A Little Clarification

Before anyone gets the idea that I'm just some idealogue using this enlightened caveman concept as a front for my political leanings, let me take a moment to clarify things a bit. Yes, I'm a news and politics junkie. It just so happens that I am supporting Bush in this election. That doesn't mean I'm a republican. It just means that I think terrorism is the defining issue this November, and given the two choices, Bush is the only one that makes sense...to me. But more than anything, I'm interested in truth.

While I'll admit that truth is damned hard to find when you're considering modern politics and foreign policy, there's a simple method that I use to get as close as possible. That method is known as critical rationalism. It's a scaled down version of the scientific method. It is founded on the premise that we can never be absolutely certain of anything. We must always remember that our perceptive abilities and/or our imaginations may be insufficient to draw conclusions that we know for a fact are correct. From there, it works like this. Start with a question related to a situation, circumstance, or phenomenon (like whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in early 2003). Then come up with all of the possible answers you can think of. In this case, it's pretty easy - either they did or they did not. Then consider the evidence for and against each possibility. While evidence for a particular explanation is useful, evidence against it is even more useful. This is because it is far easier to be certain that a proposition isn't true than to be certain that it is. So you look at all the evidence and choose the explanation with the least evidence against it. That way, though you admit up front that you're not certain, you can at least feel like you've done your best to look at the situation objectively. You've eliminated what you know to be untrue and then are left with fewer reasonable possibilities from which to choose. In the case of Iraq, to suppose that they did not have WMDs means that you have to contend with the facts that they once had them, that Saddam used them on the Kurds, that intelligence from a variety of countries asserted that they had them, and that Saddam repeatedly thwarted attempts by the UN to prove that he did not have them. On the other hand, to suppose that they did have WMDs had very little, if any, evidence to the contrary. So, at the beginning of 2003, it was reasonable to conclude that Iraq had WMDs. But what has happened since then is an object lesson in the idea that we can never be certain.

As time has gone on, no WMDs have been found (or at least very few). What could explain this? Either they never had them (which has plenty of evidence to the contrary), they had them but got rid of them before the coalition troops got there, or they do have them and they're just well hidden. Given the Sarin missiles that have been found, I am inclined to lean toward the latter explanation. However, this is one of those issues where it is probably best to withhold a conclusion until more evidence presents itself. And that is actually a big component of the critically rational method. It is far better to say you don't know than to rush to judgement too soon. So this is my approach to truth.

I weigh in on political issues because I think they're extremely important. And, perhaps more importantly, they provide lots of examples of humans exhibiting caveman-like behavior. We can see the quest for status in all its glory. We can see the team mentality and the herd mentality in full force. We can even see the focus on looks rear its head from time to time. But I'd consider myself a failure if anyone got the impression that my political views are the point of all this. It is human nature and the human experience that interest me most.

I tend to generalize like crazy. That's how my mind works. I'm a pattern detector. I notice similarities between people and things as much as I notice differences. I am convinced that humans are far more alike, by virtue of our shared DNA, than they are different. Our minds were originally designed tens of thousands of years ago. If that human mind is left to its own devices (meaning it is not instructed on how to interpret itself and the world), it will, by and large, exhibit the caveman tendencies on a regular basis. Here's a broad generalization for you - humans who grow up in non-first-world countries have less control over their emotions than humans that do not. Whoa! What'd he say??? That's right. I'm not saying that there aren't individuals who contradict this generalization. It's a generalization and, as they say, all generalizations are bad, including this one. But my experience has shown it to be quite true.

The bottom line is that my intention is not to divide us as humans. It is quite the contrary. My intention is to find the truth and use it to make us better. If we don't reject this modern tendency to put the truth aside so that we don't risk offence, we'll never get anywhere. If not having control over emotions is a bad thing (and I think it is) and western civilization somehow mitigates that problem, then it is worthwhile to say so. That implies that generalizations are necessary. We are all mentally programmed to pick up on patterns around us. We just have to be careful to qualify our generalizations with the caveat that we recognize that there are exceptions to them. Then we might be able to get somewhere.

Random Thoughts on Group Think and the Perils of Majority Rule

The founding fathers were so wise.  They were students of the history of this planet, which means they were students of humanity.  They concluded that government can only be legitimate if it exists to protect the rights of all constituents.  This, alone, would be enough to guarantee their place forever as perhaps the most visionary of mankind's social leaders.  However, they also came to another conclusion - the masses do not always make the best decisions.

