Is It Really Self-Esteem or Contingent Upon External Stimuli?

[serenesam]

When an individual is feeling depressed, lacking confidence, believing that they are unattractive, and thinking that they are unable to perform a certain task, many psychologists are quick to assume that it is the person

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The ability of a person to act and evaluate independantly of group is possible, but rare. I do not count non-conformists because they are in many ways more strongly influenced by group expectations/values/norms than most.

Perhaps groups themselves are capable of independent opinions/values, etc. And in some way individuals contribute to this.

Personally, I find people who are unable to think and evaluate independently repellant. Even so-called 'free thinkers' spend half their time trying to find affirmation from others. Nevertheless, truly independent thinking and evaluating individuals do exist - but usually they are recluses or ostracised individuals.

 

[Nixie]

I think an important idea is that, regardless of motivation or stimuli, the behavior is resultant from the individual. While 'money' may be motivating an individual's actions, it isn't the 'money' but what the money will buy and how those things will make the person feel. While it may be about 'societial conformity' it isn't about pleasing society, it is about feeling good or confident of their place in society. It will all circle back to the individual. It is all related to the individual in some manner, shape or form. If it is a negative pattern affecting the individual's quality of being, the place to begin in within, not without.

 

[serenesam]

I think an important idea is that, regardless of motivation or stimuli, the behavior is resultant from the individual. While 'money' may be motivating an individual's actions, it isn't the 'money' but what the money will buy and how those things will make the person feel. While it may be about 'societial conformity' it isn't about pleasing society, it is about feeling good or confident of their place in society. It will all circle back to the individual. It is all related to the individual in some manner, shape or form. If it is a negative pattern affecting the individual's quality of being, the place to begin in within, not without.

As much as Freud may have been scrutinized, there is evidence suggesting that freewill may be in fact be an illusion. See article "Free will is an illusion, biologist says" - (http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html). Yes, the behavior as you say results from the individual but how does the individual arrive to the behavior? Yes, it's true that people with an internal locus of control do better than those with an external locus of control but how does one arrive to having an internal locus of control? If it is true that there is unconscious neural activity directing behavior and/or that conscious thought is simply a reflection of, rather than an influence on, unconscious neural activity, which directs behavior, how does this then have anything to do with the individual? Do we listen to Dr. Phil when Dr. Phil (please see my thread on "Problems I Have With Psychologist Dr. Phil" - (http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18440) says "you are responsible for your own actions" or do we listen to the neuroscientist Sam Harris in which he says freewill is an illusion? - (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dodTNPp12rg).

 

[barbad0s]

In regard to social conformity and propaganda, again, we hear the same experts say that “it is not the way other people see you; it is how you see yourself.” But isn’t it possible that “it is the way other people see you and it has nothing to do with how you see yourself?” An individual can be a very positive person and can have a positive outlook on life but come to realize that other people do judge them based on their looks (whether good or not), intelligence (whether high or low), and how much money they make (whether a lot or not). The judgment on looks and socioeconomic status is the predictor variable and how you see yourself is the outcome variable. I think that many people tend to underestimate how powerful propaganda can be because it hits us at our subconscious and unconscious (may explain why even the experts themselves do not believe in external conditions but rather the internal person’s view of themselves because of low keen to the awareness of external conditions). It is a driving force that determines how we conduct ourselves in society. Both social conformity and propaganda are external stimuli that shape who we are and how we behave. In terms of performing certain tasks, people who are propagandized to believe that a certain group of people cannot perform well end up creating the reality of underperformance. This has nothing to do with a person’s self-esteem but rather the external stimuli of propaganda indoctrination.

Through personal experience I can say that this is true. My self-esteem had always been healthy all my life up until the end of middle school. Until I felt I had the reason to believe that people were very critical about and constantly judging others' appearances, based on an outlook that a few of my close peers had recently taken on (built upon their own personal experiences and cultural indoctrination), I never had any reason to believe I was unattractive before, or even considered that it was something worth worrying about.

