Note - this is not intended as an attack on the poster above. I'm just a bit suspicious about this "guilt / shame" idea. I feel like this "guilt / shame" disti

Note - this is not intended as an attack on the poster above. I'm just a bit suspicious about this "guilt / shame" idea. I feel like this "guilt / shame" distinction is not driven by people who understand psychology very well, or who don't really care about communicating clearly. IIRC it was originally used to describe different cultures and now it's trying to be used to describe "good" guilt/shame and "bad" guilt/shame as two completely different things. Scientists often avoid using 'normal' words to describe things, because 'normal' people get confused and start pointless arguments over it. As an example of something that causes constant confusion, 'bugs' are insects with sucking mouthparts (I am not a biologist, there's a bit more to it) and anyone who calls a beetle a bug is using unscientific terminology. It just causes a lot of confusion. Technical definitions shouldn't try to hijack ambiguous terms that are in common use unless you just want to sound clever in internet discussions when talking about what words 'really mean', or you want to appropriate existing connotations over the word (e.g. you want to make your definitions a lot more important than they are). If the people trying to differentiate "guilt" and "shame" understand human nature so well, why would they use terms that are simply going to cause confusion? I suspect there's a broad range of things that we'd describe as "guilt" or "shame" (and depending on the person it would vary), and these might be good or bad depending on the context. I also think that if we want to use "grown up" definitions that people will understand unambiguously (e.g. anxiety over peer judgement?) then it would pay to just use these, rather than making every discussion over "guilt" and "shame" simply be discussion over what those words "really mean".