“Note to unattached liberal women above 40: you are ugly hags who have lost your chance with men and all your eggs have dried up and nobody will ever value you anymore, you should either beg for some fat alcoholic guy to take you in since that’s the only man you can get, or resign yourself to being a cat lady growing old with nothing to do but dwell on your regrets and what could have been.”
This bit seemed both out of place and oddly unremarked upon. How low does the total fertility rate have to go before this level of shaming becomes prosocial?
How low can they go? This is one of the few places in modern society where true Darwinism shines through. At some point, we've selected for the people whose reproductive drive is strong enough to overcome the hurdles presented to it by the modern world. At that point, rates go up.
Shame only has utility for steering behavior. You don’t shame someone who can no longer modify their behavior (40 and no children), you shame them only when their behavior is malleable. For this problem, it is prosocial to shame young people who don’t settle down, so that they modify their behavior in the relevantly prosocial way. (You can also make them afraid of not settling down, which is distinct from shame, and you can heap praise and respect on those who do settle down, which would be purely positive reinforcement; or you can make them desire it through the awareness of contingent rewards, which is what we used to do through female-centric media and rituals, but contingent reinforcers compete with each other — you can’t desire girlmom and girlboss at the same time, sorry).
The discourse on shame in America is so confused that it’s hard to even talk about it objectively. But shame is just the felt sensation of not meeting a social standard, and it occurs as a necessary consequence wherever there is a social standard. There is no social standard without esteem and shame working together to modify behavior. This is obfuscated in mainstream discussions, where one day a person might complain about “shame culture” (a nonsensical term), and the next day they take to social media specifically to shame a petty social infraction, like cutting in line or a gross Tinder message. What we mean by shaming is the expressed disapproval at someone else’s actions explicitly or implicitly, which (by the way) can only induce shame when the recipient is actually tied in some way to a social group. A homeless person probably can’t shame you, because they don’t matter to you, but a peer can, and a boss can even more. If shame discourse were an Olympic sport America would have the most gold medals in gymnastics right now.
Shame only has utility for steering behavior. You don’t shame someone who can no longer modify their behavior (40 and no children), you shame them only when their behavior is malleable.
Society is not a two-person game. Shaming those who have made bad, but irreversible choices also acts as an exemplar to those who have not yet made the bad choice by acting as a counterweight to whatever benefits the bad choice appears to bring. Pour encourager les autres actually works in some circumstances.
Does shame really work? I see it come up over and over from a certain subset of posters. They seem to earnestly believe shame works. That if we shame people they will change.
But every time I try to shame someone into changing they just get defensive or go into an avoidant spiral or start self flagellating, none of which consist of the actual behavioral change I wish to engender.
What does seem to work is getting close to them, understanding their problems, earning their trust, helping them to see how their faults are hurting them, entering their control loop, and actively helping them to positively reconstruct themselves. This is hard. So I can see why it can be tempting to jump to the much simpler sounding solution of making them feel bad until they change.
But I suspect that even in shame cultures, the shame is correlative, not causative. It's the stern standard for a specific form of excellence and the availability of social tech that leads to that excellence that changes people in those cultures. The shame emotion itself seems like it can jolt you into realizing you need to change if you didn't know, but it seems unfit for providing sustained motive force towards personal change.
I can’t imagine any scenario of social negative evaluation which does not come with shame, so in my interpretation shame is literally the feeling of negative evaluation by others. It can occur at the micro scale, like if you were to eat a coworker’s lunch because of carelessness, you would feel shame commensurate with how annoying that is for your coworker. If someone didn’t feel shame at that, it would mean that they don’t actually care / haven’t sympathized in their coworker’s inconvenience. An absence of shame means an absence of responsiveness to negative social evaluation. In that sense it’s a necessary part of social learning.
every time I try to shame someone into changing they just get defensive or go into an avoidant spiral
If your friend were talking too loudly in a movie theater, and you told him, he would feel shame (small, briefly), and then correct his behavior, no? That isn’t shaming, but there’s a standard which induces shame. The shame doesn’t last long, but it is memorable so that we remember not to do that thing again. People who don’t feel shame are more liable to repeat social mistakes.
