Self-Esteem


Dglgmut

Recommended Posts

Self-efficacy is not how capable one is but how capable/competent one believes one is. It is interchangeable with almost all usages of "self-esteem".

Therein lies the possibility of pseudo-self esteem. That's self-esteem like Wilie E. Coyote over the gorge not falling down SPLAT! until he suddenly becomes aware of the actual physics involved.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Self-efficacy is not how capable one is but how capable/competent one believes one is. It is interchangeable with almost all usages of "self-esteem".

Therein lies the possibility of pseudo-self esteem. That's self-esteem like Wilie E. Coyote over the gorge not falling down SPLAT! until he suddenly becomes aware of the actual physics involved.

--Brant

Great point Brant. Self-esteem comes from the experiential responsive side of the self, connecting the dots of the facts as we experience them. Our beliefs come from an assertive commitment to particular ways of seeing things. We can definitely assert and commit ourselves into a creative vision of ourselves and pseudo-self-esteem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put it this way, I could succeed - receive the promotion, get the raise, and accolades from the boss for doing good work, corner office and all - and not feel worthy of it. Then, I could lose a big contract to design a skyscraper in Atlanta, and not have my self-esteem impacted in the least.

This example does not conflict with self-efficacy because the affirmation comes from accomplishing one's goals. If you received the promotion without earning it, you will not feel more efficacious... nor would you for winning the lottery. Losing a contract to design a skyscraper that you didn't want would not affect your self-efficacy either.

And this pseudo-self-esteem is not really "pseudo", it's just unfounded. An erroneous belief is still a belief, and we all probably have loads of them.

Again: Why even try if we have overwhelming evidence that we will fail? More often than not the "pseudo" is in people's lack of self-efficacy. It is that people believe if they cannot accomplish things immediately, they cannot accomplish them at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this pseudo-self-esteem is not really "pseudo", it's just unfounded. An erroneous belief is still a belief, and we all probably have loads of them.

Again: Why even try if we have overwhelming evidence that we will fail? More often than not the "pseudo" is in people's lack of self-efficacy. It is that people believe if they cannot accomplish things immediately, they cannot accomplish them at all.

But it's not self-esteem. It's just a puffed up artificial view of yourself you subconsciously know as a fact. You can't get too much reality traction with that though you can make a car move by pushing it instead of driving it.

Fail? The baby learning to walk fails over and over again. The scientists and technicians at J and J failed time and time again to make the no-tears baby shampoo. They kept telling the boss it couldn't be done and the boss kept telling them, Thank you and get back to work on the problem--that he had faith in their ability to solve it--and they finally did. It's not failure but how failure is handled. Failure! Failure! Run, children run! Run from the bogeymen of failure!

--Brant

and there can be some success in trying only--especially if you publish your failure--for others can come along and try something else without repeating what you did, even generations later: A man made a fantastical mechanical, gigantic computer in the mid-19th C., almost a hundred years ahead of its practical time which started in WWII and matured in the age of transistors and semi-conductors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just a puffed up artificial view of yourself you subconsciously know as a fact.

How is this different than anything else we "know"? In our minds, a fact is a fact. People have been bringing up chess recently, and it's very interesting how much it relates to everything else in life. A bad move is not a bad move until you realize the concequences you were unaware of when you made it.

Obviously unrealistic confidence is not going to help anyone, but it is certainly less of an issue than unrealistic self-doubt. If you had the potential to force a checkmate in 4 moves, but thought, "Maybe there's something I don't see," you have lost a chance at something. And as far as perspectives are concerned, there's always the possibility of something you don't see. This is the risk we take in everything we do, which I mentioned earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just a puffed up artificial view of yourself you subconsciously know as a fact.

How is this different than anything else we "know"? In our minds, a fact is a fact. People have been bringing up chess recently, and it's very interesting how much it relates to everything else in life. A bad move is not a bad move until you realize the concequences you were unaware of when you made it.

