Addiction Explained

I want to bring awareness to addiction but explain it in words that we use every day. I will use words like desire, willpower, and intention. In the scientific community, this is known as folk psychology, but there is nothing wrong with this. Although “desire” is a dopaminergic signal found within the mesolimbic system, we want to understand the experience of addiction and not the neuron.

After understanding addiction, it should become clear that compassion and accountability are more appropriate responses to dealing with alcoholics and addicts than demonization and punishment. Furthermore, addiction meets all of the definitional requirements of being a disease—that is, a part of their addiction is out of their control—which makes punitive measures ineffective in the long run.

The Survival Center

Put simply, drugs and alcohol are compelling because they hijack the precise mechanisms that evolved for sex. [5]

Those that come from alcoholics anonymous get lost in their literature and believe that they must follow the twelve steps word-for-word as if life depended upon it. In fact, the original steps were written in six steps. The point is that the overarching mechanism that keeps them clean is probably the group consciousness that makes them adopt new norms that using is not acceptable.

In the process of working the steps, the parts of the mind that have an obsession with the substance become dormant like a muscle that atrophies when not used. When these parts don’t get used, then the desire to use and the cues associated with using become weakened. They don’t, however, completely go away which is why, arguably, once an addict, then always an addict (i).

The reason addicts develop strong desires to use in the first place is that they are hijacking their survival center. This pleasure center (ii) has a dense source of dopamine receptors within the nucleus accumbens and dorsal striatum, and it makes us want and desire things such as caloric-rich foods, sex, and material items. Drugs and alcohol, unfortunately, target the same part of the brain.

Normal Temptation

Judgment becomes nothing more than the projection of the strongest desire. [1]

In short, we have intentions, desires, and beliefs that interact with one another to create a behavior or action. This system is controlled by our willpower. Think of willpower as a skill or a muscle that becomes easier to use when used often and well-rested. When we resist temptation, it is not because we use good judgment but rather we use willpower in order to stick with our intentions.

The problem with addicts is not their willpower but that the desire to use is stronger than what we would experience in normal temptation. Not only is their desire stronger but the desire is decoupled from reasoning, which means that reasoning is near impotent (iii). This does not mean that addicts don’t reason, but when they reason and make choices it will always be biased.

In normal temptation, a person may desire chocolate and indulge by giving in to the urge. In order to do this, they perform a judgment shift. A judgment shift is when we place a higher value on what we would gain if we gave in to temptation and a lower value if we were not to give in. We do this by finding reasons to give in to temptation which reduces our cognitive dissonance.

As an interesting aside, if our intention was to not give in to temptation, then our desire was victorious but we couldn’t say that we went against our better judgment. We could even say that our decision was rational since when making the choice to indulge or not, we gave ourselves reasons why to indulge. This although is reason-based rationality and not the rationality that we are familiar with.

Addicts’ Temptation

Desire works by capturing the user’s attention, focusing on what is desired, and narrowing horizons. [1]

When the addict, on the other hand, makes a judgment on whether or not to use, there is such a disparity between the two that not using won’t be tempting. It is not as if the addict doesn’t realize that the choice to use has consequences but rather the desire to use is much more tempting than to not use. In fact, the desire is so overwhelming that the consequences feel like a walk in a park.

The only hope for an addict is that their willpower to resist is strong and the desire to use isn’t strong, which occurs with abstinence. If they try to engage in reasoning, it will be a rationalization or judgment shift in favor of the more desirable (iii). The use of the word choice just doesn’t make sense for an addict because the feeling to use is heavily anchored, which will bias the decision or choice.

In normal circumstances when our desires aren’t overwhelming, I suppose we can call it a choice when we stick with our intentions in the face of a contrary desire. That is, we chose to not give in to temptation and instead chose the right path. But I don’t think that is what is going on here. Because the one that chose correctly may have just had a weak desire, a strong will, and intentions not to.

Hate But Still Want

There must be an almost complete disconnection between judging an outcome good and wanting it, or, conversely, between judging it bad and not wanting it. [1]

The addict after time will start to hate the substance yet still want it. Not surprisingly experiments show that liking (hating) and wanting (not wanting) are distinct phenomena but work under the same motivational system. For an addict, these two feelings become decoupled as one doesn’t affect the other. So no matter how much they hate it or think it is “bad” they will still want it.

All of the above discussion assumes a degree of severity in the addict’s addiction which depends on how often they have used, how long, what the substance is, and their own genetics. Depending upon the stages and severity of the addiction, the disparity between the value assigned to using and not using will diminish and start looking more like a choice as the more they chose not to use.

The interesting thing is why would an addict or alcoholic choose to use years after sobriety. That is to say what if their intentions change and they decide to use despite having the belief that using will result in consequences. After all, our intentions, wherever they come from, motivate us directly and don’t require us to have a desire. This is where the complexity lies, see addendum.

Addiction Is Immoral

If we think of people in categorical ways, then we can label an obese person and an addict as lazy and weak. After all, it’s their biology and choices that got them there. But if we allow science to illuminate the details of human behavior, we won’t resort to a black-and-white reading—instead, we will understand addiction as a mechanism and not a moral failing that deserves contempt.

I am not suggesting that we give up labels because they describe what we observe. Addicts and alcoholics are downright weak when they succumb to substances in order to cope with the pains that life serves them. They destroy the lives of family members and become a burden to society. If morality is about the wellbeing of others, then they certainly qualify as being immoral beings.

This viewpoint, however, serves our interests and not the addict or alcoholics. To help, we must remove morality from the equation. If we label them as immoral and punish them, then they will only hide their addiction better. Our penal institutions are a sham for the addict and our attitudes are misguided. It is time we let science speak and give them a fighting chance to become moral beings.

