Consider the Chaos (in Ourselves and our World)

David Foster Wallace, the brilliant writer who died in 2008, wrote an essay titled  “Consider the Lobster.” I say let us consider the Chaos. which is actually related to D.F. Wallace.  (His suicide resulted from his internal mental state of Chaos-depression and self-hate.)

Inadvertently, our actions lead to Chaos in many small ways everyday- accidentally taking an extra playbill at the theatre, allowing the faucet to run too long. For the most part, these instances are unavoidable and need not overwhelm us.

But I’d like to pose the question, Would our world be different if we purposefully aim to diminish the Chaos and, in its place, substitute  order?

Let us start with our intra-psychic self (of which D.F. Wallace was a victim).

Our relationship with our own psyche has the potential to add order or the opposite, Chaos, to our lives. If we accept our efforts, we add order and energy as we plug away at our daily tasks. If we declare our efforts insufficient or “never enough,” we actually may work against ourselves and become our own worst enemy.

For example, Ms. C., an artist, suffers from self hate and depression. She doesn’t feel she deserves to be successful or loved.  Factors in her early environment failed (in some way) to support her talent and healthy psychological development. She doesn’t see a purpose in her life in spite of  her gift to create art and can’t “take in” the positive feedback she receives from the outside world.

Self-hate is like an eraser at the end of a pencil that wipes out a person’s accomplishments, rendering them imperceptible to the achiever. Like the reverse of the Hans C. Andersen story of the emperor and his new clothes, we outsiders perceive accomplishments that remain invisible or imperceptible to the achiever.

For a person who hasn’t grappled with self hate or depression the “erasing phenomenon” may seem incomprehensible.

Our intimate relationships can have the effect of adding Chaos and/or order to our lives. In fact, they probably cause the pendulum between the two states to swing back and forth, from moment to moment. In the final analysis though, a “good-enough” relationship adds a sense of increased order to our internal and external worlds.

In Tennessee Williams’s great play,  TheGlass Menagerie, currently running on Broadway, the mother, Ms. Wingfield embodies the tragic example of  a mother whose words create Chaos in her offspring. She achieves the opposite of an agenda she espouses, namely to want the best for her children. In bragging about her past accomplishments, and nagging them about their inadequacies, she undermines their self-esteem, driving them into their own private world of fantasy, detached from the “real world.”

The character of Ms. Wingfield  reveals a gapping flaw:  she lacks  self-awareness. If Ms. Wingfield were aware of her unconscious motives-to diminish her children in order to gird herself (against unconscious self hate- she might choose to change her tactics. Awareness grants choice and in turn, offers order.

Chaos has been generally viewed as a negative and order as the goal, but a recent article about Chaos in the New York Times Magazine (Clean up Your Desk! by Gretchen Reynolds, September 22) complicates the dichotomy. The author summarizes a recent study at the University of Minnesota (published online in Psychological Science last month) documenting the effect of messy and neat office environments on college students. The study found that a less- than- neat environment led to an increase in creative thinking, while a neat environment enhanced productivity. In other words, an advantage can be found in both order and Chaos.

Perhaps a valid goal is to consider organized Chaos, a situation   in which we’re sufficiently ordered to be able to connect thoughts, actions, and events, yet open enough to allow novelty.

 Awareness is the master key that opens the doors to increased order.  By contrast, lack of awareness adds Chaos to the psyche, the interpersonal world.

(For me, writing a daily journal is a powerful tool that increases my self-awareness and diminishes the Chaos and disorder in my mind.) 

Conclusion: The common denominator of awareness adds order to the physical, mental and spiritual levels while the absence of awareness adds Chaos. The process, of course, is unending, as infinite (we hope) as the ebb and flow of our oceans.

Dear Reader, I welcome your thoughts on this complex cycle.

Jsimon145@gmail.com.

Our Neurons and Ourselves

We are on the frontiers of an exciting time in neuroscience. Dr. Eric Kandel, the recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, explains that the area of the brain responsible for depression has been documented (in some cases) and the type of therapy to which the patient responds can be predicted (The New York Times, September 8). He cites a recent study in which Emory University’s Professor Helen Mayberg has demonstrated that people with below-average baseline activity in the right anterior insula responded well to cognitive behavioral therapy. These contrasted to those with above-average activity who responded to medication. In other words, observing the baseline activity in this area of the brain, the right anterior insula, can predict a depressed person’s response to specific treatments.

