Psychology Today

Latest Articles in this Channel:

02/20/12--12:21: My Dog Was Ready To Die–I Couldn't Let Go (chan 1441257)

A dog's life: How could I let him go? Bernie and his heroic schnozz celebrated every triumph, grieved every loss, galumphed beside us on every hike through every literal and emotional terrain, slept at our feet, napped on our laps, accompanied us on every vacation, drove across the country seven times with us. He was there when I despaired there would be no baby. He placed himself on bed rest with me at the end of my pregnancy. He was there when brought our baby home and we all cried that first night. He kept us company through all those long, colicky nights.

Kept us safe from (cat) burglars: He stood stoic guard against all intruders. "If it wasn't for me, we'd all be speakin' cat," my husband swears he once heard him say. He hated thunder and would hide in the closet. He howled (exactly) like a moose when he wanted a treat. He spent a lot of time, a lot of time, wearing our daughter's tutus and sitting beside stuffed animals for tea parties. He was a wildly enthusiastic audience to all of her living room performances. He was unspeakably patient and endured all our household quirks except for one: He simply could not abide loud sneezes. He would lurch up and leave the room with an unusual air of indignity. When he went up on two legs and put his front paws on the table (not that he ever did that but if he did, is what I meant) he looked just like a bear at a picnic table.

My greatest comfort: He outlived our marriage. He bore all my secrets. His is the face and fur I sobbed into when my brother died. We'd be on the floor for hours. He would lie so still and let me weep. How could I let him go?

Kept us safe from cats burglars: He kept guard against all intruders. "If it wasn't for me, we'd all be speakin' cat," my husband swears he once heard him say. He hated thunder and would hide in the closet. He howled (exactly) like a moose when he wanted a treat. He spent a lot of time, a lot of time, wearing our daughter's tutus and sitting beside stuffed animals for tea parties. He was a wildly enthusiastic audience to all of her living room performances. He was unspeakably patient and endured all our household quirks except for one: He simply could not abide loud sneezes. He would lurch up and leave the room with an unusual air of indignity. When he went up on two legs and put his front paws on the table (not that he ever did that but if he did, is what I meant) he looked just like a bear at a picnic table.

Bernie was the best company ever. He was the handsomest dog anybody ever saw. We'd get stopped all day long when we took him out with us. "What kind of dog is that?"

"Chowbrador," we'd say proudly.

He was the sweetest, kindest, bear-dog you can ever imagine. He had the biggest, most beautiful face with these soulful eyes. He outlived our marriage. He bore silent, non-judgmental witness to the entire arc of 14 years of our lives. Six months ago he got sick but was okay. We knew it was coming.

When a dog is dying: Then a few weeks ago he didn't want to go on walks anymore. He hated getting up. His breathing was labored. The vet did a few more things and made him "comfortable."
Then last week he stopped eating. And wouldn't get up. At all. And the vet said it was bad.

And so we faced that horrifying question so many of us with family pets do. Is this the time? How can we decide? What if we're wrong? The vet said only we could decide. So we said how? How do we decide when we don't know for sure? When we don't want to know for sure.
Was our dog telling us to let go?

And it turns out there are good questions to ask. Questions like: Is he eating? Drinking water? Is he getting up to walk? Is he engaging with you? Is he breathing heavily? Does he seem to enjoy anything he usually enjoys, or anything at all?
The truth was he was shutting down. He was letting go. He was in pain.
The vet said in his experience, many families feel confused and uncertain and second-guess themselves about this decision until a little while after.
"Once you get a little distance," he said, "you'll find comfort; you'll see more clearly."

My Dog Was Ready to Die - I Couldn't Let Him Go




02/20/12--12:21: Principle Number Five: Love Your Enemy (chan 1441257)

This is an installment in a series called "Ten Principles for Moral Discipline." They are meant to form the basis of a moral, effective school bullying policy.

The idea of "loving your enemy" was made famous by Jesus, but this principle is also recognized by most major religions and philosophies.

Love Your Enemy is the ultimate expression of the Golden Rule. Why? How would you like it if your enemies loved you? Great! They would no longer be your enemies! So since you would like your enemies to love you, you have to love them. If you love them, they cease being your enemies. Assuming you have real contact with them—you will have the chance to turn them into friends.

