spiritual experiences are nowhere near the sole providers of strong emotional responses. It is somewhat disingenuous to think they are. People can achieve all sorts of transcendence without faith, such is the power of the mind. Conversely, most religions enhance their own methods with group behaviour, repetition, visual, auditory and olfactory cues to support them in attaining guided experiences for their flocks. Religion is not too big to be criticised and can be viewed with a skeptical mind.

The magic of science is that all ideas are encouraged if they might lead to discovery, but only accepted with valid supporting evidence. Einstein made assertions, then qualified them, asked others to criticise his results and even pointed out their inconsistencies himself. His ideas would not be as esteemed, had we not been able to repeatably and consistently reproduce the theorised results with accuracy. All of science is theoretical, but scientific theories are the closest approximations to absolute knowledge that we can ever have. Even so, those theories are constantly sought to be tested, challenged and improved if necessary. Pseudo-science and the refusal to justify wild claims flies in the face of the unbiased scientific method.

Maybe emotions are considered in NLP but I fail to see how can they reproduce such emotions equivalent to a religious experience using just a technique such as this. I agree emotion charged experiences are not exclusive to religious experiences but the religion experience coupled with the meditation technique is what's relevant. I don't see how a technique similar to the meditation one but without the emotional charge can be expected to be the same. Well science should encourage ideas such as this! For what I've seen the NLP criticism don't apply to this if they can't provide an emotional basis as powerful as a spiritual experience and, as you can see, there are people testing the waters right now. Even if their results are not 100% accurate there's something there working for some that is worth exploring even if we don't have the means right now to measure it. Prematurely discard it even when it works for some people is not really scientific either.kuraimen

I don't think NLP works either, since there is little evidence to suggest it does and much to suggest it does not. People chose to pursue NLP because of strong and undesirable emotional responses that they sought to bring under control by resorting to such techniques.

I think "meditation" is a religious manifestation of human focus, drive, reflection and concentration. It is because nebulous ethereal qualities are ascribed to such natural human processes that make it impossible for any scientific justification to occur. All sorts of different religions adopt forms of "meditation", or rather claim ownership of a natural pattern of thinking. So claims of any spiritual superiority will ensure pointless arguments between faiths about why their particular brand of meditation works, while decrying the other forms, and while the human nature, evolution of thinking and the innate power of the mind gets sidelined.

How you can weigh up raw emotions as not being as powerful as "spiritual experiences" is disappointing, baffling and demeaning to those with no faith. Such elitist views are a fundamental reason why religion seems so divisive to me - even in it's mildest "Buddhist" form. There is nothing premature about the rejection of that for which there is too much waffle, but no clear supporting evidence.