SOME THINGS ARE AND SOME THINGS ARE NOT, YOU CAN'T HAVE NOTHING ISN'T! Louis C.K.

Because of school, I am compelled to look at various research studies. Lots of them. So many, I feel the need to often step outside in 115 degree heat, shake my head, make gagging sounds, and dance a jig before returning to my computer to read even more. I read studies about lots and lots of "things". We study many "things" in psychology and medicine. We observe many "things". We attempt to predict many "things". If there is anything odd-worthy, we seek after these "things".

A couple of things I've read this week; various studies on "adherence theories" and "gender differences in self-esteem" with their various models...

The adherence theories are rather interesting. Some people stick to their medical regimen or good-for-you behaviors and some people don't. It kinda sorta depends on your culture, your socioeconomic situation, etc. But here's what all the theories boiled down to. I can take a rich white person and a poor brown person (sorry, those are the choices people) and everyone in between (that covers everyone), throw them all...ALL....into a big pot, boil them all together, pour them out, and the average is (as is usually the case with just about everything) that 50% of people will stick to their regimen or behavior and 50% won't. There it is. So what am I?...a psych-in-training planning on doing about that?....not much. I have to juggle free-will in that mix. If someone knows something is good for them and they don't want to fix themselves, I just don't have a lot of tools for that scenario. Now, if someone needs help, I would be there. If they don't KNOW what to do, I'm all over it. If they need encouragement, I'm all over it. But if they, indeed, have all the answers and refuse help, hey!-good luck. That's where I stand on that issue to date...tomorrow, I may have more enlightenment....

About the gender issues...this seems so clear to me, my head wants to explode. Study after study after study after study demonstrates that male self-esteem (SE) is based on feeling unique or exclusive or different/better from others. They like to stand out from the crowd or possess something (typically an ability) that others don't have or have less of. Females on the other hand source their SE from their relationships, their interconnectedness-how well they "fit in". It's virtually the opposite of how males derive theirs. It's how it is. It's just HOW IT IS. I'm okay with this. It doesn't bother me. If it's how we're wired, why is it "wrong" or "bad" or need fixing or worse, DISPROVING? I read a study that attempted to prove that the above findings are possibly based on "opinions of peers and not, indeed, based on scientific fact". I am now stupider for actually having read that study. The authors were from France. Did they NOT grow up around a playground? Did they NOT watch OR play sports? Do me a favor, read a copy of "The Red Tent" by Anita Diamont and tell me that female relational self-esteem is "new". And then bite moi.