January 20, 2004
CRINGEWORTHINESS:
Seven Deadly Sentiments: Introducing the shameful feelings that many people have but few admit. (Kathleen McGowan, Jan/Feb 2004, Psychology Today)
In our confessional culture, it is socially acceptable--even fashionable--to disclose your sexual predilections, your husband's problem with painkillers, your penchant for high colonics. Our hypertherapeutic society lets it all hang out.But plenty of feelings remain in the closet. In the privacy of our own heads, we cringe with dread when we meet someone in a wheelchair, wish our aged relatives would hurry up and die, smirk over our friends' bad taste and think babies are ugly and annoying. Meanwhile, we assure ourselves--and one another--that we're really very nice people.
Evolutionary psychology holds that these shameful feelings are hardwired--strategies that led to success on the Pleistocene savanna. If that's so, then why are they so hard to admit to? "Given that these emotions are shaped by natural selection and are innate, or at least pretty deep, why do we expend so much effort in denying them?" asks Dylan Evans, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Bath in the United Kingdom.
It's a good question. The persistence of forbidden feelings fascinated Freud, and provided the raw material for his controversial theory of repression and the all-powerful unconscious. Both psychoanalysis and Catholic absolution are rooted in the idea that confession can strip taboo thoughts of their crippling power. Whether or not you believe in Freud (or the Virgin Mary), one thing is for sure: Our efforts to banish or explain away these unmentionables can't keep them from roaring back--and making us feel terrible as a result.
Acting on a nasty impulse may be cause for shame. But why feel so guilty about a feeling that remains a mere fancy, harmlessly stashed away in your brain? Evans theorizes that this guilt really stems from the fear of exposure. We're braced for discovery, even though we haven't really done anything. "If you're discovered doing something wrong, and you immediately feel terrible about it, the offense is mitigated," he says. "So you better be ready to display guilt if someone discovers you."
Feelings of shame trigger deeper unrest than the simple fear of being found out does, says psychiatrist Michael Lewis, author of Shame: The Exposed Self. Guilt is a response to bad behavior. Shame, on the other hand, "is so powerful because it's about a defective self," he says. In shame, explains Lewis, the very self is "rotten and no good." That's why intense feelings of shame can actually drive people into shameless behavior, such as jealous rage.
That seems rather incoherent--a survival strategy where you find babies annoying seems a dead end and the feelings can't be both hardwired by evolution a kajillion years ago and evidence we're defective, can they? Isn't the desire to spare the disabled, elderly, defenseless the sign we're defective, if fitness is defined by evolution? Posted by Orrin Judd at January 20, 2004 08:26 PM
A couple things:
First, I'm astonished you look to Psychology Today for coherence on any subject.
Second: since when does the complexity of life lead to unalloyed feelings about anything?
And your rhetorical question is surprsingly simplistic. The desire to spare the disable, elderly, and defenseless is borne of the fact that we too shall--given sufficient luck-- become that way. How could one anticipate the future and to otherwise?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 20, 2004 10:36 PMoj:
We're not, of course.
There may indeed be some who fantasize about a Gattaca-like world of perfect people, or a Logan's Run reality of only the young, but on the whole, that doesn't describe American society well.
What some people DO want is an official stopping point - Society will do everything possible to preserve life, up to this line. It hadn't been necessary, up until WW II, because by and large it wasn't possible to medically animate the dead, as we do now.
Which brings up another point, which is that the disabled, elderly, and defenseless didn't tend to stick around long, in the past. We, as a society, are still working out how to deal with them being an everyday part of life.
The Boomers should help finalize our attitudes towards such, as they linger.
Not liking babies isn't usually a human survival strategy, although it works for some animals; The strategy is to PRETEND to like babies, if you don't. That way you don't get kicked out of the tribe.
"Fitness", as defined by evolution, is just as likely to be a fat woman as Arnold Schwarzenegger. Although we tend to picture strong, sleek killing machines when "fitness" is mentioned, (sharks, for instance), the reality is that "fitness" is short-hand for "adequate fit for an environmental niche".
If hunting and killing is called for, then Arnold's "fit", if it's surviving a famine, then Rosie O'Donnell's "fit".
Additionally, evolution is only affected by the physical, mental, and emotional traits of adults until the offspring are born and raised. What happens to, or is done to, the elderly, has no effect on evolution, nor is it driven by evolution.
