There are many paths that claim to offer a way toward being a better person,   
   and most of them are dead ends. I will examine some of them now.   
      
   One frequent claim is that good self-esteem makes good people and bad   
   self-esteem makes bad people. This is completely wrong. The way in which I   
   treat the next person is not based on how I feel about myself; it is based on   
   how I feel about the other    
   person. In fact a strong case can be made that it works in the opposite   
   direction. If I have high standards for myself, then I will find it harder to   
   feel good about myself than if I have low standards for myself. The person   
   with lower standards will    
   have a higher self-esteem; the person with higher standards will be a better   
   person.   
      
   The main approach toward helping people who've undergone mistreatment has been   
   to teach them to have high self-esteem and to be strong in themselves. I   
   believe that this approach is mistaken. There are many ways to be strong. The   
   self is not the only,    
   nor the best, source of strength. I have known many strong people; and most of   
   them were strong in something besides the self. There are many people who are   
   strong in Christ, or in family, or in patriotism; and in many situations this   
   form of strength is    
   more empowering. If you are strong in yourself, then you will be less likely   
   to make sacrifices. Whereas if you are strong in something greater than   
   yourself, then you are more likely to act with genuine unselfishness and   
   courage.   
      
   We see foolishness with “positive good, negative bad.” Positive thinking   
   accomplishes absolutely nothing. In many cases it is the wrong thing to do.   
   You need to anticipate problems and figure out anything that can go wrong. If   
   you're thinking    
   positive, you do not do that. If you are an engineer and you're thinking   
   positive, you will design equipment that will blow up on use. If you are a   
   policy maker and you're thinking positive, you will formulate a policy that   
   makes more problems than it    
   solves. If you are an attractive woman and you're thinking positive, you will   
   fall for the line of a player without examining his actual character and wind   
   up in a situation of abuse. For problems to be solved they have to be faced   
   head-on. If it is    
   negative to see a problem, then being negative is part of the process. If a   
   nuclear reactor blows up you have to tell people exactly what has taken place.   
   Being “positive” about such things is not enlightenment; it is lying.   
      
   Freud was demonstrably wrong. He mistook memories of childhood sexual abuse   
   for erotic fantasy. On this false conclusion he built several other false   
   conclusions.   
      
   One was that children are sexual. Children are not sexual; children are   
   curious, and they may be just as curious about sexuality as they are about   
   anything else.   
      
   Another was that women were an “incomplete gender” possessing a “penis   
   envy.” What he saw was a situation in early 20th century Europe, in which   
   men had all rights and powers and women wanted the powers and rights that men   
   had. We do not see    
   women envying men in places like Sweden, where women have the same status with   
   men. Nor do we see women envying men in places like India, where women accept   
   the “traditional” role as part of their religion.   
      
   His most famous error – that children are in love with the parent of the   
   other gender and that love in adulthood is transference – is also   
   demonstrably wrong. At that time there were few single-parent households; now   
   there are plenty. And what we see    
   again and again is that people raised in single-parent households fall in love   
   just as readily as they do people raised in nuclear families. Since these   
   people do not have a transference figure, their feelings cannot be   
   transference. Finally, since the    
   feelings that people raised in nuclear families develop are of the same   
   character as theirs, then these feelings cannot be transference either.   
      
   Alfred Adler's ideas on “adequacy” are not only wrong; they are evil.   
   Adler would pathologize everything that has taken humanity from caveman to man   
   on the moon. No man is an adequate match for a tiger, nor should he strive to   
   be an adequate match    
   for a tiger. Man outdoes the tiger using superior methodology and in so doing   
   advances the lot of humanity.   
      
   Personality psychology is not even rational. According to the definition of   
   the sociopaths, they are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. This   
   contradicts most basic reason. If people are responsible for their actions   
   then anyone can choose to act    
   rightfully; and if some people cannot act rightfully whatever they do then   
   people are not responsible for their actions. With narcissism, if it is   
   narcissistic to seek great success or if it is narcissistic to have original   
   ideas, then anyone who's had    
   great success and anyone who's had original ideas is a narcissist; which means   
   that the world owes vastly to people with this disorder. Psychology has for a   
   long time been seen by some religious people as encouraging permissiveness.   
   This trend in    
   psychology however is downright fascist.   
      
   All of these ideas are therefore demonstrably wrong, and they affect in a   
   change in character that is not an improvement but a degradation. What does   
   actually make you a better person? Deliberate choice to do the right thing.   
   Understanding the    
   consequences of your actions and being committed toward the best possible   
   outcomes regardless of what it means for yourself. And my inspiration for that   
   does not come from psychology. It comes from Jesus.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)