Self-Efficacy

Self-Efficacy

A subject close to my heart, Self-Efficacy. Significant because I adore the concept of striving for perfection. It lends itself to my quest for knowledge, my favourite concept in which is the Dunning-Kruger effect whereby the more you learn, the more your awareness of your lack of knowledge increases exponentially also. Eternal humility is the consequence here, showing all of us that even though we've maybe come so far, even more lay ahead. More in fact may lay before us as we approach awareness of our own mortality than we would like. I adore the simplicity of the Dunning-Kruger effect on the other end of the spectrum too; that those gentle naive soles around us also maybe to blissfully aware of their lack of knowledge. Crossing the precipice may be the goal, but the consequence of which is not innately positive. As I've learned many times, the framing of this very scenario is everything. See I choose to frame my outlook on finding enjoyment in the quest rather than any particularly stark view of the path ahead. 

 

All of this aside, Self-Efficacy is a term that I adore because of one famous psychologists perspective on the matter. Most people discuss Self-Efficacy in a more flexible social way attributed to Albert Bandura, I prefer the work of his predecessor, BF Skinner, a more radical behavioural psychologist. He posited that an individual as achieved Self-Efficacy or self-actualization, when they behave in the same manner no matter the stimulus before them. In this way, someone would be as similar at work as they would in a courtroom, or out to dinner with their friends. For me, there's something slightly romantic about being this even-keeled and predictable to those around you, even if this does make you slightly boring. After all, the suggestion I take away is of a sort of internal integrity and self-discipline that comes with being consistent. It may start as a challenge, but becomes more comfortable just as you become more comfortable with yourself. 

 

Feeling comfortable in your own skin is the goal many of us seek, and so few of us ever achieve. Try an experiment and exercise discipline and courage interchangeably to temper yourself to a comfortable normal in different settings and see how this feels. 

 

Of course, Skinner was a bit too early, and underdeveloped in his theory. Bandura's is much more comprehensive, and nuanced with if's and bits conducive to real philosophical progress. It’s logical that the locus of control I've described here is internal more so perhaps than it is external as Skinner first described. Temperance does come from within, not without. Why attempt such an endeavour? Why give this a go, let alone aspire for such a preposterous ideal? It's simple really. Visualize yourself the last time you were at a party and slightly more 'fun' than your company, or the last time you shared a slightly uncharacteristic belly laugh at a slightly provocative joke at work where others cringed. I bet we've all been there, and some of us more than we'd like, and more of us perhaps more than we'd care to admit because perhaps we've shrugged things off telling ourselves it's okay to stand out a bit. I also bet that same train of thought also felt slightly wrong, conceited, perhaps even disingenuous to us. If that is the case, then my not set on a certain course from the beginning? I'm trying to parse one's individual feelings of possibility, to stretch my empathy and imagine a myriad of possibilities. When I do so, I arrive at my own personal conclusion , that if I employ ownership over my behaviour, and integrity over my feelings then, temperance and consistency across different domains feels way more proactively comfortable and acceptable at the same time. 

 

I think there's a reason that the self-help section of any bookstore, YouTube, or Podcasts exists and only seeks to expand. It's akin to the human condition to improve as we age. When we don't, it can bring about terrible feelings of inadequacy or failure. 

 

Motivational Interviewing really helps in this space. It's a very useful and practical tool to employ in order to minimize negative feelings from creeping in, and to push us toward getting back up off that couch or achieving that long incomplete goal. Here's my basic principles, where I've broken this academic construct into what I believe it's core components:

1.     Ask what you want your life to look like and write down 3 things that are most important. These are things and not behaviours, or nouns and not verbs.

2.     Outline 3 key Specific, Measurable, Achievable, and Time limited or SMART goals that stand between the present and the end vision. These are behaviours and not thing. 

3.     Do them. 

4.     If you fail, then forgive yourself and adjust the goal to a smaller achievable component. Do not just extend the timeframe, this is key. 

5.     Take real note of your achievement and implant the memory of your feeling you're having. We forget feelings quite readily so try to link it to the goal in your mind, this will help.

What else can we do? Exercise discipline. I spoke about having integrity to yourself before, but really emphasize this in your thinking. Take time to think. Put your phone down, turn the TV off, and think. You can talk to people, because this is a social way to achieve the same thing, just perhaps discuss something meaningful. When you're thinking, use the word I in your mind, it helps you focus on what you've done, and stops excuses creeping in and the voice of your ego shouting out in defence. Don't strive for perfection but focus on growth. Become a better person tomorrow than you are today. This way you may be more meaningful to others, and more respectful of yourself. We can all achieve amazing things of we just try. Feel like a failure? It's probably because your goal is too large. Chunk it down, deconstruct it to something achievable in a short timeframe. 

