Why We Can’t All Be Friends

Many of us would be pleased if everyone liked us and we liked everyone. But this preference doesn’t pan out in real life. Pursuing this goal often stems from a less-than-ideal early environment that failed to nurture and support a real and independent sense of self.

As a result, this person wants to be liked/loved by everyone to assure himself that he is okay. This tactic doesn't work. Instead, burdened by this impossible task, he suffers, perhaps even to the extreme of becoming depressed.

In reality, we have likes and dislikes, and a diversity of opinions. Sometimes a dislike is immediate. Sometimes it develops with time and familiarity. It can be as intense as a food allergy or as uproarious as dogs sparring in the street when they get a whiff of each other.

Understanding another person is difficult too, and as the poet Elizabeth Bishop said, “We can not love what we don’t understand.” To understand another person is a lofty, often unattainable goal.

Given the limitation of time and our complexity, we can’t aspire to understand more than the tip of the iceberg of ourselves, another person or our world. What then are we to do? Getting along with others requires balancing two, often conflicting, aspects of human nature.

David Brooks (the New York Times, March 14)  summarizes  the state of our  knowledge of neurobiology, psychology and cognitive science that reveals two systems of our human nature.  Deep in the core of our being there are the unconscious natural processes built in by evolution. These embedded unconscious processes propel us to procreate or strut or think in certain ways, often impulsively. Then, at the top, we have our conscious, rational processes. This top layer does its best to exercise some restraint and executive function.

The top layer is a relatively recent layer of rationality. But a concept easily bypasses the new, more fragile, rational part of the brain, to penetrate and excite our emotions. The rational is delicate, fragile, like a soluble substance. By contrast, the emotional is like a durable substance, stubborn like oil that easily rises to the surface.

Because the emotional or irrational aspects of our nature often predominate, we have to work hard to get along with others.

Conclusion:   In essence, similar to many other animals on the planet, we are programmed to like and dislike, to love and hate. To tolerate and understand our differences embodies a great evolutionary achievement and a worthy goal.

Dear Reader, I welcome your thoughts. Jsimon145@gmail.com

Time as a Road Map

When considering our relationship to time, it’s helpful to envision being on a road trip. Locating ourselves on the map of time can increase self-awareness. Are we impatient? If so, we’re revving up our motor, consuming energy, without going anywhere. Focusing on the internal environment of our thoughts and feelings can center us and reduce stress.

If we’re procrastinating, we can see the diversion as a detour (from the main road, destination or goal) and appreciate the journey, turning the negative of self-criticism to the positive of self-critique.

Depression, addiction or other disorders leave us caught in a dead end or cul-de-sac. If we can’t get back on the main road, we need to call for help, analogous to a road service call for a breakdown.

Conclusion: Locating ourselves on the (road) map of time can increase self-awareness and reduce stress.

Dear Reader: Please send your thoughts. Jsimon145@gmail.com

Trusting Our Untrustworthy Psyches

The human psyche is complex and often fools us. Freud spent his life demonstrating the innumerable ways our unconscious betrays and exposes our untrustworthiness, the disparity between our conscious and unconscious thoughts. What we wish for is not always what is best for us, and may even prove detrimental to our well-being.

The idea has been explored in fiction, from serious literature to children’s stories. In Oscar Wilde’s literary masterpiece, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Dorian makes a pact with the devil to maintain his youthful beauty. Of course any contract with the devil results in disaster.

The fairy-tale of King Midas offers another example. His wish to turn everything he touched to gold was granted. When he transformed his daughter from warm flesh to solid, yellow gold he recognized the fallacy of the wish.

Many years ago I shared the wish with my psychoanalyst that I’d been an only child. She said, “It was fortunate that you had siblings. Otherwise, you would have been more self-involved.”    She had called attention to my tendency to be self-centered, and I realized that a person doesn’t always know that what is viewed as a predicament may be a benefit (in my case, a large family).

What we say or think we want, may be precisely what, without realizing it, we avoid. Ms. G., a client noticed I was falling asleep, as her previous therapist had.  Snapping to awareness, I suggested we pay attention to the tone of her voice.  She spoke in a soft monotone that she could understand might bore people and keep them at a “safe” emotional distance. What she professed to want, namely an intimate relationship, was precisely what she was unconsciously defending herself against.

We can’t trust the psyche that wishes to avoid discomfort and distress and numbs itself  with substances like food, drugs, or alcohol, and denies the potential lethality of these addictions. (For more on addiction please see the post of February 24.)

By contrast the psyche that says we need to probe to the root of the matter is trustworthy.

Conclusion: We have to keep an open eye and mind and to recognize the complexity and trickiness of our psyches.

Dear Reader: I look forward to your comments.