Notes

i) This means that addicts and alcoholics will often “pick up where they left off” if they start using again. But this isn’t destiny since the wanting of the substance becomes lessened while they learn how to not act on that want.

ii) This is somewhat a misnomer because dopamine is about “wanting”, and it’s the opioid receptors that give “pleasure”.

iii) This is when an addict is in the active stages of addiction.

Addendum

intention – enables us to resolve deliberative uncertainty in order to facilitate action
judgments – evaluation or appraisal of what is best
desire – a state that preoccupies an agent’s attention with an urge to perform an action
willpower or self-control – when one sticks with their intentions in the face of contrary desires
weak-willed – when one revises their intentions too readily and can be due to either having one’s willpower depleted or other factors
choice – when the situation arises of what to do

References

[1] Richard Holton. “Willing, Wanting, Waiting.”

[2] McGonigal Ph.D., Kelly. “The Willpower Instinct.”

[3] Miller, Shannon. “The ASAM Principles of Addiction Medicine.”

[4] Morgan, Oliver J. “Addiction, Attachment, Trauma and Recovery.”

[5] Wilson, Gary. “Your Brain on Porn.”

Destruction of Homo Economicus

Homo economicus is from rational choice theory (i) that says humans maximize their self-interest in a consistent and rational way, much like how software solves an optimization problem. To be sure, this model does not map well to how a real mind works. In fact, look at how a cognitive scientist discusses how reasoning does not resemble anything like that of an algorithm.

We’ve learned a centuries old theory of rationality that says that thought is conscious (when it is mostly unconscious), that it works by logic (it actually works by embodied primitives, frames, conceptual metaphor, and integration), that all people have the same logic (which is supposed to be what makes us rational animals). [7]

Here I would like to ridicule the idea of homo economicus being an accurate characterization of how we make decisions because it is not only wrong from a neuroscience point of view (ii), but it also elevates rationality. And a worldview that embodies rationality, with roots going back to Descartes, leads to championing the idea of self-interest by way of logical necessity (iii).

It is often seen as natural for people to act so as to maximize their self-interest (or profit) and unnatural for them not to. Those who profit most are therefore seen as doing what comes naturally, and those who profit much less are seen as irrational, unnatural, lesser beings who don’t deserve much no matter how hard they work. [9]

Presumption of Reason

The Enlightenment advocated reason and empiricism as a way to obtain objective truth about our world and gave us arguments to challenge any authority that used dogma to their advantage. It also applied empiricism to achieve economic progress to improve upon our welfare as well as gave rise to humanism which is the idea that humans have value and agency not to be trodden upon.

The Enlightenment also thought that reason is what makes us human and rational, but they framed everything in terms of logic. As a result, “reason” is thought of as a faculty that gives “truth” in accordance with the rules of logic. There is, however, no universal reason or logic. To be sure, the reason I mean here is the kind made from our minds that is unrelated to logic in a program.

The view on reason is that it is conscious, universal, logical, unemotional, and value-neutral. But it is not any of those things, and believing so is irrational. For example, when others argue against us, we think they must be either mistaken (in need of the facts), irrational (needing a lesson in logic), or immoral (need to feel how we do) [7]. Worldviews must have their own logic then (v).

If the people are made aware of the facts and figures, they should naturally reason to the right conclusion. Voters should vote their interests; they should calculate which policies and programs are in their best interests, and vote for the candidates who advocate those policies and programs. But people aren’t rational, so this doesn’t happen. [9]

Rationality of Self-Interest

Yet versions of the rational actor model (i) have contributed to the arms race (via game theory (iv) and Mutually Assured Destruction) and global warming (via the externalization of pollution costs). It is that form of “rationality” that has most threatened our ability to survive and thrive.

The rational actor model (i) is in line with the eighteenth-century-view of mind which saw reason as primarily serving to achieve personal goals. Therefore it was seen as irrational to be against your self-interest. If our culture expects us to behave in ways that serve our interests, then how do we know how much of our selfish behavior is influenced by biology or from social norms?

From the selfish gene perspective, the rational actor of course makes sense. But this mode of thought is so engrained – the narrative of the rational actor – that altruism was called reciprocal-altruism. Whether or not evolutionists are correct (they probably are), is not the point but speculation as to how metaphors and language construct our realities and guide theory is.

Although there is considerable literature documenting biological altruism, the most popular evolutionary account of altruism as a form of self-interest is reciprocal altruism—the trading of favors: it is in my interest to serve your interests in a society where that is the norm.

The “invisible hand” made seeking a profit into a moral act since it maximizes the profit for all (vi). We find this attractive – that is, making the proverbial pie bigger – because it reduces the guilt we feel from being selfish. But this is a good thing because it says that we have empathy and that there is more to human nature than self-interest.

Notes:

i) Rational choice theory is synonymous with the rational actor model.

ii) Rational choice theory does find application to many optimizing problems. But it has been used incorrectly by ideologues to explain how we make decisions and reason.

iii) If we adopt a worldview that uses the rational actor model, then we get trapped in narratives that place emphasis on self-interest.

iv) When there is more than one actor, limited resources, competition for benefits, and strategies for acting given the actions and strategies of others, then we are in the realm of game theory.

v) Disagreement happens because different worldviews have their own logic and rationality. This means that objective truth has a frame of reference.

vi) It doesn’t matter what Adam Smith said only how it is remembered in simple and absolute terms and by way of metaphor.

Related Posts

“Conception of Homo Economicus“: rational man was conceived by way of deductive reasoning and a few “self-evident” truths.

“Destruction of Homo Economicus“: rationality from the Enlightenment leads to self-interest and there is no universal reason.

“Reasoning with Homo Economicus“: teaching the self-righteous human self-awareness and that passions drive reason.