 

Back to Skinner. Be yourself, yes, but be the best version of yourself and don't settle for anything less. It's demeaning. When you're feeling accomplished, then you may just feel like you're worth a damn. This looks like confidence in every setting you're in and is the most alluring thing when it's based in a humble reality not some arrogant narcissism. You're less likely to be someone you're not, to pull a mask over your face for the sake of anything, and you're going to feel better. In this way I feel Skinner was wrong. See, I think the chameleons amongst us are of two types; 1. Pretending, and 2. Mastering. They both look the same but the former can only keep their veil on so long before their discovered for their disingenuity. The second looks the same, but employs a conscious choice to suit the situation, to dress for the occasion, select the appropriate vocabulary, and consume precisely the agreeable amount of food and drink. The latter is what Bandura speaks too, on an evolution of Skinner's first thinking. I postulate rather that both are valid and hierarchical to one another such that mastery is the ability to have enough in your toolbox to choose who and when you want to be. The only way to achieve that, is knowledge and skill. 

 

The last thing I want to parse around Self-Efficacy is the dialogical interaction between hedonism and growth. Hedonism is something I've talked about before. A psychological and evolutionary, and also neurological explanation of why we avoid pain, and steer toward pleasure. We're hard wired for this, and it explains almost all human behaviour. It falls short however of everything. After all, can you visualize you've ever done anything that truly sucked, just so you can appreciate the adversity? Huberman shares often the intricacies of how this works on a dopaminergic level so I highly encourage you check out his podcasts. Another podcaster I love was talking about an area of expertise of his, Artificial Intelligence. I got to thinking, how would AI ever be able to work out and respond appropriately to the human condition, if the human condition is not all hedonistic? Further, is the human condition therefore by definition more like; an aspiration of positive outlook framed by a reciprocal relationship with suffering? May there be a very real correlation toward self-efficacy between suffering and achievement? Try and explain that to a computer. This is important to remember because the next time you're down, you should also remember that the suffering you're going through has every potential to be the catalyst to progress.

 

This week's literature review

I must confess, I've never really considered the economic theory that may exist within foster care. I've ubiquitously discusses how Adam Smith's work is foundational for many things including bringing kids into care, but not much else has entered my mind. I recently read a paper from Taylor (2023) which seeks to create a model for foster care with a great deal of specificity and stipulation. I don't know enough to pull the work apart yet, however it has got me thinking about their cited work of Becker (C1970's) and human capital. My basic summation of this model is that human capital exists within all of us. Our ability to produce, contribute, and earn is our inherent value. When people pair up, like in a domestic partnership, people can grow their capital. Children are potentially a capital deficit, as we all hear regularly just how much children cost, and yet the defence to this sentiment is usually a stance around how lovely and meaningful parenthood is. Becker's model parses something entirely different. Giving back, growing, earning, developing skills, reputation, and real-world value within our children by choosing to invest in them, can generate real capital. This capital growth and investment is far beyond most economic models as it's not only conditional and fraught with human complication, it's long term, but also not necessarily slow maturing. 
This tells me that the more affluent the family, the more likely they may be to be able to succeed in being able to foster and maintain placements. After all, they may have enough capital to go around. 
 
The complications arise when you start the break this down to the realities of the care sector. 
In my experience, there are many more single female foster carers than male, and many more low income carers than affluent ones. How does this factor in, and is this a problem? If we take the premise that social capital can be just as worthy as financial capital, then the problem is more or less ameliorated instantly. See, we could propose that single carers may be able quickly and meaningfully increase their social capital by being carers, regardless of their income. The problem that group might face, may be that the become financially dependent on the system at the same time, which means that their social and physical capital becomes intertwined and hence risk jeopardizing one another when unexpected problems arise, being expenses increase, or the child is going through a considerably rough patch. Same could be true of low income earning dual-parent households however, but following this model, I'd say the risk is somewhat reduced due to the potential for both adults to set about a venture that may help socially or physically. 
 
This rings true for me in homes that I've seen really struggle in the past. If people don't diversify their human capital investments, just as in the stock market, you risk losing it all. I've seen families invest so heavily in their social capital attached to being a carer for a particular child, that when that child is unruly and challenging of the foster parents, the placement breaks down. It would seem to me, that there becomes no room to budge and cracks appear at the weakest point a challenging young person struggling existentially with their identity and belonging is going to snap of the pressure is perceived by them to be too undermining. For me, this fits also within the premise of cognitive load theory, albeit more emotionally focused rather than pedagogical in nature.  In short, we need people to maintain their investment in our children, their own, or fostered, and there is no emphasis enough on the caregivers can make on being a carer. Their ability to accrue and maintain social capital, may be everything in turns of keeping on when their chips are down. I do wonder if the secrecy shrouding the foster system makes it difficult for people to acquire or boost their extrinsic human capital from opening their home to children not their own. This argument therefore lends itself more to the security of kin placements, where not only the child's identity is normalised and maintained perhaps, but also where the family unit are all aware of the family situation, which has every potential to help raise the caregivers human capital. In order to be more successful at raising extrinsic human capital valuation however, the caregivers need to be assessed for their ability to identify and maintain their own sense of 'why'. It wouldn't hurt either, if caregivers were enabled more generally perhaps, to emphasise the real material return that children can give to their caregivers when invested in appropriately. Well invested in children seek to raise the profile of the entire family, generate family wealth, share skills, mentor biological children, and lift the status of their network (including biological family). The more we invest together in our children, the more our children will return us immeasurable dividends.