But re: spiraling, I think in some cases shame goes awry and people feel too much shame or feel shame at the wrong thing. Is that kind of what you are referring to? These can be complicated but I don’t know what kind of problem you’re talking about.
The shame emotion itself seems like it can jolt you into realizing you need to change if you didn't know, but it seems unfit for providing sustained motive force towards personal change
If you were to consider shouting out loud at a professor during a lecture, what would you feel? Shame and embarrassment (small shame). That’s actually what prevents you from even considering doing that, though. It’s an instinctive “this is wrong and it’s not even worth thinking about”. It’s not about “living in shame” or anything, which is a disorder. But if promiscuity as an action is negatively evaluated in a culture then it would lead to shame in the person doing it and hence would modify their behavior. An example of this is maybe: in some countries, the age of consent is 18, but in others it is 17. so a 21yo with a 17yo in one country would result in immense shame, but zero shame in a different country. The only difference is the negative evaluation of others, not anything objective.
Mmm. I think our conversation has thus-far been ambiguous. I think English is natively poor at distinguishing 'felt' and 'functional' emotion.
When I refer to shame the emotion, I'm referring to a sort of sharp painful valence that feels a bit like being stabbed.
Regret feels wider, a slower more manageable burn that feels like its seeping through me and performing some sort of backprop operation in my psyche.
Then there's Compassion. Compassion feels more like a slow euphoria, this feeling is associated with modeling the internal structures of a targeted person or object (or I would label it something else, valence be damned) and then the euphoria is blended with the valence predicted by the model of the target. (The euphoria of knowing persists, but I simultaneously feel the target's emotions.)
Embarrassment refers to a valence that isn't even negative. It's a fast euphoria and feeling of increased bloodflow to the cheeks. Sometimes it is accompanied by a sort of panic, which feels stabby in a similar way to shame. But the embarrassment itself is a positive emotion.
So when another person tells me that they are in pain because of something I have done... Mechanistically my mind seems to take the steps of feeling regret, simultaneously looking at the person being unhappy in my model of their present and happier in my simulation of their future, feeling compassion for that future instance of them, and letting that vision flow into the present as my regret changes me.
If I overuse the shame valence, I end up in a state of chronic pain, which is what I believe I am seeing in many other people when they are subjected to shaming. The regret valence too, grows agitated if it's chronically recurring (and justly so. If it's chronically recurring I am chronically doing something wrong and pain grows as a sort of wake up call). But regret can be repeated more often as long as my higher order processes are judging it to be effective. The compassion valence however, is much more sustainable, largely pleasurable, and seems to cause me to become more extroverted the more I use it. Yet it still allows for the similar behavioral shifts in similar contexts. (and can also be used in contexts without regret, such as helping others with pain that I am not the cause of.)
If I imagine shouting out loud to a professor... well I do remember feelings of shame from my own college experience. These were largely damaging though, as I also felt them regarding the prospect of getting questions wrong or raising my hand or saying anything during class whatsoever and they majorly inhibited my ability to participate in lectures.
Looking back and imagining the scenario anew however... I'm sitting in class, the idea to shout at/to the professor spontaneously arises... and... I find the idea funny. Laughable. A vibrant euphoria that feels like a vibrating diaphragm. Then the next thing that happens is I start contemplating what the effects of shouting would be and whether the tradeoffs would be justified in the specific scenario. It would seem that Humor has been slotted into where shame used to be in this social script, and is serving the same purpose of interrupting my thought-flow enough to prevent me from spontaneously shouting during a lecture, while enabling a more productive follow up strategy than the stabby feeling of shame permits.