“Resurrection of Homo Economicus“: the “invisible hand” promises wealth creation but costs go beyond typical externalities.

References:

[1] Ariely, Dan. Predictably Irrational, Revised and Expanded Edition. HarperCollins e-books.

[2] Barrett, Lisa Feldman. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. HMH Books.

[3] Damasio, Antonio R.. Descartes’ Error. Penguin Publishing Group.

[4] Foster, Peter. Why We Bite the Invisible Hand: The Psychology of Anti-Capitalism . Pleasaunce Press.

[5] Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind . Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

[6] Kennedy, Gavin. Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand: From Metaphor to Myth. Econ Journal Watch 6(2): 239–263.

[7] Lakoff, George. Moral Politics . University of Chicago Press.

[8] Lakoff, George. Philosophy In The Flesh.

[9] Lakoff, George. The Political Mind. Penguin Publishing Group.

[10] Madrick, Jeff. Seven Bad Ideas. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

[11] Mercier, Hugo. The Enigma of Reason. Harvard University Press.

[12] Pinker, Steven. Enlightenment Now. Penguin Publishing Group.

[13] Smith, Justin E. H.. Irrationality. Princeton University Press.

[14] Wikipedia on Rational Choice Theory.

Constructed Reality

Modern neuroscience is challenging innatism—think evolutionary psychology—with their findings on how our emotions work. The bottom line is that our emotions are not hardwired (i) at least not in the sense we were sold. The proponent of the theory, Lisa Feldman Barrett Ph.D., tells a lucid story in “How Emotions are Made” on how the mind constructs emotions minus the fingerprint (i) requirement.

I will explain here how motivated reasoning (v) corrupted the science of the day while the next post will look at how Dr. Barrett cleverly uses language to promote her theory but at the cost of misrepresenting others’. It brings up the disturbing idea, at least for the strict innatists, that our realities are constructed purely by statistical reasoning and interoception and that our emotions are only valid in so much that there is a collective agreement.

This is particularly important because it shows how researchers were motivated to reinterpret findings and even architect experiments to conform to their faith in innatism. But judging by Dr. Barrett’s interest in constructionism, she too is motivated to reinterpret studies and prove the status quo—Plato, Steven Pinker, Charles Darwin (ii), and Paul Ekman—wrong but nevertheless shows a genuine passion to accurately characterize our emotional states.

Motivated for a Fingerprint

Darwin’s theory of evolution says that differences found within a species are not errors from the ideal-type but are necessary ingredients for natural selection to work. So the ideal species is better seen as a statistical average (iii) where individual members of the species vary from this average in, sometimes, important ways.

This insight that an ideal-type doesn’t exist matters because our emotions are best viewed in the same way. It was ignored, however, when the philosopher John Dewey, a Darwinist, reframed William James’ work on emotions to conform to the ideas of essentialism (iv).

Dewey’s misinterpretation of James is one of the great mistakes in modern psychology, forged by essentialism in the name of Darwin. [1]

The irony is that Darwin’s theory was arguing against essentialism since it was saying that there was no essence or ideal-type. But Dewey’s motivations were philosophical and so labeled the essence a fingerprint since it was thought to be unique and exist in all of us. But no fingerprint for emotion has ever been found.

Architecting a Fingerprint

The idea that emotions have a fingerprint exists today as the classical theory of emotions. But studies conducted to prove this was in a way architected [1]. In other words, they allowed their experimental method to be influenced by their philosophy (iv). Let me explain how the study was contrived.

Researchers knew that at least seven emotions had fingerprints. The experiments required that participants choose from a list of emotions when trying to guess the emotion conveyed. This list was not random but handpicked and consequently improved the accuracy for guessing the correct emotion.

There were also opportunities for non-Westerners to learn the meaning of our stereotyped emotions before being given the list. Moreover, the list itself was providing them with emotional concepts that acted as cues that experimenters didn’t take into account. The researchers still succeeded, however, at replicating the studies with the faulty methodology and proved innateness.

But using more sophisticated techniques from neuroscience to measure our emotions shows that they are more like variations of a theme than fingerprints. That is we construct emotions by using learned concepts and no one instance of emotion is the same although a category of emotion, say anger, seems to converge to some average distribution.

Notes

i) The book takes innate in the most strict sense where each emotion must have a similar neurological pathway and be universally expressed and recognized across all cultures. The word fingerprint is alluding to a predefined pathway that is expressed in everyone the same way.

ii) Darwin’s insight that there is no ideal species but rather a prototype instead would have helped innatists, but they relied on the book in which Darwin got it wrong, namely “Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals”. He speculated that there were universal emotions but portrayed it in a way that betrays the anti-essentialism he was expressing in “On the Origin of Species”.

iii) A statistical average is not real but abstract. We can think of the ideal species as being the statistical average, and the members of the ideal species as data points in an experiment that all vary from the ideal or average.

iv) Essentialism is a philosophical belief that any entity has a definable and finite set of properties that make it what it is but claims that it is science’s role to figure out what that is. Staunchly holding to this belief, however, led to faulty experiments and conclusions.

v) Motivated reasoning is a confirmation bias. And despite cognitive science labeling, it is a ‘cognitive distortion’, it is a feature of the mind and is how it works. Fortunately, our motivated hypotheses are challenged by others if not trapped in the same dogma.

References

[1] Barrett, Lisa Feldman. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. HMH Books.

Brief Thoughts on: “That’s right. Psychology isn’t science.”

My hunch that this opinion is common was finally clinched after reading a dated piece a microbiologist wrote for the LA Times who claims: “That’s right. Psychology isn’t science.”

I will not, however, be critiquing the author’s article until the next post but will briefly discuss tactics and motivation.

My Take on “That’s right.”

