The Paradox of Impatience

By definition, impatience is an urgent desire for relief or change, and includes restlessness and intolerance for whatever thwarts or hinders the goal. We’re triggered when we realize achieving our goal will cost us more than we bargained for.

Paradoxically, impatience sometimes pays, and sometimes costs. (Self disclosure: Writing this blog has helped me curb my chronic problem of impatience so I hope you, dear reader will read on.)

We can benefit from impatience by trying to save a few minutes to have more time (or other commodities). Conversely, we could lose a lot of the thoughtful consideration that leads to us making sound decisions and the understanding that some enjoyable things in life require time.

According to Tara S. Sonenshine,  under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, society’s rapid functioning feeds impatience in the following ways:

1. Cash machines allow us to avoid long lines at the bank.

2.Movie tickets on-line or videos downloaded on demand give us instant access to entertainment.

3. Paying extra secures early boarding and deplaning from a jet.

4. The struggle to find work and feed families after the economic crash of 2008 has increased some peoples’ frustration and impatience.

5. Because of the downhill slide of political leadership and the persistence of war, our patience with politics and leadership has declined.

Speed: a Behavioral Addiction

Greater speed with which events occur leads us to expect and tolerate more speed. We may even develop a psychological and physical tolerance to a fast pace and hunger for more and more as if it’s a drug, a kind of behavioral addiction.

From standing on a particular line at the supermarket to a major monetary investment, the outcome can drive up our blood pressure and damage our health to the extreme, even leading to a heart attack or a stroke. On the other hand, it’s true that impatience can occasionally save lives. Often, we can’t fathom the outcome until the particular situation concludes.

For instance, those who were able to exit the towers on 9/11 survived. Some patiently heeded the loud speaker advising them to remain in the building.  In Jonathan Safran Foer’s novel, later adapted to a film with the same title, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Thomas waited at his desk, leaving phone messages for his son Oskar before the line went dead and he perished in the towers.

Along with the rapidity of our electronic world comes the expectation that we humans should be as fast as the materials powering our robotic tools. Obviously, flesh and blood moves at very different rhythms from silicon crystals and Xeon processors.

The hasty tweeting of our president raises the question of the difference between impatience and impulsiveness, or the tendency to react to internal or external stimuli without regard to negative consequences.

Neither impulsiveness nor impatience is a plus in a president.

But it’s helpful to recognize that impatience doesn’t necessarily imply impulsiveness. Impatience can work for us when we ponder a matter from several angles.

That our impatience could work against our survival if we  dismiss the danger of global warming is a horrifying possibility. The Arctic will be melted in 50 years, a reality that impatient people may not accept or act to change. In this case, impatience could lead to our extinction. If we don’t embrace patience in caring for our environment, our planet won’t be able to sustain human life.

What are some tactics to help us tone down impatience:

1.Tuning into music or an audio book can help some to slow down.  Attaching to musical notes or words can ground the impatient.

2. We can step back and ask: What is the hurry? Where am I going? Will I really save time and if so, what will I do with the extra seconds, minutes, etc.?

3. Meditation lengthens the breath, slows the brain waves slow down, and puts matters in perspective for some people.

4. Recognizing tension in the muscles and trying to relax them by stretching and massage can slow our minds.

5. Becoming curious of the possibilities of a predicament can help. For example, thinking about what the Trump presidency tells us about the state of the world can lead us to address the underlying issues that led to Trump’s rise.

6.  Some may be curious about the psychodynamic causes of their impatience. (I was the eldest of five children and my highly responsible, overwhelmed, working Mom barely had time to attend to all of our needs. Perhaps the impatient ones reaped more attention. )

7. Like a physician treating a patient, we can assess the risk/benefit analysis of the tendency to change this particular circumstance.

Conclusion: Impatience is a normal phenomenon, and accepting that we can’t always make the best decision helps us cope and learn from the outcome.

Dear Reader, I welcome your thoughts. jsimon145@gmail.com

Trump, Narcissism and Parenting

President Trump’s children seem dedicated to serve their father, who, on the surface, appears oblivious to the needs of others and seemingly obsessed with details that boost his ego. For me, these observations invite a discussion of narcissism and narcissistic parenting.

