Orson Scott Card’s World Watch column over at The Ornery American is usually an excellent read, even when I disagree with him. His views on the war (and the presidential election) and homosexual marriage have gotten him some fair degree of criticism. In certain circles, referencing this column will get me dismissed almost immediately since I agree with “that homophobe,” like there’s some weird variation of Godwin’s Law just for Card.

the latest column, on Self-Esteem and Encouragement takes on some of the “esteem building” practices used by modern teachers and parents. In particular, he references an article from Scientific American titled “Exploding the Self-Esteem Myth.”

They went through all the published research on self-esteem and immediately eliminated all the studies that depended on self-reporting along.

Here’s the problem: If somebody reports that they have a very positive self-image, and then tells you that he is very successful in his job and his social life, what have you actually learned?

That people who have a high opinion of themselves have a high opinion of themselves.

Duh.

What is needed is some independent measure. Are these people with high self-esteem really successful by some outside standard?

And — just as important — are people with low self-esteem really unsuccessful or less successful by real-world measures?

In other words, if a person reports that he is very attractive physically, does anyone else agree with him?

If he says he’s going to be the next American Idol, does a panel of judges think he is talented?

And here’s what they found:

There is no statistically significant connection between high self-esteem and genuine achievement, ability, or successfulness. Not in the real world.

Steven Den Beste wrote about the relationship between Science and Engineering:

A theory is far more than that. A theory is the result of years of research often by dozens or hundreds of people, who have examined every possible aspect of the theory they can, and have accumulated a very large body of evidence to back it up. A theory is ready to join the body of scientific knowledge, and is as reliable and as well trusted as anything else in that body.

But that’s not how the layman uses the word theory. When a layman says “I’ve got a theory about that…” he means he has a guess. He’s using the word the way a scientist would use the word conjecture.

Where the problem lies is that when a layman hears a scientist refer to a theory he assumes that it’s nothing more than a conjecture.

In actuality, a theory is as close to a fact as is reasonably possible. Nothing is ever 100% certain, but a theory is as close to certain as we can make it. A fact is an observed event in the universe. A theory is a description of how several facts relate to each other, revealing some underlying phenomenon. But both of them have the same degree of reliability and certainty. In that sense, a theory is a fact, or as close to being one as it can reasonably be. For all practical purposes, Theories are True.

To say that something is “just a theory” is to betray complete ignorance about how science uses the word “theory”. Theories aren’t “just”. Theories are extremely strong and very, very well backed up.

Generally in science, theories get tested; if someone publishes a theory, others will perform experiments or attempt observations to confirm or deny that theory. Good theories are fruitful; they suggest alternative research. New theories will grow on top of older ones.

But at a certain point, the scientists lose interest; they’d rather work on something new.

That’s where the engineers come in and where they contribute to the scientific process.

An engineering field is usually based on a scientific field. The engineer takes the findings of the scientists and uses that to try to create useful devices or processes. (Note that “useful” is in the eye of the beholder. Someone out there thinks napalm is “useful”.) And implicitly, every time every engineer does this, he’s testing the original science. And that’s critical. Because there are a lot more engineers than scientists and they’re constantly testing their own part of science and will continue doing so as long as they can use that part of science to create useful devices or processes. They aren’t consciously testing the science, but it’s inherent in what they do, because they use science to make predictions about how they should design their mechanisms or processes.

Educators put the “science” of self-esteem into practice. They’re performing the roles of engineers, testing out the theory on the country’s children. Two major problems with this, though:

1. The science they’re basing these tests on may very well be fundamentally flawed.
2. There is political motivation to support the science, even if the results don’t hold up the theory

The attitude that self esteem takes priority over all other considerations is already showing signs of not working. I remember hearing a story in which an elementary school student who’d been doing gymnastic for years was suspended for practicing during lunctime. The reason? Other children might get hurt if they tried to imitate her.

She was punished for being better than the other kids.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that this could be bad. Just to stay on the safe side, though, any geniuses who do realize it would probably be smart not to say anything. You don’t want to end up like Harrison.