Author Archives: Shervan K Shahhian, LIBERTY PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, The Most Comprehensive Online Library Regarding Mental Health, Psychology and Parapsychology in the World.

Doctored Degree in Clinical Psychology (PSYD) (ABD) All But Dissertation, a Masters (M.A.) in Clinical Psychology, a Bachelor's Degree (B.A.) in Psychology, a Associate Degree (AA) in Liberal Arts with an emphases in Psychology, Certification in Anger Management, Certification in MRT-Moral Reconation Therapy®, Certification in Clinical Hypnotherapy, and Certification in Advanced Hypnotherapy.

Self-Sabotage, explained:

Self-sabotage is when a person undermines their own goals, wellbeing, or values, often outside of conscious awareness, even though they genuinely want things to go well.

In simple terms:
one part of you wants growth, safety, love, or success — and another part interferes.

What self-sabotage actually is (psychologically)

Self-sabotage is not laziness or lack of willpower. It’s usually a protective survival strategy that once made sense.

It emerges when:

Success, closeness, calm, or visibility feels unsafe
The nervous system associates growth with threat, loss, shame, or punishment
Old learning overrides present-day reality

So the system says: “Better to fail in familiar ways than succeed and risk danger.”

Common forms of self-sabotage

Procrastinating right before important steps
Avoiding opportunities after working hard for them
Starting strong, then disengaging when things improve
Choosing familiar but harmful relationships
Creating conflict when closeness deepens
Dismissing praise or minimizing achievements
Breaking routines that support health or stability

Often it shows up right at the edge of change.

Why people self-sabotage

Some of the most common roots:

1. protective survival strategy
Success may mean visibility, responsibility, envy, or abandonment.

2. Fear of failure
Failing confirms a painful internal belief (“I’m not enough”), but paradoxically feels predictable.

3. Internalized shame or harsh superego
A part believes you don’t deserve ease, love, or good outcomes.

4. Attachment injuries
If closeness once led to harm, the system disrupts intimacy to stay safe.

5. Identity threat
Growth can destabilize who you learned you had to be to survive.

The paradox

Self-sabotage often:

Protects against emotional overwhelm
Preserves attachment or belonging
Maintains a coherent identity

Even though it causes suffering, it’s trying to prevent something worse.

What self-sabotage is NOT

It’s not stupidity
It’s not moral weakness
It’s not a lack of motivation
It’s not “wanting to fail”

It’s an outdated protection system running on old data.

How it begins to resolve

Self-sabotage softens when:

The protective intention is recognized, not attacked
Shame is reduced (not argued with)
Safety is increased at the nervous-system level
Change is titrated, not forced
New success is paired with regulation and support

Compassion, not pressure, is what updates the system.

Shervan K Shahhian

Understanding Moral Shaming:

Moral shaming is a social control tactic where someone is made to feel morally defective—not just wrong, but bad—for a belief, feeling, or behavior.

It goes beyond feedback or accountability. The core move is:

“This proves something is wrong with who you are.”

Key features

Character attack, not behavior-focused (“You’re immoral,” “You should be ashamed”)
Invokes moral superiority (the shamer claims the “higher ground”)
Uses shame, not repair, to enforce conformity
Often public or performative (signals virtue to others)

Common forms

Religious moral shaming: “God would be disappointed in you”
Political/ideological shaming: “If you disagree, you’re a bad person”
Clinical/therapeutic shaming (subtle but real): “A healthy person wouldn’t feel that way”
Social justice shaming: moral language used without relational safety

Psychological impact

Activates the social threat system
Narrows perception and flexibility
Produces global self-condemnation rather than learning
Increases secrecy, dissociation, or defiance—not moral growth

Moral guidance vs. moral shaming

Moral guidance	Moral shaming
Focuses on behavior	Attacks identity
Invites reflection	Forces submission
Allows repair	Demands shame
Preserves dignity	Undermines it

Trauma-informed lens (your wheelhouse)

Moral shaming is especially damaging when:

A person’s behavior is survival-adapted
The nervous system is already in threat
The person lacks relational safety

In those cases, shame blocks ethical integration rather than supporting it.

Bottom line: Moral shaming doesn’t create conscience, it creates compliance, collapse, or rebellion.

Shervan K Shahhian

Understanding Conditional Attachment:

Conditional attachment refers to a relational pattern where connection, care, or safety is experienced as dependent on meeting certain conditions—rather than being reliably available.

In short: “I’m attached if I perform, comply, please, succeed, stay regulated, or don’t need too much.”