When we embed emotion within our claims, as the above clearly does, then we are using rhetorical devices meant to persuade and thus give others reason for skepticism. This does not of course preclude us from being correct, but it does tell others we are determined to win an argument.

This claim panders to the ego since the slanter (i) used for effect is the inflated variant of pride known as hubris. Hubris shows when we self-aggrandize and pride shows when we achieve for its own sake. So do we think the microbiologist will be fair when evaluating psychology against the five criteria if he is driven to impress and use motivated reasoning (ii)?

Underneath it all, however, there is most certainly contempt and this is the prime motivator as you need a strong catalyst to fuel a diatribe. The secondary motivator is to impress and dazzle his audience which is reinforced by feelings of hubris upon reflecting how his finished product will come across to others (iv).

I could be wrong on intentions, but we still end up with a finite sample space (iii) on motivations: he is either motivated to impress and win or motivated to be objective and fair. These two motivations aren’t compatible, so he can’t be both but could still be right regardless of motivation.

Notes:

i) A slanter is figurative speech meant to manipulate the reader by appealing to our emotions.

ii) Motivated reasoning is when we focus on what we want the conclusion to be and are not objective and fair with the evidence nor do we consider alternative explanations.

iii) The expanded sample space includes two more possibilities: motivated to impress and be fair and objective or motivated to win and be fair and be objective. This is unlikely based on the content though.

iv) This is not meant to be a definitive and exhaustive list as it is just my first impressions. Claiming to know someone’s intentions is a cognitive distortion labeled as “mind-reading”, and I don’t have that power.

Ranking on Psychology

Doubts towards Psychology

I have had doubts about personality psychology’s ability to define traits because of the difficulty in controlling for situational factors as well as, more recently, the methodologies that social psychology has been using, or not using, which has resulted in a replication crisis. But to say it is pseudoscience is not only discouraging honest inquiry into a field that asks important questions about our nature but is also, quite frankly, interesting enough in its own right to write about.

I am reminded of the time I was schooled by someone on the field of medicine as being the “hard” science whereas psychology was the “soft” science if one at all. The contemptuous tone and smug face made it all the more memorable which served to not just stoop my posture but also to taunt me. I was hoping for rational discourse but instead provoked a reaction that I have no doubt seen before when challenging others, and I soon realized that I was engaging in tribal warfare guise as truth-seeking.

Not Judging Just Saying

I am guilty too of using contempt as some of my posts have been described as “vitriolic” and “scornful”. But I’m more careful now in how I present topics so that issues can be discussed without severing our prefrontal cortex. To be clear, I am not judging those who use contempt but instead am offering analysis on the emotion of contempt. I would like to understand it and assess if the benefits of its use – stoking our own egos and bolstering our tribe’s beliefs – outweigh the costs.

By discussing psychology’s progress towards understanding our emotions, part I, we will be able to say at the very least that the field attempts to be a science since it asks questions on how things work and accumulates a body of knowledge, and at the very most, part II, we can say it meets the five criteria often cited to qualify an endeavor as a science.

Furthermore, the question should not be framed in terms of absolutes, as that only serves the victor when disparaging it, but rather to what degree does it adhere to these five criteria.

Stay tuned!

Effects of Self-Esteem Overstated

This post addresses number one from Facts that Impact Therapy.

1. global self-esteem is not a major predictor of anything with the exception of happiness [3]

Self-esteem is defined here as trait (global) self-esteem in the absence of aversive social experiences. This is a specific type of self-esteem measured on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) to detect the overall attitude that we have towards the self.

William James over a century ago said it best when he described this measurement as “a certain average tone of self-feeling which each one of us carries about with him, and which is independent of the objective reasons we may have for satisfaction and discontent” [12].

Effects of Global Self-Esteem Overstated

Although global self-esteem has been associated with a host of problems – delinquent behaviors, promiscuity, substance abuse, depression, hostility, and life satisfaction [12] – that, for example, educators have attempted to artificially inflate to improve grades to no avail and that our culture seems obsessed with, the social psychologist Dr. Roy Baumeister correctly reminds us that these are just correlations.

Dr. Baumeister bases this on a survey conducted in 2001 of over 15,000 publicized studies on self-esteem, where only primary studies were chosen in order to see the original data. The conclusion is most astounding, and I will quote below but in essence global self-esteem is not that important too much of anything but our overall happiness, which, of course, is significant in its own right [3].

With the exception of the link to happiness, most of the effects are weak to modest. Self-esteem (global) is thus not a major predictor or cause of almost anything (again, with the possible exception of happiness). [3]

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised with these findings since if you look at the questions from the RSES (see Figure 1), they don’t detect extremes in attitudes and feelings about the self, with the exception of numbers 3, 9, and 10. To me, it is obvious that it’s in the extremes of our ego states that we may exhibit detectable behaviors but not from measuring our biased, aggregated opinion towards ourselves.

This does not mean that other forms of self-esteem, say state or specific [21], can’t have a measurable effect on behaviors; for example, we can feel a state of inferiority after someone disparages us prompting retaliatory measures on our end, but this is state self-esteem. State self-esteem along with self-esteem instability, which underlies the narcissistic trait, is tied to behaviors, but these are more difficult to measure [7, 8, 13, 26].

Figure 1: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale – RSES

I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
I feel that I have a number of good qualities..
All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
I am able to do things as well as most other people.
I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
I take a positive attitude toward myself.
On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
I wish I could have more respect for myself.
I certainly feel useless at times.
At times I think I am no good at all.

References

[1] Aron, Elaine. Ranking and Linking, For Better and For Worse. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/attending-the-undervalued-self/201001/ranking-and-linking-better-and-worse

[2] Baumeister, Roy. Advanced Social Psychology. Oxford University Press.

[3] Baumeister, Roy. Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles?