When I refer to shame the emotion, I'm referring to a sort of sharp painful valence that feels a bit like being stabbed
Perhaps this is shame at its strongest, but there must also be a smaller shame, right? I'm pretty sure smaller shame is just embarrassment. I don’t think embarrassment is typically coded as a "positive emotion". People want to flee being embarrassed. When they talk about their least favorite memories of the week, it will be memories of embarrassment. To me, someone is embarrassed if they leave the bathroom with toilet paper on the bottom of their shoe. Because of this experience, they will double-check their shoes next time, because the shame is mildly painful and memorable. If instead they left the bathroom and entered an important business meeting and embarrassed their team, that transforms into a more serious shame. Sometimes this is colloquially expressed as “being mortified”. This shame may lead them to double-check not just the bottom of their shoes but how they generally approach their appearance and conduct. The shame they feel is the salience that they have damaged their social identity. We can go even stronger: the strongest shame is something like a DUI resulting in a death. This should be an extreme amount of shame that ought to result in a traditional “prayer and fasting”: loss of appetite, no desire to give oneself pleasure, and a natural speaking out and expression of regret and self-hated. But even here, the shame is still instrumental: even a DUI homicide offender should not live in shame in perpetuity, but should have some weeks or months of it and then move on in a forgiven state.
I find the idea funny. Laughable. A vibrant euphoria that feels like a vibrating diaphragm. Then the next thing that happens is I start contemplating what the effects of shouting would be and whether the tradeoffs would be justified in the specific scenario.
Surely this is not an efficient and adapted mindset? This means that if you were bored and wanted a laugh, you would consider ruining the vibe of the classroom. And then you have to do a bunch of mental processes to weigh whether your laugh is worth the negatives. Shame is extremely beneficial in place of this cognitive operation because it immediately induces a social conformity that doesn’t require cognitive operations. Now that’s not always good — sometimes we want to override instinctive shame — but where manners are concerned and where young people are concerned it’s great because it saves our cognitive energy. Imagine if in every social context you had to manually weigh the costs and benefits: do I cut in line here? Do I insult a friend there? Etc. If we have experienced shame before then we know not to do these things without abstract cognition.
So, I've been reflecting on this for a couple of days. My introspection has let me to a few things.
I agree with you that the toilet paper on shoe scenario is a scenario where even I might describe it as "I was embarrassed". In terms of my earlier breakdown of felt emotions though- What I feel in those situations is what I call shame. What my earlier breakdown was referring to as embarrassment is more- the glowy feeling of a cute person flirting with you, or of being seen and safe and vulnerable. But I think we can set this valence aside. It seems to be a separate emotion. I suspect these are fully different occasionally correlated things both called 'embarrassment', and only the one you are describing is really relevant to our discussion of the merits of shame in society.
Looking back on times when embarrassing (in your sense) things have happened to me... they were rather devastating. They felt like being stabbed. And- I find that these experiences have often wound up swept into my shadow. For much of my life I didn't have the emotional management tech to emotionally defuse those memories. I recall a rather materially trivial event, where during some social banter I mixed up the words 'quirky' and 'kinky'. Materially, it was laughed off by the group within seconds, but it stuck disproportionately in my psyche as a painful event that I couldn't think about.
This conversation with you has allowed me to access some other similar memories and defuse the strength of their valence. So thank you.
So- having considered this these last days- I don't necessarily think shame is bad, but I do think that in order for shame to do the work we want it to in society, the subjects of that shame need to know what to do with it. In so-called shame cultures, I expect there's a much better scaffolding for making sure people know what to do with this stabbing feeling, how to regulate it to a useful magnitude, and how to respond to it optimally. And even then... Japan still produces a stream of NEETs, many of which seem to be suffering this over-sensitivity to shame. In America- shame seems like even more of a crapshoot...
I conjecture that any "just add more shame" solution is an oversimplification. A society also needs a refined zeitgeist around how to use shame in order for the effects of adding more to be positive.