Treat others the way you want to be treated and Whatever is hateful to yourself, do not do to others, are behavioral formulations of the Golden Rule. Love you enemy is the emotional formulation. If we follow the behavioral formulations, we need to consciously consider the right thing to do in each separate situation. When we follow the emotional formulation and feel love for others, we will usually treat them the right way without needing to constantly deliberate about it.

Loving our enemies does not mean that we must let them abuse, injure or kill us. When we truly love people, we have to stop them—with force if necessary—from doing things that can harm themselves or other innocent people. But we do it from love, not hatred.

Unfortunately, the anti-bully movement promotes hatred—hatred of bullies. This may not be the intention, but it is the result. The academic definition of a bully is the same as that of a psychopath, and the definition of bullying is the as that of evil, making it natural for us to think of bullies in horrific ways. Thus, it has become common for adults, including bullying experts, to talk about bullying as equivalent to rape, murder and genocide and to refer to bullies (including children) as demons, emotional vampires, monsters, terrorists, and perpetrators. They often refer to bullies as having horns, as expressed by books and newspaper articles with titles like, "Take the Bullies by the Horns." Is it any wonder, then, that people freely express hatred towards bullies and their parents, call for "eradication" of bullies, demand that bullies be expelled from school, and allow violence-inciting posters like, "The Only Good Bully is a Dead One," to be posted on the Internet without criticism?

No one is perfect. Human beings aren't angels who are only capable of doing good, and few of us are saints. Virtually all of us behave in ways that upset some people and can get us labeled as bullies. We need to love people the way they are, including those who treat us in ways we don't like. We cannot promote universal love and tolerance by posting "No Bully Zone" signs on school walls, instructing students how to identify their classmates who are bullies, describing bullies as evil psychopaths and conducting anti-bully campaigns.

It is easy to love our friends. The hard part is to love our enemies. The day we replace our "No Bully Zone" posters with ones that read "Love Your Enemy," that's when we will witness the emergence of a Utopian society.

"It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business." —Mohandas Gandhi

***********************

Read Previous Installments to this series:

Ten Principles for Moral Discipline: Introduction

Principle Number One: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

Principle Number Two: Actions Speak Louder Than Words–Or–Practice What You Preach

Principle Number Three: The Golden Rule

Principle Number Four: Justice Makes Right

We have also created a proposal for a moral, effective school bullying policy based on the Golden Rule. We welcome you to use it, and if you like it, recommend it to your school administration: https://bullies2buddies.com/Essential-Articles-for-Home-Page/proposal-for-a-rational-moral-school-bullying-policy.html




02/20/12--12:33: The Best Friend Fantasy (chan 1441257)

QUESTION

 

Irene,

I had a boyfriend for two months that I became madly in love with, and thought he felt the same for me. His friends constantly said they had never seen him like this. Then, late into his birthday party, we got into a spat and he dumped me. It was gruesome and sudden, especially for a relationship I had deemed meaningful and important. Most importantly to me, I thought of him as someone not only important romantically, but someone that would turn into my best friend.

For several months he kept forcing me to see him; we'd reconnect, I would foolishly think he had changed his feelings, then he'd disappear again. I recently felt as though it had dragged on too long and was becoming psychologically traumatic for me, and definitively ended the relationship. I sent him a very kind note saying I could not be his friend when I believed we could never be that, and defriended him on Facebook (him...and his friends).  

I remain filled with remorse and self-doubt, wondering if I acted too quickly or without cause—it is so difficult in life to meet friends or people you truly care about. But I also believe in the tough but important value of self-preservation. I cannot get past this, though. It has been weeks since my note (no response), and I've become virtually despondent.  

Am I acting in an emotionally healthily way? Did I do the right thing for my long-term emotional well-being? Or was it the immature and self-detrimental act of a rejected woman? I'd like to think about this clearly and logically. I feel lost in self-doubt, and I can't let it go.

Best, Alyssa

 

ANSWER

Dear Alyssa,

It's hard to know whether someone is best friend material after just a couple of months—especially when you're feeling madly in love. A strong initial attraction doesn't necessarily mean someone will be a keeper.