Obviously unrealistic confidence is not going to help anyone, but it is certainly less of an issue than unrealistic self-doubt. If you had the potential to force a checkmate in 4 moves, but thought, "Maybe there's something I don't see," you have lost a chance at something. And as far as perspectives are concerned, there's always the possibility of something you don't see. This is the risk we take in everything we do, which I mentioned earlier.

We don't know pseudo self esteem is real self esteem, not on the gut level. It's on the gut level we have the strength to function under stress and adversity and fake self esteem is only poor Peter Keating taking walks in the woods his career as an architect shot and the possibility of being an artist (painter) still-born. This triumph of consciousness over reality comes a cropper when the shit hits the fan.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course. Though I don't consider that self-esteem or self-efficacy. That is the whole "lying to oneself" debate again. I don't believe it is possible, and what I think really happens is people default to that animal like level of consciousness--awareness without attention.

They feel incompetent, and so they don't even try to accomplish anything, and rather try to get others to give them the assurance they need to try again. Peter Keating got his reassurance from people... or did he? He didn't respect the people who complimented him. He respected Roark, and if Roark ever told Peter that he was a good architect, it would have given him a huge boost... because Peter could see Roark's talent, even if he didn't like to admit it. He knew Roark was good, and even though he didn't act like he knew it, the validation Roark could have given Peter is virtually as much as a first hand accomplishment. He could trust Roark's judgement, and therefor if Roark said he was good, he was good.

We want what we want. We don't choose our values; we choose our actions. The problem is in identifying what we want, and I think lots of people go their whole life without getting what they wanted... simply because they couldn't figure it out and got tired of looking (younger and younger I think this is happening).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course. Though I don't consider that self-esteem or self-efficacy. That is the whole "lying to oneself" debate again. I don't believe it is possible, and what I think really happens is people default to that animal like level of consciousness--awareness without attention.

They feel incompetent, and so they don't even try to accomplish anything, and rather try to get others to give them the assurance they need to try again. Peter Keating got his reassurance from people... or did he? He didn't respect the people who complimented him. He respected Roark, and if Roark ever told Peter that he was a good architect, it would have given him a huge boost... because Peter could see Roark's talent, even if he didn't like to admit it. He knew Roark was good, and even though he didn't act like he knew it, the validation Roark could have given Peter is virtually as much as a first hand accomplishment. He could trust Roark's judgement, and therefor if Roark said he was good, he was good.

We want what we want. We don't choose our values; we choose our actions. The problem is in identifying what we want, and I think lots of people go their whole life without getting what they wanted... simply because they couldn't figure it out and got tired of looking (younger and younger I think this is happening).

Now you are indulging in the phony self-esteem movement of others' praise plus a huge dollop of determinism.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course. Though I don't consider that self-esteem or self-efficacy. That is the whole "lying to oneself" debate again. I don't believe it is possible, and what I think really happens is people default to that animal like level of consciousness--awareness without attention.

They feel incompetent, and so they don't even try to accomplish anything, and rather try to get others to give them the assurance they need to try again. Peter Keating got his reassurance from people... or did he? He didn't respect the people who complimented him. He respected Roark, and if Roark ever told Peter that he was a good architect, it would have given him a huge boost... because Peter could see Roark's talent, even if he didn't like to admit it. He knew Roark was good, and even though he didn't act like he knew it, the validation Roark could have given Peter is virtually as much as a first hand accomplishment. He could trust Roark's judgement, and therefor if Roark said he was good, he was good.

We want what we want. We don't choose our values; we choose our actions. The problem is in identifying what we want, and I think lots of people go their whole life without getting what they wanted... simply because they couldn't figure it out and got tired of looking (younger and younger I think this is happening).

As with Keating, it is no coincidence that a person who lives through others' approval would have low self-esteem. Every second-hander would have low self-esteem, but would every person with low self-esteem be a second hander? I don't think so.

For the rest, I think you are making a gap between what a man IS - to himself - and what he wants, achieves, etc.

You say "we don't choose our values..." But we certainly do. That's a mainstay of Objectivism, firstly. There are no values without a valuer. One's life is of highest value, from which all other values derive, but they are chosen, not automatic.

