The ability to alter somebody’s self-esteem is a very powerful thing. In adolescence, peers can either build an impressionable youngster’s self-image to a healthy state or diminish it to the point of depression or suicide. While the latter extreme is what we hear about more often in the news, the opposite case is also quite common. Egotism runs rampant in our culture, and while I’ll always endorse egomania over suicide, it still doesn’t do anybody one bit of good.

If you’ve read my columns before, you can probably anticipate this as the part where I propose that a healthy balance between the two extremes is the ideal goal. However, this is not the case. In fact, the big problem is the current middle ground of this spectrum.

The way our culture has decided to deal with this issue is by using the idea of “always being happy with yourself” as an artificial average between “I’m going to kill myself” and “I’m the best.”

This is a fallacy, however, as being happy with yourself has nothing to do with either of these extremes and has no place anywhere on the self-worth spectrum. What this phrase really does is encourage complacency and mediocrity, which is also dangerous as it essentially discourages motivation in today’s youth.

For the narcissist, the phrase fails because it doesn’t put one’s abilities into a realistic perspective. It basically tells them that it’s OK to be arrogant. For the suicidal, depressed teen, it also fails because what is upsetting them could very well be something they have the power to change. Either way, they obviously aren’t happy with themselves, so telling them they should be will only make things worse when what they probably need are some friendly words of more specific encouragement.

But this phrase doesn’t necessarily have to relate to self-worth — it can also relate to performance or abilities. For example, imagine you’re the parent of a child who has been consistently struggling with math. Your child has no apparent learning disability, and at this point you have no reason to believe that your son or daughter isn’t capable of understanding the material.

What are you going to do — foster your child’s learning and tutor them until they get it, or tell them it’s OK that they don’t get it and they should just be happy with who they are?

Better yet, think of this situation from a child’s perspective.

We’ve all been there, and before a certain age, most children would be more than willing to hear those words as exoneration from academic effort. After all, what kid wouldn’t take the parent-given opportunity to give up on something they don’t like?

Another reason this cliche fails to carry any real-world meaning is because it lumps truly desirable traits in with those that are universally detested. The phrase could be twisted around to discourage children from persevering in school as much as it could be used to justify poor social skills or habits of violence.

Do we really want to tell children who are torturing animals and bullying other kids that they should be happy with themselves? I’m sure that practically no parents are endorsing this kind of behavior, but I’m also sure that a lot of parents and other role models don’t fully appreciate how much kids hang on to their words.

But the problem with my argument so far is that it hasn’t addressed characteristics that are beyond a person’s control. This could be any physical deformity, imperfection or even neutral traits including birthmarks, poor eyesight, hair color and extreme shortness or tallness. Yes, it’s absolutely true that in life we have to accept these aspects and learn how to deal with them.

However, this point shows exactly what is wrong with this phrase: It’s a vague generality. How are we supposed to properly apply such general advice to our lives? Which aspects of our lives should we be happy with?

“Be happy with who you are” views people as one-dimensional — the whole point of life is knowing yourself well enough to acknowledge what traits you should improve upon and which you can be content with. All of this should be common sense, and a lot of older teens and adults understand this difference.

But we often forget that we’re teaching the next generation what common sense is, and planting such unclear, Hallmark-gift-card wisdom in their heads will only undermine their spirit of aspiration and self-improvement. Therefore, the truly efficient middle ground of this spectrum is simple realism.

We should all know what parts of our life we can control, and we shouldn’t be afraid to admit our faults and work on bettering them. I do know that if we all preach the message of just “being happy with ourselves,” the progress and spirit of our civilization will flatline.