It's not unusual for some individuals to either want a best friend or romantic partner so desperately that they typecast someone inappropriate into the role. I'm not sure whether or not this might have been the case for you.

Whether this guy was a friend or a lover, you stood your ground and decided that you didn't want to subject yourself to someone who runs hot and cold. The first disappointment occurred only two months into your relationship and then each time you reconnected, you gave him (and yourself) multiple opportunities to try again.

I can understand your disappointment but don't look back. You need to let go of this fantasy. You absolutely did the right thing and deserve more consistent and reliable friends than this one.

Hope this helps.

Best, Irene

 




02/20/12--12:54: Is There a Liberal Bias Among American Professors? (chan 1441257)

One often hears that members of the American intelligentsia are strongly left leaning, the most obvious manifestations of which would be the mainstream media as well as academia (cf. David Horowitz's Indoctrination U). Is this a veridical premise? In today's post, I'd like to discuss a study conducted by Christopher F. Cardiff and Daniel B. Klein wherein they analyzed the registered political party affiliations of American professors at 11 Californian colleges and universities. The chosen institutions spanned a wide range of geographic areas and school types: Santa Clara University and University of San Diego (Catholic schools); Point Loma Nazarene University and Pepperdine University (Protestant schools); Claremont McKenna College (small school with heterogeneous political bent); San Diego State University (large public state school); and California Institute of Technology, UCSD, UC-Berkeley, UCLA, and Stanford (a mix of public and private elite research universities).

The researchers obtained data that allowed them to calculate the Democrat to Republican ratio (D:R) across all 11 institutions and broken down by faculties and disciplines. For example, common wisdom suggests that professors in the social sciences and humanities are particularly likely to be left leaning. Here are some of the key results (as reported in Tables 2, 3, and 4 in the article on pp. 243 and 246-247):

Broken Down by Institution

UC Berkeley     8.7 (adjusted to account for a less comprehensive dataset)
UCLA               7.2
Stanford           6.7 (adjusted to account for a less comprehensive dataset)
UCSD              6.6
Santa Clara      6.0
Caltech            4.2
SDSU              4.1
USD                3.6
CMC               1.8
PLNU              1.0
Pepperdine      0.9

The D:R across all 11 schools was 5.0. In Table 1 of their article (p. 239), Cardiff and Klein report D:R ratios for several other studies spanning universities and colleges (across a broader range of geographic areas). In all cases, Democrats dominate academia in profound ways ranging from a low of 1.6 to 75 (depending on the study in question).

Do you think that the ratio changes as a function of a professor's faculty/discipline? The short answer is an emphatic yes!

Broken Down by Faculty Type

Humanities                    10.0
Arts                                7.6
Social Sciences              6.8
Hard Sciences/Math        6.3
Medicine/Nursing/Health  4.8
Social Professional         4.4
Engineering                    2.5
Business                       1.3
Military/Sports                0.7

Broken Down by Department

Sociology                     44.0
Ethnic Studies              16.3
Performing Arts             16.0
Neurosciences              13.1
Languages & Literature  11.9
Psychiatry                    11.8
History                         10.9
Biology                         10.7
Anthropology                 10.5
Art                                 8.8
Psychology                    8.0
Religious Studies            8.0
Linguistics                      7.5
Health                            7.3
Political Science             6.5
Mathematics                   5.7
Social Welfare & Policy   5.2
Earth Sciences               5.0
Education                       5.0
Materials Science           5.0
Philosophy                     5.0
Music                            4.9
Physics                         4.2
Chemistry                      4.1
Communication              4.0
Medicine                       4.0
Law                              4.0
Economics                    2.8
Civil Environmental
      Engineering             2.8
Bio. & Chemical
      Engineering             2.6
Electrical Engineering    2.5
Computer Science         2.3
Mechanical & Aerospace
      Engineering             2.2
Nursing                         2.1
Management                 1.8
Marketing                      1.7
Accounting                    1.2
Physical Education        1.1
Information Systems      1.1
General Business          1.0
Finance                        0.5
Military Science            0.0

Thus, in 39 out of 42 disciplines, the D:R ratio is greater than 1. Of note, the psychology D:R was 8.0 (see the bolded row in the list immediately above). Not surprisingly, psychologists are quite liberal in their political views but not nearly as much as sociologists!