In the context of the caveman concept, this makes perfect sense.  In the early days of humanity, the future did not bode well for those who departed from the group.  There truly was safety in numbers.  Those with high status decided the course for the rest of the group.  This, of course, was not particularly problematic, considering the fact that those with status usually got it because they were skilled at survival.  Those below them would do well to follow their lead.  Nowadays, however, this is not the case.  Status can be obtained in many ways.  Indeed, those who are simply good at distracting others from their lives can get quite high on social totem pole.  This means blindly following the leader isn't necessarily a good plan.

The founding fathers dealt with this in two major ways.  The first was the process for the election of senators.  The members of the house of representatives are elected by general elections.  The senators, however, were originally to be elected by officials in the state legislatures.  The idea was that elected officials from each state would be in a better position (i.e. more intelligent and more informed) to determine who makes a good representative at the federal level.  So while the house represents the general public, the senate represents an ostensibly more intellectually equipped subset of it.  They balance each other out.  For example, when the masses clamour for a handout, the senate can say no because it will have negative consequences that are unforeseen by those who worry more about today than tomorrow.  This is how the government, as envisioned by the founding fathers, was supposed to work.  Alas, the 17th amendment came along and removed that critical check against the possibility of true majority rule.  Short of abolishing that amendment, which I am wholeheartedly in favor of, there isn't much to be done.  But the second protection against group think, the electoral college, is still in force, though there are those (Hillary Clinton, for example) who would love to do away with it. 

Though it is admittedly difficult to grasp the inner workings of this process, it is clearly a good idea.  (If you're interested in an easy explanation of how the system works, check this out - http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm .)  The founders adopted it not because they thought the public wasn't up to the task of selecting a president by general election, but because it prevented the president from always being selected by the most populous states, which would render irrelevant the interests of the smaller and/or less populous states.  And this is the key to the struggle against group think.  The majority is not always right.  In fact, it could be argued that every major advance in mankind's history has been initiated by individuals who were starkly in the minority. 

So what's the point here, you ask?  Simple - you can't ever determine the validity of an idea by considering how many people agree with it.  Though it is part of our caveman heritage to side with the majority, it is when we think for ourselves that good things happen.  And we can see by the crop of loser politicians in our legislative branch what happens when the majority gets to make the decisions.  The general public is more easily swayed by pandering than a more intelligent and well-informed subset of the population.  As far as I'm concerned, the dismal state of political affairs in this country can be traced directly back to the adoption of the 17th amendment. 

In closing, let me loosely reference the thoughts of the pre-eminent evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins.  In his essay entitled, "Trial By Jury" (The Observer, November 1997), Dawkins makes the point that juries aren't necessarily better than judges.  Though the idea is that twelve heads will do a better job of considering the evidence than one judge, things don't actually work out that way.  This is because the twelve individuals on the jury are doing their deliberation together and because an individual judge is essentially, by definition, better equipped to consider the matter.  The jurors influence each other, which means the jury's conclusion often depends more upon the predilections of one or two vocal individuals than it does on the independent conclusions of twelve impartial parties.  Once again, humans follow the leader, unless they are taught to do otherwise.  It's a good thing to keep in mind. 

Mortal Enemies

On a personal note, I'd like to spend a moment discussing my mortal enemies.  They are fear and boredom.  I believe that fear is the most powerful impediment to human achievement.  The good news is that knowledge conquers fear.  I have found that most of the things I have been afraid of have not been worthy of my fear.  Winston Churchill once said, "I have spent the majority of my life worrying about events that never came to pass."  He, too, battled fear, and it was knowledge that saw him through.  When I have taken the time to educate myself about fearful situations, I have found that my fear has usually been unreasonable.  And once it is clear that fear makes no sense, all that is required to overcome it is courage. 
 
Courage to overcome fear is something that develops over time.  I once heard someone say that you have to do the thing you fear before you get the courage to do it.  The idea is that overcoming fear builds courage, but you still have to take that first step, even though you're afraid.  Quite right.  I have internalized that to mean that I need to push myself out of my comfort zone on a regular basis.  I need to find things to be afraid of and then conquer them.  So I'm a small-time adrenalin junkie.  The more I face down fear, the better I feel.  More importantly, the more I practice overcoming contrived fearful situations, the better equipped I am to overcome real-life situations that might otherwise hinder me in life.  Practice makes perfect, as they say, but not for long.  I have also found that the more time that elapses between conquests of fear, the harder it is to overcome new situations.  That means I can never rest on my past exploits.  Such is the battle.  But I'm in it for the long haul, because I am better if fear does not have its way with me.  The same is true for boredom.
 