[4] Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2006). The three faces of self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem: Issues and answers (pp. 4-9). New York: Psychology Press.

[5] Caine, Susan. NYT. Shyness: Evolutionary Tactic?

[6] Crozier, Ray. Shyness and Embarrassment. Perspectives from Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press.

[7] De Ruiter, Naomi M. P. Explaining the “How” of Self-Esteem Development: The Self-Organizing Self-Esteem Model. Review of General Psychology.

[8] De Ruiter, Naomi M. P. Hindawi Complexity. Self-Esteem as a Complex Dynamic System: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Microlevel Dynamics

[9] Gilbert, Paul. Subordination and Defeat: An Evolutionary Approach To Mood Disorders and Their Therapy.

[10] Harris, Judith Rich. The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do.

[11] Heatherton, Todd. development and evaluation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

[12] Hoyle, Rick. Selfhood. Taylor and Francis.

[13] Jordon, Christian. Self-esteem Instability. Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

[14] Knopik, Valerie. Behavioral Genetics. Worth Publishers.

[15] Leary, Mark R. Interpersonal Rejection.

[16] Leary, Mark R. Making Sense of Self-Esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science.

[17] Marsh, Herbert. What is the Nature of Self-Esteem: Unidimensional and Multidimensional Perspectives

[18] Nesse, Randolph M.. Good Reasons for Bad Feelings. Penguin Publishing Group.

[19] O’brien, Edward J. Global Self-Esteem Scales: Unidimensional or Multidimensional? Research Article.

[20] Robins, Richard. Measuring Global Self-Esteem: Construct Validation of a Single-Item Measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

[21] Rosenberg, Morris. Global Self-Esteem and Specific Self-Esteem: Different Concepts, Different Outcomes. American Sociological Review.

[22] Self-Esteem Issues and Answers (p. 424). Taylor and Francis.

[23] Schmidt and Schulkin. Extreme Fear, Shyness, and Social Phobia (Series in Affective Science).

[24] Simpson, Jeffrey. Evolutionary Social Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

[25] Tafarodi, Romin W. Self-Liking and Self-competence as Dimensions to Self-Esteem: Initial Validation of a Measure. Journal of Personality Assessment.

[26] Tracy, Jessica. The Self-Conscious Emotions. Guilford Publication.

[27] Waytz, Adam. The Psychology of Social Status. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-social/

[28] Wong, Alexander E. Fractal Dynamics in Self-Evaluation Reveal Self-Concept Clarity. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences.

Low Self-Esteem Is Adaptive

This post addresses number two from Facts that Impact Therapy.

2. low (global) self-esteem* is an innate survival strategy that does not need treatment [1, 5, 18]

* low self-esteem is defined here as trait self-esteem in the absence of aversive social experiences

Low self-esteem has been stigmatized and misunderstood, especially in a culture that glorifies narcissism, i.e., the pursuit of high self-esteem. It has been suggested, however, that a considerable number of those classified as having low self-esteem are this way because of innate temperament, such as the discovered trait of sensory-processing sensitivity by Dr. Elaine Aron [18].

In fact, one-fifth, and always in this ratio, of over one hundred species of animals, including humans, adapt a survival strategy of being observant before acting and often appear as shy or inhibited [5, 18]. The cause for low self-esteem is not that people choose to be negative and rank themselves low as those are the effects of an unconscious strategy to protect from worst-case scenarios and from being challenged or criticized should they fall short of standards.

It’s a “lay low” and “play it safe” approach that is due to their temperament and is not learned. Moreover, low self-esteem people don’t necessarily harbor feelings of dislike towards themselves as that is learned through negative social experiences and unfavorable social comparisons. It only means that they readily describe themselves in disparaging terms when under the prospect of being judged by others since they are sensitive to the rankings of others.

These tendencies, which are automatic and unconscious, have the effect of saying that “I’m no threat” and make one submit and ingratiate more easily. Whether or not low self-esteem people are at higher risk for depression and social anxiety, however, will be discussed in the next post. Regardless, low self-esteem is better described as those that are “cautious and uncertain in order to reduce exposure of deficiencies” than as a “maladaptive coping strategy in the face of adversity” [3].

References

[1] Aron, Elaine. Ranking and Linking, For Better and For Worse. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/attending-the-undervalued-self/201001/ranking-and-linking-better-and-worse

[2] Baumeister, Roy. Advanced Social Psychology. Oxford University Press.

[3] Baumeister, Roy. Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles?

[4] Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2006). The three faces of self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem: Issues and answers (pp. 4-9). New York: Psychology Press.

[5] Caine, Susan. NYT. Shyness: Evolutionary Tactic?

[6] Crozier, Ray. Shyness and Embarrassment. Perspectives from Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press.

[7] Gilbert, Paul. Subordination and Defeat: An Evolutionary Approach To Mood Disorders and Their Therapy.

[8] Gilbert, Paul. Genes on the Couch.

[9] Harris, Judith Rich. The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do.

[10] Heatherton, Todd. development and evaluation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

[11] Hoyle, Rick. Selfhood. Taylor and Francis.

[12] Knopik, Valerie. Behavioral Genetics. Worth Publishers.

[13] Leary, Mark R. Interpersonal Rejection.

[14] Leary, Mark R. The Curse of the Self: Self-Awareness, Egotism, and the Quality of Human Life.

[15] Leary, Mark R. Making Sense of Self-Esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science.

[16] Nesse, Randolph M.. Good Reasons for Bad Feelings. Penguin Publishing Group.

[17] Rosenberg, Morris. Global Self-Esteem and Specific Self-Esteem: Different Concepts, Different Outcomes. American Sociological Review.

[18] Schmidt and Schulkin. Extreme Fear, Shyness, and Social Phobia (Series in Affective Science).