What are your thoughts regarding these findings?

Note: My apologies for the slight misalignment of the numbers in the latter lists.  It's tough to get these perfectly aligned via the Psychology Today interface!

Source for Image:

http://bit.ly/AhrJhS

 




02/20/12--13:12: Combatting Asperger's: A Losing Proposition (chan 1441257)

Though I've had Asperger syndrome my entire life—more than thirty-four years, now—I've only known about it for the past few years. Like many who are diagnosed as adults, I was surprisingly relieved when I found out: It all makes sense now, I thought. I'm supposed to be different from the other 109 people around me at any given time; this is how I'm wired.

Despite the immediate sense of relief that seems to accompany such newfound self-awareness, it did not take me very long to start thinking about ways that I could learn to manage my so-called disorder. For, it seemed the most glaring evidence of my condition lay in all the negative stuff—the socially unacceptable behaviors, the difficulty relating to people, the complete inability to (Heaven help me) operate on someone else's timeframe—rather than in the myriad positive aspects of my uniqueness. I sometimes regarded Asperger's as something that needed to be combatted and conquered.

When I realized, for instance, that my marriage was in trouble largely because of my behaviors and detachment from my wife, Kristen, I immediately blamed Asperger's. (I don't pay attention to her needs? Asperger's! I don't help with the housework? Also Asperger's! It takes me three hours to make my breakfast yet I can't find time to help the kids get ready for school? Yep, that would be the Asperger's, too...I'm sure of it.) I thought the only way to save our marriage would be to somehow conquer my disorder. After all, erasing my neurological condition would automatically make me a better husband. Wouldn't it?

I thought I was really onto something, but when I told Kristen that I was on a mission to defeat my own brain, she did what she always does when I lose sight of the big picture: She smiled, knowingly, and then showed me a different way.

"We don't need to fix you, Dave. We need to fix our relationship, and that's something we can do together. Let's focus on that."

I hadn't thought of it that way, but she sure made a lot of sense. Asperger syndrome, in and of itself, isn't something to combat. Rather, it's something that makes us who we are, and like any other personal attribute, having Asperger's—being Aspergian, as my friend John Elder Robison would say—means that, like anyone, we were born with certain assets and certain liabilities. How we manage those assets and liabilities is completely up to us, as individuals.

Notably, the nature of Asperger's is such that many of us who fit within the parameters of the condition can learn to manage certain behaviors that, in some ways, might hold us at a disadvantage—be it in the workplace, in school, or in our relationships with people we love. Living successfully on the spectrum is not about saying no to the disorder. It's about saying yes to your best possible life. If we are so inclined, of course—and inclined I was.

With this profound insight from Kristen, I set out not to defeat my syndrome, but rather to be the husband I wanted to be—a far more worthwhile proposition. When Kristen and I were having trouble communicating, for example, I took notes on how I might express myself more openly, or listen more empathically. When I realized we no longer had common ground on which to rebuild, I learned to love the television shows she typically watches, my usual television habits be damned, just so we'd have something fun to talk about. When it became clear that Kristen needed a husband who would, every now and then, load a dishwasher or fold a basket of laundry without being asked, I committed (though admittedly reluctantly) to start taking initiative with the housework. I did these things as a means to a worthy end: being a better husband.

Of course, the responsibility of marital reconstruction wasn't entirely on my shoulders. Kristen maintained her end of the bargain as well. She worked every day towards the marriage she wanted to have, a relationship that suited both of us. Mindful of my neurological composition, she learned new ways to engage with me, which enabled better communication and brought us closer together.

Had I focused on combatting myself and my neurological makeup, Kristen and I would have gotten nowhere, and our marriage would have suffered further as a result. But I listened to her guidance, had faith in her vision, and cast my focus strictly on building a better relationship, using knowledge of my condition as a roadmap. And along the way, I couldn't help but learn how self-acceptance balanced with a desire to adapt can radically change the course of one's life.

So, if you don't mind my prying, I have to wonder: have you ever felt as though you were at odds with your autistic mind? Or have you always accepted yourself for who you are?