People not "getting what they wanted" are usually people who have little value, or the means to evaluate, of their own, and who will see other people's values as desirable to fill their own voids - status seekers, second-handers, usually.

However, Objectivism alone doesn't supply all the answers to self-esteem. I recommend Branden's books to get down to the real 'nitty-gritty', which Rand didn't pursue very far. Very, very roughly, it could be argued that she was "top-down"(a philosopher, after all), while NB is "bottom-up". But not exclusively for either one. The two approaches meet, combine, and re-inforce each other - someplace.

(I can't understand why any Objectivist doesn't see the brilliance in Branden's work, and its value to them personally. Other people (not O'ists) I've lent his books to, recognize it instantly.

Very likely we Objectivists may, at times, rationalistically disconnect from the inner reality of our own selves.

Not that I know whether or not you are Objectivist, Calvin.)

Once more, I think that if you concentrate on self-efficacy, action and achievement, you 'll only view self-esteem as outcome-based, with achievement as its only purpose.

Genuine self-esteem is less affected by success or failure (and reality shows there is always more of the latter, along the way.)

Rather, it says : I intimately know who I am, and I know I'm worthy.

"Of all the judgments that we pass in life, none is as important as the one we pass on ourselves, for that judgment touches the very center of our existence."

("Honoring the Self." [NB])

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you are indulging in the phony self-esteem movement of others' praise plus a huge dollop of determinism.

--Brant

Let me put it this way: We don't choose what makes us happy. We use trial and error and a bit of logic to figure out what we should do, hoping that happiness is the result.

As for the phony self-esteem from other's praise... In the example I used, it would not be phony self-esteem until Keating proved to himself that Roark was lying. The fact that Roark had been unflinchingly moral in the past would support whatever lie he told as long as he didn't lie again.

The whole point of that example is to say that others' praise is worthless, for the most part, because in order to get genuine praise from a competent person, you would have to be competent yourself. And if you have proven your competence, chances are you already know it and don't need the praise. But Keating would never have gotten what he wanted from Roark, and so he never got the approval he wanted from anyone that mattered.

Keating did not have self-efficacy. Pseudo-self-efficacy would entail some sort of illusion of self-efficacy, which there was none of with Keating because he did not challenge himself once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I intimately know who I am, and I know I'm worthy.

The reason I started this thread is precisely because the "worthy" in your statement lacks definition. The word we want there is "capable".

I said it in the post above, but that was more directed to Brant: If you want to say that we choose our values, fine... then we are just using the word value differently. I'm talking about what makes us happy. We choose our goals and our actions, though there is no guarantee accomplishing our goals will make us happy. We don't decide what the best choice would be, we can only figure it out by learning about the predetermined reality of ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I intimately know who I am, and I know I'm worthy.

The reason I started this thread is precisely because the "worthy" in your statement lacks definition. The word we want there is "capable".

I said it in the post above, but that was more directed to Brant: If you want to say that we choose our values, fine... then we are just using the word value differently. I'm talking about what makes us happy. We choose our goals and our actions, though there is no guarantee accomplishing our goals will make us happy. We don't decide what the best choice would be, we can only figure it out by learning about the predetermined reality of ourselves.

I intimately know who I am, and I know I'm worthy.

The reason I started this thread is precisely because the "worthy" in your statement lacks definition. The word we want there is "capable".

I said it in the post above, but that was more directed to Brant: If you want to say that we choose our values, fine... then we are just using the word value differently. I'm talking about what makes us happy. We choose our goals and our actions, though there is no guarantee accomplishing our goals will make us happy. We don't decide what the best choice would be, we can only figure it out by learning about the predetermined reality of ourselves.

This still misses the point of self-judgment - that one can be capable, and feel capable, but not feel worthy.

Self-esteem is largely psychological, which can't be adequately covered by your arguments from Objectivist values.

Even so, it was objectified and identified, (also connected to rational egoism) to the nth degree by NB.

