The Psychological Value of a Self-Concept

[Scott A. 0]

Below is a written version of the talk I delivered at Founders College. It is virtually identical to what I said during the talk, although there were some extemperaneous comments, and one later section of the talk was more interactive with the audience. I may have changed or added a word or two while speaking, but this is pretty much what I said.

I should also add that although this goes into some depth about self-concepts, there is a lot more that could be said. So, I don't mean to suggest here that this is in any way the final word. Of course, I invite feedback and questions.

The video of the talk will be available at some point in the near future. I will provide a link to it when it's available. A possible value of watching the talk is that there was a Q & A at the end, which is not included here. I hope you enjoy it!

* * *

The Psychological Value of a Self-Concept

It is a great pleasure to speak with you tonight about the psychological value of a self-concept. In the brief description of this talk, there are a number of questions listed that I will repeat now to provide some context and focus of the talk. These are:

1. To what extent is a self-concept valuable psychologically?

2. What does a self-concept "do" for an individual?

3. How does it develop and what are its bases in reality?

4. What is the difference between a rational and irrational self-concept?

5. What role does a self-concept play in mental illness and mental health?

There are a number of other questions one might ask, and I hope that you will all feel free to ask questions during the Q & A at the end of the talk if I have not covered something in which you have an interest.

In addition to the concepts of “consciousness” and “free will,” the “self-concept” is one of the most fundamental and important in understanding psychology. However, in order to clearly describe why a self-concept is valuable and important to understand, it is best to begin by showing its importance.

For this I will offer a brief description of a woman who entered psychotherapy and her presenting problem. I should note that this person was not someone I saw in psychotherapy, and the case comes from a book called Status Dynamics: Creating New Paths to Therapeutic Change. The clinical case from the book very much suits the purpose of this talk, which is why I use it here.

"Sharon (which is a pseudonym), a 37-year-old special education teacher, related as her presenting concern that she felt exploited and taken for granted by her husband Jim. She stated that Jim’s attitude toward her was not one in which she was viewed and treated as an equal partner, but rather one in which he regarded her as a menial who could take care of all the day-to-day mundane tasks while he pursued a successful career in academic research.

"Sharon’s attempts to achieve equal status, respect, and appreciation from her husband had taken two basic and repetitive forms over the five years of their marriage.

"Her essential strategy had been “to try to be a good wife.” This entailed, in her view, assuming virtually all of the family responsibilities on top of her own full-time job, demanding little of her husband, and trying in many ways to maintain the smooth harmony at home that he considered vital to success in his career. However, she related, Jim’s reaction seemed merely to accept this as his due.

"Sharon’s other basic tactic had been to confront her husband angrily from time to time about his attitude and behavior. This generally resulted in a fierce counterattack on his part, and bitter conflict between the two of them over prolonged periods of time. It did not, however, achieve any improvement in her marital situation.

"At the time of the clinical intake, Sharon feared that her position was a hopeless one. Aside from the rather dreaded and personally unacceptable option of divorce, which she was seriously considering, she viewed herself as thoroughly victimized by her husband, and as helpless to change their relationship in such a way that she could feel a valued, respected, and equal partner with him."

I have three questions:

1. Can we gather from these facts, or at least reasonably speculate, what Sharon’s self-concept is?

2. Is her self-concept actively involved in these events, or is it really just an afterthought, a general label that she applies to herself on the basis of these events, over which she has no control?

3. Is her self-concept changeable or is it fixed?

Hold your answers in mind, as we will come back to these questions. In the mean time, I would like to try and answer all three (as well as the questions posed at the opening of this talk) by examining the answer to a more fundamental question: What is a self-concept?

In order to answer this question, it is necessary to first define one part of that term, namely, the “self.”

What is the “self,” or, what is your self?

Fundamentally, the self is one’s conscious awareness of reality.

By conscious awareness I mean the thing in each of us that perceives, focuses, pays attention, concentrates, evaluates, judges, and chooses. In a word, it is you. You perceive reality, focus on it, evaluate it, and make choices.

By reality, I mean the totality of that which exists. More specifically, reality has two domains: external and internal reality. By external reality I mean all the existents outside of oneself—all the people and objects that exist and their interactions with each other and oneself. By internal reality I mean the total of one’s thoughts, memories, emotions, knowledge, and cognitive processes.

So, again, one’s self is, fundamentally, one’s conscious awareness of reality.

This being said, there are different levels of consciousness. The first and most basic is the sensory-perceptual level of consciousness. This level refers to the automatic processing by the brain of the material of reality we take in through our sensory-perceptual mechanism.

For example, we open our eyes and we see. And that sight is part of our conscious awareness. It is automatic; you have no choice in the matter. (Of course, once your eyes are open, you then have a choice about what to focus on or pay attention to, but that is a separate issue.) The primary point for understanding the automatic level of awareness is that, in this example, if one has a functioning brain and eyes, opening one’s eyes will automatically result in sight—you have no choice about this; you just see. There is also all the other material taken in by our other senses, which the brain automatically processes and becomes a part of our conscious experience.

However, conscious awareness, for man, is not just a passive screen onto which reality projects itself. When we open our eyes, we do see, but the important question for man is: what do we think about what we see? How do we evaluate and/or judge what we see? What conclusions do we form? What principles do we hold? What do we feel, emotionally, about what we see? Ultimately, what do we do behaviorally on the basis of our evaluations and conclusions?