I can't stand to do the same thing day in and day out.  It drives me crazy.  I bore very easily.  So my life is a constant effort to keep things interesting.  But this is not a problem.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  Efforts to keep boredom at bay have pushed me to engage in activities that have magnificently enriched my life.  I am a musician because I get bored easily.  I am an athlete (though not a very impressive one) because I bore easily.  I read history and science and philosophy because I bore easily.  I write books and articles because I bore easily.  I travel because I bore easily.  I surround myself with dynamic people because I bore easily.  All in all, my intolerance for boredom is perhaps my greatest personality trait.  I hope it never goes away.  OK, I'll stop now before this gets boring.

Martha Stewart and Class Warfare

It's always something.  We've all heard the whining from those who say that the rich never have to answer for their transgressions.  They cite statistics that indicate that the vast majority of people in prison are poor minorities.  They say that the system sticks it to the poor while the rich walk away clean, thanks to their high-priced legal counsel.  There's no question that there's truth in this.  So it would seem that these same people would be shouting with glee at Martha's impending trip to the big house.  (Is five months long enough for her to learn the real meaning of the word "bitch"?  I digress.)
 
But noooo.  Now the claim is that this whole thing would not have happened were Martha not rich and famous.  You can't win with these people.  I can say with absolute certainty (I was a stock broker for a very short time years ago.) that insider trading a la the ImClone deal goes on ALL THE TIME.  So it seems reasonable to wonder why Martha was singled out, that is until we recognize that she crossed the justice department publically.  Then it makes perfect sense.  Her conviction is for lying, lying about a crime that, as far as the record will show, never happened.  Poor Martha.  Or maybe not.  She has quite a reputation for being an insufferable human being.  I don't know.  I've never met her.  But if it's true, this conviction may be an object lesson in the idea that what goes around comes around.  In any case, at the end of the day, who cares?  My interest in this matter is in the class warfare rhetoric that surrounds it.
 
People of all intellects cannot seem to get away from painting all manner of issues as originating or being ultimately adjudicated due to the socioeconomic status of those involved.  This is classic caveman thinking.  If the pundits are right, then it just indicates that most people in authority (police, prosecutors, etc.) put their team mentality above their determination of what is objectively right and wrong.  If they're wrong, then it indicates that they (the pundits) are unable to consider issues rationally without invoking their own team perspective.  Of course, like most things, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle.  Either way, the situation leaves quite a bit to be desired. 
 
The nice thing about the rule of law is that it allows us (no, it forces us) to consider situations without regard for the status of those involved.  That means that we have the tools we need to get beyond our caveman predilections.  Unfortunately, as is profoundly evident, this isn't enough.  What we now lack is the societal leadership to push us beyond class warfare rhetoric.  Once again, I find myself wishing for the same old thing - that the public would require more of the people who are put in positions of leadership.
 
Those who promote class warfare are panderers, plain and simple.  They benefit personally when people remain embattled against one another.  If we are going to make it to the next milestone as a species, we're going to have to render these kinds of people irrelevant.  What a simple formula - if you pander, you're out of the game.  Imagine what kind of world we'd have if the battle lines were drawn, not between the haves and the have-nots, not between the left and the right, but between the panderers and those who are sincerely interested in addressing social problems.   As John Lennon said, "It's easy if you try."

The Idiotic Marriage Amendment - The Rant Continues

It occurs to me that there's more to say on this subject.  It appears, in the eyes of some, that gay marriage is more than a legal issue.  Apparently, the very english language is at stake.  The word marriage is very important.  If we accept individuals of the same sex in a publically stated commitment as married, we will lose all bearing in this world.  After all, if we can't count on marriage to mean what it has always meant, how far can we be from the end of life as we know it?  To hear some tell it, we are standing on the precipice of distaster.  If we make the wrong decision, we'll fall inexorably into gluttony.  I hate to be blunt, but this is stupid.
 
