Guilt and Shame... Part I
Guilt and Shame are not just emotions that people feel. Like all other emotions, Guilt and Shame have evolutionary roots. Let us axiomatically assume the three Laws of Humanics. Shame is the system's way of negating anti-societal behavior while emphasizing the need to prove oneself acceptable/desirable to others. Shame is the system's way of enforcing the 2nd Law of Humanics - Thou shalt obey the system. Guilt evolved as an implementation of the 1st Law of Humanics - Thou shalt not harm a human or through inaction allow a human to come to harm.
Note that neither Guilt nor Shame have any impact on the 3rd Law - Self Preservation. Guilt is not rooted in the need for self-defense. Rather, for guilt there must first be some concern with the welfare of others.
The classic example of caring and responding to the distress of another human is probably in the parent-child care system. As a child becomes aware of distress in others (including awareness of being a source for others distress), develops empathy and sympathy, and the wish to help others, the capacity for guilt becomes developed. Unlike shame, guilt is not associated with anger at others, guilt is not associated with feeling inferior to others.
Although animals may have the precursors for shame (sensitivity to dominant others and submissive behavior) and guilt (care-giving), I'm not entirely convinced that animals feel shame or guilt as such. They lack self-conscious awareness (of "being a self") and the capacity to reflect on behavior and judge them good or bad.
Humans have evolved certain cognitive competencies that enable Guilt and Shame. First, humans became able to form symbolic representations of objects in the world and of the self and others. Symbolic self-awareness comes with language and the ability to symbolize "the self," the ability to "imagine" the self as an object and to judge and give value to the self; to have self-esteem, to think about the meaning of one's appearance to others and the implications.
Evolution also provided humans with the ability to understand what might be going on in the minds of other people. One can think about what motivates someone else's behavior, what they might value or devalue, what they know and what they do not know, and one can think how to manipulate them to like us or be wary of us.
Linked to these abilities is metacognition - to be able to reflect and judge one's own thinking and feelings.
Guilt and Shame make sense only to an evolutionary entity that has these three abilities. Without meta-cognition, there is no way a man could feel disturbed by the knowledge that he-she is mentally undressing a woman. Without the ability to figure out how someone might think, there is no way you could explain to a human why calling someone a bastard might hurt the person who is being thus adressed. Without the ability to be self-aware, there is no way you could feel self-conscious: Without self-consciousness, there is no meaning to Guilt or Shame.
So, what about people who don't feel Guilt or Shame? Are these people sub-human or inhuman in any way?
The next post has the Analysis...
p.s. The theories explained in this post are not opinions. This post is almost entirely based on well-established facts and conclusions based on anthropological research.
p.p.s. No! the reasearch wasn't done by me!
Note that neither Guilt nor Shame have any impact on the 3rd Law - Self Preservation. Guilt is not rooted in the need for self-defense. Rather, for guilt there must first be some concern with the welfare of others.
The classic example of caring and responding to the distress of another human is probably in the parent-child care system. As a child becomes aware of distress in others (including awareness of being a source for others distress), develops empathy and sympathy, and the wish to help others, the capacity for guilt becomes developed. Unlike shame, guilt is not associated with anger at others, guilt is not associated with feeling inferior to others.
Although animals may have the precursors for shame (sensitivity to dominant others and submissive behavior) and guilt (care-giving), I'm not entirely convinced that animals feel shame or guilt as such. They lack self-conscious awareness (of "being a self") and the capacity to reflect on behavior and judge them good or bad.
Humans have evolved certain cognitive competencies that enable Guilt and Shame. First, humans became able to form symbolic representations of objects in the world and of the self and others. Symbolic self-awareness comes with language and the ability to symbolize "the self," the ability to "imagine" the self as an object and to judge and give value to the self; to have self-esteem, to think about the meaning of one's appearance to others and the implications.
Evolution also provided humans with the ability to understand what might be going on in the minds of other people. One can think about what motivates someone else's behavior, what they might value or devalue, what they know and what they do not know, and one can think how to manipulate them to like us or be wary of us.
Linked to these abilities is metacognition - to be able to reflect and judge one's own thinking and feelings.
Guilt and Shame make sense only to an evolutionary entity that has these three abilities. Without meta-cognition, there is no way a man could feel disturbed by the knowledge that he-she is mentally undressing a woman. Without the ability to figure out how someone might think, there is no way you could explain to a human why calling someone a bastard might hurt the person who is being thus adressed. Without the ability to be self-aware, there is no way you could feel self-conscious: Without self-consciousness, there is no meaning to Guilt or Shame.
So, what about people who don't feel Guilt or Shame? Are these people sub-human or inhuman in any way?