 

[Gaze]

I have to say, some of this is true. This is why beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You can be perceived as unattractive by society or the world, but if you're seen as attractive or beautiful by the person you are care about or love, this can boost your self esteem. The idea that self esteem is independent of what other's think is a big myth sold to us to give us the false belief that we are in complete control over everything in our lives, including how we're seen or how we see ourselves. Hate to say it, but no man is an island. We are dependent on people in some sense whether in small or large part. So, we will be affected whether or not we like, by how others view or see us. Yes, we have control over how we feel or think but the people we interact with, their impressions, or opinions, in some will always either directly or indirectly affect or impact us, whether or not we care about or want to concede.

 

[Nixie]

I would venture to guess how the individual arrives at the behavior is one of those unmapped territories or great mysteries that we will struggle to understand. I think however, it will always be a mixture of an understanding of science and an understanding of emotions. It will not be answered soley by one branch or another. I think the inherit struggle for all individuals is overcoming/accepting our individuality. It is that moment as an infant where we realize that our mother isn't a part of us and that we are "separate" that defines us and begins one of the greatest struggles we have as thinking beings--we strive to "belong", to be "known", to find our "place"--it all circles back to this idea--it is the need for such socialization that drives us.

 

[Kgal]

Coincidentally this showed up in my facebook yesterday and I reposted it. I thought even though it was meant to be a tongue in cheek kind of statement that it was indeed very true - especially for us INFJs and INFPs.

Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes." - William Gibs

Our western society forces us to conform to the standard mold that fits into the corporate machine. If you don't fit - they'll make you - or break you.

Today, in facebook, TED posted a video of a woman explaining her perspective of your post. She beautifully expressed mine - and others dilemmas of growing up in a world where we are judged lacking just by virtue of who we are. I agreed with her wholeheartedly.

http://www.ted.com/talks/thandie_newton_embracing_otherness_embracing_myself.html

I am a systems theory adherent. Personally I do not agree with people who draw the line between a person and their choices and a system with lack of choices. Being forced to conform goes against the nature of being human. Emotions are sure to erupt. If they do not teach people, early on, about their emotions and how to become aware of their actions due to those emotions - then they cannot cry and moan and wring their hands when said people act out in unacceptable ways.

 

[gps]

When an individual is feeling depressed, lacking confidence, believing that they are unattractive, and thinking that they are unable to perform a certain task, many psychologists are quick to assume that it is the person’s self-esteem.

Psychologists -- those who study the psyche? -- or those called or calling themselves psychotherapists?
With how broad of a brush could an individual paint before overgeneralization resulted in impolitics as usual?
I've noticed the term `self-esteem' (mis)used most often by the NF sector of psychotherapists -- who tend towards forms of `talk therapy' as means of applying word magic via the form of megalomania which finds many participants acting-as-if merely talking with a messianic therapist qua `therapist' results in improved quality of life, behavior modification, `good things', etc. etc.

My inability to perform the certain task of jumping to the moon must certainly be rooted in self-esteem, whether my mother breast fed me until I started junior high, and whether my father induced the fear of castration in me if I moved down from mom's boobs to her primary sex organ?
What other plausable naratives could we find for my limitations and countless failures to perform any number of tasks, chores, duties and/or performances?
Hint: No, physics models, biomechanics, and conceptions using mass-and-energy and cause-and-EFFECT -- rather than Affect-then-post_hoc-attribution-of-CAUSE as prevails when NF flake `psychotherapists' attribute observable behavioral ink-blots in human behavior to CAUSALITY in terms such as `low self-esteem' will be accepted.

However, the real question you have to ask yourself is, is it really self-esteem?

As if?
As I'm prone to the self-esteem patterns of INTPs which finds us `found' -- by those of any number of esteem steps on a continuum -- `arrogant' I rarely find myself `having to ask myself' what someone arguing from ignorance and acting-as-if claim I must.
NFs, with their penchant for word magic, keep a non-stop stream of ungrounded symbols injected into the resulting body impolitic.
If I can't be provided with a Gram or Watt of `self-esteem' for evaluation I'm inclined to regard such as something in the universe of discourse having no basis in physical reality as dealt with by physicists and their models of physics ... and as such qualifies as a metaphysical term at best and figment of imagination otherwise.

I have come to learn that in many cases, self-esteem is the dependent variable (outcome variable) and something else is the independent variable.