Core features

Love = earned, not given
Attachment is contingent on behavior, mood, usefulness, or achievement
Safety feels revocable
The nervous system stays on watch for cues of withdrawal or disapproval

How it forms

Most often develops in environments where caregivers:

Gave affection selectively (praise for success, withdrawal for failure)
Were emotionally available only when the child was “easy,” calm, or impressive
Used approval, attention, or closeness as regulation tools
Rewarded compliance and punished authenticity (emotion, need, protest)

The child learns:

“To stay connected, I must manage myself—and often you.”

Common adult expressions

People-pleasing, over-functioning, or perfectionism
Hyper-attunement to others’ moods
Fear of being “too much” or “not enough”
Collapse, shame, or anger when needs arise
Relationships that feel transactional rather than resting

Nervous system angle

Conditional attachment keeps the system in sympathetic vigilance or freeze-compliance:

Attachment = threat + reward
Proximity doesn’t fully down-regulate
Safety is never assumed—only temporarily granted

This is why even “good” relationships can feel tiring or precarious.

Contrast: secure attachment

Conditional	Secure
Love must be maintained	Love is assumed
Safety is earned	Safety is baseline
Authenticity risks loss	Authenticity deepens bond
Needs feel dangerous	Needs are welcomed

Healing direction

Repair isn’t about “detaching” but re-patterning attachment:

Experiences of non-contingent presence (“I’m here even if nothing changes”)
Learning to tolerate being seen without performing
Nervous-system level safety before insight
Relational repair where rupture ≠ abandonment

Given your trauma and phenomenology-focused lens, conditional attachment is best understood not as a belief problem, but as a learned survival contract the body once needed.

Shervan K Shahhian

Understanding Religious or Ideological Absolutism:

Religious absolutism and ideological absolutism are close cousins—different costumes, same nervous system. The core issue in both is certainty fused with identity.

Here’s a clean way to distinguish and connect them:

Religious Absolutism

Definition:
The belief that one sacred doctrine (God, scripture, revelation, prophet) holds total and final truth, beyond question or revision.

Psychological markers:

Truth is revealed, not discovered
Doubt = moral failure or spiritual danger
Authority is external (God, scripture, clergy)
Identity = “I am right because God says so”

Function:
Provides existential safety, moral clarity, and group cohesion—especially under threat.

Shadow side:

Suppression of inquiry
Moralization of disagreement
Justification of harm “for a higher good”

Ideological Absolutism

Definition:
The belief that one explanatory framework (political, scientific, moral, social) fully accounts for reality and must be universally applied.

Psychological markers:

Truth is derived, but treated as unquestionable
Dissent = ignorance, pathology, or evil
Authority is abstract (Reason, Science, History, Progress)
Identity = “I am right because reality demands it”

Function:
Offers predictability, control, and moral certainty in complex systems.

Shadow side:

Reduction of humans to categories
Dehumanization of dissenters
Dogmatism disguised as rationality

The Shared Core (This is the key)

Both are expressions of epistemic closure under threat.

When:

uncertainty is intolerable
identity is fused to belief
social belonging depends on agreement

…absolutism emerges.

It is less about what is believed and more about how the belief is held.

A Simple Litmus Test

Ask one question:

“What would count as evidence that I might be wrong?”

If the answer is “nothing” → absolutism
If the answer is “only my side can define that” → absolutism
If the answer is specific, revisable, and dialogical → not absolutism

Developmental Lens (important)

Absolutism often corresponds to:

Early-stage meaning systems
Trauma-based threat regulation
High shame or fear of chaos

It’s not stupidity or evil—it’s a safety strategy.

Healthy Alternative (in one line)

Conviction without closure.
Strong values, open epistemology.

Shervan K Shahhian

Difficulty Accepting Compassion, an explanation:

Difficulty accepting compassion is very common—especially in people who grew up needing to be self-reliant, vigilant, or emotionally contained. It’s less a flaw and more a learned survival strategy.

Here’s a clean way to understand it, psychologically and neurobiologically:

What “difficulty accepting compassion” really means

It’s not that compassion feels bad.
It’s that compassion feels unsafe, unfamiliar, or destabilizing.

When someone offers warmth, care, or gentleness, the nervous system may interpret it as:

a loss of control
a setup for disappointment or betrayal
an invitation to dependency
a threat to a hard-won identity (“I survive by being strong / competent / independent”)

So the system subtly resists.