As for whether I would ruin the vibe of the classroom in my hypothetical, I might if this were my first rodeo. I don't think Shame is necessary for me to learn from my mistakes there though. The things that I labeled 'compassion' and 'regret' can serve a similar purpose. (though, perhaps they are related to the weaker forms of shame that you posit). Part of the reason that the idea of shouting at the class is funny is because it is unexpected for my mind to output it as an option. My subconscious has already learned structures and biases towards certain classes of thoughts, and this 'yell in lecture' thought is out of distribution and somewhat absurd. But- it's not shame that stops me from thinking it (at least in the present. perhaps it's meaningful to posit a form of 'shadow' or 'dark' shame in the negative space where my mind doesn't go). And- if I were bored I have other tools for that. I can just hallucinate pleasure. I suspect that I can hallucinate emotions more wholly than most people in general... and that this is responsible both for my ability to wirehead just by imagining pleasure- and my ability to have traumatic emotional flashbacks to trivial situations.
In terms of weighing the costs and benefits in every social situation- I think you are correct. Many of my social algorithms do slow down my ability to respond in social situations. But in our current environment that is merited. Taking 10 seconds to respond to a situation really isn't a problem except in a high speed competitive environment. And neither high trust socializing nor deciding when to speak out in a lecture are high speed competitive environments. It's good to play war games sometimes to stay sharp. But outside of that it seems better to take one's time.
"shame culture" is a technical term of anthropology where it refers to a culture where people judge their own actions through the lens of "what will other people think of me if I do this" rather than through the lens of law or morality. Like most confusing technical terms, this is not nonsense if you understand the technical meaning. America profoundly isn't a shame culture in this sense.
If "shame culture" is being used by very online people to refer to a culture with a lot of social shaming, then that is dumb and may be nonsensical to boot. But that isn't something I have come across.
Shame only has utility for steering behavior. You don’t shame someone who can no longer modify their behavior (40 and no children), you shame them only when their behavior is malleable. For this problem, it is prosocial to shame young people who don’t settle down, so that they modify their behavior in the relevantly prosocial way.
These seem related to each other. Young people who don't settle down eventually become 40 years old, and many of them don't have children due to not settling down. If such people are shamed, then young people have an incentive to avoid growing up to become one of those people.
You’re imagining something like “24yo woman witnesses 40yo being shamed and doesn’t want that to happen to them”, but there’s a better and more accurate reinforcement structure to put in place. 24yo woman don’t put themselves in social contexts where they see the social shame of 40yos because of how age-specific social contexts are, and humans are bad at making 15-year plans, so even if we enacted that plan it wouldn’t work, and that’s implying “shame every older childless woman always” is an acceptable amount of pain administration for prosocial result. We can just shame the 24yos whose lifestyle deters them from fertility, which winds up promoting a lifestyle which is pro-fertility. We don’t have to shame the 40yo at all; when they turn 40, we can completely stop promoting the fertility behavior with shame, because by that point it’s too late. People care most about immediate social pride, rather than what happens when they are 40.
It’s like with shaming bad students. You can shame a bad student because you want to promote study habits so they get the best job they can. Shaming their poor habits is beneficial and for their greater good. But shaming people whose occupation you deem inferior would be sociopathic, even if it had the byproduct of (in theory) promoting good study habits among poor students. This relates broadly to the concept of forgiveness and mercy, which I suppose is very apropos the article…
Society actively maintains a heavy dose of smoke-and-mirrors around the beauty-value-fertility tradeoff. It might not be deliberate, and more an emergent property of our civilization. But, the degree of obfuscation is mind-boggling.
Childbirth transforms a woman's body, yet before-after images are nigh impossible to find. Vaginal tearing is the norm (9/10) during childbirth and never mentioned. The impact of breast feeding on a woman's permanent beauty/perceived value is never part of the breast-feeding conversation. Childbirth comes at a heavy cost, despite what you believe, this cost is hidden away in a box.
Note: maternal mortality has cratered in the last few decades, but our civilization evolved in an era where child-birth was indeed a woman's 9-11 / Vietnam. She signed up for a 9 month deployment, and god only knows if she'd come back unscathed or at all.
We can't speak the truth, because truth leaks from both sides. DINK couples & spinsters help maintain the peace out of politeness, and married-couples reciprocate. Once the 'shaming is okay' pandoras box is open, we have no clue how the spinsters will respond.
All societies operate under polite fictions. It may seem redundant, but they're lindy. Abolish them with great caution.