Put differently, man’s consciousness is not restricted to the perceptual level—instead, man has a conceptual consciousness. We do not hold reality in our minds only as perceptual data; we also hold it in the form of ideas and concepts.

Concepts, held in the form of words and language, are mental entities produced by conscious processes; they are mental integrations of concretes in reality or other concepts. (This is not a lecture on epistemology and so I will not go into all the mechanics of concept-formation; for that you will need to take Dr. Garmong’s class.) However, just to give a sense of why and how concepts are important to our lives, I’ll give an example.

If I look at someone in the audience, my consciousness does not say (in effect): foot, leg, hip, stomach, arm, shoulder, head. Instead, it says, “person.” And when I look at the group as a whole, my mind does not say, “person 1, person 2, person 3, person 4...” It says, “audience.” Concepts integrate multiple concretes in reality into a single unit. This enables our minds to process vast amounts of information in a very short amount of time.

To highlight another value of concepts, consider these concepts: city, county, state, country, continent, planet, solar system, galaxy, universe. Notice what happens mentally as you go from one concept to the next—one’s mind extends beyond the range of the immediate environment into realms of reality one may have never seen (at least in their entirety) or directly experienced. Yet, we are nevertheless able, at a minimum, to grasp the existence of such things despite not having fully or directly experienced them.

In other words, we just traveled, mentally anyway, from South Boston, Virginia to the outer reaches of space—with just nine concepts.

Concepts serve as integrators of vast amounts of information and enable us to gain knowledge and expand our awareness of reality beyond the range of our immediate environments.

This is one of the fundamental psychological values of concepts generally: concepts not only tell us what is, but therefore what is possible.

Knowing, conceptually, that there are other places to go, people to meet, and things to do indicates the possibility of going somewhere, meeting someone, and doing something. In this sense, and in a very real way, concepts show us possibilities. This idea will be re-visited a bit later on in this talk, so hold it in mind as we move on.

While concepts serve these incredibly valuable functions in our lives, their development and use also highlights a fundamentally important aspect of a conceptual consciousness. Specifically, man’s conceptual consciousness is also a volitional consciousness.

Volition means free will, and free will for man is the choice to think or not to think. By “think” I do not mean “just take in and process data.” Our sensory-perceptual mechanisms and brains provide a great value in their ability to automatically process the material of reality. However, man’s consciousness, as noted earlier, is not just a passive, automatic processor of such material. It is active, by which I mean that we each can consciously and intentionality direct our awareness and mental focus. And we do so by choice.

Specifically, we have the choice to raise or lower our conscious awareness of reality; we can focus our attention, concentrate, evaluate, conceptualize, and ultimately plan a course of action toward a particular purpose or goal.

For instance, at any point in this talk, you can consciously and intentionally tune me out and redirect your conscious focus on some other issue. You could think about what you just had for dinner, a book you are reading, what you have to do tomorrow, and so forth. In short, you can simply choose to focus your mind on some topic or another and think about that.

(As an aside, you can also choose not to focus on anything and simply let your mind drift. This is what is meant by daydreaming. However, if one catches himself drifting off, he can then make the choice to focus his mind again and actively think about something.)

Consider another example: as children most of us learned the alphabet song. That is, the alphabet song was not sung to us and we could then automatically sing it back; we learned the alphabet song—we consciously focused on the letters, their order, and the tune that went along with them, and we had to practice the song some number of times before we knew it.

Notice the process here: when we first heard the song, the actual hearing of it was automatic. Our sensory-perceptual level of consciousness took in the material and it was automatically processed by our brains. However, in order to sing the song accurately ourselves, we had to memorize the order of letters and notes, and memorization is an active, conscious process that one must undertake by choice. We each could have chosen not to learn the song. In other words, learning the song was not something that had to happen. However, little kids enjoy learning fun songs, and the pleasure of the activity served as one motivation to choose to put forth the mental effort required to learn the song.

These are just two simple examples of the choice to think. There are countless others that range from the simple to the highly complex. But in all cases, the choice to put forth mental effort, to raise one’s conscious awareness, to focus one’s mind on some activity, is what free will is all about.

(Now, as a brief aside, as a person develops both physically and intellectually, certain things do become automatized. The alphabet song is a good example—one does not need to exert a lot of mental effort to recall and sing the song once he has learned it thoroughly. Or, if I say, “Mary had a little...,” then “lamb” automatically pops into mind. I mention these things here simply to acknowledge that there are automatized aspects of consciousness beyond our sensory-perceptual mechanism, and because there are significant implications to the kinds of ideas and related behaviors that become automatized for people.)

Let’s briefly review what has been covered so far. We are defining a self-concept by first reviewing a part of that term—the self. The self was defined as, fundamentally, one’s conscious awareness of reality. Consciousness was described as having two levels: the sensory-perceptual and the conceptual. Sensory-perceptual data is processed automatically by the brain, whereas conceptualization requires a choice to think—to intentionally exert mental effort and raise one’s conscious awareness of reality. Concepts were said to allow us to quickly integrate a lot of information and enable us to go beyond the range of our immediate environments. In this sense, concepts suggest possibilities.

Here is a question: the self is, fundamentally, one’s conscious awareness of reality, but is this all that the self is? In other words, is the self just one’s awareness (at whatever level) of the things occurring at any given moment?

Of course, the answer is: no. The self is fundamentally one’s conscious awareness, but it is not exclusively one’s awareness. So, what else besides conscious awareness composes the self?

Essentially, there are two things, although each is composed of many different qualities, attributes, and processes. These are: the body and the mind.