Common internal experiences

People often report:

Feeling awkward, exposed, or undeserving
A reflex to deflect, minimize, joke, or intellectualize
Sudden tension, numbness, or irritation
Thoughts like:
- “They don’t really know me.”
- “I should be able to handle this myself.”
- “If I accept this, I owe something.”

These are protective responses, not character flaws.

Developmental roots (typical pathways)

Difficulty receiving compassion often develops when:

1. Care was inconsistent or conditional

Compassion came with strings attached, role reversal, or emotional cost.

Result: care = danger or debt

2. Vulnerability was punished or ignored

Needs were met with shame, dismissal, or overwhelm.

Result: softness = exposure

3. Identity formed around competence or insight

Being “the strong one,” “the wise one,” or “the self-sufficient one” became how safety was maintained.

Result: receiving care threatens identity coherence

Nervous system explanation (why it’s felt in the body)

Compassion activates social engagement systems (ventral vagal).
If those circuits were underused or paired with threat early on:

the body may respond with unease, vigilance
numbing, dissociation

So even kindness can feel like overstimulation or collapse.

Subtle forms of resistance (often overlooked)

Preferring to give compassion rather than receive it
Framing everything as insight, spirituality, or theory
Accepting compassion cognitively but not somatically
Feeling safer with respect than with warmth

These are elegant adaptations.

What helps (without forcing openness)

The goal is not to “open the heart” aggressively.

More effective approaches:

1. Micro-doses of compassion

Brief, low-intensity moments (a kind tone, a neutral acknowledgment) tolerated without needing to feel moved.

2. Choice and agency

Compassion that is invitational, not engulfing:

“Would it help if…?”

3. Somatic tracking

Noticing where the discomfort shows up (throat, chest, gut) without trying to fix it.

4. Reframing compassion as regulation, not dependency

Compassion = nervous system co-regulation, not weakness or debt.

A key reframe

Difficulty accepting compassion usually means
you learned to survive without it, not that you don’t deserve it.

That adaptation deserves respect.

Shervan K Shahhian

Moral Absolutism, what is it:

Moral absolutism is the ethical position that some moral rules are universally true, apply to everyone, and do not change based on context, culture, intentions, or consequences.

In short: right is right, wrong is wrong—always.

Core features

Universal – Moral truths apply to all people, everywhere.
Objective – Morality exists independently of personal beliefs or feelings.
Context-independent – Circumstances don’t alter the moral rule.

Classic examples

“Murder is always wrong.”
“Lying is always wrong.”
“Torture is always immoral, no exceptions.”

Even if a lie would save a life, a strict moral absolutist would say lying is still wrong.

Common sources

Divine command theory (morality comes from God)
Natural law traditions
Kantian ethics (duty-based morality; rules must be universalizable)

Strengths

Provides moral clarity and consistency
Guards against rationalizing harm (“the ends justify the means”)
Supports strong human rights frameworks

Critiques

Can be rigid and unrealistic
Struggles with moral dilemmas (e.g., lying to hide someone from violence)
May ignore context, compassion, or proportionality

Contrast with related views

Moral relativism: morality depends on culture or situation.
Moral particularism: no fixed rules; context always matters.
Moral realism (non-absolutist): objective morals exist, but exceptions may apply.

Psychological angle (since this may be relevant to you)

Moral absolutism often correlates with:

High need for certainty
Threat sensitivity (clear rules reduce ambiguity)
Strong group identity or sacred values

It can be stabilizing—or, when extreme, contribute to black-and-white thinking.

Shervan K Shahhian

Global Self-Condemnation, what is it?

Global self-condemnation is a cognitive–emotional pattern in which a person judges their entire self as bad, defective, or unworthy based on specific mistakes, traits, or experiences.

Rather than thinking “I did something wrong,” the person concludes “I am wrong.”

Core Characteristics

Totalizing self-judgment: One flaw, failure, or behavior is taken as evidence that the whole self is bad.
Stable and global: The judgment feels permanent (“always,” “fundamentally”) and applies across contexts.
Moralized shame: Not just regret or guilt, but a sense of being inherently corrupt or unredeemable.
Resistant to evidence: Positive feedback or success doesn’t disconfirm the belief.

Common Forms

“I am a bad person.”
“There’s something wrong with me at my core.”
“If people really knew me, they’d reject me.”
“My past defines who I am.”

How It Differs From Related Constructs

Guilt → Behavior-focused (“I did something wrong”)
Shame → Self-focused but situational (“I feel bad about who I was then”)
Global self-condemnation → Identity-level and absolute (“I am bad, period”)

In CBT terms, it’s a global self-rating error.
In trauma psychology, it often reflects internalized blame or attachment injury.
In psychodynamic language, it resembles a harsh superego or introjected critical object.