The next post has the Analysis...
p.s. The theories explained in this post are not opinions. This post is almost entirely based on well-established facts and conclusions based on anthropological research.
p.p.s. No! the reasearch wasn't done by me!
7 Comments:
Shame is the system's way of enforcing the 2nd Law of Humanics - Thou shalt obey the system.
Why does a person violate the laws of the system in the first place? It is either an act of ignorance, in which they hadn't considered the consequences of their act, or an attempt to cheat the system, in which case their objectives are at variance with the goals of the system.
It is my guess that the utility of shame in enforcing the laws of the system does not extend to the latter case. Which brings me to your point that :
Guilt and Shame make sense only to an evolutionary entity that has these three abilities. Without meta-cognition, there is no way a man could feel disturbed by the knowledge that he-she is mentally undressing a woman.
What about social conditioning? I think this perspective makes more sense if one is looking at the first type of violation, especially when you consider that shame always follows an act and never precedes one. More formally, shame is analogous to the negative outcome of a simple test that checks for membership in a vastly expanded (beyond the three laws) set of axioms, as opposed to a test for non-trivial theorems (which requires "intelligent" processing a.k.a thought).
And lastly,
Evolution also provided humans with the ability to understand what might be going on in the minds of other people.
I would have used 'guess' in place of 'understand', but I suppose that depends on the definition of what constitutes understanding ...
Cheers
Anon: I disagree with you on both of the points that you make.
1. There is no evidence anywhere to support (or even suggest) the view that shame is irrelevant if someone chooses to cheat the system.
The entire concept of the carrot-stick philosophy is based on promised outcomes rather than on actuals. One half of the point of the carrot-stick philospohy lies the utility of the stick not only as a form of punishment but also as a psychological deterent. Shame makes more sense as a means of preventing non-conformism than as a means of punishing it.
2. Meta-cognition should enable you to predict the onset of shame as a possible outcome of one's acts. Shame usually precedes the act (if one's meta-cognitive abilities are developed enough). While I strongly suspect that your more formal approach wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, I'll suspend judgement until you can give an example of a simple test that checks for membership in a vastly expanded (beyond the three laws) set of axioms, as opposed to a test for non-trivial theorems. I believe you bit off far more than you can chew there!
Oh, I do believe that there is a very strong possibility that one's understanding of another's mind may not be as much of a guess as you make it out to be. It is surely not an exact science, but it isnt entirely guesswork either.
Firstly, I get the impression that I don't understand what you mean by the word shame. I will be grateful if you would define it explicitly, and not throw the dictionary at me.
As to the first point in your comment, what is your take on
(a) Moussavi's supporters in Iran, whose protests are a direct violation of the decree of the supreme leader (a violation of an axiom of that system). Do you think that the protests will eventually die down because these people will, upon reflection, feel ashamed of their act?
(b)Ahmedenijad's supporters, who allegedly stuffed ballot boxes and rigged the vote?
The first represents a set of people who wish to overthrow the system, whilst the second bunch are those who tried to cheat the system. I don't believe either group is/was influenced (in their acts) by shame.
What I wanted to convey by the second point is that shame is an emotion, and not the outcome of a conscious thought process. You are right though, when you say that I bit off more than I could chew. So ... after having chewed the cud for a little while (and being unable to come up with a good example), I'll try and use your example to illustrate what I was trying to convey ...
Without meta-cognition, there is no way a man could feel disturbed by the knowledge that he-she is mentally undressing a woman.
My point is that a man is less likely to feel ashamed by this act because he has concluded, by means of a logical thought process, that by doing so he has harmed, or allowed another human to come to harm. IMO, it is more likely that he would feel ashamed because he instinctively identifies that he has violated a tenet of an expanded moral code (e.g., thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife), without understanding the basis for that code. The "stick" is usually not shame itself. Shame comes attached with a reminder of the existence of such a stick (e,g., the prospect of being sent to hell for coveting thy neighbour's wife...).
Looking forward to Part-2, the analysis with a capital A!
Cheers
Hey Siddharth,
My point isn't that shame, of and by itself, is a sufficient deterrent. My point is that shame is an evolutionary mechanism designed to deter a human from violating the tenets of humanics. It is a smart system that can survive without the force of reason. The key of course is that humans are capable of developing two other traits which make this evolutionary mechanism both beatable and unnecessary.
1. The ability to question an axiom.
2. The ability to train oneself to override the instinctive evolutionary urge.
As you rightly point out, Shame is instinctive and not reasoned out. But the tenet, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" is most definitely one that was reasoned out! Methinks you doth confuse the feedback mechanism with the spark that set the mechnism off. Shame is not the stick! Shame is the alarm clock which goes off to remind you that the aforementioned stick exists.
Siddharth who, btw?
Does "icarus" ring a bell?
It does! It does, indeed! Welcome back.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home