My 2050-2100 prediction:
Embryo selection, Crispr and mechanical wombs will be figured out.
Fertility will recover. The tech will spread like wild-wire, becoming the prominent form of childbirth. Once the negative risk of childbirth is eliminated, the spinster-shaming will begin at earnest.
In the process, we will lose our humanity. A woman's brain changes after pregnancy. Mothers have been the gatekeepers of all humanity since time eternal. Once women stop undergoing pregnancy, a new type of motherhood will emerge, and with it, a new type of humanity.
If schools instilled the fear of growing up to be childless and dying alone with the same vigor that they instill the fear of not going to college and working at McDonald’s one’s whole life, I suspect there would be more families started.
I don't think my teachers ever told me to go to college by telling me I would die alone and friendless regretting my every life choice, but we may have gone to different schools.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This bit seemed both out of place and oddly unremarked upon. How low does the total fertility rate have to go before this level of shaming becomes prosocial?
How low can they go? This is one of the few places in modern society where true Darwinism shines through. At some point, we've selected for the people whose reproductive drive is strong enough to overcome the hurdles presented to it by the modern world. At that point, rates go up.
Conditions change. Hurdles may be different in a century.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Shame only has utility for steering behavior. You don’t shame someone who can no longer modify their behavior (40 and no children), you shame them only when their behavior is malleable. For this problem, it is prosocial to shame young people who don’t settle down, so that they modify their behavior in the relevantly prosocial way. (You can also make them afraid of not settling down, which is distinct from shame, and you can heap praise and respect on those who do settle down, which would be purely positive reinforcement; or you can make them desire it through the awareness of contingent rewards, which is what we used to do through female-centric media and rituals, but contingent reinforcers compete with each other — you can’t desire girlmom and girlboss at the same time, sorry).
The discourse on shame in America is so confused that it’s hard to even talk about it objectively. But shame is just the felt sensation of not meeting a social standard, and it occurs as a necessary consequence wherever there is a social standard. There is no social standard without esteem and shame working together to modify behavior. This is obfuscated in mainstream discussions, where one day a person might complain about “shame culture” (a nonsensical term), and the next day they take to social media specifically to shame a petty social infraction, like cutting in line or a gross Tinder message. What we mean by shaming is the expressed disapproval at someone else’s actions explicitly or implicitly, which (by the way) can only induce shame when the recipient is actually tied in some way to a social group. A homeless person probably can’t shame you, because they don’t matter to you, but a peer can, and a boss can even more. If shame discourse were an Olympic sport America would have the most gold medals in gymnastics right now.
Society is not a two-person game. Shaming those who have made bad, but irreversible choices also acts as an exemplar to those who have not yet made the bad choice by acting as a counterweight to whatever benefits the bad choice appears to bring. Pour encourager les autres actually works in some circumstances.
More options
Context Copy link
Does shame really work? I see it come up over and over from a certain subset of posters. They seem to earnestly believe shame works. That if we shame people they will change. But every time I try to shame someone into changing they just get defensive or go into an avoidant spiral or start self flagellating, none of which consist of the actual behavioral change I wish to engender.
What does seem to work is getting close to them, understanding their problems, earning their trust, helping them to see how their faults are hurting them, entering their control loop, and actively helping them to positively reconstruct themselves. This is hard. So I can see why it can be tempting to jump to the much simpler sounding solution of making them feel bad until they change.
But I suspect that even in shame cultures, the shame is correlative, not causative. It's the stern standard for a specific form of excellence and the availability of social tech that leads to that excellence that changes people in those cultures. The shame emotion itself seems like it can jolt you into realizing you need to change if you didn't know, but it seems unfit for providing sustained motive force towards personal change.
I can’t imagine any scenario of social negative evaluation which does not come with shame, so in my interpretation shame is literally the feeling of negative evaluation by others. It can occur at the micro scale, like if you were to eat a coworker’s lunch because of carelessness, you would feel shame commensurate with how annoying that is for your coworker. If someone didn’t feel shame at that, it would mean that they don’t actually care / haven’t sympathized in their coworker’s inconvenience. An absence of shame means an absence of responsiveness to negative social evaluation. In that sense it’s a necessary part of social learning.