Self-esteem is?
That which is qua IS must have mass or energy or it is NOT: does not exist physically.
Existential self-esteem IS an oxymoron.
If one wishes to talk about patterns apperceivable in ink blots, tea leaves, and clouds in the sky then self-esteem certainly MAY be discussed as humanly-apperceivable theme along with snarks, unicorns, ids, egos, superegos, and henways.

Something else is causing this current mode of self-esteem.
Many theorists from the behavioral sciences tend to desire and even assume that motivation for mastery is intrinsic and independent from others and/or other external variables/stimuli.

`Mode' of self-esteem?
Self-esteem is a mere term bandied around which allows social workers, talk therapists, new age human development gurus and fuzzy thinkers to talk about human behavior and social interaction as if they knew what they were talking about.
A mode of discourse in which the universe of discourse contains ungrounded symbols qualifies as what?
Does my refusal to `perform' in nonsense mode entail low self-esteem?
Does a Narcisist's inability to perform as per his or her inflated self-image and self-esteem equate to that of a person said to have or exhibit low self-esteem?
In a GoldyLocksian `mode' would those performing as desired, required, or expected qualify as manifesting a `just right' amount of esteem while the narcisit exhibits too much and those said to `have' low self-esteem too precious little?

As true as this may be, I believe that the notion that the internal drive for all manner of problem solving being independent of others may not be that accurate.

If and only if.
By way of `problem solving' I've been cursed with both MBTI type and Enneagram type with `problem solving' attributions.
INTP is regarded the `problem solvers' by many, as is the Enneagram type 5.
In this thread the fundamental `problem' seems `The problem of language'.
I suspect that if the original post were re-written in English Prime that the problem as presented would shrivel a bit if not disappear.

Personally, I have found how powerful social conformity can be and that such methodology of problem solving becomes dependent upon others in the current setting of activity.

Congadulations! We're both using one of the most pernicious examples and promoters of `social conformity': Language.
One fool coins the term `self-esteem' and the rest of the speaking apes start aping the progenitor of a neologism.

For example, even without the socialization of the child, the child longs to be others, longs to fit in, and will learn to conform to the others surrounding him/her in that moment of time.

I'm not sure that my earliest `social' experiences entailed desire to conform or prostrate myself on the Procrustean Beds of uniformity so much as getting needs met and/or going along to get along in whatever shape or condition I was in at the time.

The child does not even have to have learned a language and the body language communication is in automatic effect.
Analogously, this is sort of like the child is able to communicate telepathically with other children close by.

So long as `tele' can be split into proximal and distal `pathy' you might have something if children can commicate proximopathically as allowed by body language and other clues offered by proximal co-location.

As adults, as much as we pride ourselves in our accomplishments, loneliness or actions done independently of the typical norm may make us feel awkward, almost as if we are betraying our closest friends in enacting an action not really approved by others.

Are you kidding me?
I live in a county were we have been exporting high school graduates with tripple digit IQs and keeping those with double digit IQs for breeding stock.
When I allow myself to condescend to the approval of main stream local `others' I've effectively lobotomized myself and operationally handcuffed, hobbled, and straight jackedted myself behaviorally.

The complicated matter in what I have just said is the illusion and unwillingness (not intentionally) of we humans to come to that kind of admission for it may be perceived as being too negative, hurts our self image and is something like a mother would say to the law enforcement authorities, "my son would never do that (commit such a terrible crime)."

Regarding the `it may be perceived as' phenomenon, I've come to accept that I can't prevent humans from apperceiving themes and recognizing patterns in me any more than an ink blot could prevent a human from projecting it's `issues' onto it.
I am as I seem to whomever I seem for as long as I seem ... not less than ink blots, tea leaves, and clouds in the sky.

For many years in history, our actions have usually been dependent upon that which is approval;
very rarely did we have individuals whose actions of objectives and intrinsic motivation was independent of others.

Overt actions.
The the cultivation of the covert and the subconscious.
The the historical need for the displacement of energies (e)motivated but unexpressible socially without well-received consequences.
To this day can we just trot up to the Alpha male or female of our choosing and engage in sex before Gods and everyone and get away with it?
Can will-to-power be manifested in TRW without consequence?