Complying with a rich powerful father doesn’t necessarily put a child at a disadvantage. But not all children of narcissistic parents fare as well as the Trump offspring.

(Self-disclosure: I had a father whose parenting showed narcissistic tendencies, and in rearing my children, I wasn’t free of narcissistic behavior either.)

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is defined as a mental disorder. A person suffering with this malady has an inflated sense of his own importance and a deep (and preoccupying) need for admiration coupled with a lack of empathy for others. A mask of appearances ( at times, even grandiose) hides a fragile ego that is especially vulnerable to criticism. As confident as he seems, his actions reveal that he lacks genuine self-esteem as a result of narcissistic parenting.

According to the literature at least 6% of the population has experienced clinical NPD from some angle at some point in their lives. Most of us have some narcissistic tendencies, and most parents don’t fall entirely into the extreme.

Often this psychological makeup causes problems in relationships, work, school, and financial affairs. When not granted the special favors or admiration they expect, people with NPD are unhappy and often find relationships unfulfilling.

Rather than condemning or judging the phenomenon, we best try to understand how this propensity is transmitted through the generations. One salient question can distinguish a narcissistic from a healthy interaction between parent and child. In a healthy interchange, a parent’s words show that he cares about his child’s wellbeing. He might say, “I want you to feel good about yourself.”

By contrast, a narcissistic exchange focuses on the quality of a child’s performance and accomplishments. For example, a parent might say,  “That wasn’t very good. What will my friends think?”

   

The young child finds this kind of parent(ing) confusing and unpredictable. Whether he realizes it or not, the child of a narcissist reflects and serves the parent; his or her development may be diverted from their natural inclination. For example, when a parent insists on choosing a child’s profession, the child may concede to please their powerful progenitor.

When my parents opposed my choice to become a psychiatrist, I became a pathologist. After I completed the board exams in pathology, I had the courage to begin a course of psychotherapy to examine the motivation behind my ongoing wish to study psychiatry. Once the therapist confirmed that my interest was genuine, I followed my true path. To recognize the narcissistic features in my own parenting took a few more years. But the journey has been fascinating.

Conclusion: Narcissists are bred, not born and in some cases, can learn the error of their ways and improve their relationships with others.  Positive parenting has the power to prevent narcissism.

Dear Reader, Your comments are welcome. jsimon145@gmail.com.

Surviving in Our Orwellian Times

George Orwell’s mind-boggling novel 1984 has been produced as a play, currently running at the Hudson Theatre in NYC. At the suggestion of a friend, I saw it, and was surprised by the degree of violence I’d never witnessed on the stage before.

I asked myself why stage 1984 now? Published in 1949, Orwell’s novel was based on his experience of the totalitarianism. George Orwell  fought against Spanish dictator Franco in 1937, and ten years, later wrote, “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I know it.”

Orwell’s writing has become frighteningly relevant in 2017.

Donald Trump’s presidency, which at first appeared chaotic, when compared with other examples of authoritarianism, assumes a kind of order. Robert Reich, a Berkeley professor and the author of Saving Capitalism for the Many, not the Few, said, “Viewed through the lens of authoritarianism, Trump’s approach to governing is logical and coherent.”

Authoritarianism is a form of governing that values control over personal freedom, and seeks to concentrate power in the hands of a single “strongman.” Trump assails those who disagree with him. He doesn’t follow the rules that he dislikes and seeks to intimidate and discredit the press.

In Orwell’s novel, the pleasure of exercising power is emphasized in the relationship of Winston with his torturer, O’Brien. The Inner Party to which O’Brien belongs worships power for its own sake, and uses what it calls “reality control”   to eliminate “objective” truth, and subjugate  the citizens.

We have experienced how Trump and his team bend the truth to suit their goals and promulgate the term “fake news” to discredit facts (e.g.,   global warming and the need to protect the environment, among many other instances).

Many of us are shocked by the loss of democracy.

Families are split in a way we haven’t experienced before—accompanied by feelings of loss, sadness and isolation. We’ve witnessed the increasing numbers of hate crimes throughout the country spurred on by anger and rage inspired by Trump’s words and actions.

We ask, how long we will have to cope with this alien regime? Where will it lead? How long it will last? What will be the consequences?