Each of us has a body, a physical form that houses our brains and our minds, and gets us from place to place. We are each a certain height and weight, our hair, eyes, and skin have particular colors, and of course we each have different parts to our bodies that enable us to do different things. When one looks into a mirror, he sees his body and recognizes that this physical form is him, or at least a somewhat significant aspect of who he is.

Each of us also has a mind. The previous parts of this talk discussed some fundamental characteristics of the mind, but also briefly alluded to particular contents and processes of the mind. The contents include concepts, premises, principles, beliefs, and memories (to name just a few). The processes include things like reasoning, analyzing, evaluating, and recalling.

Obviously, these are just general descriptions of the different aspects of the body and the mind. However, psychology and psychological functioning are very much the result of the integration of the body and mind.

There are quite a few examples of mind-body integration that could be given. However, for the purposes of this talk, I will focus on one: a self-evaluation.

What is a self-evaluation?

In general, a self-evaluation is just what the term implies—it is an assessment and judgment of some aspect of one’s self. It is focusing on oneself for the purpose of answering two basic questions:

1. Was my thinking clear and accurate? (mind)

2. Did I perform well and effectively? (body)

As these questions suggest, there are two aspects of the issue: a mental aspect and a physical aspect (both defined broadly here). In other words, self-evaluations typically result from an assessment of the integration of one’s mind and body.

Self-evaluations begin at a young age, as children begin learning concepts, words, and develop physical and mental skills. For example, children play games, sports, begin school at a young age, and engage in a lot of other activities that show them things about themselves. Some children find they have athletic ability but perhaps limited academic ability, or vice versa. Other children find they have both academic and athletic abilities, whereas others have limited success with both. Furthermore, some children are more social and comfortable in these situations than other kids.

In all these examples, children are learning something about themselves and, further, they are making judgments, via self-evaluations, of what these things mean. For instance, what does it mean to a particular child if he likes art but not sports, or feels uncomfortable in social situations? What if he likes sports but not academic subjects? How does he understand and define himself on the basis of these discoveries?

These are some of the issues that arise in the early stages of the development of self-concepts via self-evaluations. Of course, these kinds of questions and related self-evaluations are continuous throughout life, particularly into the early parts of adulthood. Furthermore, the range of issues that involve self-evaluations is very broad. However, to simplify this, it can be reasonably said that the vast majority of self-evaluations fall into one of three categories: one’s mind, one’s body, and one’s relationships.

I do not mean to suggest that there is no overlap among these categories. In fact, I just pointed out that, typically, self-evaluations involve a judgment of the interaction of one’s mind and body. However, it is helpful to look at self-evaluations in each of these three areas to give some sense of the fundamental issues they cover, with the understanding that they will overlap to some extent. So, let’s take each of these in turn, beginning with self-evaluations of the mind.

Self-evaluations of one’s mind can include one’s level and amount of intelligence, the clarity of one’s thinking, the amount and quality of one’s knowledge (in a specific subject or across a range of topics), the speed of one’s thinking, and its accuracy. Self-evaluations regarding these issues are essentially answers to the following questions:

1. Am I an intelligent person and, if so, to what extent?

2. Am I a person who thinks clearly, or do I find I’m often confused?

3. What and how much do I know about a given subject, and is my knowledge adequate?

4. Am I a person whose mind grasps things quickly?

5. When I come to a conclusion, is it usually correct or am I usually mistaken?

There are undoubtedly many other questions one could pose to himself about the quality of his mind, but answers to those indicated provide one with some pretty fundamental self-evaluations about his mental ability. Specifically, the common theme in all those questions is the answer to the question: am I a person whose mind effective?

The issue of efficacy is also fundamental to self-evaluations of one’s body, but obviously in different ways. For instance, self-evaluations of one’s body include one’s ability to perform any number of physical tasks. These range from the basic tasks of getting oneself cleaned up, dressed, and preparing things to eat to more complex tasks, such as performing some athletic action (as in football or gymnastics), dancing, playing an instrument, and so forth. Self-evaluations of the body can also regard one’s physical health and attractiveness.

The related questions to these issues include:

1. Is my body healthy and functioning well?

2. Am I physically able to take care of myself?

3. Can I perform complex or skilled actions (such as dancing)?

4. What physical things am I not able to do?

5. Am I a physically attractive person and, if so, to whom and why?

Similar to the previous category, the core question here is: am I a person whose body is effective?

Now consider self-evaluations in regard to relationships. Each person has any number of relationships, each with their own purposes, issues, and processes. Specifically, one has family relationships, friendships, romantic relationships, professional relationships, and other social relationships, such as belonging to clubs or organizations. Of course, many of these relationships can overlap.

The basic self-evaluative question in regard to relationships is this:

1. Am I a person who is capable of having effective, productive, positive relationships with others (e.g., as a parent, friend, spouse, or co-worker)?

I hope it is apparent that the conclusions one comes to regarding these questions will have significant implications for one’s self-concept. For example, what is the likely self-concept of someone who concludes, “I’m unintelligent, unattractive, and do not work very hard.”? Or someone who concludes, “I’m intelligent, but physically uncoordinated, and am unable to have meaningful relationships”?

Obviously, there are all kinds of combinations of self-evaluations across the categories of one’s mind, body, and relationships. And a self-concept is precisely the sum total of all those self-evaluations. So, here we have one crucial aspect of the definition of a self-concept:

A self-concept is a fundamental and summary evaluation of one’s effectiveness in all areas of life. It is an evaluation of the efficacy of one’s existence.

