The question "How to increase self-esteem?" clients often ask when they come for a consultation. But here I immediately tell them that I cannot do this, I can teach them unconditional self-acceptance. We are used to giving ourselves and other people global characteristics and assessments. “If I failed a performance, then I’m a loser.” “If a girl rejected me, then I’m worthless.” “My friend has a more successful career than me, so I must be no less successful, otherwise I’m a failure.” “If I’m not married, then I’m unattractive.” I am close to the humanistic concept of Albert Ellis, who suggests learning to distinguish between the concepts of “being bad” and “doing bad,” “being good and doing well,” “being a loser” and “failing.” That is, he teaches to separate the concept of “being some kind of” person and “performing any actions”, to simply separate yourself, your Self and your behavior. When a person is “on horseback” and his business is going well, then his self-esteem goes up, rises and he feels great, but as soon as failures happen or things don’t go well, the person begins to be depressed, blame himself, engage in self-flagellation, he feels depressed, and as a result, his self-esteem falls. That is, we come to unstable self-esteem and dependence on events and actions. And the self-esteem graph becomes similar to a sinusoid. Self-esteem will constantly fluctuate. What if you go to zero on the X axis? By untying ourselves and events, our qualities.... we get stable self-esteem. This is the philosophy of avoiding labels altogether! People's beliefs about their value are often persistent, since they are supported by culture, the media and the people around them... But judge for yourself, is an unmarried woman less valuable than a married one? Does a person who has lost a limb become less valuable? Does a person who fails a project become less valuable? Is it logical to give oneself and others a global assessment? A person during his life performs many actions, experiences various feelings, consists of various traits, properties and qualities, manifests himself differently in different aspects of his life. A person, a personality, is a constantly changing, a fluid, rather than static, process. It follows from this that it is impossible to say unequivocally what kind of person is: good, evil, worthless, smart, beautiful... 100%. It is logically or scientifically impossible to prove that any one person is of greater value in the universe than any other. And since there is no way to justify differences in human value, all that remains is to accept the hypothesis that all people have equal value. A person is by definition valuable because he is just a person, all people are different, but it cannot be said that someone is more valuable than another. If the essence of man is making mistakes, then all people are equal in this because they belong to the human race. And since people cannot be globally assessed, it follows that there are no people more worthy than others. To stabilize self-esteem, we begin to conduct the following debate with ourselves. Is the belief logical: If the event is bad, then I am bad! No! If this happens to others, does that mean he is a fool? Can you prove that some people have more value than others? Can you prove that your worth is determined by one action, a quality decision? Is it logical? assume that if a person acts badly in a certain case, that he is generally bad? Conclusion: to stabilize self-esteem, we introduce a new rational rule! We do not evaluate ourselves globally, we do not put a label on ourselves and other people, we untie our Self from the event and use the concept of unconditional self-acceptance. Rational attitude: A person is too complex and multifaceted, and manifests himself in different aspects of activity, to evaluate him with one characteristic. I did something bad, but that doesn't make me 100% bad. I was wrong, but that doesn't make me 100% incompetent. Someone didn't like me, but I don't become bad. I present to your attention an e-course)