[19] Simpson, Jeffrey. Evolutionary Social Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

[20] Tracy, Jessica. The Self-Conscious Emotions. Guilford Publication.

[21] Waytz, Adam. The Psychology of Social Status. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-social/

[22] Wood, Joanne V. Positive Self-Statements. Psychological Science.

Self-Esteem is About Others

Our state self-esteem is most sensitive to others’ evaluating us and is an in-the-moment measurement of how we experience the self [11, 12]. Global self-esteem, on the other hand, is how we evaluate ourselves along the dimensions of appearance, likability, and capabilities, but when it is measured on tests, it only detects our average feelings towards ourselves [22].

These two aspects of self-esteem, however, are more similar than we may think. Global self-esteem, for example, can also be shown to be “a person’s general sense that he or she is the sort of person who is valued and accepted by other people” [28]. In order to show this sleight of hand or shift in perspective, I’ve constructed a simple argument and have followed up with explanations.

A system will point to its purpose by what it is most sensitive to,
and our self-esteem is most sensitive to how others evaluate us.
We also evaluate our own appearance, likability, and capabilities.
It is these attributes and not others since they bestow value on to others.
Standards to assess our attributes are only ours’ when they fall short,
but when it is safe to measure, we use the standards of others.
So self-acceptance is not about us but about others.

The trick to understanding the thesis that the self-esteem system was designed to help with social acceptance is that self-acceptance is not what we think it is and just because people are more content when they are not worrying what others think of them, this is irrelevant to the design’s purpose. An expert of the self-esteem system, Dr. Mark R. Leary, explains the theory quite well.

The theory is based on the assumption that human beings possess a pervasive drive to maintain significant inter personal relationships, a drive that evolved because early human beings who belonged to social groups were more likely to survive and re produce than those who did not (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Given the disastrous implications of being ostracized in the ancestral environment in which human evolution occurred, early human beings may have developed a mechanism for monitoring the degree to which other people valued and accepted them. This psychological mechanism – the sociometer – continuously monitors the social environment for cues regarding the degree to which the individual is being accepted [28].

It Is Personal After All

If we were to look at the emotions that are involved in self-esteem, for example, shame or pride, we will conclude that they are all self-conscious emotions, that is they arise in the context of how we are being evaluated and perceived by others. Research is quite clear in that we care a great deal what others think of us. And this doesn’t make us superficial people with petty concerns since we need to know the extent to which others like or value us in order to increase our chances of belonging and fitting in.

Everyday observation and behavioral research confirm that people are, in fact, acutely attuned to how others perceive and evaluate them. Not only are they highly sensitive to indications of disinterest, disapproval, and disassociation, but they strategically adjust their behavior when they believe that others are not perceiving them in desirable ways. [26]

Some, however, will argue that they aren’t ever concerned with what others think of them. But this claim is self-refuting since the very fact that someone would say that gives it away that they in fact do care. This is to persuade others that they are independent and strong, unlike those who look for approval, which can, unfortunately, be seen as a sign of weakness.

Therapists seem to believe that we can shut off these needs since the brain has “plasticity”. This is false, dampen it, sure, but not shut off. They are forgetting about the daily deference and attention they receive from coworkers and patients by virtue of their professional demeanor and self-presentation, in which the mind unconsciously picks up to create feelings of safety, approval, and belongingness [10, 26].

Design Points to its Purpose

But the most convincing clue is that any engineered system, even natural selection’s design, will result in a design such that what it is most sensitive to – others’ opinions – points to its purpose. To help, a system is a feedback mechanism that takes in information, processes it based on decision-based rules in the mind, and then outputs a behavior or emotion in order to reinforce or discourage an outcome.

As an example, we get negative emotions (social-anxiety, hurt feelings, and shame) when we are dismissed, ignored, or criticized, and these negative feelings discourage us from pursuing relationships but also encourage self-enhancement strategies because we believe we are “not enough”. On the other hand, we feel positive emotions (joy and pride) when we get approval, positive attention, and respect, and these positive feelings reinforce the behavior. [26].

The decision-based rule – the brain’s selection of an output to send in response to the input – is understood to be a two-step process: one is an automatic and unconscious appraisal of the social interaction as being either a threat or as safety-conferring to the self, and the other is a conscious and deliberate attempt to attribute the situation’s outcome to either internal (you) or external causes (them) [26, 40].

A Need to Bestow Value

Global self-esteem, which is about our self-worth and self-acceptance, is strongly correlated with our perceived physical appearance, likability, and competence [22]. We care about these qualities in particular not because of their own sake, as natural selection is not that wasteful, but because they have the potential to bestow positive value on to others.

But in order to bestow value, we must attract others, and we do this through our appearances and capabilities. The drive to want to attract and be valued is obvious when we express our needs to “have something to offer” and “to be included.” This bestowed value is shown in the positive affect (feelings) we create in the minds of others, which if successful we are rewarded with an elated mood (state self-esteem) [16, 26].

But despite this desire to be accepted and to attract others – which ultimately pays off since we engage in mutually beneficial activities like mating, etc. – we also compete over these desirable attributes because they are in limited supply. And so we compete for prestige as it is the social currency for acceptance and one measure of success in this struggle is the amount of attention and deference we can obtain, also known as our SAHP or our Social Attention Holding Potential [10].

Self-Acceptance as an Artifact

An aspect to self-esteem that seems to be at odds with this perspective is the idea of self-acceptance, but it turns out to be a cog in the wheel – an illusion to promote a grander agenda [39]. I don’t want to downplay its significance since self-satisfaction is linked to happiness [24, 32], but it is more of a process that varies depending on standards used rather than a decision.