This definition helps in understanding what a self-concept is. However, there is another aspect to making self-evaluations that further highlights the psychological value of a self-concept.

Specifically, if I am to answer such questions as “Am I intelligent?” or “Am I attractive?,” then what do I need in order to come to a conclusion?

The answer is that I need a standard of value.

What is a standard of value? Basically, it is the set of criteria one uses to asses one’s efficacy, often coupled with an image, a single-concrete form, of what or who one wants to be.

Using the two questions I just posed as examples, what is the standard of intelligence or attractiveness I use in order to determine whether I am intelligent or attractive?

Suppose I tell myself that in order to be intelligent, I have to demonstrate mental abilities on a par with Albert Einstein. In other words, Albert Einstein’s intellect is the standard against which I judge myself. Or, what if I say that in order to be attractive, I need to look like Brad Pitt? In this case, Brad Pitt’s attractiveness is the standard to which I hold myself.

For most people these standards are completely irrational. In other words, if these are the standards to which I hold myself, how likely is it I’m ever going to be satisfied with my own intelligence or attractiveness? Obviously, the answer is that I will never be satisfied, and by accepting those as my standards, I will have doomed myself to misery.

All the areas of self-evaluation indicated earlier, as well as those I did not mention but nevertheless exist, involve standards of value. The issue, in terms of the rationality of one’s self-concept, is the extent to which the standards one has accepted (consciously or not) are realistic and, therefore, rational.

In order to determine if a standard of value related to oneself is rational or not, one has to ask one more question: on what is a standard of value based? That is, standards of value are chosen (although not always consciously). Therefore, what is the basis on which a given standard is chosen?

Fundamentally, a standard of value is chosen and defined on the basis of a premise.

A premise is a basic idea (a proposition or assertion) that is presumed true and used to come to a conclusion. More specifically, a premise defines the standard against which one evaluates something and comes to a conclusion. In terms of a self-concept, a premise sets a standard against which one judges oneself to make a self-evaluation, particularly in terms of one’s effectiveness.

Let’s make this more concrete. I’ll give an example from my own life. It has to do with an event that occurred during my first couple weeks of graduate school in clinical psychology. However, some context is required.

As an undergraduate, I did not perform academically as well as I could have. In short, I did not live up to my potential. I did not perform terribly or even poorly, but certainly not what I knew I was capable of and what I had wanted to achieve upon entering college.

There were a number of reasons why this happened. The specifics are not relevant, but quite simply, I did not put in the time and effort necessary to do as well as I could have. This is the context of the specific situation in graduate school.

I was quite concerned about whether I would get in to a program. It was a great relief when I did, and it was a good program. However, I still carried with me some guilt about not doing that well. The result was that I had something to prove to myself. I determined that I was going to be an outstanding student, that I would understand psychology deeply and be able to practice it effectively.

So, I began thinking about what was necessary to be an outstanding student. There were many aspects to it that I identified, one of which related specifically to my study habits. I told myself that “an outstanding student reads every word of every chapter and outlines each chapter in personal notes.” Specifically, I meant that as I read a chapter for a class, I needed to hand-write an outline of that chapter.

Well, you can imagine how far I got in my studies. Of course, I was getting nowhere and falling behind very quickly. All kinds of self-doubt came into my mind and I had to seriously answer for myself the question of whether I was really as smart as I thought and deserved to be in the program. However, those concerns were dismissed relatively quickly, which resulted in a shift in my thinking. It came in the form of the question: “In order to be an outstanding student, is it really necessary to study in the way I have laid out?”

In other words, I questioned the premise and related standard of value that I had accepted.

What was the premise: “Outstanding students read every word of every chapter and make hand-written outlines of those chapters.”

What was the standard of value: It was contained in the premise—it was the behavioral criteria that went along with the idea of “outstanding student.” In this case, reading every word of every chapter and making handwritten outlines. There was also a fictitious image of some great student that I had created in my own head. In other words, I had the image of some person who tirelessly poured over material and made outlines, notes, and so forth; someone who’s every waking moment was entirely devoted to devouring page after page of material. This was a false image, but was nevertheless in my mind.

What was the initial evaluation: I thought myself a poor student and questioned whether I deserved to be there.

This was the progression: I had a premise of what an outstanding student does, which created a standard of value (and related behaviors) against which I judged myself and made self-evaluations.

From this example (and previous material in the talk), there is a basic formula involved in self-concepts:

Premises--------->Standards of value--------->Self-Evaluations

One starts with a premise, which defines a standard of value on which one then makes a self-evaluation. Based on this, we can elaborate on the definition of a self-concept.

A self-concept is a fundamental, summary evaluation of one’s effectiveness based on one’s premises and related standards of value.

However, as this story and earlier material in this talk indicates, one’s premises and their related standards can be mistaken, unrealistic, and irrational. If this is the case, then one’s self-evaluation will be mistaken. Furthermore, one will suffer emotionally because of it.

Given the formula we have and a definition of a self-concept, let’s bring this full circle and re-visit our client, Sharon, who was introduced at the beginning of this talk. As you listen, hold in mind the formula and definition of a self-concept and try to apply it to the situation.

"Sharon, a 37-year-old special education teacher, related as her presenting concern that she felt exploited and taken for granted by her husband Jim. She stated that Jim’s attitude toward her was not one in which she was viewed and treated as an equal partner, but rather one in which he regarded her as a menial who could take care of all the day-to-day mundane tasks while he pursued a successful career in academic research.

