Low self esteem is the root cause of practically all the pain and misery in the world. It's what drives war, and torture, and genocide. It's what evil is. Do you think Hitler liked himself? Or Cortez? We hate others because we hate ourselves.
-Leonard — Patterner

That's just political correctness. Of course Hitler and Cortez liked themselves! They felt entitled to the wealth of others, that's why they went after it, not because they would hate those others.

Hi Patterner, it's fun to talk about Northern Exposure! Sadly overlooked. I read somewhere that the show was hard to get for years due to licensing issues with all the music they used to play at the Brick. That was the first time I ever heard a lot of different music on TV. Daniel Lanois springs to mind.

Why is it a negative that a Native American is written to be such a person? — Patterner

Gosh, no, it's not negative. It did speak to the mood of the era though, and general themes of anti-establishment thinking that seemed to permeate. I would have liked it had Leonard been slightly more complex - nearly every character on that show aside from him had negative and positive qualities.

Leonard remains my favourite non-regular, and one of my favourites from the show. Strangely, Maurice emerged as another upon a recent repeat viewing. They put that guys flaws under the microscope, but he was no caricature. His growth during the episode featuring Ron and Eric's wedding was genuinely moving.

it seems to me it's possible that it was always there, but nobody thought to name it? — Patterner

I don't have my copy of Twenge's book handy, and don't have the facility with philosophy that many round here do to pull from ... but it's a pretty modern concept. Where do we see examples of 'self-esteem' in say the works of Shakespeare, for example? The self-loathing of Hamlet is not the inverse of self-esteem.

The rationalistic, westernized notion of the individual seems necessary for discussions of self-esteem?

Hi Patterner, it's fun to talk about Northern Exposure! Sadly overlooked. I read somewhere that the show was hard to get for years due to licensing issues with all the music they used to play at the Brick. That was the first time I ever heard a lot of different music on TV. Daniel Lanois springs to mind. — Jeremy Murray

The DVDs came out years ago. With extreme anticipation, I waited for S3E19, Wake Up Call. A great episode. Shelly shed her skin, Maggie meet the were-bear, and the first appearance of Leonard, among other things. And it ended with "Coolin Medley" by The Chieftans. Such beautiful, fitting music for the ending.

And, because of those licensing issues, they had other music on the DVD. I was horribly disappointed.

But now you can watch the show on prime, and it has the right music.

Strangely, Maurice emerged as another upon a recent repeat viewing. They put that guys flaws under the microscope, but he was no caricature. His growth during the episode featuring Ron and Eric's wedding was genuinely moving. — Jeremy Murray

Maurice is something else! Not an ignorant Archie Bunker. Great conversation when he was telling Chris how he felt about his Korean son.

"Chris, no matter how you explain this thing, it's a nightmare. This man is my son. I don't like the way he looks. I don't like the way he talks. I don't like what he eats."

"Well, if it's any consolation, Maurice, you know, your feelings aren't instinctual."

"No?"

"No. It's cultural."

"Well, how the hell could that be a consolation?"

"It's learned behavior."

"So?"

"So, you can unlearn it."

I don't have my copy of Twenge's book handy, and don't have the facility with philosophy that many round here do to pull from ... but it's a pretty modern concept. Where do we see examples of 'self-esteem' in say the works of Shakespeare, for example? The self-loathing of Hamlet is not the inverse of self-esteem.

The rationalistic, westernized notion of the individual seems necessary for discussions of self-esteem? — Jeremy Murray

Maybe it took the rationalistic, westernized notion of the individual to figure out a problem that had been around all along? I don't know. I never considered it.

So yes, we need moderators. I don't go into most forums here at TPF, so I don't know how bad it can get. What I see isn't too bad. I know which people are going to belittle, and call others names, and I stop reading their posts as soon as they start heating up. Even when I'm not part of the conversation. Why bother? — Patterner

This forum is the best-mannered forum I have experienced in many years of participating in forums. People here are more apt to give thoughtful replies that are stimulating and improve the discussion.

In the beginning, before moderators, the internet was terrible. Only angry and aggressive people could enjoy what was happening. I had a forum at the time and could close out those who refused to be polite. I hated to do that, but when everyone else was upset, and many warnings were ignored, I had to cut out the trouble makers. Today, I am even more concerned about our social agreements and setting a standard. I see the bigger picture, and it is not just about me. It is a social concern.

I hear ya. I became the moderator of the politics forum at a site I hang out at, because the people were being horrible. If it was not a site I loved, I would have just left. My concern was visitors seeing that crap, and thinking that's what the site was, or at least that the site allowed that. you wouldn't think I would have to make rules that you can't call each other worthless, pedophiles, and whatever else they could think of.