Many great leaders of ancient history for example, could not have had any motivation fulfilled without the support of a sector of people.
So while I disagree with experts regarding that drives tend to be internal and how we see ourselves tend to circle around internal stimuli, I do agree that we need more cooperative settings in which intrinsic predispositions can fully flourish.

Although creating cooperative settings in which such potential intrinsic predisposition can fully flourish may be the aim, sadly, this may not be entirely possible for extrinsic factors/variables (like money, fame, and propaganda) may provide a more powerful extrinsic motivation than the intrinsic motivation provided by say an enjoyable workplace.

As opposed to a productive playplace?
As if each can `fully flourish' in a `social' context?
Social contexts by their nature promote emergent patterns in which those with less status and standing flourish less than others.
Even those with more wealth, status, and standing may only flourish in a narrow range.

I believe that "money" is so powerful that it is the essential life basis of everything we do.

Mammonism rules!
Pay lip service to the official `god' on `the' sabbath and worship Mammon on the days between sabaths ... the American Way.

Why do young people want to sing and win American Idol?

I never met `young people'; What's she like?
Do you mean to paint with so broad a brush that ALL would-be individuals between a pair of bounding ages uniformly want to sing and win American Idol?
As if a normal distribution didn't exist?
As if introverted intuitives experienced just as much drive and ambition to sing songs written by other people in front of the bread and circuses audience of American Idol?

Is it because they have passion and desire to sing?

They? The ubiquitous `they'?

Some yes but most go there in hopes that they can become famous and make a lot of money even though they may deny that on camera.

Come on! Any attention is GOOD attention for a lot of `young people'.
Why put a finer point on it?
If it were about earning money you wouldn't find anybody particpating in pay-to-play activities where they give up money in an attempt to gain attention, notoriety, `friends', or the trophy spouse of their dreams.

Why do some parents want their children to become doctors and lawyers?
Is it because they want their kids to become helpers of the ill or to excel in argumentation?
I do not think so.
I think it is so that they could make a lot money and live a higher standard of living.

Are you forgettig that the parents of such children obtain more status than if junior ends up a sanitation engineer?
They want status and standing for their kids and by extension themselves.
Also if the kids end up with more money than they need to survice then some of that flood of money might rise up the pyramid to dear ol' mom and dad.

Why do even good doctors help false claims of the pharmacuetical industries?

Good sans criteria for assessing goodness?
I've seen more than enough would-be `good' would-be altruists who've taken the Hypocratic-cum-hypocritic oath to concede goodness to random members of `health care workers'.

Probably because they get paid stock options in the millions. "Money" is an extrinsic factor, is it not?
Hence, "money" falls under the category of extrinsic motivation.

Pursuant to categorical discrimination you can place any and all motives which compell anyone to chase money under any rubric you'd like.
Yet without considering other motivations which occure concurently you can't model or understand approach-avoidance conflicts or think accurately about the confluence of influences which result in human behavior ... both of indivuals and the emergenct phenomena arising when would-be indivuals function as a collective.

Even a five year old child will do certain things if they can get money from their parents.
The motivation to do this is contingent upon the value placed on “money.”
So it may be true that children are not born (by nature) to like money, but they have been conditioned to like money and to take care of money.

I'm sure money starts out as a mere abstraction.
Once the connection is made that money is a means to many a desirable end it takes on personal value as a means to free-floating ends.

“Conditioned” is in the past tense translating into the “outcome variable” as being the “result.”
“Money” is the independent variable (predictor variable) that is teaching the child that it is of value.

Sorry, this is a nonsequitor to me; you just made a quantum leap beyond real world evidence.
The very conceptualization of `outcome variable' qualifies as absurd as each and every factor or variable which influences the outcomes/results seemingly MUST be regarded an `outcome variable' if one doesn't want the influence of an omitted factor or variable to influence an antipated outcome in such a way as to bite one it the over-simplifying ass.

On the subject of attractiveness, although many experts tend to say that “it is not the way you look but rather it is the way you feel,” what if it really is truly “the way you look and not the way you feel?”

If you're of the mindset that that which interests is qua IS interesting then attraction IS in the mind/eye of the beholder.
And studies have shown that attraction plays out differently for males and females.
Men in general tend to be more attracted to physical beauty whereas women tend to be more attracted to power, wealth, and status -- ostensibly because these are more likely to help her offspring than good looks or a nice ass.

