The Psychological Impact of Ostracism and the Silent Treatment and their Application to the Psalms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study applies psychological research on the effects of ostracism and the silent treatment to interpret the psalms of lament—drawing especially on the work of the psychologist Kipling D. Williams. Studies show that receiving the silent treatment affects the same part of the brain that detects physical pain (the anterior cingulate cortex) and there are passages in the psalms that describe the psalmists being shunned by their communities. Yet these negative psychological effects can also happen when the other party is not physically present, such as when one's texts or social media messages are ignored. This insight can be used to understand the psalmists' experiences of unanswered prayer, where God is not physically present. Studies show that the pain of ostracism and the silent treatment can affect readers and audiences second-hand as well. To that end, there is evidence that members of faith communities will be less likely to give generously after hearing Scripture passages where God ignores the psalmist or other biblical writer. Nonetheless, these negative effects are counterbalanced by the positive social aspects of gathering in community and by the fact that even psalms that include ostracism often have positive conclusions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".