Revisiting Flat Affect's Nomenclature

[a.k.a.Janie]

Note: thread spit from https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/updated-definitions-of-f/

And higher neuroticism is partially identifiable by degree of flat affect.
So if there’s anything in CT that might predict the level of emotional affect/pain a person may feel, I think it’s flat affect.

 
There are degrees of flat affect? Does this mean there are examples of intermediate states between clearly flat affect and clearly not? From what I understand, flat affect is usually caused by trauma. Does this mean that the more strongly someone shows flat affect, the more likely they experience painful feelings?

[Juan E. Sandoval]

There are degrees of flat affect? Does this mean there are examples of intermediate states between clearly flat affect and clearly not?

@janie - Yep, for simplicity's sake I use a yes/no system, but I've talked to several members about how a 1-10 scale is more descriptive. We could actually make a scale for this, like with 10 pics with progressive levels of flat affect.

From what I understand, flat affect is usually caused by trauma. Does this mean that the more strongly someone shows flat affect, the more likely they experience painful feelings?

Unfortunately, that does appear to be the reality to me as of now.
When I get video submissions with flat affect, I point out that they have it and suggest, just as a hypothesis, that so far it seems to correspond to mental illness or emotional distress. But I can't remember more than one time when it wasn't confirmed as the case that they had some chronic condition (anxiety/bipolar/etc) of some sort.
And that makes them more sensitive to emotional pain. The database samples with flat affect are also much more expressive of rage/anger (if extroverted) and depression (if introverted).
(It's worth noting that it only works in the affirmative, not the negative. Not showing flat affect does not mean the person doesn't have strong mental illness. But the presence of it seems to be highly indicative of it.)

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Funny... this just made me remember the Pain chart scale used for children at hospitals.
I think it's called the "Wong–Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale"


^ In a way, this is not dissimilar to the flat affect scale. Except the flat affect scale would be speaking to a longstanding condition rather than an acute moment of pain. But more flat affect does seem to = more emotional pain, or proclivity toward it.

[sekundaer]

I have always had problems with this signal, which I think must have its origin in psychiatry where the same term is used about a lack of emotional expression due to relaxed muscles in the face. Maybe the signal as used in CT is a bit different (btw, I think it then should have another name, for example diminished affect, as flat affect is a common psychiatric term and also because it is used only when the affect is totally flat) and maybe so can be associated with high emotionality, but in psychiatry flat affect is never associated with high emotionality but lack of emotionality or just lack of expression of emotions. It is a sign of mental disorder or illness. Emotionally cold people, for example psychopaths is often seen with lesser affect than normal but not totally flat affect. The same with trauma victims who can have reduced affect and then also often reduced emotions.
 

[Mandy Horine]

I’m curious about this...
“And that makes them more sensitive to emotional pain. The database samples with flat affect are also much more expressive of rage/anger (if extroverted) and depression (if introverted).”
Do you mean extroverted dominants with be more expressive of rage/anger and introverted dominated more expressive of depression? Or is there more nuance here?

[Juan E. Sandoval]

@sekundaer - You bring up a good point. Indeed, the concept has since veered a bit away from the original notion, as borrowed from psychiatry. I am wholly okay with using a separate term if it can increase precision. Do you have any recommendations?

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Do you mean extroverted dominants with be more expressive of rage/anger and introverted dominated more expressive of depression? Or is there more nuance here?

As far as expression goes, that seems to be the general pattern. I wouldn't say this is a hard and fast rule though -- just an observation.
On the extroverted front we have people like Alex Jones, Acslaterlol, Wim Hof, and Charles Manson who fly off the handle at times. On the introverted side we have Chris Corner, Junji Ito, Marylin Manson -- who are broody, sullen melancholics.
It does seem to be very nuanced and contingent on a lot more life-variables though. 'Extroverts' can certainly express depression, and 'Introverts' can certainly express rage. And there's nothing preventing a person from having both at the same time, particularly with development of both energetics.