Meanings change over time.  The fact that the dictionary requires updating should be adequate proof of that.  And sometimes the change is for the better; sometimes it is for the worst.  For example, the word racism has changed for the worse over time.  These days, rather than meaning "the belief that one race is superior to others," racism now applies to pretty much any statement or action that reflects negatively on one or more races.  This dilution of meaning has rendered the word virtually unusable, or at least unworthy of serious consideration.  But sometimes meanings change for the better, as in the case of the word voter.  Women are now included in the definition of the word voter.  There was a time when they were not.  The point is that worrying about whether or not a definition might change when deciding a public policy issue indicates a severe deficiency in discernment skills.   But even if we can put this nonsense aside, there is yet another issue to tackle.
 
It appears that the children are in danger if gay marriage is allowed.  This also is stupid.  For starters, deciding whether or not gay people should be allowed to marry is an entirely separate issue from whether or not gay people should be allowed to adopt.  It is possible (though it is apparently inconceivable) that different conclusions could be reached on each issue.  But that really is no matter.  Who cares if gay people adopt? 
 
I personally have been witness to many shameful households that were led by heterosexual parents.  I have also seen wonderful families led by gay parents.  That would seem to indicate that parenting skill is less dependent upon the tendency to breed than it is upon the possession of some key personality traits.  In any case, the issue is really a matter of practicality.
 
The choice for prospective adoptees is basically between not getting adopted or getting adopted by gay parents.  Obviously, the latter is the better option.  Of course, we can suppose that some worry that gay parents will adopt children that would otherwise end up in the hands of capable heterosexual parents.  Once again, how adoptees are distributed is entirely separate from whether gay people should be afforded the same marital rights as heterosexual people.  Nevertheless, I am still convinced that the test for being a qualified parent really has nothing to do with sexuality.  It's about being responsible and making certain that the child is loved unconditionally, and it's about making sure the child grows up in an environment where his or her wellbeing is top priority.  Gay people are as good as anyone at that.
 
In the end, the gay marriage amendment is nothing more than homophobes seeking to push their views on the general public.  They can make whatever hollow arguments they like, but the fact remains - they can't stand living in a world where gay people have the same rights they do.  I say, tough shit.  I live in a world governed by a constitution that guarantees all human beings equal rights under the law.  If they don't like it, they can move.  That is one right they definitely have. 

Busy-Bodies and the Marriage Amendment

I have to admit that this marriage amendment issue is starting to get to me. One columnist calls it "the defining issue of our time." What?!! It is nothing of the sort. It is the defining issue of a bunch of busy-bodies who insist on pushing their religiously-based morality on society. I have always found it interesting that many conservatives blame judicial activism when the laws they pass get overturned by the courts. This was the case with the sodomy laws and now it seems to be their major beef with gay marriage.

So, for those who hold the US Constitution in high esteem as the uber-document of our society, let's review. The Declaration of Independence was written not only to proclaim our break from Britain, it was written to establish the rights of man and the legitimate purposes and scope of government. At the heart of it is the idea that the government exists to protect the rights of the people. Those rights are rights that humans have by virtue of being born. This is in direct opposition to the idea that people exist for the benefit of government, which happens to be the idea that underpins just about every non-democratic form of government. The Constitution was written to define the organization of the government that was described in the Declaration of Independence. It set up the three branches of government, the checks and balances between them, the mechanisms for electing officials, the enumeration of powers, the relationship between the states and the federal government, and it established the mechanism for amending the document over time. Conservatives cling to the Constitution, but apparently only when it is convenient.

In my view, the state has no role in the issue of marriage. It makes sense to establish a legal framework for civil unions, but how does the established scope of government allow for the state to require licensure for marriage? What we're seeing now is just a consequence of a bad decision that was made years ago. Had the state stayed out of the discussion as it should have, this would not be an issue. After all, civil unions for gay people are not a problem. But marriage, well that's another story. The Defense of Marriage Act that was passed in the Clinton years was established to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. This is a clear violation of the notion of equal protection under the law, which is why courts have seen fit to overturn it. This is how the Constitution tells us that things are supposed to work. But instead of accepting that the system sometimes yields results that they don't like, conservatives claim that the system is being manipulated by activist judges.

Our legislators make laws to protect our rights, and sometimes it is necessary to abridge the rights of the few to protect the rights of the many. But in the case of gay marriage, there is no one to protect. Gay people getting married has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone not involved in the situation. I challenge anyone to tell me which of their rights are being violated by gay couples. The fact is that the laws against gay marriage have all been passed because the gay lifestyle is offensive to people in a position to influence legislation. Apparently, conservatives are of the opinion that they have the right not to be offended. After a thorough reading of the Constitution, I can find no such right. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the courts would strike down these ridiculous laws. So, Bush and pals would do well to get over it and move on to issues that actually matter. Why would they not?