The case of Mr. M. exemplifies how this kind of predication could be helpful. He consulted me for long-standing depression, unresolved after ten years of psychoanalysis with Dr. L.  Mr. M. functioned like a car, running on three of a possible six cylinders; he declared he’d received no benefit from treatment. Within a few months on antidepressant medication, he felt like a car in which all six cylinders fired on time. He was able to access the knowledge he had gained and change his life.

Some people suffer for years unwilling to consider a pharmacological approach. Another segment of the population thinks pharmacotherapy is the only solution. The new research opens up a vast territory of possibility that would help to determine who will respond to which approach.

Dr. Kandel concludes the following:

1.              Neural circuits disturbed by psychiatric disorders are very complex.

2.              In certain cases, markers of a mental disorder can be identified and can predict the outcome of psychotherapy and medication.

3.              Psychotherapy as well as pharmacotherapy is a biological treatment that produces physical changes in the brain.

4.              The effects of psychotherapy can be studied scientifically.

Conclusion: Some amazing recent discoveries of the brain and mind include the budding potential to predict who will respond to a variety of biological treatments that include psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy.

Dear Reader, I welcome your thoughts on the advent of this exciting frontier of neuroscience. Jsimon145@gmail.com.

The Myth of the "Free lunch"

Opportunities arise almost daily to accept a free lunch. Some of us shun the idea of getting something for nothing, while others seem to crave it. In either case it is wise to think about the expectation involved.

There’s always a catch, obvious or not, whether it’s  free lunch for school children, a sample copy of a magazine, or a meal at an expensive restaurant (formerly offered in abundance to physicians by pharmaceutical companies but recently curtailed since the government applied restrictions).

The free lunch offered to schoolchildren implies that the kids attend and follow the rules.

We have to read the free issue of the magazine to decide if we want it or if not, then return the bill marked “cancelled.”  The physicians must listen to a promotional presentation at the dinner.

Probably most of us don’t object to receiving something for free. In the first few months of life in our infancy, no one demanded anything of us. We were fed, clothed, washed and cuddled, and given positive, unconditional regard. Perhaps the hunger for the free lunch is a throw back to the bliss we knew (buried in the unconscious) before we became individualized and saddled with the effort to meet our own needs.

The appetite for a free lunch is common, and detrimental only when compulsive. There is a big distinction between receiving a free lunch and maneuvering to get it, like a manipulator or, worse, a thief who helps himself.

Conclusion: The term free lunch implies an unspoken contract. Although it tempts, the “gift” doesn’t deliver carte blanche. The reciprocity of give and take anchors us to the human chain of relationships.

Dear Reader, I welcome your thoughts on this tricky topic. jsimon145@gmail.com

A Gift Free to Give (with Effort)

An aspect of human nature is to want to help others; a beneficent act can be as simple as assisting a blind person across the street, or as self-sacrificing as donating an organ.

In between these extremes, lies the vast and treacherous land of interpersonal relationships, a multi-layered terrain rippled by an awareness of self and others. Each of us harbors blind spots. We simply are not always conscious of how our words and/or actions impact others. Ideally, we help each other by increasing awareness.

Feedback can be as simple as a comment like, “I think the green dress becomes you better than the yellow one.” On a deeper, delicate level, we can point to a behavior that may work against a person’s goals.

Steve Jobs, the founder and mastermind of Apple Computers, exemplifies someone who would have benefited if he’d been able to heed feedback from friends regarding his verbal abuse. Instead he alienated some who tried to help him.

Many years ago my brother Bob pointed out that I seemed oblivious to the discomfort I was causing my sister-in-law in pursuing a family matter.

“You don’t seem aware of her Achilles heel,” Bob said.

“Really!’ I answered. Fortunately I felt more surprised and curious than insulted or defensive. I recognized the value of his feedback. His goal wasn’t to wound but to heal, to make me a better, more aware person.

The task to guide another person isn’t easy. Whether an individual will respond with openness or defensiveness, is almost impossible to predict. To couch a message in words that express caring and concern (vs. cutting criticism) is essential. Hurting someone’s feelings could complicate or jeopardize a relationship.