"Sharon’s attempts to achieve equal status, respect, and appreciation from her husband had taken two basic and repetitive forms over the five years of their marriage.

"Her essential strategy had been “to try to be a good wife.” This entailed, in her view, assuming virtually all of the family responsibilities on top of her own full-time job, demanding little of her husband, and trying in many ways to maintain the smooth harmony at home that he considered vital to success in his career. However, she related, Jim’s reaction seemed merely to accept this as his due.

"Sharon’s other basic tactic had been to confront her husband angrily from time to time about his attitude and behavior. This generally resulted in a fierce counterattack on his part, and bitter conflict between the two of them over prolonged periods of time. It did not, however, achieve any improvement in her marital situation.

"At the time of the clinical intake, Sharon feared that her position was a hopeless one. Aside from the rather dreaded and personally unacceptable option of divorce, which she was seriously considering, she viewed herself as thoroughly victimized by her husband, and as helpless to change their relationship in such a way that she could feel a valued, respected, and equal partner with him."

What was the primary premise? It was that she would be “a good wife,” which meant that she had to assume virtually all of the responsibilities of the family on top of her-full time job, make few demands of her husband, and maintain harmony at home (in whatever forms that took).

What is the standard of value? It was the behavioral criteria contained in the premise, as well as the image of someone capable of doing all those things, which is nothing short of being a superwoman. I do not know the actual basis of this image for Sharon, but these were the standards to which she was holding herself.

What was her self-evaluation and, by extension, her self-concept? She viewed herself as a helpless victim, which translated into a hopeless position. If one is a helpless victim, then one’s position can only be hopeless.

Now let’s address two of the questions I posed after reading this story the first time.

1. Is Sharon’s self-concept actively involved in these events, or is it really just an afterthought, a general label that she applies to herself on the basis of these events, over which she has no control?

Recall that we do not simply take in and act on perceptual data—we have concepts that help us to quickly integrate and process vast amounts of information and enable us to go beyond the immediate environment. Furthermore, those concepts are used to form premises, propositions, and principles that govern our behavior. For Sharon, the concept of a “good wife” was defined in a premise as someone who takes on all the responsibility of and keeps harmony in the home, and demands little of her husband. This is what being a “good wife” meant to her. That meaning brought with it a particular course of action and related behaviors.

In this sense, Sharon’s self-concept is actively involved in these events. By defining her role, and herself, in a particular way, she has set forth a course of action, but one that does not achieve her goals. She apparently is not viewed as an equal or appreciated by her husband, or she at least does not feel that way. To be clear, it is not her fault that her husband does not express appreciation or treat her as an equal. I am in no way trying to blame Sharon for that, or even for the self-concept she holds. In fact, blame is not a part of this at all. Instead, the point is that Sharon is already a hard-working, equal partner in the relationship who is worthy of respect—but she does not realize it.

2. Is her self-concept changeable or is it fixed?

Recall that the formation and use of concepts, including self-concepts, is not passive. It is an active process that must be undertaken by choice. The volitional nature of consciousness, meaning free will, enables us to not only gain and use concepts (or premises), but also to choose to question and change our concepts or premises. In other words, free will allows us to introspect—to direct our conscious focus inward on our thoughts and their bases.

For instance, we can ask ourselves: what does it mean to be an intelligent person, or a good spouse, or a hard-worker? What are the specific actions an intelligent person, or good spouse, or hard-worker takes? Is my definition of a good spouse accurate? On what do I base my definition (or premise)? And so on.

The answer to the second question, then, is that she can change her self-concept, and the process of therapy is focused, in significant part, on helping her realize just who she really is. The fact that Sharon has free will, meaning she can choose to evaluate her premises, standards of value, and self-evaluations in order to determine if they are realistic and rational. Once she undertakes this process, she is now in a position to alter those things as appropriate. As she alters her concepts and premises, she will also alter her standards of value and the specific behaviors associated with them. That is, she will change the course of her actions and be far more likely to achieve what she seeks. In short, by changing her self-concept, Sharon also changes the possibilities or options open to her.

I submit that this last point is the most crucial and important to understanding the psychological value of a self-concept.

Recall that I mentioned much earlier in this talk that concepts imply possibilities. They identify aspects of reality that one may never have experienced firsthand, but nevertheless know (or can reasonably believe) exist. That is, concepts imply options.

How does this apply to a self-concept? If someone views himself as unintelligent and attractive, how broad is the range of possibilities or options open to him? If, as in the case of Sharon, one views himself as a helpless victim, what possibilities are open to him? In both cases, what is the person’s potential?

The answer is obvious: in either case, the person’s options, choices, and, by extension, his potential in life are extremely limited.

Ladies and gentleman, the psychological value of a self concept is this:

One’s self-concept equals one’s self-potential.

As stated earlier, if one is a helpless victim, then one’s position can only be hopeless. Such a person has no choices. This situation, while tragic, is even more so when the evaluation of oneself and related self-concept is wrong. It is one thing to have real mental and/or physical limitations that truly reduce one’s possibilities in life. It is quite another when this is not the case but a person thinks it is. In the first case, the limitations exist realistically; in the second, they exist psychologically.

The good news is that such psychological limitations can be overcome. A person, on his own, can choose to put forth the effort required to understand what he thinks, why, whether it’s realistic, and ultimately change his views. If he has difficulty accomplishing this on his own (which is not proof of his ineptitude, as the process can be very difficult), he can enlist the help of a good psychologist or other type of therapist. Again, change will not occur overnight, but it will happen much more quickly than if he did not attempt it at all.