Here we see the team mentality at work. This is classic in-group prejudice. Homosexuals constitute a minority in our society, and as we all know by now, the caveman mind naturally assigns value to that which is in the majority. Now when we place this against the backdrop of presidential politics, we come to an interesting conclusion. The pursuit of a marriage amendment is nothing more than a political move aimed at pandering (there's that word again) to a caveman majority. Ladies and gentlemen, our political landscape is truly depressing.

Our leaders should be, dare I say, leading. Alas, they are more concerned with their own desire for power than they are for the public good. The bottom line is that homosexuality is irrelevant. There are far more pressing issues that face our society. To waste our tax dollars on debating the irrelevant is irresponsible. To attempt to modify the document that defines our society just to please some backwards homophobes is inexcusable.

Money and the Option

Finally got around to reading Kiyoski's Rich Dad Poor Dad. What a great book. Though he spends the majority of his time explaining how to do things that will make you rich, he touches on an idea that I've been advocating for years - the option. At least that's what I call it.

The option comes in large and small sizes. In making little day-to-day choices in life, I am always on the lookout for the option. For example, when I travel, and when it is practical, I rent a car. It gives me the most options. And in thinking about the direction I want for my life, I am obsessed with the option. The ultimate option is to have the financial wherewithal to do whatever I want, wherever I want, for as long as I want.

The option is founded on the idea that I can't predict what I'll want to be doing very far into the future. The thing is that it takes money to realize the ultimate option. So, being a generally lazy person, I look for speediest way to get what I need. That's where books like Rich Dad Poor Dad come in. They offer instruction in how to make money and, more importantly, in how to make money work for you. But there seems to be a question of morality here, at least for some people.

To pursue money doggedly is, in the eyes of some, a shameful endeavor. Somehow, the notion that being financially abitious is equated with utter selfishness and a self-centered personality. Without question, there are many money chasers who fit this description. However, it is intellectually lazy to assume that all do. The fact is that those who achieve financial independence often do so by creating businesses, which create jobs and wealth for other people. At the same time, many people pursue money in a laser focused way, but by doing things that people like - actors, rock stars, writers, etc. Those people are interestingly exempted from the contempt that is normally reserved for the so-called "greedy".

But I digress - this is about the option. How could there be anything wrong with my wanting to have all of my time to do what I want, which happens to be playing with my friends and family? If anything, it pushes me away from materialism for materialism's sake. Buying ostentatious things only wastes money that I can contribute to the option fund. Those who want to be rich so that others will know they are rich have missed the boat. Maybe it is their ethos that has elicited the backlash against the greedy. Or maybe it is the fact that the rich effectively serve as provocation to the poor, as a situation that gives them two options - either look inward and examine whether or not their choices in life have contributed to their lack of capital (and therefore lack of options, though they may not see it that way) or convince themselves that the rich have obtained their wealth through nefarious acts or via advantages that are only conferred upon the well-to-do. What happens at this crossroads is telling. Those who look inward often look realistically at the situation and set their sights on doing what it takes to get what they want from life. They take control. Those who blame the rich do nothing but seethe in resentment, assuming that no action will amount to anything. Theirs is a futile existence.

Those who view their lives as futile are truly sad. There is no scenario that has not been endured by Americans. Those who succeed in the face of adversity normally share one critical attribute - they are determined. In my view, determination is usually an adequate substitute for talent. The good news is that determination is nothing more than a decision not to quit. It is available to everyone. In fact, determination is the preferred tool in the pursuit of the option. And if it I have to be determined to make the money I need to achieve the option, why not focus on the good my determination provides (jobs and taxes) and refrain from assuming that I'm just another jerk trying to get rich so I can run you off the road with my beamer? But like I said, this is about the option.

It is perfectly possible (and likely, in my case) that the pursuit of money en route to the option can coincide with living a magnanimous existence. The less I have to worry about money, the more time I have to do positive things in my community, and the more resources I have to do it. The fact is that many who achieve financial independence serve as benefactors to society. In the spirit of everyone getting along, I think it makes sense to assume that anyone we don't know who is in pursuit of financial freedom is doing so to play that role, whether they mean to or not (once again, businesses create wealth and jobs). I am convinced that when presented with the option, most any thinking person will embrace it. There is no shame in doing so, nor is there any shame in doing what it takes to get it.