Branden put it as :

"High self-esteem can best be understood as the integrated sum of of self-confidence and self-respect. Self-confidence is ...the efficacy...of understanding and dealing with reality. Self-respect is the feeling of personal worth."

and,

"Self-esteem is a concept pertaining to a FUNDAMENTAL sense of efficacy and a FUNDAMENTAL sense of worth, to competence and worthiness IN PRINCIPLE."

Your angle concentrates on self-efficacy, at the expense of personal worthiness. Which could become the formula for pseudo self-esteem 'in extremis'. Both need to be present and integrated.

I ask you, is it psychology, 'feelings', or sub-conscious self-judgment, that you object to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you are indulging in the phony self-esteem movement of others' praise plus a huge dollop of determinism.

--Brant

Let me put it this way: We don't choose what makes us happy. We use trial and error and a bit of logic to figure out what we should do, hoping that happiness is the result.

As for the phony self-esteem from other's praise... In the example I used, it would not be phony self-esteem until Keating proved to himself that Roark was lying. The fact that Roark had been unflinchingly moral in the past would support whatever lie he told as long as he didn't lie again.

The whole point of that example is to say that others' praise is worthless, for the most part, because in order to get genuine praise from a competent person, you would have to be competent yourself. And if you have proven your competence, chances are you already know it and don't need the praise. But Keating would never have gotten what he wanted from Roark, and so he never got the approval he wanted from anyone that mattered.

Keating did not have self-efficacy. Pseudo-self-efficacy would entail some sort of illusion of self-efficacy, which there was none of with Keating because he did not challenge himself once.

You are misrepresenting Keating. He got a lot of praise and approval from people that mattered to him at the time, especially Toohey.

Roark didn't need praise and most of what he got tended to be implicit in the form of the compliment of clients seeking him out who had seen his work.

I think that instead of compliments and praise we should focus on psychological visibility, but that sort of removes us from a discussion of self esteem or efficacy.

For a Keating to see Roark seeing him, experiencing him, as he really was--a cheap second-hander--would simply leave him running for the hills. That's because he would be seeing himself the same way. Praise, sure, give him praise. Direct praise as such is usually done as bullshit. Here's how you really praise (as to a child): "I saw you working hard and I see you've made something special. I knew you could do it, but I didn't know the form it would take. I like it very much." (This last if true. If not, don't say it.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are misrepresenting Keating. He got a lot of praise and approval from people that mattered to him at the time, especially Toohey.

If Keating had the capacity to judge himself accurately, on a subconscious level, why couldn't he do the same with Toohey?

This still misses the point of self-judgment - that one can be capable, and feel capable, but not feel worthy.

Tony, what does worthy mean, then, if not capable? If you are capable of building the worlds greatest building, you are worthy of it. How will you know either unless you build it? For what reason other than capability could we ever feel worthy or unworthy of something (notice that worth is always relative--two sides of a mathematical sentence with a greater than, less than, or equal sign in between).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Visibility plays a large part in self-esteem, as cause and effect, I think. So it's not off-topic at all.

In fact, it's an excellent addition to the discussion.

I believe from past experience that keeping a low profile, being over-modest, and possibly even my

shyness and reticence were signs of low self-esteem. It was basic dishonesty I reckon, now..

To be visible indicates nothing to hide, and more importantly, that if others more easily perceive

your faults or human fallibilities because of being 'visible', you know that you are worthy in yourself -

despite what they make of you. Additionally, you have the confidence to handle any situation

and whatever comes from people, when it comes.

Then again, we've all seen "visibility" when used as a ploy, to impress others with fake self-confidence - usually a sign of inadequate self esteem, and another sort of dishonesty.

Real psychological visibility shows that a person has nothing to fear from others' judgment, (or mundane social embarrassment) because he has already judged himself critically and further than they ever can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real psychological visibility shows that a person has nothing to fear from others' judgment, (or mundane social embarrassment) because he has already judged himself critically and further than they ever can.

Nicely put.

Since we've been analyzing The Fountainhead a bit, just thought I'd bring up Roark's motivation. What enabled Roark to keep going the way he did, happily? If he was unhappy at any point, he would have stopped, because any weakness at all would prevent him from fighting what he fought against (the reason I consider it a fight is because human's are social creatures, and we are affected greatly by those around us).