To summarize, a self-concept is an answer to the questions: who am I and am I effective? It is a fundamental and summary evaluation of one’s existence in terms of efficacy. It is based on premises each of us hold, which set standards of value and courses of action toward achieving a goal. It defines the quality and efficacy of the relationship between one’s mind and body, particularly in one’s productive endeavors, including relationships. A self-concept is one’s self-potential.

In this regard, I’m reminded of the story told by Captain Winston Scott, who came to Founders College for the opening ceremony. (Captain Scott is an astronaut among other things.) During his talk he described how he had entered undergraduate school as a music major. This was pretty much his sole focus. However, he described how walking across campus one day, he had the sudden realization that he did not have to just be a musician. In his words, he realized, “I can do anything I want.”

I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this more with Captain Scott, but my speculation is that his realization was a result of doing the things just described. That is, I believe he was asking himself questions such as, “Who am I,” “what do I want in life,” “what am I interested in,” “do I have to just be a musician,” “what are the possibilities open to me?” As a result of his thinking, and probably some other significant events, the answer occurred to him almost as a revelation. “I can do anything I want.”

In the terms of this talk, Captain Scott had a significant shift in his self-concept and, therefore, his self-potential. However it happened, from that point on he saw the world as open to him, as teeming with possibilities, and all he had to do was pursue those which interested him most.

To the students at Founders College, I would say take a lesson from Captain Scott. Ask yourself all of those fundamental questions, and do not be discouraged if the answers do not immediately come. They will.

What I strongly believe each of you will discover is that the world is open to you; that your self-potential can take you virtually anywhere you want to go. And I can think of no better doorway to the world of self-discovery and self-potential than Founders College.

Thank you very much.

[~Sophia~ 0]

Thank you for posting your talk. I enjoyed reading it.

[B. Royce 0]

Thank you for posting your talk. I enjoyed reading it.

Me, too. Thanks Scott.

[Arnold 0]

Thanks for posting Scott. That was very informative.

[Cometmaker 0]

Great talk, Scott. Are you or is Founders College recording these things for future sale, distribution or archival and retrieval purposes?

[bborg 0]

Thanks Scott, it was a very good talk and gave me some things to think about.

[Scott A. 0]

Thank you all very much for the compliments.

[Scott A. 0]

Great talk, Scott. Are you or is Founders College recording these things for future sale, distribution or archival and retrieval purposes?

I know the video version of this will be available for free on the Founders website at some point in the relatively near future. It will be used to promote the psychology program and Founders more generally. How long it will be available and what they will do with it should it be taken off the site I'm not sure. As I find out this and other things, I'll let you know.

[Mercury 0]

That was a great read, Scott. Thank you for your efforts.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

A very interesting essay. Thank you for posting it and letting us gain from your knowledge.

I have a question about the objectivity of a standard by which one would judge oneself. You said:

"Suppose I tell myself that in order to be intelligent, I have to demonstrate mental abilities on a par with Albert Einstein. In other words, Albert Einstein’s intellect is the standard against which I judge myself. Or, what if I say that in order to be attractive, I need to look like Brad Pitt? In this case, Brad Pitt’s attractiveness is the standard to which I hold myself."

Suppose I decided that to be smart, I have to be more capable intellectually, than Joe (Joe is a very "slow" person). This standard is not objective as well. What, then, makes a standard objective? What is, objectively, a smart person, for example?

[Ifat Glassman 0]

Another thing I forgot to add to my previous post is a related subject; the subject of self-confidence.

In one of your posts here, from a few months ago, I have read (please correct me if I'm wrong, since I am paraphrasing) that people take disagreements with their opinions very seriously because it may threaten their self-concept.

This caught my attention, since I felt this is the key to explain some behavior which had bothered me about some people. A feeling that some people, while having a discussion, are more interested in being right than in holding correct knowledge. A feeling that they do not make an effort to seek the truth, but an effort to focus only on things that justify their stand. This is the sort of thing that you can "sense" about a person while debating on some topic.

So the related questions that I have about this, are: Why is being right crucial for some people's confidence in their self-worth, while it is not so crucial for others? Why are some people's self-concept always a fluid thing, while for others it is more solid? What is required to reach a state of confidence about one's worth? How come some people are never satisfied with what they've achieved, and they always require more evidence to feel that they are good enough?

Also, I know some people who tend to focus on judging themselves so much, that they are unable to properly focus on performing a task. Instead of focusing on the task, they focus on whether or not they are smart. What I just described is just another expression of the same motif of caring more about being right than about having correct knowledge. The root of all these cases is a state of confidence about one's worth, or the lack of it.

I would greatly appreciate your answers to the questions I've put forth. Thank you.

[Scott A. 0]

Another thing I forgot to add to my previous post is a related subject; the subject of self-confidence.

In one of your posts here, from a few months ago, I have read (please correct me if I'm wrong, since I am paraphrasing) that people take disagreements with their opinions very seriously because it may threaten their self-concept.

This caught my attention, since I felt this is the key to explain some behavior which had bothered me about some people. A feeling that some people, while having a discussion, are more interested in being right than in holding correct knowledge. A feeling that they do not make an effort to seek the truth, but an effort to focus only on things that justify their stand. This is the sort of thing that you can "sense" about a person while debating on some topic.

So the related questions that I have about this, are: Why is being right crucial for some people's confidence in their self-worth, while it is not so crucial for others? Why are some people's self-concept always a fluid thing, while for others it is more solid? What is required to reach a state of confidence about one's worth? How come some people are never satisfied with what they've achieved, and they always require more evidence to feel that they are good enough?