Developmental & Trauma Links

Chronic criticism or moral shaming in childhood
Conditional attachment (“you’re lovable only if…”)
Religious or ideological absolutism
Trauma where self-blame preserved a sense of control
Environments where mistakes threatened belonging or safety

Psychological Functions (Why It Persists)

Paradoxically, global self-condemnation can:

Create a false sense of control (“If I’m bad, at least it makes sense”)
Prevent hope (which would risk disappointment)
Maintain attachment to critical caregivers or belief systems
Serve as a protective identity against vulnerability

Clinical Markers

Language of essence rather than action
Difficulty accepting compassion
Collapse into shame after minor errors
Strong resistance to self-forgiveness
Identity fusion with past behavior or symptoms

Therapeutic Reframes

Effective work usually involves:

De-globalizing identity (separating self from actions)
Restoring moral complexity (good people can do harmful things)
Contextualizing origins (how the belief once protected the person)
Developing self-compassion without bypassing responsibility
Relational repair (being seen without condemnation)

A key shift is from moral absolutism to human fallibility.

Shervan K Shahhian

Does Shame Narrows Perception, why:

Shame narrows perception because it is a high-intensity social threat response that shifts the brain and nervous system from open, integrative processing into defensive survival mode.

Here’s how that happens, layer by layer:

1. Shame Activates the Social Threat System

Shame signals “I am unacceptable; I may be rejected or expelled from the group.”
Because social belonging is essential for survival, the brain treats shame like danger.

Neurobiologically (Consult a Neurologist):

The amygdala and threat circuits activate
Stress hormones (cortisol, norepinephrine) increase
The prefrontal cortex (perspective-taking, nuance, mental flexibility) goes partially offline

Result: the mind prioritizes self-protection, not exploration or complexity.

2. Attention Collapses Inward

Under shame, attention narrows toward:

The self as an object of judgment
Perceived flaws, mistakes, or exposures
Imagined evaluations by others

This produces:

Tunnel vision
Loss of contextual awareness
Reduced ability to mentalize others accurately

Instead of “What is happening?” the question becomes “What’s wrong with me?”

3. Temporal Constriction

Shame compresses time:

Past mistakes feel ever-present
The future feels foreclosed or catastrophic
The present feels frozen

This is why shame often feels inescapable and global rather than specific or momentary.

4. Meaning-Making Becomes Rigid

Shame pushes cognition toward:

Global self-condemnation (“I am bad,” not “I did something”)
Black-and-white thinking
Certainty without curiosity

This rigidity protects against further exposure but blocks learning, repair, and growth.

5. Nervous System Immobilization

From a polyvagal perspective:

Shame often activates dorsal vagal shutdown or a collapsed sympathetic state
Energy drops
Voice, posture, and gaze constrict
Sensory richness diminishes

Perception narrows because the body is preparing to hide, disappear, or endure.

6. Developmental Roots

Many people learned early that:

Visibility led to humiliation or punishment
Being seen meant danger

So the nervous system learned:
“Narrow awareness = safety.”

Shame becomes a perceptual strategy, not just an emotion.

In Short

Shame narrows perception because:

It is designed to prevent social exile
It shifts the brain into threat-based efficiency
It collapses attention, time, and meaning to minimize risk

It is not a failure of insight.
It is survival intelligence doing exactly what it evolved to do—at the cost of openness.

Clinically Useful Reframe

Shame doesn’t mean “something is wrong with you.”
It means “your system believes visibility is unsafe right now.”

Restoring perception requires safety, attunement, and relational repair, not insight alone.

Shervan K Shahhian

Reduced shame around Survival Behaviors, explained:

Reduced shame around survival behaviors refers to the process of recognizing, reframing, and emotionally releasing shame tied to coping strategies that once helped you survive threat, trauma, neglect, or chronic stress.

In trauma-informed psychology, this is considered a key marker of healing and integration.

What are “survival behaviors”?

Survival behaviors are adaptive responses, not character flaws. Common examples include:

Hypervigilance or control
Emotional numbing or dissociation
People-pleasing or fawning
Avoidance or withdrawal
Aggression or defensiveness
Perfectionism or over-functioning
Addictive or compulsive patterns
Fantasy, absorption, or retreat into inner worlds

These behaviors emerged because at one time they worked.

What does “reduced shame” mean in this context?