02/20/12--14:01: Out to Get You (chan 1441257)

Last week, a story appeared in a Florida paper about a man who stole over a dozen identities to run scams and launder money. The U.S. Marshals Service is hunting him down. They have a photo, but he used so many names lifted from others that it's been difficult for them to pin down this chameleonic offender. He operated under the radar, manipulating with charm, intelligence, and poise. For over a decade, he fooled everyone he met.

Rarely do we consider the signals that predators display. They succeed by studying us. I wrote a blog last week about the serial killers who duped those who were closest to them, and many readers said they were certain there were always clues.

There are clues. But it's not the behaviors they reveal that matter; it's how easily we overlook them or give them a benign spin. Predators operate best within a realm of trust, using social conventions as their tools. They rely on charm and exploit expectation.  

You can read them, but you have to be informed and alert. Knowing their game can save your identity, your goods, and even your life.

There are many self-help guides about "reading people" and some provide lists of red alert behaviors. Among the best references are Robert Hare's Without Conscience, David Givens' Crime Signals, and Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear.

"Charm," says de Becker, "is almost always a directed instrument, which...has motive. To charm is to compel by allure or attraction."

When Robert Hare published Without Conscience, he knew there were few support groups for victims of psychopaths and he thought we should all learn what to look for. Among his suggestions are the following:

• Try not to be influenced by "props"—the winning smile, the promises, the fast talk, and the gifts meant to deflect you from the manipulation and exploitation that may be occurring. "Any of these characteristics," he writes, "can have enormous sleight-of-hand value, serving to distract you from the individual's real message."

• Psychopaths hide their dark sides until they get their target person deeply involved. Too much flattery, feigned kindness, and inconsistent stories should provide clues and put you on guard.

• Predators will try to make you feel obligated by performing an uninvited kindness or confiding a "secret."

• Psychopaths tend to like control, so if the social rules you express are unclear or weak, they'll spot the loopholes and take advantage.

Givens, an expert on nonverbal communication, offers the most diverse list of traits and behaviors, as he depicts liars, swindlers, pedophiles, and killers. He describes how predators can be overly friendly, flamboyant, and quick to engage in inappropriate intimacy. Their hand gestures may have a rehearsed quality or be absent altogether, and their eyes may lack the emotion that they're expressing.

There may be subtle self-stimulation with hands and fingers (especially touching the mouth), or lightly touching the potential victim ("preemptive tactile contact") during a request.

"A touch adds feeling," Givens says, "to make the matter more personal."

Touching another conveys fondness, which often disarms, but self-touching signals deception. In addition, the rhythmic repetition of gestures adds a hypnotic quality; this captures our attention and deflects us away from the predator's intent. 

Voice tones are a subtle but powerful part of the arsenal. They can be dominating, intimate, and inviting all at once, gradually entrancing the target. An accent can have this effect, as can a deep voice. A quiet voice tone draws you closer. When matched with calculated body language, voice tones are doubly effective.

A behavioral chain may occur just before an explosive assault: the face may change color (sudden pallor or rapid reddening) or develop a moist sheen, and arteries may bulge. The cheek may tighten and lips slightly part. When feeling threatened, the eyes narrow, but during anger or excitement they widen, and blinking increases. All of this coupled with sudden silence is the cue to get out of there...fast!

Whether rapists, terrorists, thieves, or killers, they might reveal their intent. The human body is programmed for expression, and while polished predators can erase much of this from their repertoire, an informed person might still spot their approach.

We tend to operate in an atmosphere of social trust, so we can be blind to masks of deception. Some predators are so skilled they fool everyone. However, learning the signals and being alert can protect you against less polished bloodsuckers that subtly undermine their own game.




02/20/12--14:33: Jeremy Lin: Beyond the Numbers (chan 1441257)

"It's just us, being us, playing for us." - Jeremy Lin, Knicks point guard

 

I've got a confession to make: I've caught the Linsanity along with everyone else. It's only been two weeks, but in that time, former Harvard point guard Jeremy Lin has transformed a failed Knicks season into the most compelling storyline in professional basketball. And make no mistake, Jeremy Lin is at the very center of this transformation.

But what is it about Lin that has transformed the Knicks' season? An astute statistician might say it is his on-court production: Lin has been scoring, hustling, dealing out assists, navigating the pick-and-roll, and hitting open shots better than any Knicks point guard since, well, since I can remember. That is definitely part of the equation. But a single player does not make an effective basketball team. When I watch the Knicks these days, I see something else about Jeremy Lin that makes me believe that his influence goes beyond simple numbers: His teammates trust him.