[Mandy Horine]

Thanks for the clarification.
I definitely relate to having more rage/anger and would never (even at my lowest points) consider myself depressed. I see my profile has been updated to TeSi and I think it fits.

[sekundaer]

@Auburn - My english vocabulary is too limited for me to recommend a term, but I would suggest a synonym for reduced facial tension (unfortunately already used as a Ti signal).  Flat affect is very drastic. If a psychiatrist saw the examples of flat affect in the database he would not even call it restricted affect.
The word affect is in itself problematic as it can mean both emotion and the expression of emotion. So when the report says "no affect" a psychiatrist would understand it as no expression at all and the average citizen would maybe understand it as no emotions (I was rather surprised at first when I saw it in my report). So especially if the signal is going to be about high emotionality, the term has to be changed.
I tried to think of a term for lack of facial tension. Hypotonia would be a good term but that is used about lack of tension in the whole body, facial hypotonia would be perfect but is also taken and has another meaning.
Its interesting that this more hidden sign of reduced affect is correlated with a history of mental distress and that you have observed that most or maybe all of the people with the signal have had a chronic condition. But I find it counter-intuitive that it should also correspond with high emotionality. To me that means something different. I know very emotional people who easily gets angry or cries a lot or are easily scared but they do not have reduced facial tension, rather contrary they are very much alive. And they do not have a chronic condition. Contrary to this psychopaths with very little emotions can have this signal.

[Rua]

@sekundaer - yes I've thought this before too, that Flat Affect as used in CT could be easily misconstrued due to its specific, technical use in psychiatry.

@auburn - if what we're describing physically by 'Flat Affect' is a pulling down of the facial muscles, could 'Weighted Affect' be a better term for this phenomenon?

[Juan E. Sandoval]

if what we’re describing physically by ‘Flat Affect’ is a pulling down of the facial muscles, could ‘Weighted Affect’ be a better term for this phenomenon?

'Weighted Affect' seems to come close, yes-- as a baseline downward contraction of the face muscles. 'Heavy Affect' also came to mind to me, as well as 'Fallen Affect.'

[sekundaer]

is it a contraction and not a lack of tension?    Heavy, Weighted, Fallen indicate slackness....

[Rua]

‘Weighted Affect’ seems to come close, yes– as a baseline downward contraction of the face muscles. ‘Heavy Affect’ also came to mind to me, as well as ‘Fallen Affect.’

Of these three options, 'Fallen' is probably the most accurate if looking directly at one of its specific definitions: "(of someone's face) show dismay or disappointment by appearing to sag or droop." However, I dislike 'Fallen' in this context due to its well-known religious meaning, though perhaps that would be seen as a relevant and valuable connection to someone else. 'Heavy' I don't really feel one way or the other about, it's adequate and has the minor connotation of subject matter that is 'dark'.
'Weighted' has a few advantages to me, but admittedly if one wanted to pinpoint a specific definition from it, nothing matches as well as 'Fallen' for what we're describing. The first advantage is that it naturally lends itself to the quantifiable "1-10" scale that will eventually replace the current dichotomy of 'Yes/No'. The other advantage (to me) is that it appears to have the most neutral connotations of the three options (i.e. not religious or moderately associated with sobering subject matter). But most importantly I find it to have the most suggestive and helpful visualization for the phenomenon, as it suggests weight(s) on the face pulling the muscles down, which I find to be an easy to grasp and helpful visual.

 
is it a contraction and not a lack of tension?    Heavy, Weighted, Fallen indicate slackness….

Definitionally, I'm not aware that any of those three words indicate slackness. And umm, I am far from an expert on facial muscles, but the baseline of 'No' on Flat Affect is associated with a full range of movement, i.e. smiles that aren't constricted downwards from a baseline of full height and expression. From the limited amount I know of muscles, it's my understanding that almost any strain or tension of the musculature will result in decreased mobility and freedom of movement. A 'slack' muscle is preferable, and the baseline until it encounters external demands/ becomes damaged or hampered in its movements.

