The SHAME SPIRAL: How NOT To Go There | The Positive Mind Blog. By Dr. William K. Larkin on May 14, 2012 Shame is the difference between who we pretend to be and who we believe we are at our worst moments of self-doubt and self-punishment. It is what we hope the neighbors and our parents will never find out and the part that makes us feel like we are frauds. It’s the “if people only knew” kind of experience. Once shame or secret-keeping gets a start, every time we feel “less than” and are weak the spiral grows. This is bigger than one or two things you have done that are especially terrible. There is a difference between EVERYONE’S presenting self –what we show the world-- and the self we believe we are.
Every time your brain tells you that you are not enough or that you are weak, this spiral builds. How do you undo never measuring up or feeling weak or feeling “less than” and presenting yourself to the world as you are and not feeling like a fraud? A vision for your life heals shame. You have to take chances to overcome shame.
Labeling theory. Labeling theory is closely related to social-construction and symbolic-interaction analysis.[3] Labeling theory was developed by sociologists during the 1960s. Howard Saul Becker's book Outsiders was extremely influential in the development of this theory and its rise to popularity. Theoretical basis[edit] This theoretically builds a subjective conception of the self, but as others intrude into the reality of that individual's life, this represents objective data which may require a re-evaluation of that conception depending on the authoritativeness of the others' judgment. Family and friends may judge differently from random strangers. More socially representative individuals such as police officers or judges may be able to make more globally respected judgments.
If deviance is a failure to conform to the rules observed by most of the group, the reaction of the group is to label the person as having offended against their social or moral norms of behavior. George Herbert Mead[edit] Evolutionary approaches to depression. Evolutionary psychologists have proposed several different evolutionary explanations for depression. Background[edit] Major depression (also called "major depressive disorder", "clinical depression" or often simply "depression") is a leading cause of disability worldwide, and in 2000 was the fourth leading contributor to the global burden of disease (measured in DALYs); it is also an important risk factor for suicide.[1] It is understandable, then, that clinical depression is thought to be a pathology — a major dysfunction of the brain.
In most cases, rates of organ dysfunction increase with age, with low rates in adolescents and young adults, and the highest rates in the elderly.[2] These patterns are consistent with evolutionary theories of aging which posit that selection against dysfunctional traits decreases with age (because there is a decreasing probability of surviving to later ages). Psychic pain hypothesis[edit] Behavioral shutdown model[edit] Analytical rumination hypothesis[edit]
Depressive realism. Evidence for[edit] Evidence against[edit] When asked to rate both their performance and the performance of another, non-depressed individuals demonstrated positive bias when rating themselves but no bias when rating others. Criticism of the evidence[edit] Some have argued that the evidence is not more conclusive because there is no standard for "reality," the diagnoses are dubious, and the results may not apply to the real world.[33] Because many studies rely on self-report of depressive symptoms, the diagnosis of depression in these studies may not be valid as self-reports are known to often be biased, necessitating the use of other objective measures. Due to most of these studies using designs that do not necessarily approximate real-world phenomena, the external validity of the depressive realism hypothesis is unclear. See also[edit] References[edit] Jump up ^ Alloy,L.B., Abramson,L.Y. (1988).
Further reading[edit] Rachel Adelson (April 2005). Emergence. In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties. Emergence is central in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon life as studied in biology is commonly perceived as an emergent property of interacting molecules as studied in chemistry, whose phenomena reflect interactions among elementary particles, modeled in particle physics, that at such higher mass—via substantial conglomeration—exhibit motion as modeled in gravitational physics.
Neurobiological phenomena are often presumed to suffice as the underlying basis of psychological phenomena, whereby economic phenomena are in turn presumed to principally emerge. In philosophy, emergence typically refers to emergentism. In philosophy[edit] Main article: Emergentism Definitions[edit] Strong and weak emergence[edit]