If these experts understand that “correlation does not equal causation” they should keep an open mind as to the many variables that may influence other variables or the many variables that can be influenced by.

Expert n. Someone more than 50 miles away from home with a briefcase.

Would be experts have amused me. I've tended to out them as pretentious asses. Must be the iconoclast in me.

In many research studies, why do both men and women tend to think that a particular individual is attractive?
The studies indicate that those people seen as attractive had symmetrical faces.

IFF -- if and only if -- physical attractiveness is considered.
You just waxed prosaic on the attractiveness of money yet seem to have facored that out your consideration of attractiveness here.
I'd contend that I'm more attractive as a male based on the asymetry of my ass.
The farther out the buttock padded by a fat wallet juts the more attractive I appear to many a woman.
The symetry of my face can't buy her a condo in the location of her desire or pay alimony as a form of post_hoc prostitution.

Now many experts in the branch of counseling and psychotherapy are saying that it is “self-esteem” and not “good looks” or “attractiveness” as the predictor (independent) variable.

How many experts in the branch of making mud pies are saying that either?
Why would I or anyone capable of considering the source pay any more attention to the word-using primates swinging from those branches any more than both on the ground making mud pies?
When the NF flakes in those branches dealing with the so-called `psyche' actually start using what their counterparts in the branches which study and uncover would-be useful patterns of `the psyche' they'll have my respect.
In the medical profession they actually use what medical researchers come up with.
Among talk therapists they ignore what psychologists discover in favor of their messianic motivations and magical thinking favoring word magic.
Not that I'm painting with a broad brush here or anything ;-)

But within the context of “attractiveness” or “good looks,” “self-esteem” is the outcome variable of “good looks” and if correlation does not equal causation in maintaining an open mindset viewpoint, it could be that “people who look good and are attractive have high self-esteem” or that “people who do not look good or are not attractive have low self-esteem” keeping in mind that “good looks” or “attractiveness” are the predictor variable(s) and “self-esteem” is the dependent variable contrary to the widely held belief from mental health professionals stating that “self-esteem” is the independent (predictor) variable.

For a more accurate model you might want to factor in venue and/or milleu.
Cosmetic `attractiveness' can get factored out of the self-esteem pretty quicly if the ugly-as-sin is dropped in the wilderness alone or amongst those buisily working in a work shop for the blind.
Both my `self-esteem' and Affect improve markedly when I enter my home, close the door, and leave all the superficial asses of my species comfortably outside.
I doubt any of the animals and pets I interacted with as a child ever applied human standards of beauty to assess my `attractiveness' as much as my ability to manifest actions which mattered to them; food, companionship, kindness.
My blind great uncle, El, seemed to find my ability to learn what he showed me more `attractive' than anything he could `see'.
That which attracts IS attractive; that which repells IS repulsive ... by definition, however circular such definitions may seem.
I don't outsource my aesthetics.
I don't allow `society' to determine what I find attractive; nor `experts' nor statistics.

A person cannot be a model not necessarily because they have low self-esteem; it is because they do not fit the desired description of good looks or attractiveness.

Desired description? Huh? Are you daft ... or just J?
As a Perceiver and aesthete I find that I'm more inclined to use desired criteria and empirical evidence; fuck descriptions.
I don't want a woman `described' as beautiful or `attractive' so much as a woman who presents stimuli which triggers the beauty/attractive response within my lymbic system AND frontal lobes.
If I don't BOTH feel/emote AND think that she IS -- to/for me -- attractive then she isn't; dispite what THEY `describe' her as.

To take the entire attractiveness construct (macro analysis) even further, let’s take a look at a specific aspect of attractiveness (micro analysis) such as possessing “bad skin.”

Let's not and say we did. A J rush to closure would be welcomed at this point.

In reality, “bad skin” is the predicting variable of the outcome variable “self-esteem.”

Right. A woman on the back of a dog sled leading the pack in the wilds of Alaska is probably experiencing esteem based on her `bad skin' more than any other factor.
Once again. You've been going on an on about venues and contexts in which superficialness and `the visible' are heavily weighted and ignoring venues and contexts in which skin's major functions are to exclude pathogens and retain water.
The examples you've cited favor the gift wrapping over the actual present/centents.