We respond in various ways. Faced with fear, some of us have dreams or nightmares of being overtaken by a strong force.

To rationalize our bad behaviors we cite the president. “If the president can do such-and-such why can’t I.....”

 (In my blog of May 29, I’ve confessed how I rationalize my less-than-ideal behavior to use clichés.)

Here are some of the positive ways people are coping:

Mr. G. finds relief in tweeting about his disapproval of the president and his policies.

Ms. A. has confidence that the smart politicians in our country will remedy the situation soon and restore a democratic government.

Ms. K. focuses on the positive: In spite of her disdain for Trump, her portfolio of stocks is rising.

Ms. W. has a group of like-minded people with whom she can share her fears.

Mr. L. realized that he had to limit his exposure to the daily news after he became too upset to carry on his daily routine.

Mr. W. reads works of writers and thinkers who analyze the news and remain hopeful that the democratic underpinnings of our nation will triumph, and that order as we’ve it in the past will be restored.

Ms. T. focuses on the reporters who remind us of the bright side—that our Constitution was created with checks and balances to assure the separation of powers and prevent authoritarianism.

Conclusion: We do well to acknowledge the reality of our troubled time, to face our fears and resist paralysis. We can turn to avenues that give us confidence and faith that democracy will prevail.

Dear Reader, I look forward to your opinions. Please write: jsimon145@gmail.com

Divide to Conquer (The Era of Trumpism)

In grappling to understand the age of Trumpism, I realize that President Donald is a symptom of our era. His actions as the person in a highest position, heighten our conflicts in every arena possible. Republican and Democrat, the rich and the poor (or the haves and have-nots), the whites and the blacks, men and women, pro-lifers and women’s rightists, the heterosexual from the homosexual and transgender people, environmentalists and contaminators, law abiders and law breakers, religion against religion, warmongers vs. peaceniks, those in favor of immigration and those opposed, the conservative vs. the liberal media.  Proposing the abolition of gun control endorses violence as the solution. With Trump’s lack of interest and talent for dialogue, and distaste for negotiation, peace seems ever more elusive and violence looms on the horizon, ever more imminent and frightening.

Trump frames the ‘problem’ as stemming from ‘outside’ ourselves and our country. We are the ‘good’ ones. Essentially, he means himself and the rich ones on his “team” and in his cabinet.  While he inspires terrorism, he defines the ‘evil’ ones as the terrorists. (His attempts to blame Muslims have fortunately failed so far.)

In striking and heating up the already-hot irons of these conflicts, he captures supporters from each group. In essence, wherever the possibility of contention arises, his actions fan the flame and fuel the fire. (Please excuse my use of clichés, but I find myself saying, what the heck? Look at Trump’s use of clichés and superlatives (great, fantastic) which vary little from day to day.) In essence, what kind of example does he set? We are plummeting fast into the dump, myself included, in justifying the use of clichés.

The result: we are left in a limbo where reality is denied and violence justified. Montana GOP House candidate Greg Gianforte assaulted the journalist Ben Jacobs, for attempting to ask the candidate about the Republican Health Care bill. According to a report in The New York Times, there was disagreement of opinion about whether body slamming is acceptable behavior!  (Indeed, as we passengers on the NYC buses hear over the loud speaker every day, physically assaulting the bus driver is a felony, and it should be noted that assaulting your fellow passengers is also an offense).  After Gianforte’s body-slamming episode, Trump issued another message in support of the GOP candidate (who subsequently won the election). 

Conclusion: We best recognize Trump’s tactics to split us apart in every and any possible arena. His underlying motives serve to empower him, to further his brand and line his own pockets. Supposedly, a divided house will not stand. His attempts to thrust one group against another and divide the American people hopefully will fail, but not soon enough.

Dear Reader, I welcome your opinions. jsimon145@gmail.com

Bluffing and Risk: Beware the Wolf

One of my favorite childhood stories was The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I could listen to that story over and over again, perhaps fearing I’d forget the message and end up in the wolf’s tummy. I never wanted to be in that boy’s situation, tending a flock, and  possibly out of boredom or the need for attention,  resorting to bluffing, “crying wolf” to summon the village people to save him from the wolf who wasn’t really there. But who really knew when the wolf would show up?  If the boy persisted in bluffing, the village people would ignore his genuine pleas for help, endangering his flock and himself. The moral of the story, of course, is to learn that indiscriminate bluffing leads to loss of credibility with potentially dire results.