Also, I know some people who tend to focus on judging themselves so much, that they are unable to properly focus on performing a task. Instead of focusing on the task, they focus on whether or not they are smart. What I just described is just another expression of the same motif of caring more about being right than about having correct knowledge. The root of all these cases is a state of confidence about one's worth, or the lack of it.

I would greatly appreciate your answers to the questions I've put forth. Thank you.

Thanks for these and your other questions, ifatart. I will respond, but probably not until this evening when I have more time. Until then...

[Scott A. 0]

I have a question about the objectivity of a standard by which one would judge oneself. You said:

Suppose I decided that to be smart, I have to be more capable intellectually, than Joe (Joe is a very "slow" person). This standard is not objective as well. What, then, makes a standard objective? What is, objectively, a smart person, for example?

First, I should say that I'm not sure I can answer the general question of what makes a standard objective. However, I'll write specifically about the issue of being "smart" and what makes sense to me.

I think a key idea here is that of contextual absolutes, but before I go into that I'll talk about intelligence more generally. There are intelligence tests that have been around for over 100 years and do a pretty good job of assessing a given person's intellectual abilities in a range of areas. I'm sure some website provides an account of the kinds of things a standard IQ test (i.e., WAIS) assesses, so I won't go into it here. The data is normative and quite objective, and one can get a good idea of where he falls in relation to others on the same tasks. However, this doesn't measure ALL the things that go into being intelligent, nor does it necessarily indicate how one will use his intelligence or his success in life (although there is good research on the correlations between IQ and various kinds of success). So, all this is to say that there are ways to objectively determine one's intelligence (albeit from a semi-limited definition) using normative standards.

However, the psychological issue is, "what does being intelligent or smart mean to ME, in the context of my own life?" "What is it a smart person does or is capable of?" "What is evidence of intelligence?" And so forth. The answers to these questions take the form of premises, such as, "Being smart to me means earning As in all my classes," or "Smart people study 8 hours a day," and so forth. As I describe in the essay, premises define standards of value, specifically, behavioral criteria one must follow to achieve a value, including a positive self-evaluation and, therefore, self-concept.

This, to my mind, is where contextual absolutes come in. The context here is one's own life. So, if I say to myself that to be smart I have to demonstrate mental skills on a par with Ayn Rand, I'm dropping a context, namely, my own life--who I really am and my actual mental abilities. I will never have Ayn Rand's intelligence, so to even hold myself to that standard is completely irrational and, frankly, arrogant. I have to make a realistic evaluation of who I am and what I'm capable of--I have to set a standard of intelligence (and related behavioral criteria) that is appropriate to ME.

What might that be? Well, I can say that I am capable of putting forth mental effort and grasping most of Ayn Rand's ideas. This would be one part of being smart to me. Another part would be taking some idea and applying it to psychology to try and explain or further understand something in my field. Both of these things are possible to me based on an assessment of my own abilities, and they don't set up a standard of self-value that overreaches my abilities. I'm not setting myself up for failure.

Now, your example speaks to the other side of this coin. Whereas my essay and what I've written here speaks to the mistake of setting the bar unrealistically high, you are talking about someone setting it way too low. Specifically, if "Slow Joe's" intelligence is what you have to beat in order to prove yourself smart, you will certainly beat him, but will you really be smart? At a minimum, you will think you are smart until someone else comes along and proves you are not.

Whereas the first case sets one up for failure and poor self-esteem, this case sets one up for superficial success and pseudo-self-esteem. So, I think it is appropriate for someone to say to himself, "Ayn Rand's intelligence: way too high of a standard; Slow Joe's intelligence: way too low of a standard. Therefore, what is the standard somewhere in between that is appropriate for me based on an honest self-assessment of my abilities." Then take it from there.

[Scott A. 0]

Another thing I forgot to add to my previous post is a related subject; the subject of self-confidence.

In one of your posts here, from a few months ago, I have read (please correct me if I'm wrong, since I am paraphrasing) that people take disagreements with their opinions very seriously because it may threaten their self-concept.

Some people do, but not everyone.

This caught my attention, since I felt this is the key to explain some behavior which had bothered me about some people. A feeling that some people, while having a discussion, are more interested in being right than in holding correct knowledge. A feeling that they do not make an effort to seek the truth, but an effort to focus only on things that justify their stand. This is the sort of thing that you can "sense" about a person while debating on some topic.

Yes, I think some of the ideas I discuss in my essay Criticism and Personality: A Juncture for Objectivism (on THE FORUM) speak to what you are describing. Sometimes it's not only about having to be right, but really having others admit they are wrong and acknowledge your rightness. I emphasize that last point because it is the beginning of an answer to your questions below.

So the related questions that I have about this, are: Why is being right crucial for some people's confidence in their self-worth, while it is not so crucial for others?

Could be a lot of different reasons, but I think the general principle is that they don't have a lot of self-worth or self-esteem, in large part because they have a characteristically "other-oriented" mindset. Think of Peter Keating. That character was constantly looking for self-definition and validation outside himself. As tied to what I wrote above, "being right" for some people is not so much concerned with the factual basis of one's argument, but the acknowledgement of the opponent that one is right. Again, it's self-definition and validation via external rather than internal sources.

Why are some people's self-concept always a fluid thing, while for others it is more solid?

Same reason as above--if you are constantly seeking self-definition and validation externally, your self-concept will rise and fall with every smile and frown that comes your way.