Jsimon145@gmail.com

The Splits in our Mind and in our World

Splitting, also called all-or-nothing thinking, is the failure to bring together the positive and negative qualities into a cohesive whole,  whether they belong to ourselves, another person, or a situation in the world. Instead, we see the extreme: the division into “all good” or “all bad.”

Underlying the splitting mechanism is the mind’s tendency to simplify to find quick and easy solutions. B contrast, living with uncertainty, a condition we humans find very difficult, increases anxiety.

However, over-utilized, this defense can interfere with daily functioning. Rapid shifts in perceptions lead to erratic behavior that is described as a feature of borderline personality disorder.

At the outset of psychotherapy, Mr. M. spoke about his son in glowing terms. Some time later, his viewpoint shifted to the opposite position, and he began to treat his son disrespectfully.

Splitting begins early In life when the infant isn’t yet able to integrate the aspects of the parents who both gratify (good) and frustrate (bad).  Developmental factors in the environment perpetuate the use of this less-than-ideal defense that blocks out the subtleties and fails to integrate the various positions. For example, parents (or care-takers) split and pass down the tendency to their children. Labeling (as discussed in last week’s blog) is a superficial manifestation of splitting. For example, one child in the family is tagged as the “brain,” while a sibling is “the beauty.” A more accurate, although less dramatic perception is to view the child with his own unique intelligence and attractiveness.

Ted Cruz, senator of Texas employs this rabble-rousing technique in bashing other members of the Republican party and the government in general. Reporters describe his appeal as pleasing the crowd by “feeding them red meat.”

By contrast, communist Cuba has resolved competing philosophies by incorporating private enterprise and thereby lessening the divide between communism and capitalism. This example supports that the integration of opposites often improves functioning.

The split between psychotherapist and patient isn’t as wide as it seems, either. Similar to the patient, the therapist must participate in the process of self-discovery and self-observation, which in turn, supports the therapeutic relationship.

Each of us uses splitting as a defense at times, and we benefit from recognizing that this mechanism can interfere with the integrity of our minds and our world.

Conclusion: Recognizing the limitations of “splitting” as a defense mechanism can benefit us and our world.

Dear Reader, I welcome your opinions.

www.jsimon145@gmail.com

Labels: Pros and Cons

We yearn to simplify our complex world. The act of labeling is an attempt along these lines. Labels stream-line our existence like drive-through delis and banks.

 

We assume that a label portends stability- its function is to define- and for the most part, definitions of words are constant. But quite often, a label isn’t stable at all, but subject to change, and instead of directing us, leads us astray, like a wayward horse.

Some old labels, like “Stalinist” resurfaced when the renowned folk singer Pete Seeger died in January at age 94. Dylan Matthews  of The Washington Post, tweeted,  “I love and will miss Pete Seeger but let’s not gloss over that fact that he was an actual Stalinist.”

Another voice, reflecting the change with time, softened the label’s harshness.  Bhaskar Sunkara of Portside Moderator wrote,  “Time after time American Communists such as Seeger were on the right side of history,”

Seeger endured several episodes of  labeling (name-calling) throughout the years, and fortunate for us all, he had the courage to persist in his goal to make the world a better place for everyone.

But we’ve also read in the press about young people, teenagers and college students, who, unable to stand up for themselves,  have committed suicide in the face of a “negative” label. In other words, labels possess the power to kill.

In less extreme cases, labels lead to expectations. Children in the school system are vulnerable to such tags: gifted vs. average vs. mentally-challenged. Most children accept these designations and perform accordingly.

When I was a  junior high school  student, I was placed in the “gifted” class.  Plagued with self doubt, I asked to be transferred to the classroom of “average” students.  I was surprised when,  instead of my usual A’s, I received B’s. I knew the quality of my work hadn’t changed, and I questioned the teacher. She explained that students in the “average” class are given B’s. Of course I quickly realized the fallacy of labels in this situation and asked to be returned to the “gifted” class where I once again received A’s.

In terms of psychiatric labels, the use of the diagnosis borderline personality disorder,  has undergone drastic changes.  In the 1970’s, the patient wasn’t informed about the diagnosis which implied severe difficulties inherent in the treatment with a guarded prognosis.  Matters have changed today, thanks in good part to Marsha Linehan’s writings on treating this disorder that have modified the past outlook of doom and gloom.

On occasion, a person consulting with me for the first time, will deliver the message, “I’ve been diagnosed as ‘borderline,’ with the equanimity of a weather report. In my experience, the implication of this diagnosis and its prognosis, varies from person to person, almost to the point of rendering the diagnostic “label” useless.

Conclusion: We must deal with labels everyday but keep an open mind, to mull over the mutability of labels, and think outside the box.

Dear Reader, I look forward to your opinions. Jsimon145@gmail.com