Interpersonal Truth - Part 1

Whether we know it or not, the basis for our self-esteem is normally founded in our expectations of interpersonal acceptance. If we believe we will be accepted by those we encounter, we feel good about ourselves. If we imagine that we'll be rejected, we feel bad. Of course, this is quite a generalization but, as you may have already concluded, generalizations are my thing. Anyhow, as simple as this sounds, there is a little more to it.

How do we decide if we're being accepted by people? I think it all comes from past experience. Those who have been burned repeatedly by people they thought were their friends tend to be skeptical of what may appear as acceptance. This makes sense - it's a defense mechanism. We see this in individuals who carry around insecurity, always offering caveats to their expressed ideas and always claiming to be neutral when the decision to choose a restaurant comes up. Though the individuals in their midst may truly like them, they maintain their skepticism - "I wonder what he's really thinking" is always on their minds. Some folks get this way by spending too much time with duplicitous people. Even if they have faired well in the acceptance game, being exposed for too long to people who don't really mean what they say has distorted their ability to trust their perceptions. It's sad but it's EVERYWHERE. Mistakes in perception of acceptance also happen on the other end of the spectrum.

Those who have always been accepted will almost automatically expect acceptance, even when the evidence is pretty clear that they aren't well-liked. We all know people like this, people who act like jerks but are then astonished when they learn that most people don't care for them. I have found that this presents itself most often in people who are quite physically attractive. My next book will deal with looks and how our minds are tuned to pay deference to the most attractive among us, even though it now makes no sense at all. For now, suffice it to say that it is ironic for some people that the characteristic they have that should make life easy for them ends up making it much harder.

So what's the point of all this? Simple - there's an easy solution to the interpersonal acceptance problem. Truth. For those who carry around feelings of insecurity, try this: take EVERYONE at their word. If they're your family or close friends, tell them that this is your policy. What you get from this is immense. You get out of from under wondering what people are really thinking. If someone tells me they're neutral and I'm not, we're eating where I choose. Period. I can't read minds and it's too stressful to try. Of course, with people you don't know, you should never put yourself in a position to be taken advantage of. I'm not saying believe everything someone tells you. I'm just saying don't try to put other words in their mouth. Over time, people who don't mean what they say will get on board with your policy or separate themselves from you. It's a self-correcting system. (If you do this and find that you still don't have lots of friends, you're a different kind of person - not any better or worse than any other, just different. That means you need to pack your crap and find the people out there who are different like you. No matter what, however, do NOT give in and try to fit in where you don't. It's not worth it. I promise.) The bottom line is that worrying about what other people are thinking is crazy. Not only does it place unneeded stress on your interpersonal situations, it causes your personality to become too heavily filtered, which is visible to anyone paying attention. Consequently, you may find that people who would normally accept you do not - because you're not you, you're the person you think they want you to be. Oh, what an ugly, vicious circle. Take them at their word, trust your gut, and do your thing. Believe me, it works.

And for people who expect too much in interpersonal acceptance, ask yourself these questions: do I automatically think of myself as better than someone because I am more attractive than they are? Do I give preferential treatment to people I believe are "in my league" looks-wise? This is where truth comes in. Be honest. If the answers to these questions are yes, there's a good chance you're a jerk and most everyone who knows you thinks so. Get over yourself and recognize that though your looks may confer some perks in daily life, the real litmus tests for value as a modern human being have nothing to do with physical attractiveness. Trust me on this.

This brings me back to the original idea of self-esteem. If you must connect it to expectations of interpersonal acceptance, there's only one way to do it. Be concerned about being accepted by good people, people who live up to your ethics (this presumes that you've reasoned your way to a set of ethics - more on this later). With regard to all others, interpersonal acceptance is irrelevant. In fact, we should want things to be a harshly truthful as possible - that way we know where we stand. If I go to a hoity-toity party and some lady is going on about how the trim on her Mercedes seats was supposed to be white but it turned out to be black, I simply about face and head for the bar. That generally doesn't go over well, so my acceptance there is probably nil. But that's OK. I have no interest in acceptance in that kind of environment. Alternatively, if I'm with someone I deeply admire and I get the impression they are disappointed in me, I pursue it. Fortunately, the situations that don't matter are far more frequent, so, for the most part, interpersonal acceptance is rarely a consideration. Those who think like this are drawn to one another - the discourse is BS-free. As the philosopher Dan Dennett is fond of saying, "You can externalize most anything if you make yourself small enough." True dat.