A guy in the gym sported a dark T-shirt that was hard to read. The message was all bold capitals, total of four words, burgundy on blue:

NOBODY CARES 
WORK HARDER

Wow — a radical shot at the self-esteem movement.  That's a surprise.  You almost have to laugh, partly at the grand snark of the attack, and partly because self-esteem is for some a religion that few dare to criticize.

A leading figure of the movement, psychologist Nathaniel Branden (1930–2014), stated, "[I] cannot think of a single psychological problem — from anxiety and depression, to fear of intimacy or of success, to spouse battery or child molestation — that is not traced back to the problem of low self-esteem."  Who dares to oppose such a miracle?

Many people would counter that humans need reinforcement sometimes but a kick in the pants at other times.  Traditionally, the art of education required balancing the carrot and the stick.

The self-esteem movement, for almost a century, laughed at such balance.  These people advocated praise and encouragement non-stop.

Professor John Dewey, the prophet of Progressive education, joined Columbia University in 1905.  In 1915, Columbia spun off a Bank Street School for Children with this official Progressive philosophy: "Education at the School is experience-based, interdisciplinary, and collaborative.  The emphasis is on educating the whole child — the entire emotional, social, physical, and intellectual being — while valuing and reinforcing the child's integrity as a learner, teacher, and classmate."

Note the scant mention of academics.  We might say Bank Street's educational philosophy is chiefly concerned with reinforcing self-esteem — i.e., making students like themselves.  But perhaps we need to earn that.

Bank Street was one of nine programs studied in the famous Project Follow Through (1967–1977).  Siegfried Engelmann, one of my heroes, competed in this study.  His traditional approach was called Direct Instruction.  The competition lasted a grueling ten years.  The winner's methods were supposed to become national policy.  Well, self-esteem was the clear loser, and Engelmann's Direct Instruction was the clear winner.  But the professors in charge reneged on their promise.  QED: Neither Progressive education nor Progressive educators are necessarily our friends.

This chart shows how the philosophies performed.  The four methods that were heavily dependent on self-esteem were some of the worst performers.

People committed to social engineering — i.e., socialists of all stripes, loved the phrase self-esteem.  Who could be against self-esteem?  But you find out in time that it has drawbacks.  Just because the Education Establishment promotes X does not prove that X is good for us.

Here's the essential flaw in self-esteem theory.  A positive self-image is generated by genuine accomplishment, not endless flattery.  Every student was like the Emperor's New Clothes, a foolish person set up for being conned.  Here are ten flaws compiled by verywellmind, a psychiatric service:

Kids with higher self-esteem were more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors. People with high self-esteem also tended to have worse relationships because they blamed their partners for any problems with the relationship. High self-esteem was also linked to a higher frequency of violent and aggressive behaviors. 

Excessive self-confidence can cause a number of problems in an individual's personal, social, and professional life: Missed opportunities such as not taking on projects because they seem too easy or beneath your abilities. Taking on too much, such as saying yes to projects that you lack the skills to complete. Social consequences such as alienating friends by coming across as arrogant. Workplace consequences such as coming off as overly conceited without the requisite skill. Relationship consequences, which can result from being too concerned with your capacities and performance and not enough with your partner's success.

Self-esteem is a paradigm for how our elite educators weaponize an attractive phrase, creating a term of art and propaganda.  Then they tell us this thing is going to save the world and everyone must embrace it.  We heard the same speech for Whole Word in 1931, for New Math in 1962, for Constructivism starting in 1980s, for Common Core circa 2010, and for many lesser-known panaceas.

These pretty promises are so appealing. Wouldn't everybody be tempted to want them?  So now you see the pattern: relentless marketing of catchy jargon.  Worst of all, this seemingly benign phrase turns out to produce disaster and pain.

All this prompts a profound question.  Do leftist social engineers promote self-esteem et al. because they work?  Or precisely because they don't work?  You start to suspect that many of their favorite ideas are jokers.

Bruce Deitrick Price explains how he became fascinated by the near-impossibility of improving public schools (and how others can help).

Image via Pxfuel.