In a team game like basketball having a point guard that you can trust means everything. Despite all the national attention surrounding him, Lin remains singularly devoted to his teammates. In an interview for the New York Post, Lin remarked "It's like our team is like our family. And we go to battle on the court and we fight for each other and we trust in each other and we rely on each other and that's what it is on the court. When we're out there together, we don't care about our phones, we don't care about the media, no one can reach us. It's just us, being us, playing for us."

Lin is deflecting the individual praise and basking in the team glory and on the court he does the same. Sure, Lin is responsible for handling the basketball for something close to 80% of the Knicks' possessions, but when he has the ball, he brings out the best in his teammates: Collectively the Knicks role players (which include mostly unrecognizable names like Jeffries, Walker, Novak, Shumpert, and Fields) have all been doing their jobs better than ever.

How do I know that the Knicks players trust their point guard? In research I conducted in 2010 with my colleagues Dacher Keltner and Cassy Huang of the University of California, Berkeley, we examined the role of tactile communication (e.g., high fives) in the development of teammate trust between professional basketball players. In the research we coded the occurrence of every fist bump, high five, leaping shoulder bump, butt slap, and chest punch between teammates during one game for every team in the 2008-2009 season. The results were clear: Teams that touched for longer during games early on in the season won more games over the course of the entire season. Touch then, is a clear indicator of how much teammates trust each other. And when teammates trust each other on the basketball court, they hustle for each other, they cover for each other on defense, they make extra passes to each other, and as a result, they win more!

If you've watched the Knicks since Jeremy Lin joined the lineup you've seen an explosion of touch! I've got some examples: First, take a look at Lin in a pre-game nerdy touch ritual with his teammate and Stanford graduate Landry Fields.

Next, check out Lin in a mid-game touch ritual with several of his teammates, including Carmelo Anthony.

Finally, watch as Lin spreads the love to all his teammates after an assist to Tyson Chandler.

Touch is a dynamic way for teammates to communicate clearly and consistently that they trust each other to make the right decision on the basketball court, and it might just be Jeremy Lin's secret weapon as he leads the Knicks onward this season. I'm enjoying every minute of the ride!  

Reference:

Kraus, M. W., Huang, C., & Keltner, D. (2010). Tactile communication, cooperation, and performance: An ethological study of the NBA, Emotion, 10, 745-749.

 




02/20/12--14:40: I Didn't Know That (chan 1441257)

A funny thing happened to us on the way to writing our recently-published book featuring couples with long-term exemplary marriages: we got to be wrong about some of the beliefs that we had regarding the factors that we thought couples needed to experience in order to create great relationships. In other words, we discovered that we had unwittingly taken on some of the cultural myths that many people, including psychotherapists and marriage counselors have bought into regarding relationships. In speaking with over 50 couples, which admittedly doesn't constitute a huge sample, but nonetheless is a pretty significant number, we found a number of consistent themes running through their marriages. That didn't surprise us, since we expected to see most of these couples doing the "right thing" in their relationships, such as settling differences with skill and respect, being good listeners, speaking to each other without blame and judgment, and frequently expressing gratitude and appreciation towards each other. While we expected to see these qualities and practices liberally embodied in their marriages, there were others that showed up that revealed and challenged some of our own expectations of what great marriages require.

For example . . . Like many people we have both believed for many years that in order to create an optimal marriage, it is necessary to make the relationship the highest priority in your life and that both partners need to share this commitment. We believed that if other priorities superceded this one that the marriage could easily get pushed aside and neglected. To our surprise, we found that nearly every person in our book did NOT hold their marriage as their highest priority, but rather viewed it as an essential aspect of their well-being that made it possible for them to more fully honor an intention that was central to their life purpose. Consequently their relationship served as BOTH an end in itself as well a means towards the fulfillment of that goal. That is, they were together not simply in order to more effectively accomplish something that was a core aspect of their individual or shared life purpose, but because they genuinely enjoyed and took great pleasure in each others' company and felt personally enriched by their connection. The purpose that their marriage supported often included some form of service or contribution to society. Some also included some form of creative or artistic expression, and sometimes they took the form of fulfilling a promise that they had made to a person, tradition, or belief. Some of the couples experienced a shared purpose, while others supported each other in the fulfillment of their individual intentions.