[Juan E. Sandoval]

‘Weighted’ has a few advantages to me, but admittedly if one wanted to pinpoint a specific definition from it, nothing matches as well as ‘Fallen’ for what we’re describing.

Yes, Fallen seems to 'pinpoint' it most to me too, for the reasons you mentioned. And to me it also has the added advantage of being easy to say/communicate. Trying it out in a few scenarios, weighted seems a bit clumsier in regular sentence use by comparison. Such as:
"Hey, he looks FeSi, double extroverted. And his affect looks weighted"
versus
"Hey, he looks FeSi double extroverted. And his affect looks fallen."
Weighted has the connotation of weight (fat), and "weighted affect" doesn't seem to ring a bell immediately to me. Whether one is talking about heavy weight (volume/mass), or fallen-ness (downwardness) seems unclear. So I think I'm leaning towards Fallen Affect. There's also the added benefit of starting with the same first letter of the last term. Moving from Flat Affect to Fallen Affect should be a fairly painless mental transition, I think?
@ Religious connotation --Hey that didn't even occur to me! But even here, there is an aptness if what we are talking about is taken in a Jungian sense moreso than a religious sense. 'Fallen' would relate here to 'submersion' or the experience of being immersed in the depths of psychological disturbances. And I believe that if the religious viewpoint is psychologized, a similar parallel emerges.
Still, we really are mainly aiming to describe the facial appearance. It isn't referring to a moral commentary, anymore than "Sassy" for Te or "Naive" for Ne. And if people understand that the term is technical, I think there shouldn't be a problem.

[Rua]

“Hey, he looks FeSi, double extroverted. And his affect looks weighted”
versus
“Hey, he looks FeSi double extroverted. And his affect looks fallen.”

You're almost certainly correct that 'fallen' is easier to incorporate into sentences in general, though I find the first example rather easy to rearrange for concision and reduced clumsiness with 'weighted', but I do get that that's not really addressing your point, which is aimed at the appeal of using a word that is effective even with clumsy sentence formation. Fallen definitely seems the better choice if it wants to represent technicality and ease of use. Also, my memory could be off/ observations limited, but when I've seen people use 'Flat Affect' irt CT it seems to be overwhelmingly used as its own technical phrase rather than being rearranged (i.e. a Flat Affect vs. an affect that is flat), in much the same way that in psychiatry the two words are almost always used in the specific order of "patient presents with flat affect" rather than "patient presents with an affect that is flat". Keeping those things in mind the clumsiness of 'weighted' seems almost entirely eliminated if it's used in a technical capacity as 'Weighted Affect', which of course also makes sentences it's used in more concise and more inoculated against clumsiness.

Weighted has the connotation of weight (fat), and “weighted affect” doesn’t seem to ring a bell immediately to me. Whether one is talking about heavy weight (volume/mass), or fallen-ness (downwardness) seems unclear.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning here. Given that 'mass' adds an extra layer needed to fully understand the use of weight as a physical property, you're probably correct. Although, I don't find there to be a contradiction here since gravity is always a 'downwards' force from a terrestrial perspective and weight can be defined simply and physically as "force exerted on a body by gravity". More weight = more downwards force. And to address the first part, if I was inclined to take offense to individual words, fallen would bother me significantly more d/t having one of its definitions as "subject to sin or depravity", as well as having a documented history of use in moral condemnation, but I'm probably in the minority here given that that's a bit more historical of an association and isn't as widespread as a modern synonymizing of 'weight' with 'fat'.
Anyway, 'fallen' does appear to me to be the better term overall given that weighted isn't 100% clear, has a more widespread and primary connotation with 'fat', and lacks in ease of use when looked at outside of the specific technical phrasing. I just thought I'd make an argument for an alternative 🙂

[Author]

Posts