We may have troubles with this idea since it’s thought that self-acceptance is something like nirvana. And although it may show some independence to others’ opinions, this does not mean its purpose is exclusive to making us happy. Because global self-esteem is prone to self-serving biases which may serve to inflate our worth to others not just ourselves [22, 39].

And the standards we use to evaluate our self-acceptance are not arbitrary since they are being measured against what we believe would have utility to others. Experts incorrectly once believed that private self-evaluations were what determined self-esteem but even if our motives are intrinsic [1], the outcome is referenced against others’ standards, and we don’t stop making self-comparisons [14, 28].

The attributes on which people’s self-esteem is based are precisely the characteristics that determine the degree to which people are valued and accepted by others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Specifically, high trait self-esteem is associated with believing that one possesses socially desirable attributes such as competence personal likability, and psychical attractiveness. [28]

In conclusion, even if it breaks down to that we are “living for others”, with the exception of us going easy on ourselves by changing the standards, it still, in the end, is about us as we experience positive affect (feelings) and mood when our attributes meet standards, and this has positive health consequences that we often take for granted [5, 26, 29, 30].

References

[1] Ackerman, Courtney. Self-Determination Theory of Motivation: Why Intrinsic Motivation Matters

[2] Allen, M. David M.D. The Cognitive Behavioral Mafia. http://davidmallenmd.blogspot.com/2011/12/cognitive-behavioral-mafia.html

[3] Anderson, Thomson Jr. Depression’s Evolutionary Roots. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=depressions-evolutionary.

[4] Aron, Elaine. Ranking and Linking, For Better and For Worse. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/attending-the-undervalued-self/201001/ranking-and-linking-better-and-worse

[5] Banks, Amy. Wired to Connect. Penguin Publishing Group.

[6] Baumeister, Roy. Advanced Social Psychology. Oxford University Press.

[7] Baumeister, Roy. Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles?

[8] Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2006). The three faces of self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem: Issues and answers (pp. 4-9). New York: Psychology Press.

[8.1] Caine, Susan. NYT. Shyness: Evolutionary Tactic?

[9] Caldwell, Benjamin E.. Saving Psychotherapy: How Therapists Can Bring the Talking Cure Back from the Brink.

[10] Crozier, Ray. Shyness and Embarrassment. Perspectives from Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press.

[11] De Ruiter, Naomi M. P. Explaining the “How” of Self-Esteem Development: The Self-Organizing Self-Esteem Model. Review of General Psychology.

[12] De Ruiter, Naomi M. P. Hindawi Complexity. Self-Esteem as a Complex Dynamic System: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Microlevel Dynamics

[13] Douglas T. Kenrick, Vladas Griskevicius, Steven L. Neuberg, Mark Schaller. Renovating the Pramid of Needs: Contemporary Extensions Built Upon Ancienty Foundations. Perspect Psychol Sci.

[14] Garofalo, Giovanni. The Effects of Social Comparisons on Happiness in a Motivational Context.

[15] Gilbert, Paul. The Compassionate Mind (Compassion Focused Therapy) . Little, Brown Book Group.

[16] Gilbert, Paul. Subordination and Defeat: An Evolutionary Approach To Mood Disorders and Their Therapy.

[17] Gilbert, Paul. Genes on the Couch.

[18] George Lakoff. Philosophy In The Flesh.

[19] Griffioen, Brecht. The Effect of EMDR and CBT on Low Self-esteem in a General Psychiatric Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

[20] Harris, Judith Rich. The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do.

[21] Heatherton, Todd. development and evaluation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

[22] Hoyle, Rick. Selfhood. Taylor and Francis.

[23] Knopik, Valerie. Behavioral Genetics. Worth Publishers.

[23.1] Lancer, Darlene. Codependency vs. Interdependency. psychcentral.com.

[24] Langer, Ellen; https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199911/self-esteem-vs-self-respect

[25] Leahy, Robert L. Ph.D. Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy: Proven Effectiveness. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anxiety-files/201111/cognitive-behavioral-therapy-proven-effectiveness

[26] Leary, Mark R. Interpersonal Rejection.

[27] Leary, Mark R. The Curse of the Self: Self-Awareness, Egotism, and the Quality of Human Life.

[28] Leary, Mark R. Making Sense of Self-Esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science.

[29] Levine, Amir. Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find—and Keep—Love. Penguin Publishing Group.

[30] Lieberman, Matthew D.. Social. Crown.

[31] Marmot, Michael. The Status Syndrome . Henry Holt and Co..

[32] Mindvalley. This Is Why Self-Respect Is Crucial For Happiness; https://blog.mindvalley.com/self-respect-crucial-for-happiness/?utm_source=google

[33] Nesse, Randolph M.. Good Reasons for Bad Feelings. Penguin Publishing Group.

[34] Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate. Penguin Publishing Group.

[35] Pinker, Steven. How the Mind Works. W. W. Norton & Company.

[36] Quartz, Steven. Cool. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

[37] Rosenberg, Morris. Global Self-Esteem and Specific Self-Esteem: Different Concepts, Different Outcomes. American Sociological Review.

[38] Schmidt and Schulkin. Extreme Fear, Shyness, and Social Phobia (Series in Affective Science).

[39] Simpson, Jeffrey. Evolutionary Social Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

[40] Tracy, Jessica. The Self-Conscious Emotions. Guilford Publication.

[41] Waytz, Adam. The Psychology of Social Status. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-social/

[42] Wood, Joanne V. Positive Self-Statements. Psychological Science.

[43] Wong, Alexander E. Fractal Dynamics in Self-Evaluation Reveal Self-Concept Clarity. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences.