Women would come into dermatological commercial advertisement to testify and even cry like for example, Meaningful Beauty by Cindy Crawford and Proactiv Solution.
Look at how much more confident these women become after they put on these products.

I'd contend that a woman lacking confidence would do better to get the hell out of a social setting where here skin were valued more highly than her behavior, deeds, and performance ... and/or to stop behaving so superficially herself.

On a more broad scale, my central point is that people may not understand why certain individuals behave the way they do (even detectives may not understand why a serial killer decided to kill 90 women) because of the endless answers that may be apparent to some and not to others.

Like my mama says, "Stupid is as stupid does." -- Forest Gump
My point?
Those who apparently `may not understand' DO in fact understand; their understandings are just different from those who are cocksure that their understanding IS the one true, valid, `right' understanding ... self-stupefying so-called and would-be experts included.

Do choices and freewill really exist?

Yes, as words and metaphysical concepts capable of being bandied about by word-(mis)using apes (EG humans).
Can we exert will to enact the choice to express thought, emotion, and aethetics with ungrounded symbols? Certainly.
Can such will be beheld or regarded `free' by any number of would-be individuals as per a projective test? Certainly.
Can you, I, or the Easter Bunny prevent an individual from ascribing, interpretting, or projecting ... short of inducing sleep, coma, or death? Infrequently to Never.
Can those `experts' apishly occupying those branches you mentioned? No more than you or I.
Can they profit by it thereby becoming more attractive as their net worth and `self-esteem' grows? Certainly.

Or are they an automatic response(s) (that occurs at the subconscious and unconscious levels) to automatic stimuli?

Or are they impaled on the horns of a false dilemma?

In regard to social conformity and propaganda, again, we hear the same experts say that “it is not the way other people see you; it is how you see yourself.”

Yes, yes ... `we' do. The Royal we, the collective pronoun subsuming us all and distracting us all away from the gradient of a normal distribution.
Yes, the conformity cajoled by the (mis)use of language as the means of inducing conformity in this case. ;-)

But isn’t it possible that “it is the way other people see you and it has nothing to do with how you see yourself?”

Any less possible than the other way around?
If self-esteem and self-image are both ipsative phenomena then please pontificate how `other people see you' enters into this?
Oh ... that's what you've been expertly bringing to our attention ;-)

Can I or anyone single-handedly predetermine how another beholds me? No, emphatically.
How wise would I or anyone be qua BE to piss away precious energy trying to `make' someone, anyone, or everyone find us `attractive'?
The most attractive member of the heard to a preditor is the one most readily caught, killed, and eaten.
The most attractive among those in superficial, cosmetic society may qualify as vapid, vacuous, and less than brilliant in the brains department.
Do I as an indivual care what attracts and repells others ... other inviduals or they ubiquitous THEM?
My caring is temporal and conditional?
Behind closed doors I enjoy the luxury of apathy regarding others valuative processes.
Out in public I enjoy inducing apathy in the vast majority of others; I quite often bask in the invisibility of the camelion and the cuttle fish.
Why attract or repell when the option to go unnoticed is available?
The way other people see me only applies when they `see' or `notice' me at all.

An individual can be a very positive person and can have a positive outlook on life but come to realize that other people do judge them based on their looks (whether good or not), intelligence (whether high or low), and how much money they make (whether a lot or not).

Be qua `be' positive qua positive ... whatever this entails.
As we can't prevent others from judging, evaluating, assessing, projecting, ascribing, or attributing based on whatever they prop up such assessments and evaluations what CAN we do, (co)enact, (co)perform, (co)interact?
If I'm judging you as you're judging me -- with your positive outlook on life qua life, mind you -- what kind of personal realities become possible through REALizing this, that, or the other about `other people'?
In a room with two people there ARE no deviants.
Not so when you introduce, from the pool of `other people', a 3rd party to skew the norm formed by only two.

The judgment on looks and socioeconomic status is the predictor variable and how you see yourself is the outcome variable.

Is qua is ... it's your Themeatic Apperception Test.
How I see MY self entails many variables and factors vis-a-vis highly ipsative, highly personal Processes.
If you'd care to risk predicting either my self-esteem or self-image by the judgements of others you're welcome to it.