If your friend were talking too loudly in a movie theater, and you told him, he would feel shame (small, briefly), and then correct his behavior, no? That isn’t shaming, but there’s a standard which induces shame. The shame doesn’t last long, but it is memorable so that we remember not to do that thing again. People who don’t feel shame are more liable to repeat social mistakes.
But re: spiraling, I think in some cases shame goes awry and people feel too much shame or feel shame at the wrong thing. Is that kind of what you are referring to? These can be complicated but I don’t know what kind of problem you’re talking about.
If you were to consider shouting out loud at a professor during a lecture, what would you feel? Shame and embarrassment (small shame). That’s actually what prevents you from even considering doing that, though. It’s an instinctive “this is wrong and it’s not even worth thinking about”. It’s not about “living in shame” or anything, which is a disorder. But if promiscuity as an action is negatively evaluated in a culture then it would lead to shame in the person doing it and hence would modify their behavior. An example of this is maybe: in some countries, the age of consent is 18, but in others it is 17. so a 21yo with a 17yo in one country would result in immense shame, but zero shame in a different country. The only difference is the negative evaluation of others, not anything objective.
Mmm. I think our conversation has thus-far been ambiguous. I think English is natively poor at distinguishing 'felt' and 'functional' emotion.
So when another person tells me that they are in pain because of something I have done... Mechanistically my mind seems to take the steps of feeling regret, simultaneously looking at the person being unhappy in my model of their present and happier in my simulation of their future, feeling compassion for that future instance of them, and letting that vision flow into the present as my regret changes me.
If I overuse the shame valence, I end up in a state of chronic pain, which is what I believe I am seeing in many other people when they are subjected to shaming. The regret valence too, grows agitated if it's chronically recurring (and justly so. If it's chronically recurring I am chronically doing something wrong and pain grows as a sort of wake up call). But regret can be repeated more often as long as my higher order processes are judging it to be effective. The compassion valence however, is much more sustainable, largely pleasurable, and seems to cause me to become more extroverted the more I use it. Yet it still allows for the similar behavioral shifts in similar contexts. (and can also be used in contexts without regret, such as helping others with pain that I am not the cause of.)
If I imagine shouting out loud to a professor... well I do remember feelings of shame from my own college experience. These were largely damaging though, as I also felt them regarding the prospect of getting questions wrong or raising my hand or saying anything during class whatsoever and they majorly inhibited my ability to participate in lectures.
Looking back and imagining the scenario anew however... I'm sitting in class, the idea to shout at/to the professor spontaneously arises... and... I find the idea funny. Laughable. A vibrant euphoria that feels like a vibrating diaphragm. Then the next thing that happens is I start contemplating what the effects of shouting would be and whether the tradeoffs would be justified in the specific scenario. It would seem that Humor has been slotted into where shame used to be in this social script, and is serving the same purpose of interrupting my thought-flow enough to prevent me from spontaneously shouting during a lecture, while enabling a more productive follow up strategy than the stabby feeling of shame permits.
Perhaps this is shame at its strongest, but there must also be a smaller shame, right? I'm pretty sure smaller shame is just embarrassment. I don’t think embarrassment is typically coded as a "positive emotion". People want to flee being embarrassed. When they talk about their least favorite memories of the week, it will be memories of embarrassment. To me, someone is embarrassed if they leave the bathroom with toilet paper on the bottom of their shoe. Because of this experience, they will double-check their shoes next time, because the shame is mildly painful and memorable. If instead they left the bathroom and entered an important business meeting and embarrassed their team, that transforms into a more serious shame. Sometimes this is colloquially expressed as “being mortified”. This shame may lead them to double-check not just the bottom of their shoes but how they generally approach their appearance and conduct. The shame they feel is the salience that they have damaged their social identity. We can go even stronger: the strongest shame is something like a DUI resulting in a death. This should be an extreme amount of shame that ought to result in a traditional “prayer and fasting”: loss of appetite, no desire to give oneself pleasure, and a natural speaking out and expression of regret and self-hated. But even here, the shame is still instrumental: even a DUI homicide offender should not live in shame in perpetuity, but should have some weeks or months of it and then move on in a forgiven state.