Therapists’ Inadequacies

Introduction

I started with a question on what makes us tick because of interest in why the undesirable and inadequate seemed to be at risk for unfair treatment (i). As a result, I read “How The Mind Works” by Steven Pinker (ix) over twenty years ago and have been reading on the subject matter ever since. In retrospect, it was unreasonable for me to think I would get answers from therapists as they were misinformed, tact and willed a client base (vi).

But as someone whom has struggled with social anxiety and depression, I knew from my experiences and research that the nature and origins of these problems were misunderstood. So I have decided to devote several posts to carefully explain thirteen conclusions that have an impact on how therapy is conducted as well as provide supporting evidence. My questions were later answered not by therapists but by Herman Hesse’s poetry which says that life is a “struggle for position and a search for love”.

Contentions with Therapy

When it comes to the topic of low self-esteem, I contend that most therapists employ ineffective and even damaging methods to treat it [4]. The most obvious to criticize is the, quite frankly, foolish use of self-affirmations which cannot only backfire but evidence to support its efficacy is either weak or altogether absent [4, 42]. In fact, I will argue that we can’t treat low self-esteem at all because it’s more of a feature of our personality, which is relatively stable over time and situation, than it is a learned way of perceiving that the glass is either half empty or half full [4, 8.1, 21, 38].

And when we think we are treating it, say by challenging negative core beliefs and schemas, we are in fact treating a low-mood state due to negative social experiences but not global self-esteem [16]. Furthermore, targeting self-esteem per se with a cognitive approach has a very limited number of studies to show its efficacy and effectiveness, and all studies have the glaring problem of not being able to control for the confounding variable of social acceptance acquired through the patient to therapist relationship, in which self-esteem is very responsive to [19].

I believe this difficulty in treatment stems from a failure to understand self-esteem’s purpose as well as what it means to have low self-esteem. And, to be sure, self-esteem is dependent on what others’ think of us, despite therapists expounding that it’s an “inside job” since its purpose is to assist us with social acceptance and to help place and navigate us within a social hierarchy [10, 26, 36, 40]. In fact, the ultimate function of self-esteem has even been termed as being a sociometer in that it monitors the degree to which others value and accept us, that is, our inclusionary status [26].

To be fair, the construct of self-esteem does have more dimensions to it than just desiring to be accepted by others and acquiring status and rank—which is known as self-acceptance (iii) and measured as global self-esteem (iii)—but the parts that have the greatest effect on mood states (iv) and wellbeing (ii) are in fact about how much others value us and where we stand in relation to them when doing unconscious self-comparisons, in which, I will add, therapists have little to no influence over [31].

Influences on Therapists

Some of these conclusions may not be explicitly stated within the field of social psychology; nevertheless, they can easily be shown to be true through inference. Yet these ideas are largely rejected by a significant portion of current-day therapists (vi). I attribute this to the industry being influenced by the standard social science model [34], the codependency movement, and positive-humanistic psychology [28].

There are two ideas that have become axiomatic amongst therapists as a result: we are in control of our behavior and that we don’t need external validation. To touch upon the latter, intrinsically motivated pursuits do foster autonomy and correlate with global self-esteem [1]; however, Maslow reminds us that order matters (x). We should not be trying to self-actualize a person without looking at the patients’ interpersonal status amongst peers and family first.

And instead of implying that desiring approval is a weakness, it should be stated that looking for it incurs risk. It’s a matter of strategy, not absolutes. In fact, all behaviors and endeavors, even those that are motivated to do work for the sake of it, are subject to a person evaluating the outcome relative to others’ standards as well as engaging in self-comparisons (xiii). And for those that say they don’t need it, it is because they already have it, “as we are only as needy as our unmet needs” (xii), [29].

So the claim that we should be self-validating is pandering to a fiction that can easily be disproved as we are highly dependent on one another in countless ways, mostly unconsciously, and are wired to be emotionally connected to the extent that our happiness and well-being depend upon it [5, 26, 29, 30]. This myth is so pervasive that some biologists are at battle with therapists’ indiscriminate approach to diagnosing codependency, which if misapplied can have disastrous effects on an existing relationship [29].

These conclusions are not just academic points but points that matter for application that therapists should take heed to if they are to effectively treat low-mood states, depression, and social anxiety. Because they are simply off the mark when trying to imagine the causes of many problems as witnessed by their inordinate focus on the ideas that early caregivers and dysfunctional learned thoughts and behavior explain everything [16, 20].

Notes

i) intrinsic worth, that is, humans possessing value by virtue of being human is just not reflected in our day to day experiences

ii) happiness is about fulfillment and satisfaction and wellbeing are about contentment but includes physiological health aspects

iii) global self-esteem is not state or specific self-esteem as it reflects the average feelings we have towards ourselves

iv) mood states are reflected in state self-esteem not global; global is a an aggregate and state is an instantaneous measurement

v) standards used to evaluate ourselves are not private because we imagine how our attributes come across to others

The attributes on which people’s self-esteem is based are precisely the characteristics that determine the degree to which people are valued and accepted by others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). [28]

vi) sample size of n = 12 therapists and psychiatrists; claims are only for the treatment of depression and social anxiety

vii) it is a gross error to skip the interpersonal part to self-esteem in favor of self-efficacy as relational value needs come first [13]

viii) ones’ interpersonal status is primary; assessments on temperament, personality and attachment style to fine tune treatment

ix) as much disdain as many have towards evolutionary psychology, it provides a useful framework to view interpersonal problems

x) empirical support for the hierarchical arrangement of Maslow’s pyramid exists but self-actualizing is not a fundamental need [13]

xi) personality: neuroticism; temperament: inhibitedness; traits: high sensory-processing sensitivity, rejection sensitivity [38]

xii) dependency paradox says that once we belong and feel valued only then can we venture out with confidence and explorer [29]

xiii) we make self-comparisons to validate the outcome or process regardless if intrinsically or extrinsically motivated [14]