I think that many people tend to underestimate how powerful propaganda can be because it hits us at our subconscious and unconscious (may explain why even the experts themselves do not believe in external conditions but rather the internal person’s view of themselves because of low keen to the awareness of external conditions).

Propaganda where different from mere stimuli vis-a-vis a Behaviorist Model?

It is a driving force that determines how we conduct ourselves in society.

Ahhh ... but how about how we conduct ourselves when not in society or `social' settings?
How about when two interact interpersonally behind closed doors ... with `society' on the outside looking in, peeking through the curtains?
What seem the `driving forces' when you've snagged that `attractive' slow-moving member of [strike]the heard[/strike] after you've caught him?

Both social conformity and propaganda are external stimuli that shape who we are and how we behave.

Think again.
Social conformity is manifested via intrapersonal Processes dependent upon internal stimuli in the form of memory, apperception, and pattern detection.
And we are all capabable of generating our own endogenous `propaganda' via ideals, motives, and motivation.
A word-using ape in a sensory deprivation tank can have exposure to absolutely NO external stimuli and STILL have shaped `who (s)he is and how (s)he behaves'.

In terms of performing certain tasks, people who are propagandized to believe that a certain group of people cannot perform well end up creating the reality of underperformance.
This has nothing to do with a person’s self-esteem but rather the external stimuli of propaganda indoctrination.

As performance is often assessed through processes akin to looks/appearances such assessments can be no less absurd.
A man can grade the performance of woman baking a cake as excellent if she's wearing a G string and moving with style and ease ... so long as he doesn't have to eat the (bi)product of the performance.
My point? Without criteria by which to assess the performance said performance is no less projective as interpretting patterns in ink blots and were still up against the monkey business we social apes manifest.

It is common knowledge that we have options and choices to choose and pick from and that the choices we make have consequences (whether it be positive or negative).

I regard it uncommon behavior indicative of uncommon knowedge when an individual fails to fall into the attractors of common wisdom, consensus reality, and/pr group think and manifests signs of awareness of `Appeals to Authority' in the form `Common Sense', `Common knowedge', `Common Wisdom' and other notions which portray consensus as-if authority and/or consensus reality as if Cosmos, The Real World, or Objective Reality.

Have people proposed potential causes that drove an individual to make a certain choice in the first place?

Drove to make?
As opposed to `goaded', cajoled, induced ... or merely presented stimuli over time?
Irrespective of the illogical antecedent of would-be `free' will?

Are the choices that people make really choices in its denotative definition found in the dictionary?

Are qua ARE?
Are the ink blots EVER not as they seem?

Can I, for example, prevent those with choice-based mindsets from beholding my (in)actions as `choices' rather than behaviors, deeds, or actions ... regardless of denations or definitions in any given lexicon?

Have we considered the possibility that the choices we make derive from current in the moment situations factoring in our emotional status?

Have `we' -- each of us as would-be individuals -- considered the eventuality that the choices we appear to `make' are ALWAYS limited by the scoped-within-human-limitations necessarily impovrished mental model in which choices/options come to mind or not?
We can't NOT think of a pink elephant; it's simply not an option/choice.
Language manifests conformity through this mechanism.
Some word-using ape mentions `conformity' and we can't NOT think of conformity.
Someone mentions `attractiveness' and we can't NOT think of attractiveness.
Someone mentions `money' and we can't NOT think of money.
Yet if my mental model, mindset, and endogenous processes allow me to iconoclastically knock the pink elephant off it's pedistal my would-be `free' will allows me a degree of freedom from the propaganda of money, attractiveness, `choices', and others `driving me to make certain choices'.

Many experts talk about how we as individuals can take control of our own destinies and although this may be true, the classical almost Freudian saying of how humans are really governed by their passions seems to ring more true.

Many experts don't use `appeal to authority' the way many amateurs do.
Have those in the reading audience noticed how many times `many experts' has appeared in this OP?
My passion presently ringing true seem that of freedom of thought if not will ... though I'm not sure how to spin this vis-a-vis the pansexism of [strike]Fraud[/strike]Freud.