Surely this is not an efficient and adapted mindset? This means that if you were bored and wanted a laugh, you would consider ruining the vibe of the classroom. And then you have to do a bunch of mental processes to weigh whether your laugh is worth the negatives. Shame is extremely beneficial in place of this cognitive operation because it immediately induces a social conformity that doesn’t require cognitive operations. Now that’s not always good — sometimes we want to override instinctive shame — but where manners are concerned and where young people are concerned it’s great because it saves our cognitive energy. Imagine if in every social context you had to manually weigh the costs and benefits: do I cut in line here? Do I insult a friend there? Etc. If we have experienced shame before then we know not to do these things without abstract cognition.
So, I've been reflecting on this for a couple of days. My introspection has let me to a few things.
I agree with you that the toilet paper on shoe scenario is a scenario where even I might describe it as "I was embarrassed". In terms of my earlier breakdown of felt emotions though- What I feel in those situations is what I call shame. What my earlier breakdown was referring to as embarrassment is more- the glowy feeling of a cute person flirting with you, or of being seen and safe and vulnerable. But I think we can set this valence aside. It seems to be a separate emotion. I suspect these are fully different occasionally correlated things both called 'embarrassment', and only the one you are describing is really relevant to our discussion of the merits of shame in society.
Looking back on times when embarrassing (in your sense) things have happened to me... they were rather devastating. They felt like being stabbed. And- I find that these experiences have often wound up swept into my shadow. For much of my life I didn't have the emotional management tech to emotionally defuse those memories. I recall a rather materially trivial event, where during some social banter I mixed up the words 'quirky' and 'kinky'. Materially, it was laughed off by the group within seconds, but it stuck disproportionately in my psyche as a painful event that I couldn't think about.
This conversation with you has allowed me to access some other similar memories and defuse the strength of their valence. So thank you.
So- having considered this these last days- I don't necessarily think shame is bad, but I do think that in order for shame to do the work we want it to in society, the subjects of that shame need to know what to do with it. In so-called shame cultures, I expect there's a much better scaffolding for making sure people know what to do with this stabbing feeling, how to regulate it to a useful magnitude, and how to respond to it optimally. And even then... Japan still produces a stream of NEETs, many of which seem to be suffering this over-sensitivity to shame. In America- shame seems like even more of a crapshoot...
I conjecture that any "just add more shame" solution is an oversimplification. A society also needs a refined zeitgeist around how to use shame in order for the effects of adding more to be positive.
As for whether I would ruin the vibe of the classroom in my hypothetical, I might if this were my first rodeo. I don't think Shame is necessary for me to learn from my mistakes there though. The things that I labeled 'compassion' and 'regret' can serve a similar purpose. (though, perhaps they are related to the weaker forms of shame that you posit). Part of the reason that the idea of shouting at the class is funny is because it is unexpected for my mind to output it as an option. My subconscious has already learned structures and biases towards certain classes of thoughts, and this 'yell in lecture' thought is out of distribution and somewhat absurd. But- it's not shame that stops me from thinking it (at least in the present. perhaps it's meaningful to posit a form of 'shadow' or 'dark' shame in the negative space where my mind doesn't go). And- if I were bored I have other tools for that. I can just hallucinate pleasure. I suspect that I can hallucinate emotions more wholly than most people in general... and that this is responsible both for my ability to wirehead just by imagining pleasure- and my ability to have traumatic emotional flashbacks to trivial situations.