Another one of the surprises that we encountered challenged our belief that people who had experienced growing up in extreme adversity or family dysfunction were severely handicapped when it came to creating a healthy marriage and family for themselves. Quite a few of the people with whom we spoke revealed details about their pasts that were heart-wrenchingly painful to hear; circumstances that involved extreme abuse, neglect, or horrific and catastrophic war trauma. We found that it was not the degree of suffering that each of them experienced in the original situation that determined their future, but rather how they responded to it and whether or not they committed themselves to healing their old wounds that were the biggest factors in their future. While there is no doubt that someone who has grown up in a secure, loving and supportive family gets off to a better start than someone who doesn't, it's also clear to us that our early experiences may be less influential in determining our future life trajectory than what we do with the remainder of our lives.

A third and most delightful myth that we got to confront and explode was our belief that all relationships require hard work. As a way of neutralizing the "happily ever after" myth that so many people seem to be so fond of, over the years we have emphasized, perhaps excessively, the hard work required to create and maintain a great relationship. We were delighted to find that some of the couples with whom we spoke did not have the experience of having to do a lot of hard work on their relationship, and one had such a high level of compatibility that they decided to stage a "fight" in front of their two daughters in order to give them a more "realistic" picture of what married couples occasionally have to go through. (Their kids saw through the charade and attributed the act to parental "weirdness".) Lest you jump to conclusions or get your hopes up unrealistically high, this example is, even in our very selective study, the exception, rather than the rule. We have modified our position on hard work and marriages, but not radically. Like any other organism or system, a marriage is constantly undergoing both internal as well as external stresses and change. Consequently a certain degree of stress management and ongoing maintenance is necessary in order to keep it humming and growing. What we have discovered in our studies as well as in our own marriage of 38 years is that that "work" over time becomes increasingly effortless and even playful. The couples who do not experience themselves as having to work hard to take care of their marriage are taking very good care of it, but it doesn't feel like, and in a few rare cases, never has felt like, work. It is, in the truest sense of the phrase, a labor of love.

The bottom line here is that it might be a good idea when you notice yourself feeling certain about something, to check it out closely enough to see whether it is factually true or merely an opinion that "feels" right. Great relationships are generally co-created by people who are willing to be wrong, or at the very least recognize the difference between their opinion and what is factually true. And by the way, that's not necessarily the truth, it's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it!

 

 




02/20/12--15:14: Do anti-depressants really work? (chan 1441257)

The television program, 60 Minutes,  recently addressed the volume of research on the lack of efficacy of anti-depressant medications.  This research began over a decade ago and has shown that anti-depressant medications are not much more effective than placebo (sugar pill).  In fact on 60 Minutes, Dr. Irving Kirsch (associate director of the placebo research program at Harvard) questions whether the only benefit they have is the placebo effect.   The placebo effect creates an expectation of healing so powerful that it can actually decrease symptoms.  The placebo effect works with pain, irritable bowel syndrome, knee pain and much more.  Even though individuals with depression may get better taking these medications, it may not be due to the medication, rather to the placebo effect.

Here are the statistics on depression in the US:

• $11.3 billion dollars is the annual amount of money spent on anti-depressant medications in the US
• Americans consume more anti-depressants than any other developed nation
• 17 million American's take anti-depressant drugs
• From 1988-1994, the use of anti-depressants increased by 400%
• 1 in 10 Americans over the age of 12 take an anti-depressant

In Great Britain a review of studies on published and non-published (which are often not published because they don't show a positive benefit of medications) research showed the same lack of efficacy especially for mild-moderate depression.  The medications seem to be more effective for moderate-severe depression.  Great Britain has now revised their recommendations for treatment of depression to limit use of medications as first-line treatment to only those individuals with more severe depression.  For mild depression, exercise, for example is as effective as medication.  