It does not mean approving of harmful behaviors. It means:

Understanding why the behavior developed
Separating identity from coping strategy
Replacing moral judgment with compassion
Holding accountability without self-attack

Shame says: “I am bad.”
Integration says: “This was a solution under pressure.”

Signs that shame is reducing

You may notice:

Less self-contempt when recalling past behavior
Curiosity replacing self-criticism
The ability to say, “That makes sense” instead of “What’s wrong with me?”
Greater choice: the behavior is no longer automatic
Increased nervous system regulation
A felt sense of dignity returning

Clinically, this reflects movement from trauma-based identity fusion toward self-coherence.

Why shame loosens as healing occurs

Shame is often:

An internalized survival strategy itself
A byproduct of relational trauma
Reinforced by moralistic or pathologizing frameworks

As safety increases, the nervous system no longer needs shame to enforce compliance or conceal vulnerability.

This is especially true in somatic, parts-based, and phenomenological approaches, where behaviors are contextualized rather than condemned.

Reframing formula (simple but powerful)

“This behavior arose to protect something vulnerable when no better option was available.”

This reframing does not erase responsibility, but it restores humanity.

Clinical note

In both trauma work and parapsychological phenomenology, reduced shame is essential for:

Clear discernment
Decreased projection
Less distortion of perception
Greater signal-to-noise clarity

Shame narrows perception. Integration widens it.

Shervan K Shahhian

Healing Approach for Trauma-Adapted Survival Strategy:

A Healing Approach to Trauma-Adapted Survival Strategies focuses on honoring what once protected the person while gently helping the nervous system, identity, and relational patterns reorganize toward safety, flexibility, and choice.

Below is a non-pathologizing framework that fits well with trauma-informed psychology and somatic work.

1. Reframe the Strategy as Intelligent Protection

Core principle: Nothing is “wrong” with the survivor.

Trauma-adapted strategies (hypervigilance, dissociation, control, people-pleasing, withdrawal, spiritual bypassing, etc.) were adaptive responses to threat.

Healing move

Shift language from symptom to strategy
Acknowledge:“This kept me alive when I had no other options.”

This reframing reduces shame and softens internal resistance to change.

2. Establish Nervous System Safety First

Trauma strategies persist because the autonomic nervous system still perceives danger.

Key approaches

Somatic grounding (breath, posture, orienting)
Polyvagal-informed regulation
Titrated exposure to sensation (not story)
Rhythm, repetition, and predictability

Goal

Move from chronic survival states (fight/flight/freeze/fawn) toward felt safety
Build capacity before processing meaning or memory

Regulation precedes insight.

3. Differentiate Past Threat from Present Reality

Trauma strategies are time-locked.

Healing task

Help the system recognize:
“That was then. This is now.”

Methods

Parts-based work (e.g., IFS-informed)
Somatic tracking of “younger” responses
Explicit orientation to present cues of safety
Gentle boundary experiments in real time

This restores temporal integration, reducing overgeneralized threat detection.

4. Update the Strategy Instead of Eliminating It

Trying to “get rid of” survival strategies often retraumatizes.

Instead

Negotiate with the strategy:
- What is it protecting?
- What does it fear would happen if it relaxed?
Offer new resources:
- Choice
- Support
- Boundaries
- Agency

Example

Hypervigilance → discernment
Dissociation → selective distancing
Control to intentional leadership
People-pleasing to attuned reciprocity

The strategy evolves rather than disappears.

5. Repair Attachment and Relational Safety

Many trauma adaptations are relational.

Healing requires

Consistent, non-exploitative connection
Rupture-and-repair experiences
Clear boundaries + emotional presence
Witnessing without fixing or invading

Relational safety teaches the nervous system that connection is not inherently dangerous.

6. Integrate Meaning Without Over-Narrating

Cognitive insight alone can become another survival strategy.

Balanced integration

Meaning emerges after regulation
Narrative is anchored in bodily truth
Avoid spiritual or intellectual bypass

Signs of integration

Less urgency to explain
More tolerance for ambiguity
Increased spontaneity and play
Reduced identity fusion with the trauma

7. Cultivate Choice and Flexibility

Healing is not the absence of survival responses.
It is the ability to choose.

Markers of healing

Pausing before reacting
Access to multiple responses
Self-compassion during activation
Faster recovery after stress
Reduced shame around survival behaviors

Core Healing Orientation (Summary)

“This protected me once.
I thank it.
I no longer need it to run my life.”

Trauma healing is not erasure.
It is integration, updating, and liberation of energy once bound to survival.

Shervan K Shahhian