In terms of weighing the costs and benefits in every social situation- I think you are correct. Many of my social algorithms do slow down my ability to respond in social situations. But in our current environment that is merited. Taking 10 seconds to respond to a situation really isn't a problem except in a high speed competitive environment. And neither high trust socializing nor deciding when to speak out in a lecture are high speed competitive environments. It's good to play war games sometimes to stay sharp. But outside of that it seems better to take one's time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"shame culture" is a technical term of anthropology where it refers to a culture where people judge their own actions through the lens of "what will other people think of me if I do this" rather than through the lens of law or morality. Like most confusing technical terms, this is not nonsense if you understand the technical meaning. America profoundly isn't a shame culture in this sense.
If "shame culture" is being used by very online people to refer to a culture with a lot of social shaming, then that is dumb and may be nonsensical to boot. But that isn't something I have come across.
More options
Context Copy link
These seem related to each other. Young people who don't settle down eventually become 40 years old, and many of them don't have children due to not settling down. If such people are shamed, then young people have an incentive to avoid growing up to become one of those people.
You’re imagining something like “24yo woman witnesses 40yo being shamed and doesn’t want that to happen to them”, but there’s a better and more accurate reinforcement structure to put in place. 24yo woman don’t put themselves in social contexts where they see the social shame of 40yos because of how age-specific social contexts are, and humans are bad at making 15-year plans, so even if we enacted that plan it wouldn’t work, and that’s implying “shame every older childless woman always” is an acceptable amount of pain administration for prosocial result. We can just shame the 24yos whose lifestyle deters them from fertility, which winds up promoting a lifestyle which is pro-fertility. We don’t have to shame the 40yo at all; when they turn 40, we can completely stop promoting the fertility behavior with shame, because by that point it’s too late. People care most about immediate social pride, rather than what happens when they are 40.
It’s like with shaming bad students. You can shame a bad student because you want to promote study habits so they get the best job they can. Shaming their poor habits is beneficial and for their greater good. But shaming people whose occupation you deem inferior would be sociopathic, even if it had the byproduct of (in theory) promoting good study habits among poor students. This relates broadly to the concept of forgiveness and mercy, which I suppose is very apropos the article…
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Society actively maintains a heavy dose of smoke-and-mirrors around the beauty-value-fertility tradeoff. It might not be deliberate, and more an emergent property of our civilization. But, the degree of obfuscation is mind-boggling.
Childbirth transforms a woman's body, yet before-after images are nigh impossible to find. Vaginal tearing is the norm (9/10) during childbirth and never mentioned. The impact of breast feeding on a woman's permanent beauty/perceived value is never part of the breast-feeding conversation. Childbirth comes at a heavy cost, despite what you believe, this cost is hidden away in a box.
Note: maternal mortality has cratered in the last few decades, but our civilization evolved in an era where child-birth was indeed a woman's 9-11 / Vietnam. She signed up for a 9 month deployment, and god only knows if she'd come back unscathed or at all.
We can't speak the truth, because truth leaks from both sides. DINK couples & spinsters help maintain the peace out of politeness, and married-couples reciprocate. Once the 'shaming is okay' pandoras box is open, we have no clue how the spinsters will respond.
All societies operate under polite fictions. It may seem redundant, but they're lindy. Abolish them with great caution.
My 2050-2100 prediction:
Embryo selection, Crispr and mechanical wombs will be figured out.
Fertility will recover. The tech will spread like wild-wire, becoming the prominent form of childbirth. Once the negative risk of childbirth is eliminated, the spinster-shaming will begin at earnest.
In the process, we will lose our humanity. A woman's brain changes after pregnancy. Mothers have been the gatekeepers of all humanity since time eternal. Once women stop undergoing pregnancy, a new type of motherhood will emerge, and with it, a new type of humanity.
"Motherhood will be dead. Long live motherhood."
Every step will be defensible but what emerges might not be humanity.
As long as that which emerges loves itself, explores and embraces and seeks to understand the alien, and pursues greatness, that is Humanity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you think it would ever be prosocial to do so?
If schools instilled the fear of growing up to be childless and dying alone with the same vigor that they instill the fear of not going to college and working at McDonald’s one’s whole life, I suspect there would be more families started.
I don't think my teachers ever told me to go to college by telling me I would die alone and friendless regretting my every life choice, but we may have gone to different schools.
It was not-so-subtly implied.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link