Some teachings important to me as a mystic.

[UltraBudgie]

Thanks for the correction.

However, there's still no data, nor methodology. Unless I pay them, I have to take their words for it? If they aren't going to be transparent, why even talk about it in a public space?

Seems a bit dishonest to me, but then, it's just my opinion. I like to look at actual data and methodology if I'm to take something seriously.

https://2f07d493-b4a5-4a94-9e9b-5880d0f5...7ca84c.pdf (18 page PDF)

Is it this one?

https://sociology.stanford.edu/publicati...osociality

[quintessentone]

Thanks for the correction.

However, there's still no data, nor methodology. Unless I pay them, I have to take their words for it? If they aren't going to be transparent, why even talk about it in a public space?

Seems a bit dishonest to me, but then, it's just my opinion. I like to look at actual data and methodology if I'm to take something seriously.

Well here is another (not sure what to call it) assessment? of a total of five studies about it.

"Finally, research found that more “embarrassable” individuals behaved more generously than their less embarrassable counterparts [97]."

"Theoretical perspectives suggest that the expression of appeasement emotions serves to rebuild trust, promote social reconciliation, and deflect retaliation [98,99]. Accordingly, early work found that apologizing for a transgression, which can be seen as an acknowledgement of guilt and/or an expression of regret, reduces aggression [100]. In more direct evidence, participants entrusted more resources to another person who displayed embarrassment due to perceptions of that person's prosociality [97].

However, the very signs of prosociality that are an asset in cooperative relationships constitute a liability in competitive encounters. Participants who received verbal expressions of guilt or regret from a counterpart in a negotiation rated the counterpart as more interpersonally sensitive than those who received no such statements, but they also reduced their cooperation toward the counterpart because they inferred that the counterpart had claimed too much and would likely make up for it with future concessions [9]."

Moving the self and others to do good: The emotional underpinnings of prosocial behavior - ScienceDirect

Context of whether it is a cooperative or competitive situation/relationship matters greatly, it appears. Add to that from a quick reading of UB's link to the study, gender seems to play a part in how 'proud' vs 'embarrassed' is assessed by those observers/participants.

[IgnorantGod]

Well here is another (not sure what to call it) assessment? of a total of five studies about it.

[...]

I've read study 1 from Budgie's link. Seems to be the paper the click bait article was refering to.

While the premise of the research seems interesting, and I see several relations with "living facts" and "Rites of Passage" behavior from Arnold Van Gennep in their introduction, study 1b seems a bit unreliable since it uses "hypothetical reactions" from the participants.

But I will read the rest before commenting further on it. Not that'll mean much anyway.

[IgnorantGod]

 

Finally read the paper. It is a fascinating study, but as the researchers themselves aknowledge, they performed their experiments in controlled settings, hence the data may not reliably represent 'real-world' data.

Anyway, the research was specifically about showing that observers looking at an embarrassed person will somewhat infer subconsciously (subliminally) that such a person is more prosocial. It didn't consider fear as a parameter whatsoever during the 5 studies, and thus can hardly be used as an argument against the OP that specified a "fearful person".

I'd assume, considering the research, that fear signals may make observers infer other qualities/flaws from the target, than those of embarrassement.

Thanks to you and Budgie, I had a good read. 

[quintessentone]

Finally read the paper. It is a fascinating study, but as the researchers themselves aknowledge, they performed their experiments in controlled settings, hence the data may not reliably represent 'real-world' data.

Anyway, the research was specifically about showing that observers looking at an embarrassed person will somewhat infer subconsciously (subliminally) that such a person is more prosocial. It didn't consider fear as a parameter whatsoever during the 5 studies, and thus can hardly be used as an argument against the OP that specified a "fearful person".

I'd assume, considering the research, that fear signals may make observers infer other qualities/flaws from the target, than those of embarrassement.

Thanks to you and Budgie, I had a good read. 

I agree, they need to expand on other parameters to get a true understanding of all variables.

Interestingly though, the other link whereby they assessed a total of five studies, the conclusions were that when people view those that exhibit embarrassment it is perceived to equate to prosocial trustworthiness.

Isn't that something like:

""You never get a second chance to make a first impression." – Will Rogers"

[IgnorantGod]

I agree, they need to expand on other parameters to get a true understanding of all variables.

Interestingly though, the other link whereby they assessed a total of five studies, the conclusions were that when people view those that exhibit embarrassment it is perceived to equate to prosocial trustworthiness.

Isn't that something like:

""You never get a second chance to make a first impression." – Will Rogers"

Yes, that's what I noticed too. Altough, it could be said that the trustworthiness factor may occur because of transparency in emotional responses/signals, in opposite to emotionless which may trigger suspicion or rather wariness. It might be in parallel with fear of the unknown. Someone not showing his/her emotion could be akin to an unknown variable and thus should be avoided as a default response.

It seems to me that embarrassment is more of a social function, whereas fear is more of a survival function. The paper does mention previous studies on the social factor of embarrassment. It made me think about the separation and reaggregation rituals in "Rites of Passages". Looks like the 'modern world' isn't that far from the 'primitive world' (whatever those means).

[quintessentone]

Yes, that's what I noticed too. Altough, it could be said that the trustworthiness factor may occur because of transparency in emotional responses/signals, in opposite to emotionless which may trigger suspicion or rather wariness. It might be in parallel with fear of the unknown. Someone not showing his/her emotion could be akin to an unknown variable and thus should be avoided as a default response.

It seems to me that embarrassment is more of a social function, whereas fear is more of a survival function. The paper does mention previous studies on the social factor of embarrassment. It made me think about the separation and reaggregation rituals in "Rites of Passages". Looks like the 'modern world' isn't that far from the 'primitive world' (whatever those means).

You are right, with extreme anxiety there is that 'freeze' factor that might present during the embarrassment episode. Certainly they need to expand on these types of studies, not only with the subject but with the observers. Observers' perceptions and/or their prejudices'/gender/bias' would also play a role.

Still, they said the majority of observers found those that exhibited an embarrassment reaction within the cooperation scenario were deemed trustworthy. 

I think we are very much still primitive within a modern world and keeping up is impossible for some, while chaotic for others. Do you know people that have adulting responsibilities that are flourishing in all ways healthy in this fast-paced tech world?

[IgnorantGod]

[...]

I think we are very much still primitive within a modern world and keeping up is impossible for some, while chaotic for others. Do you know people that have adulting responsibilities that are flourishing in all ways healthy in this fast-paced tech world?

Well, as a matter of fact, I don't actually know what 'healthy' means, beside maybe "not feeling discomfort".

As for "fearful person" mentioned in the OP, I'd guess if one don't take action within a context, then there won't be any effect from such context. That is, if one's too afraid to speak up, then he/she won't be heard, and everything that could go after will stay in the 'field' of probabilities.