What is required to reach a state of confidence about one's worth?

Introspection, self-honesty, and realistic standards of self-worth based on objective evaluations of one's abilities. There are probably other things, too, such as actual achievement of values, but I think those things are core to it.

How come some people are never satisfied with what they've achieved, and they always require more evidence to feel that they are good enough?

Again, the reasons could be many. But I would say that the way such people define "evidence" of being good enough is irrational.

Also, I know some people who tend to focus on judging themselves so much, that they are unable to properly focus on performing a task. Instead of focusing on the task, they focus on whether or not they are smart. What I just described is just another expression of the same motif of caring more about being right than about having correct knowledge. The root of all these cases is a state of confidence about one's worth, or the lack of it.

Yes, I recall either reading or hearing Miss Rand say that one of the problems many people have when confronting the possibility of doing something new is that they ask themselves, "Can I do it?" when what they should ask is, "What does it take to be done?" In other words, they are trying to make a self-evaluation without a basis for it and, therefore, inappropriately focusing on themselves instead of the task at hand.

There is also a lot of pretty good literature on people who are high self-monitors. If I'm remembering correctly, these tend to be people who are highly critical of, first, themselves, and often others. I've written elsewhere on THE FORUM that people who are pummelling others with unnecessary criticisms are very likely given it to themselves much worse "behind the scenes." But to your original point, there are certainly many people so focused on their performance and whether they are demonstrating their intelligence or whatever that they get almost paralzyed (which, interestingly, fulfills their fears that they will perform poorly).

[Ifat Glassman 0]

Thank you very much, Scott. I have more questions after your reply, but will only go back to it in a few days. I find this topic, of self-concept, and how it affects a person's actions, very interesting. It feels like there is a lot for me to understand here, and that a good understanding of this topic provides a great insight into people's psychology (including my own); sort of like knowing which one of the stack of keys you have, is the right one to open a door, that once seemed very difficult to open.

So thanks, and I'll post a more detailed reply in a few days from now.

[Scott A. 0]

I'm pleased to announce that the video of my talk, The Psychological Value of a Self-Concept, is now available for viewing on youtube. Youtube only allows 10 minute video clips, but that might be an advantage for those who don't have time to watch the whole thing in one sitting (if you have an interest in watching it). Also, since the text of the talk was reproduced here, you may only have an interest in the Q & A, which runs around 33 - 34 minutes (again broken up into 10 minute segments). The links are provided below:

Lecture

Q & A

Please let me know if you have any trouble accessing the video, or have comments and questions. Thanks!

[Oleksandr 0]

Good stuff. I watched it all.

Thanks.

[Scott A. 0]

Good stuff. I watched it all.

Thanks.

Wow, thank you very much, Oleksandr!

[Carlos 0]

Thank you for posting this!

[Scott A. 0]

Thank you for posting this!

You bet, Carlos. Thanks back at you!

[Arnold 0]

My service provider in this area charges 15c per megabyte when I am over my limit (which I am), so I often have to pass on long downloads. Otherwise I would tune in to many more videos than I do. If I have some open time I would be most interested in what you say. Do you have it in written form?

[Scott A. 0]

My service provider in this area charges 15c per megabyte when I am over my limit (which I am), so I often have to pass on long downloads. Otherwise I would tune in to many more videos than I do. If I have some open time I would be most interested in what you say. Do you have it in written form?

Hello Arnold. The very beginning of this thread includes the written version of the talk, which was delivered almost exactly. There were some extemperaneous comments and some interaction with the audience during one part of the talk. The Q & A is not written down anywhere.

I didn't realize that watching a video on youtube required a download. I thought you just watch it. At least that's how it seems when I've watched things on there. Thanks for your interest!

[Oleksandr 0]

My service provider in this area charges 15c per megabyte when I am over my limit (which I am), so I often have to pass on long downloads. Otherwise I would tune in to many more videos than I do. If I have some open time I would be most interested in what you say. Do you have it in written form?

Hello Arnold. The very beginning of this thread includes the written version of the talk, which was delivered almost exactly. There were some extemperaneous comments and some interaction with the audience during one part of the talk. The Q & A is not written down anywhere.

I didn't realize that watching a video on youtube required a download. I thought you just watch it. At least that's how it seems when I've watched things on there. Thanks for your interest!

Your browser still has to download the file to a temporary folder even if you can't save the file yourself.

And Internet provider charges for information sent to your computer, not how much files you have chosen to save to your disk.

I hope that clears it up.

[Arnold 0]

My service provider in this area charges 15c per megabyte when I am over my limit (which I am), so I often have to pass on long downloads. Otherwise I would tune in to many more videos than I do. If I have some open time I would be most interested in what you say. Do you have it in written form?

Hello Arnold. The very beginning of this thread includes the written version of the talk, which was delivered almost exactly. There were some extemperaneous comments and some interaction with the audience during one part of the talk. The Q & A is not written down anywhere.

I didn't realize that watching a video on youtube required a download. I thought you just watch it. At least that's how it seems when I've watched things on there. Thanks for your interest!

OK Thank you. I did read that piece, and commented favourably on it. Keep up the good work.

[Scott A. 0]

Your browser still has to download the file to a temporary folder even if you can't save the file yourself.

And Internet provider charges for information sent to your computer, not how much files you have chosen to save to your disk.

I hope that clears it up.

Oh, yes, thanks Oleksandr! Despite the frequency with which I use computers, I really don't know much about how they work.