Great conversation when he was telling Chris how he felt about his Korean son. — Patterner

Honestly, NE was the first time I saw mature conversations on some of these controversial subjects on television, as a teen in the 80s. The second ever gay marriage on tv, if I recall correctly?

I don't think characters like Maurice really exist anymore. Any modern equivalents you can think of?

Maybe it took the rationalistic, westernized notion of the individual to figure out a problem that had been around all along? I don't know. I never considered it. — Patterner

I grabbed Twenge's book. She traces the self-esteem movement back to the 60s, Maslow and his hierarchy, among other trends. Self-esteem is one rung below Self-actualization, and per Twenge, 'much easier to achieve' and therefore the one concept came to eclipse the other.

I can't really imagine how people would have thought to even consider self-esteem prior to the 20th century. It feels like an outcome of the Enlightenment and post-WW2 prosperity. I doubt it had much global resonance prior to the 21st century, although AI tells me it is a universal concept?

I can't really imagine how people would have thought to even consider self-esteem prior to the 20th century. It feels like an outcome of the Enlightenment and post-WW2 prosperity. I doubt it had much global resonance prior to the 21st century, although AI tells me it is a universal concept? — Jeremy Murray

I think I'm thinking what AI is thinking. I would bet anything nobody used the phrase "racial privilege" in the US the 1700s. But, holy cow, it existed. Many never considered it was anything but the natural order. Even those who opposed slavery probably didn't think of those words. But they thought about what was happened.

There must have been people 500 years ago who thought they were ugly, or weak, or stupid. They might have had that ingrained by an abusive parent. Don't you think?

There must have been people 500 years ago who thought they were ugly, or weak, or stupid. They might have had that ingrained by an abusive parent. Don't you think? — Patterner

Hey Patterner,

I don't, really. Not in the way you are expressing it. Certainly, there would have been people who knew they were less attractive than others, but that's just how it was, right?

They weren't going to feel worse about it, because they were peasants struggling to survive, Christians or members of other faiths who felt their life was predetermined, etc. None of these things relate to self-esteem because they were simply facts.

The premise of self esteem requires a self to esteem.

Do you think the concept of the 'self' that exists today is similar enough to whatever concept of the 'self' that existed 500 years ago to make that conclusion?

I really recommend Twenge's book "The Narcissism Epidemic", a classic proven prescient. Do you feel narcissism to be a problem today? If so, and I assume you and all other sane people do, what is the relationship of the concept of self-esteem to narcissism?

People treated each other as horrifically in the past as they do now. The gap between the wealthy and thre destitute has existed at all times. So I wouldn't think there's reason this aspect of us was not also around in the past. But, like I said, I've never thought about this before, so can't have considered all the possibilities.

But if you're right, if self-loathing is a new thing for us, is there a new good thing to balance it?

I hear ya. I became the moderator of the politics forum at a site I hang out at, because the people were being horrible. If it was not a site I loved, I would have just left. My concern was visitors seeing that crap, and thinking that's what the site was, or at least that the site allowed that. you wouldn't think I would have to make rules that you can't call each other worthless, pedophiles, and whatever else they could think of. — Patterner

Sounds like the site where I visit to PM with someone, but rarely read any posts or make one. To me it is like getting into a mud-slinging contest. It has nothing to do with learning and thinking, and I think the people I want to share thoughts with would also stay out of the forum. Staying with the hope of making a difference is very idealistic.

People treated each other as horrifically in the past as they do now. The gap between the wealthy and thre destitute has existed at all times — Patterner

Oh no doubt. But the premise of 'improving one's lot' wasn't the same. The certainty of 'God's plan' was stronger. Etc.

if self-loathing is a new thing for us, is there a new good thing to balance it? — Patterner

I don't think self-loathing is the opposite of self-esteem. People have despised themselves forever. But this idea of self-esteem, of needing to 'love oneself', to affirm every child as 'special', a person's 'journey' - these are new concepts, and part of the Narcissism epidemic Twenge describes.

I think 'the new good thing' would be a return to 'old good things' like community, humility, faith (ironic, given how staunchly atheist I am), etc. Stories with as much moral complexity as "Northern Exposure", even though I link that show, tangentially, to the narcissism epidemic.

Do you see a 'narcissism epidemic'? Do you see a link with self-esteem? What 'new good things' do you think may benefit us?

I had myself a breakdown a few years ago, and so this thinking of mine is new to me as well.

What 'new good things' do you think may benefit us? — Jeremy Murray

I'm just thinking that it would be bad if we only gained negative things. Have we also gained self-love? I would think that, if you are right, and self-love is truly a new thing, then maybe yin and yang require an opposite. If we don't have one, then we can only become more and more negative as a species. More hurting, and more hurtful.