In the 17^th century, bluff meant to blindfold or hoodwink (from the Dutch bluffen, or to “brag.” The current use of the word stems from the mid- 19^th century and refers to   bluffing in the card game of poker.  Bluffing is related to lying: both attempt to deceive, to give the impression that your hand is stronger than it is.  Both In poker and in life, a tight player is more effective than a wild man who looses credibility like the boy tending a flock. If bluffing backfires, the bluffer risks smearing his image, to appear weak and incompetent.  Bluff doesn’t instill trust.

Before attempting to bluff, the successful bluffer plays with steady skill; he knows the rules, knows himself, as well as his opponents and their positions, and considers all factors, including the consequences of failing, (Bob Pajich writes that former President Richard Nixon had the reputation as a good poker player when he was a navy officer. He sought advice from those he thought were the best players. James Stewart, a fellow naval officer gave him tips: “Tight is right. Only bluff when you are quite sure. Bet when you got it. Fold when you’re beat.” Long before he became president, he may have appreciated the broader application of the game. He used his winnings of $5,000 to launch his first congressional run in 1946. But once president, he used one too many bluffs. Apparently, the road from discipline to indiscriminate is smooth and short.

Psychotherapy is a poor arena for bluffing. A patient who bluffs in psychotherapy is ultimately the loser because he undermines the therapeutic goal to achieve honesty and authenticity.

In the context of parenting, bluffing is also inadvisable because the technique collides with consistency and credibility, two assets of good enough parenting.

Trump has banked his art of the deal on bluffing with the goal to further his brand. But his history reveals business failures (bankruptcies and lawsuits) as well as successes.  His bluff record is hardly steadfast or stellar.

New York Times writer Neil Irwin points out that in the political arena, bluffing is tricky. It involves dealing with other world leaders who most likely know each other’s hands— that is, what each has to win or loose. If the conditions are too outrageous, a negotiator walks away from the bargaining table. In dealing with a wild, waffling bluffer like Trump, who has sullied his image, walking away becomes easier and easier.

Irwin notes that bluffocracy has replaced democracy, and as a result the world suffers a kind of paralysis. We can’t move forward. No one knows how to interpret Trump’s statements, judge his intentions, predict his next move or be certain that a deal struck today will have meaning tomorrow. In dealing with Trump, we tread water; progress lies beyond reach. No one knows when Trump is calling wolf, and based on recent news, Trump doesn’t know either.

A second Aesop’s fable seems relevant, The Scorpion and the Frog. When the frog asks the scorpion to ferry him across the river without harming him, the scorpion agrees. But once they reach the other side, the scorpion betrays him. “Why?” asks the frog. “Because it is my nature,” replies the scorpion. Trump’s nature has been to bluff to further his own interests. To expect otherwise is to betray ourselves.

 New York Times op-ed writer Peter Wehner sums up the tragedy. Trump doesn’t believe in the higher power of his office—the belief that governing well advances human good.  Sabina Berman, a Mexican playwright said, “ This is the end of the U.S. as the Northern Star—the star that used to guide democracy.”

Conclusion: Bluffing belongs in the card game of poker but has serious limitations in love, life and politics. With a notoriously bad bluffer in the White House, democracy can’t progress. The U.S. has lost its stardom in the world’s eyes. The question: Can we ever regain what we’ve lost?

Dear Reader, Please offer your comments. jsimon145@gmail.com

Oslo: World Conflicts and Solutions in the Age of Acceleration

Oslo, a hit play by J.T. Rogers, running at the Vivian Beaumont Theatre in New York City, is a story of international peacemaking,

 Rogers based the action on a true story of how Norwegian government officials, husband and wife Terje Rod-Larsen  and Mona Juul, initiated secret peace talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the early 1990’s. Eventually their creative and valiant efforts led to the Oslo Accords (described in The New York Times as “a fleeting moment of bright hope in an enduringly dark realm of conflict”).