Putting yourself in the other person’s position (to imagine how you’d feel) can be helpful. Posing a question is another tactic that can soften a blow. (For example, “Have you ever thought about psychotherapy for yourself?”)

Conclusion: We each possess an invaluable tool to guide one another on the playing field of life.

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

Denial and Deceit: Gateway to Change

 

In the field of psychology, the word denial refers to a defense mechanism, an “unconscious” tool to protect the psychological integrity of an individual and help him function in the world.

 

By contrast, the goal of deceit or dishonesty is a conscious attempt to manipulate another person and/or

the environment for some nefarious purpose(s), major or minor, and undermines the integrity of personal and social relationships. Like a building constructed with faulty cement, a relationship built on deceit may crumble at any moment.

(One of the reasons we adore and enjoy very young children and our pets, cats and dogs, is their guilelessness. Although they can manipulate us, they aren’t capable of deceiving us.)

In the situation of denial, reality is hidden from the denier himself. If denial is too extreme, he may fail to grapple with reality and suffer dire consequences, but he doesn’t intend to harm or manipulate other people.

We can deny as well as deceive ourselves. An example of self-deception occurs when I promise myself I’ll eat one-half but instead, I devour an entire chocolate bar. From past experience, I know I have an addiction to sweets. To indulge in a morsel tests my self-control and invites trouble.  (People with addictive problems often play this game with themselves, whether the addiction involves an appetite or an action (behavior).

In contrast with denial, lying is conscious. The person responsible knows he’s spinning a web.  Dishonesty is an interpersonal matter that undermines a relationship and induces angry feelings; the deceived person feels duped, foolish, gullible, and may doubt himself as well as the dishonest person.

What underlies dishonesty? Why can’t the person be straight with us?

We learn to lie early in our lives. Our parental figures set the stage. A child naturally tests the limits and learns about boundaries and fairness from his caretakers. If they let him get away with lying, he will continue the habit.

Deceit in the context of a psychotherapeutic relationship is a conundrum. A client invests time and money while sabotaging his efforts and squandering his resources. Before a genuine intra-psychic journey begins, the wall of deceit must be broached.

Most psychotherapists shy away from confronting a patient over the deceptions perpetrated in therapy; we have to reach beyond the common tools of acceptance and understanding. Like a dog trained to detect bedbugs, in spite of the distasteful task, a psychotherapist has to root out deceit.  We have to challenge the client, risking anger, rage, and abandonment. But if the client succeeds in manipulating, we fail to accomplish the major task and the pattern of dishonesty is reinforced.

An example is Ms. M. who lived on disability payments. After a few years, she confessed she had a part-time job. Dishonesty undermined our relationship; her fear that I would discover her secret exacerbated her paranoia. (When at last she told me, I complimented her on her courage to tell the truth, but she didn’t return for treatment.)

(As black is the absence of light, deceit is the absence of courage to be honest.)

Although he had a job and could afford treatment, Mr. Y. tried to get out of paying for his sessions. When I set firm limits, he acted hurt, insulted, wounded, as if I had committed a crime against him.  If I had failed to take a hard stand, I would have side-stepped the work and he would have continued to assume he could “get away with it” in other situations. In this way, and in many others, the therapy room is a mini-laboratory for the outside world.

Conclusion: Deceit and dishonesty undermine any and every relationship with oneself and others. Coping with this behavior requires courage on the part of the client and the psychotherapist and offers an avenue to major change.

Dear Reader, Your comments (on this tough subject) are welcome. jsimon145@gmail.com

To Change Your Situation or Yourself? That is the Question.

Change is often frightening and can involve altering our relationship with ourselves, which automatically modifies our relationship with others.

After a period of self-examination, individuals may opt to change their environment, while others conclude that change should instead happen within themselves.

One client considered himself unhappily married until he recognized his internal dissatisfaction. He had not achieved his goal of becoming a great politician and eventually learned to own the disappointment within himself rather than shifting his disappointment to his marital relationship or partner.

In a different example, a woman realized that her husband expected her to arrange frequent dinner parties and entertain his business associates while she preferred a more solitary and quiet life. His image of her did not meet her own internal image. In this situation, they agreed a divorce was the appropriate solution.