We see this classical theme found in many of the great fictional literary works and even non-fictional events in the real world like murder.

We do ... do we?

I believe that the existence of consequences and/or natural consequences themselves facilitate the illusion of choice and freewill further by society to blame the individual for choices he/she chooses.

I believe that the existence of the word `existence' should be preserved for use regarding energy-having mass-having `things' which meet such criteria for exiting as such.
Sequences and con-sequences qualify as temporal phenomena in any space-time continuum.
As for `natural' consequences these surely exist in cultural setting in which Nature is but one sector in the false trichotomy of Nature, God, Man.
If the consequences to which we are exposed as men among men qualify as any adjectival `thing' then surely they more often qualify as anthropogenic rather than `natural' or Deific or Divine.
If man influences man then UNnatural selection is at work if the western false trichotomy and cultural bias it to be maintained.

The way humans behave and see themselves is not only based on the internal individual itself;
it is also contingent upon the environmental surroundings, extenuating circumstances, the external stimuli, and the way other people see and treat you.

The way human individuals behave and generate self-image is not only influenced by endogenous processes; such behavior and mental modeling is also influenced by exog
enous factors ... thus allowing the would-be `individual' to contribute to a body impolitic manifesting emergent behavior.
Now let us all hunker down and co-create the next American Mamonist Idol. ;-)

Perhaps figuratively speaking, the Roman God with Two Faces is not the depiction of fictional mythology but rather reality.

Whose (mis)conception of `reality'? Yours, mine, or Ours?

I have personally come up with a saying, in most issues, the reverse is just as true as the non-reverse.
Yes we have choices but we don’t.
Yes, we have freewill but we don’t.
Yes, it is about your self-esteem but it isn’t.

Black but white.
Right but wrong.
One polar extreme but the other.
One side of the false dichotomy but the other.
One horn of a false dilema but the other.
One Aristotlean extremity but the other ... yet no excluded-middle GoldyLocksian `just right' zone; and certainly no synergy or synthesis of thesis and antithesis.

Alas, the mind games which Js play with themselves and others in an attempt to preclude the brain lock otherwise known as `closure' and `certainty' to which they're prone and sadly drawn like a moth to the proverbial flame.
Set up, reify, and optionally deify a metaphysical straw man then proceed to act-as-if it had material substance and thus `matters'.

Wrap up a half pound of that self-esteem to go, as I'm going to ingest it as food for thought and see how well it sustains me.

To paraphrase ...
Neurotics build castles in the air; psychotics live in them; so-called `psychotherapists' collect the rent.

Substitute `experts' for `psychotherapists' when possible.

"I'm here for the money" ... or perhaps I'm exerting free will in an attempt to induce irresistable attraction in `others'.
How do you like me so far?

 

[not sure]

I'm really not a believer in the depression is caused by poor self-esteem argument. I am very confident in my abilities and my worth. My undiagnosed depression problems are entirely related to other people. I grew up virtually isolated and I wasn't depressed as a child. Self-confidence is the first thing people always mention about me. "You are the most self-confident person I've ever met."

I don't doubt myself. I doubt other people. I doubt their sincerity and honesty. I despise the way they use others and their lack of remorse. Although I abhor them since about 17 I've found I needed them. I need to connect. It's this lack of connection that leads to depression. Every failed connection digs the hole deeper and that is the source of my despair, my lack of confidence in others not a lack of confidence in self.

There is a myth in our societies that people stand on their own. It isn't true and if you want to prove it for yourself, don't speak to another human for 48hrs. You'll start looking for some kind of human-like interaction. You'll talk to your pets or your plants, you'll turn on the tv/radio or surf the internet forums like this one. If you keep it up for long enough the mind will turn in on itself and you will go crazy.

If you really want to know what I think is at the root of many mental health problems, I'll name them. Puberty and subsequent sexual maturity are the root. That nonsense messes with the mind. Women in particular once they've finished menopause often find new clarity and self-confidence, kicking oppressive husbands to the curb and taking new responsibility for their lives. Estrogen is a curse so is testosterone which is know to be linked to violent behaviour in males. Now, I'm really going to go out on the limb and say we would all be better off if the singularity was possible, achievable and now. I'm ready to shift from this mortal coil.