Posted by: THX 1138 at January 21, 2004 01:44 AMShame is the result of having a conscience, and is much more than just being 'afraid' that other people will see our true selves. We all must reach some accomodation with it in order to live, lest we wind up like Boy George, Paris Hilton, or Norman Bates.
The real question is not that we have these feelings, but that we do anything in our power to ignore them. The article mentions being uneasy by the elderly, wheelchairs, ugly babies, and other 'pokes' that speak against a life being lived on cruise control. But there are certainly deeper issues and provocations than that - these are just small reminders of bigger fears. The deepest problems we all 'feel' are like cold lead weights in our stomachs - and it doesn't seem to matter what the sources (or types) are - we all feel shame from them, which drives us to run. And it keeps springing up at the most inconvenient times.
I fail to see how evolutionary psychology explains shame as helpful on the Pleistocene savannah. Shame is crippling. It may drive people to be energetic, to be dynamic (for lack of a better word), but successful? No way.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 21, 2004 01:53 AMall you need to know about evolutionary psychology is that it explains everything - and therefore nothing. an intellectual circle jerk.
Posted by: Jim at January 21, 2004 08:08 AMIt should not be surprising that evolutionary forces could result in a set of complex, competing personality traits. If you've taken any engineering courses, you will know that design involves trade-offs. A plane needs to be as light as possible. But it also needs a powerful engine to propel it. Power adds weight. The optimum design achieves the best tradeoff of power to added weight.
Our evolution as a species followed a group strategy. Each individual gains some survival advantage by being part of a group. But there is a tradeoff for the survival of our individual genes. If we help our group-mate too much, then his children (and his genes) could squeeze mine out. The individual genes still call the shots. So our social instincts are a mix of cooperative and selfish traits. We have to optimize the trade-off.
Posted by: Robert D at January 21, 2004 11:15 AMOK - people as airplanes. But how does that explain the vast numbers of us who suddenly cut the bolts in mid-flight, and let the engines fall away from the wings? Or who try to fly 5000 miles with about 10% of the tank filled?
Are there 'evolutionary' trade-offs between peer pressure and self-determination? "The individual genes still call the shots" - but how does that explain the difference between someone like Jerry Rice and someone like Ozzy Osborne (or Robert Downey, Jr.)? Is there a 'shame' gene?
Robert's point is that any biological system is a compromise between competing requirements. One need go no further than maternal mortality to find an outstanding example thereof.
Jim:
One piece of information substantiating Evolution is how far from ideal the results are.
oj:
OK, good answer.
It's still not a "survival" strategy. As you have pointed out in the past, it's an anti-survival trait.
Posted by: THX 1138 at January 21, 2004 04:14 PMTwo questions.
What is the ideal result?
How far away are we?
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 21, 2004 04:48 PMAn excellent blog which I read every day - good for you.
Except, of course, whenever, I see anything to do with your blind spot - EVOLUTION.
Then I move to the next entry.
Only an admirer can tell - your psychosis is palpable.
Poor ole Mr. Darwin was just another Joe trying to make sense of it all - just like you.
The bile you serve up every time you spit out his name is pretty transparent and tells us far more about you than him.
Still, keep up the good work.
Sorry.
PS. I can feel the daggers even before they're unsheathed!!!
Posted by: Tom Chellew at January 21, 2004 05:11 PM
OJ,
Nice try. Not converted.
Jim, I can't answer your questions for sure, I'm just making the point that it should not be surprising that we have conflicting drives and personality traits. I wouldn't surprised if they find a shame gene, or set of genes. It would act as the brake on personal ambition. Creating a dynamic equilibrium using opposing forces provides for a more flexible and adaptable personality, which is needed in a social creature. We have no problem with the idea that a car has an accelerator and a brake.
As to why you have such diverse personalities as Jerry Rice and Oszzie Osbourne. It is good for a society to have a mix of personalities. The less inhibited risk takers can energise the group in a battle with a neighboring tribe, whereas the reserved, stable types might be better at enduring prolonged hardships. The right kind of diversity adds flexibility and adaptability to a social group. Just my thoughts.
Posted by: Robert D at January 21, 2004 06:42 PMMr. Chellew:
Daggers? I don't expect to get anyone to deny their faith, only recognize that's what it is.
Posted by: oj at January 21, 2004 07:25 PM