I think it is important to note that Roark was driven by knowing what he wanted/what would make him happy. How did he know while most everyone else has no clue? I believe it is just proper focus. Allowing yourself to see the world through your own eyes. The self-efficacy may even come from simply being able to visualize your goals. You feel capable (or worthy) of achieving a goal if you have already imagined attaining it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

This still misses the point of self-judgment - that one can be capable, and feel capable, but not feel worthy.

Tony, what does worthy mean, then, if not capable? If you are capable of building the worlds greatest building, you are worthy of it. How will you know either unless you build it? For what reason other than capability could we ever feel worthy or unworthy of something (notice that worth is always relative--two sides of a mathematical sentence with a greater than, less than, or equal sign in between).

Well, it is a tricky one. I think 'worthy' relates to a fundamental sense of one's rightness to life: entitlement and

appropriateness to life at a pre-cognitive level, and a sub-conscious assessment of one's "self" as deserving,

or not.

'Capable' - is that "self' in action. So, we get the 'being' and the 'doing' , self-worth, integrated with self-efficacy.

Sorry, that's the best I can come up with right now.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we judge ourselves most on our actions in the moment. This is why our self-efficacy is affected by our choices.

If we are not working towards our values, we are only showing ourselves how clueless we are--contributing to low self-esteem. The more often we are working towards our values the more evidence we have that we are competent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are misrepresenting Keating. He got a lot of praise and approval from people that mattered to him at the time, especially Toohey.

If Keating had the capacity to judge himself accurately, on a subconscious level, why couldn't he do the same with Toohey?

Because he was a second-hander and Toohey fed second-handers what they wanted: sanction.

There is the problem of the subconscious being used as a garbage pit filled with unreasoned junk. Unconscious reasoning is beyond rational. That's not to say it can't or won't be rationally informed by what goes on upstairs.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have got a bit carried away with some of my ideas so far...

I wanna take a step back and look at living consciously, again.

Let's call it deliberation... Now, deliberation is not simply knowing what you are doing in the moment, but having chosen your current action as well as planning for future actions.

Morality, as Rand distilled it in Galt's speech, can come down to the question, "Right or wrong?" This question, though, only refers to our actions in the moment; it's a closed-ended question. "Should I, or shouldn't I?"

There is more to morality than whether we should or shouldn't do what we are doing... there is also the open ended question that deals the future: "What should I do?"

We are forced to make choices, and cannot opt out of the freedom that comes with our existence. We are not infallible, and so we may not always be able to answer the question, "What should I do?" but we cannot function consciously without at least trying to answer that question.

Most people build a philosophy that helps them cope with their inability to answer the question, instead of trying to correct themselves... and feeling like there is no "right" answer means they can never be wrong.

This is at the core of self-efficacy... whether we are competent enough to have free-will (do what we should do/what is best for us).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I think I get it.

"Who" a person is refers to their history. When we ask who someone is, we are asking for (a bit of) their history. It works the same way with self-perception.

Self-esteem comes from action--evidence that we are independent. But how do we accomplish anything without self-esteem?

We can attain our goals regardless of our level of self-esteem, because motivation is not the real issue. The issue is planning.

When we set long term goals, we are taking on a long term challenge, which entails slow, gradual progress. This sort of slow progress is not going to result in the perpetual motivation we need to accomplish the goal.

I realized something yesterday: We focus on lengths of time. Animals live moment by moment, and we can too, although we would subconsciously be aware of how stupid we were being, and the result would be overwhelming negative emotions.

The perfect length of time to focus on for humans, I'd argue, is a day. It seems that living day by day gives us the opportunity to set small goals and accomplish them, never wasting a day because we've got the rest of the month or year to get things done. We sleep, we recharge, and more self-decided challenges ought to be waiting for us the next day.

This is how we can see progress on a regular basis. Focusing on your whole life is useless, because it makes every small accomplishment seem completely worthless, when in reality, those small accomplishments are the only way to attain the important stuff.

