The Look of Shame - Spitzer

THE LOOK OF SHAME

An incredible study of nonverbal behavior. Notice even the 'uniforms' down to the pearls, and the lapels pins.

DON'T MISS INNER LIGHT RADIO - I'll be on air discussing the EQ ramifications of "Friends with Money" on April 15th at 1:00 p.m. CST. Call in and say "hi". For more information go to http://www.lifelessonsfrommovies.com/ or http://www.innerlightradio.com/ . Call in and join in the discussion. We learn best when we learn together. And wait till you hear DERILENE MC CLOUD, the mastermind of this series. I'm really looking forward to this experience, and encourage you to join us.

The Look of Shame ... Or is it the Look of Guilt?
In a law firm where I consulted, when someone made a mistake, they or the others would say "the walk of shame." Meant to kind of lighten the situation. Granted "shaming and blaming" is not suitable behavior for an office - but that's why I was there. That having been said, there are times when one should should feel shame and/or guilt.

Shaming phrases, for instance, are, "You should have known better," and "How could you do something so stupid?" They are designed to make the person feel shame.

Is this the look of shame - or guilt? And what's the difference between the two?
In our language, there is no clearcut distinction better "shame" and "guilt." Cultural anthropologist Ruth Benedict describes shame as "a violation of cultural or social values" while feelings of guilt "arise from violations of internal values."

In their book, "Facing Shame," Fossum and Mason state "While guilt is a painful feeling of regret and responsibility for one's actions, shame is a painful feeling about oneself as a person."

As we grow from childhood into adulthood, and become better able to judge our own actions, guilt becomes the conscience former. Although, in general, guilt guides adult consciences, intrinsic shame is often present in adults too.

Facing up to shameful behavior in public (and I'm sure this is defined culturally - what's "shameful") is especially difficult.

Take a look at the faces of these people. How do these men look? Look especially at the mouths. Hard to describe - but we know it when we see it. The eyes tell a lot too. Often people will shut their eyes while clamping their mouths tightly as well.

The general impression is - I don't want to do this and I hope it will be over with soon.

To learn more, take the EQ Course ...

A Look At Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

IT CLAWS ... BUT IT ALSO PURRS, NURTURES ITS YOUNG, AND LIVES IN A PACK

Perhaps you've read or heard about the article, "Ten Politically Incorrect Truths about Human Nature" (Psychology Today, Alan S. Miller, PhD., and Satoshi Kanazawa, Ph.D.)

Some of the things listed are not surprising - that men are physically attracted to blond Barbie-types, humans are naturally polygamous, most suicide bombers are Muslim, men become less competitive with age, and politicians do things like Clinton did.

Others many of us will not have heard of -- offsets of the Trivers-Willard theory -- wealthy couples with higher status have more sons. People with at least one son are less likely to divorce. And beautiful people are more likely to have daughters - 56% v. 48%. (One has to wonder if that is statistically significant. Seems to me to be hovering awful close to chance.)

Interesting too is the proposition that if a woman's being harassed in the workplace, she's being treated equally, at last. (Oh thank heavens, at last I can be abused like a man?)

But wait. Isn't this the ten politically incorrect truths about our ANIMAL nature? And haven't we spent most of our time on earth trying to rise above our animal natures? Trying to get beyond the talon principle, nature red in tooth and claw, climb up out of the slime and stand on two legs?

These are instincts from the reptilian brain, which was programmed eons ago and which we still share with - um - reptiles. They are polygamous, yes. Their instincts are uncomplicated: "Can I eat it, will it eat me, can I copulate with it?"

One politically incorrect behavior not mentioned because it's so REALLY politically incorrect, is that we, as individuals, would like to kill someone in order to get what we want. These may be truths about our animal nature, but many people manage to get to a higher level. Some men find a courageous, loving brunette who may even be middle-aged and marry her and remain faithful. Some men avoid becoming a suicide bomber even if in a country which encourages this. They refuse, or they emigrate to a country more favorable to the good life. Not all politicians behave like Clinton did, or Spitzer, even if they could "get away with it." There are CEOs who treat the men who work for them with respect.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you, after all, is using your thinking brain. Some individuals continue being creative and productive well past the age when Gates and McCartney quit, because the drive is not at the animal level, it's coming from higher up. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SAPIENS IN HOMO SAPIENS?

We have a limbic brain (why we do not eat our children when we're hungry, like reptiles do), and a neocortex - which allows us not just to think, but to think about thinking. Therefore, we can note that we have an animal instinct operating (big deal) and choose not to act on it (that would be stupid). It isn't a command, these "instincts". Unless you aren't linked to your limbic brain and neocortex, that is. If our "human" nature is anything, it is the "homo sapiens" - we're the ones who can think. That means we have choices.

This list of "human nature" is implicitly hooked in to the selfish gene theory, which is, after all, selfish. This is the "it's all about me" side of human nature, amped up. But no less than Pope John Paul II has apologized for acts of "human nature" that were wrong, such as the missionary abuses against indigenous peoples of the South Pacific, and the persecution of Galileo Galilei, a case of workplace harassment if you will.

Killing people may be part of our animal nature, but caring for and about other people is part of our human nature. I thought we left Freud's drive theory (sex and aggression) behind us in the last century. There is just as strong a drive to bond, nurture and protect, which of course would be included in the Politically Correct Truths list, but it goes beyond that. Human nature isn't just about you and procreating your genes at the expense of others. Some of the things Miller and Kanazawa mention may be part of our nature. They may be politically incorrect. But in some cases acting on them is just plain wrong. And that's why you got a limbic brain and neocortex to go along with that reptilian brain. So you'd know this and feel this!

Want to learn more? Take THE EQ COURSE. You will find it fascinating and enlightening. Email me for more information, sdunn@susandunn.cc, and for coaching. It's the best investment in your future you can make. See more at www.susandunn.cc .

Eliot Spitzer and decision making

From today's mailbag -

Eliot Spitzer Thought Flow Chart:

http://www.unlikelywords.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/spitzer.gif

Actually not a bad flow chart about decision making, especially when it concerns impulses from the reptilian brain.

For personal coaching, and the EQ Course (about emotions and how the brain works and how to make good decisions email me at sdunn@susandunn.cc .