We can’t always know if our goal is a healing one or a destructive one. Are we moving toward health or pathology? If the man above had assumed the problem was his marriage and failed to recognize his self- dissatisfaction, he may have divorced and remarried, transmitting the problem (like a virus) from one relationship to the next. In the second example, both individuals adjusted to more gratifying relationships.

Important to note is that a change in self-perception alters how we see others too. After the man (described above) owned his self-dissatisfaction, he was able to appreciate the nurturing qualities in his wife.   

Conclusion: For some, accepting a given situation turns out to be the answer. Others fare better to change their circumstances.

Ultimately, individuals must answer the question for themselves but may be helped by a psychotherapist, who adds the advantage of objective listening and “accurate enough” feedback.

Dear Reader: Please add your comments. Jsimon145@gmail.com

Siblings: Pros and Cons

Siblings can make all the difference in a person’s life. Their collaboration can be a powerful force to lessen existential anxiety and create a life-sustaining foundation for the members of their clan. Since they’ve grown up with the same mother and father, they can exchange memories and perceptions over the years that provide a sense of family identity. The sibling relationship outlives most other human relationships, becoming more valuable as we age because of the common history.

 I’m the oldest of five children and note that our perceptions of each other have changed over time, depending on our life circumstances. We’ve been married, had children, survived divorces (except for two out of the five who remain married to their first spouse).

 

  On August 14, USA Today reported on a study done at Ohio State. The researchers concluded that growing up with more siblings reduces the risk of divorce. (Of course this is one factor and didn’t seem the major one in my family.)

I think the five of us would agree that we fall at neither end of the closeness spectrum; we’re neither the most tight-knit nor most emotionally distant of families. In spite of many spats and minor disagreements when we were young, we’ve been present for each other, supportive, availing our knowledge and talents to each other. Our perceptions of our parents are quite similar, and we cooperated on their care when they were elderly.

 Most people who have endured singleness would have preferred to have a sibling to lessen their aloneness. Cousins of a similar age who live nearby can help to ease the discomfort and offer a different, although related, perspective on one’s parents.

But not everyone experiences siblings as a help. A sister or brother can be a lifesaver or a murderer, a safety net or a hole in the texture of a person’s world; or even flip to the opposite pole during a lifetime.

In her heart-wrenching memoir, Country Girl, the accomplished Irish novelist Edna O’Brien describes how her mother intended to turn over the family house to her. Instead, her brother tricked their mother into re-writing the will to give it to him. Edna didn’t have a home and her brother never used the house, allowing it to remain empty and fallow.

Apparently her brother was out to get her. I suspect his selfish act was fueled by the mother’s favoritism for her daughter. Clearly Edna’s life would have been easier without this sibling.

If any one factor can help to predict the future, the parents’ show of favoritism fosters dissension among their children and weaves a flawed net. (As imperfect as her love was, my mother insisted she had no favorites among the five of us.  She built a unique relationship with each of us based on her broad interests, including literature, earth sciences and   nontraditional politics.)

Parents do well to foster and respect sibling relationships. They can offer their children time to share activities and allow them to work through their own disagreements and to build a relationship with each other separate from their parents. They can encourage older siblings who leave home to maintain relationships with the younger ones and arrange family get-togethers. And of course avoid “favoritism,” the most common cause of bitter sibling rivalry.

A visit with my brother ten years my junior uncovered a striking pattern. After we waited a considerable time to catch a southbound cab, I suggested one of us cross the street to double our chances.

“No,” he objected, “Let’s stay together.”

 As the youngest, alone in the home after we older siblings had departed, he longed and focused on “togetherness,” while I, the eldest, zeroed in on “the goal.” This pattern seems to do more with birth order than with genes and chromosomes.

Although no one can predict with any degree of certainty how life changes will affect sibling relationships, birth order has been studied, resulting in some conclusions. Meri Wallace researched the topic and wrote Birth Order Blues. She found that some of these patterns relate to the parent’s treatment of the child in his spot and some connect to the order itself. She adds, ”Each spot has unique challenges.”

Conclusion: Sibling relationships determine a lot about who we become later in life and remain a vital force. Many factors affect the quality of these; primary among them are parents. Those of us who are fortunate to have supportive sibling relationships derive great benefit especially in times of change and crisis.

Dear Reader: I welcome your comments on this complex topic. jsimon145@gmail.com