So yeah, I've concluded that self-esteem, and happiness, are achieved through action. Neither is a means to another end, and the real means is proper planning/goal setting.

Edit: We have standards/expectations for ourselves. If we don't acknowledge them, we are more likely to let ourselves down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Now I'm reiterating, but I do think it is a major error to think that self-esteem, dignity, or self-respect is what gives us the courage/motivation to work for ourselves. It doesn't exist, but working for ourselves gives us the knowledge that we are capable of achieving our goals,

I completely agree. Self-esteem is the result of achieving one's values, not the cause.

I disagree. Rand said:

"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living."

Reason, purpose and self-esteem are the cause of achieving one's values and virtue presupposes reason, purpose and self-esteem. Virtue, I'm sure you know, is the gaining and keeping of one's values and thereby gaining and keeping one's happiness.

She also said, "Self-esteem is reliance on one’s power to think." One must rely on one's power to think in order to achieve values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So I think I have more insight now as to the sentiment of my original post, or at least a new way of supporting some of the ideas.

I've called it self-objectification, to try to capture oneself in a concept. The reality is that we cannot conceptualize ourselves, only the parts of ourselves that are observable (and from our perspectives we can often get those wrong too). Self-esteem refers to a positive self-perception, or pride, but I would like to argue that this is not a state of true happiness and is dependent on a mode of consciousness that completely limits one's ability to enjoy life.

A couple of propositions to my argument are: Like consciousness is consciousness of something, enjoyment is enjoyment of something. And we cannot be ourselves when we are trying to look at ourselves.

When we are the center of our experience we have no way of seeing ourselves. We experience and react as ourselves, but without any attempt to be anything in particular. With our focus on experience we can react naturally to our circumstances and allow things to come out of ourselves that we cannot force out simply by demanding great things from ourselves.

Certain experiences make us happy, and though a positive self-image may be part of a good experience, it is a false experience. When we try to look at ourselves, we split ourselves into two: object and observer. There is an unavoidable neglect of the observing self when we enter this state; the observing self--you--does not need its own attention, and cannot have it, what the observing self needs is something to observe. When we are overly self-conscious we smother the observing self with a false and empty experience that can only leave us unsatisfied.

Being aware of our bodies is not the same as being self-conscious, and so it is not necessary to ever objectify oneself. We must leave ourselves in the center where we belong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's well thought through, and articulated, I think. Only thing is, where does it leave introspection?

It is circular, that to have reached your conclusions, you must have used introspection, after all.

What I consider thinking about thinking, and thinking about feeling, is not "self-objectification",(which, unlike self awareness, isn't even possible, I think) or "splitting ourselves into two". It is the crucially needed process of constant self-examination, don't you agree?

Rand: "Introspection is a process of cognition directed inward..."

and, "A major source of men's earned guilt in regard to philosophy - as well as in

regard to their own minds and lives - is failure of introspection. Specifically, it is

the failure to identify the nature and causes of their emotions."

"The men who scorn or dread introspection take their inner states for granted, as an

irreducible and irresistable primary, and let their emotions determine their actions."

and, "The field of extrospection is based on two cardinal questions: What do I know? and How do I know it?

In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: What do I feel? - and

Why do I feel it?"

We CAN be ourselves when we introspect, and moreso, and are better for it - the alternative is unexamined, unresolved and unchecked emotions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Introspection, if we define it as analyzing feelings, like the last quote you used, is not looking at oneself. It is analyzing feelings. Self-esteem or self-respect would not come from that, but from a positive concept of self.

The concept of self is what I'm saying is necessarily false, not our feelings. "Why do I feel it?" can be better asked, "What made me feel it?" We are focused on experience in this mode of consciousness, not trying to chase our own tail, in a sense.

Edit: So I would not say that introspection is "directed inward", as we are still comfortably at the center of the experience. We are not looking inside ourselves, because we are the looker. The objectification is when we exclude ourselves in the moment, and that is a part of conceptualizing ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now