Early in the play, Terje explains that the new model he ascribes to is rooted in the personal, not in the organizational; he addresses each point of contention with individuals, rather than the forces they represent.

“It is only through the sharing of the personal that we can see each other for who we truly are,” he says.

He acknowledges his personal flaw—judging Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin after seeing one side him. Described in The New York Timesreview as a "pontificator with a peacock streak," Terje’s ego threatens to obstruct the process; but he is able to accept Mona’s (well-intentioned) confrontations. Their openness to each other makes them an ideal couple, capable of the enormous task they undertake.

Mona, the expediter, interprets for the participants in the peace talks as well as the audience. Her “quiet but commanding serenity” defuses “tensions and restores perspective.”

 In elevating the theme of the personal, Oslo dovetails with Thomas Friedman’s brilliantly comprehensive book, Thank You for Being Late.

Replete with explanations of the world’s predicament (stemming from our age of acceleration) Friedman, like Terje proposes that we make contact on the personal rather than the organizational or governmental level.

Not surprisingly, food is a unifying element in both the play and the book. Mona and Terje supervise the preparation and serving of delicious meals that dissolve the diplomats’ defenses like lumps of sugar immersed in warm water. Friedman cites his hometown, St. Louis Park in Minnesota, as a model community, where the Lincoln Delicatessen brought together Jews and Gentiles who grew comfortable feasting on Jewish food and experiencing Jewish culture. [Quoting Grunstein, Friedman concurs that national governments are too cumbersome, distant, and, lack the agility needed (to resolve conflicts) in the age of acceleration.]

Conclusion: As communicated by Rogers in his play and by Friedman in his book, despite our differences, we share the same appetites and goals to survive and to thrive. Principles that build a creative relationship between two people also resolve the conflicts of nations.

Dear Reader, I welcome your comments. jsimon145@gmail.com

Chaos and Our Minds

Neurophysiological research shows that our minds are naturally chaotic. Our neurons respond to small changes in big ways. Of course our reactions vary. Nevertheless, when an unpredictable event occurs, the mind responds with a degree of chaos, and with the exception of those addicted to chaos, attempts to right itself to a calmer state (like an overturned turtle). (In this regard, I find classical music, pets and the tranquility of the NY Society Library helpful in restoring stasis.)

Nature is both chaotic and predicable. The drive to control our environment has led to many discoveries, including the ability to build earthquake-proof buildings. We now control many aspects of human and other animal reproduction.

Each of us has a Chaos Quotient: that is, the amount of disorder and unpredictability that we can tolerate. In part, this tendency is related to our past experience, the degree to which we’ve experienced disorder in our early life.

The word “chaos” has surfaced often since the surprise election of Donald Trump to the presidency. When reporters noted that chaos surrounds him, he seemed to relish the observation, claiming, “I am the Storm.” Indeed, he has been christened, “The Emperor of Chaos.” Unfortunately, as a result, many of us experience a disturbing sense of unease.

One kind of chaos occurs when a person’s actions do not follow his words; the disconnect between Trump’s words and his actions is one way in which he induces chaos.  Listening to a series of non sequiturs can throw us into a state of anguish. Extreme chaos can lead to hopelessness and paralysis. Here’s how some people I’ve encountered have dealt with the problem in personal ways.

For some individuals suffering from an inner state of confusion, chaos in the environment can reassure. Mr. B., for instance, discovered that watching violent movies allayed his anxiety. However when he gained insight and understood the conflict that had racked his mind, he outgrew his need to view the shootings and lootings in these films.

To combat the chaos that Mr. K. perceived in his environment, he wrote a daily journal. In essence, writing helped him sort out the external chaos from the confusion in his mind.

In the fictional realm, Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book Where the Wild things Are tells the story of Max who caused a rumpus and was sent to his room. There in solitude, he created an imaginary kingdom where wild beasts roamed. Once he tamed them, he emerged triumphant, a calmer child in charge of himself.

Acknowledging our own inner conflict can dismantle chaos as if it were a baited trap about to snap.

Conclusion: Clearly, our brains contain many wild thoughts. A lifelong goal is to gain an accurate picture of which monsters reside within and which outside our minds.

Dear Reader, Please share your opinion(s).
jsimon145@gmail.com