Integrative medicine also offers many substitutes to medication which may be better first-line treatment for mild-moderate depression instead of medications:

1. Omega 3-fatty acids have been shown in several studies to boost the effect of medication and reduce suicide risk in those with depression.
2. B-vitamins such as B-12, B-6 and folic acid are important in the manufacture in the body of the neurotransmitters that help our moods - dopamine, serotonin, etc and have been shown also to boost the effectiveness of medication
3. Inositol - is another B-vitamin has been shown to improve depression without medication
4. 5-Hydroxytryptophan, a serotonin precursor, is an amino acid that has shown effectiveness similar to prescription medications in some studies
5. Yoga, acupuncture, and massage have all been shown, along with physical activity to improve mood
6. Therapy also helps.  Many people on medications do not seek therapy and studies show that it helps!

It's difficult to explain why so many Americans are depressed and anxious and why this number has increased so dramatically.  Is it possible that our lifestyle - the Western diet, lack of activity, stress - is really the cause of this problem?  It is known that high levels of the stress hormone, cortisol, is associated with a higher risk for depression. The Traditional Chinese medicine viewpoint is that all illness is due to an imbalance.  Rather than going for the quick-fix - a pill - maybe the focus should be on modifying our lifestyles to be more in balance - at least as a first step. 




02/20/12--15:16: The Psychological Skillset of George Clooney - Part II (chan 1441257)

Here's more on the subtle mechanisms of Clooney's personality and life story:

Achievement of Flow: Flow is the word that researchers have used to describe optimal performance. When an individual is in flow he is being as productive as his talents can allow. Predictably, the greater the intensity and frequency of flow in one's life the greater the success he will realize at work and play. Clooney's work life suggests not only the presence of flow, but the subtle habits and tendencies that foster it to a truly unique degree. 

He isn't just a movie star, he's an active participant in his career. He has moved from television to film, and he's propelled himself from actor to director/writer. What he's doing, unconsciously or consciously, is pursuing a delicate balance of comfort and challenge. He doesn't settle for the same, increasingly easy tasks. He said, "I have a real interest in pushing the limits of the industry, because I can. It's something I look to do. And I love working with people who are performing at their very best." He likes seeing in others the thing that he does so well himself. This is the key process underlying flow. He lives on the edge of discomfort with his ambitious choices and it allows a pattern of increasingly automatic behaviors to emerge. It's no coincidence that he now consistently garners Academy Award attention with each new project ("Good Night, Good Luck," "The Ides of March"), as he selects projects that push the envelope of his abilities, and his abilities are getting stronger with each new project.

Humanitarianism: There is a psychological force that underlies well-being, that improves relationships, that induces longevity. It is generativity or the act of contributing and 'giving back' on a societal level. Most of us are too busy keeping our heads above water but if you have the resources and the will, then you can engage in such humanitarian efforts and if you do a whole new level of fulfillment is likely to open up. The sense of meaning, connection and altruism that is unleashed is as healthy for the psyche as omega-3's are for the body. Clooney is a humanitarian of rare proportions. This value of generosity and social awareness probably started with his father, a man whose persona was just as much a part of the journalistic community as it was with showbiz. Clooney was taught to have an awareness of the cultural times, and to measure himself based on his good deeds in this vein. This childhood experience planted the seeds of a social consciousness, an awareness that Clooney has taken into all of his pursuits. This is why, as a filmmaker, he's collaborated so frequently on independent projects and films that aim to express important ideas (not just profits which is the bottom line for Hollywood Studios). On a more global scale, he's defended human rights in Africa, and provided relief in disasters in Haiti, Japan and America.

Social Intelligence: Navigating social relationships in a way that asserts your needs while getting people to like you and trust you is obviously a complicated but critical skill. Listening to Clooney describe how he handles other actors on the set of a film that he is also directing lends insight into just how socially intelligent he is: "It's a very delicate balance because it's a really crappy thing for one actor to tell another actor what to do - it's forbidden - so there is this part of you that knows you're going to be breaking this weird trust." He's got a firm grasp of invisible, but fundamental rules and norms in specific cultural contexts (how actors expect to be treated on the set), and he actively fosters that oh-so-important attitude and approach of gentleness, perspective-taking and compassion.

Self-awareness: This is perhaps the most important psychological skill someone can possess. Psychoanalysts call this "ego strength," as its long been recognized as the most vital process in effective therapy. How clearly do you see who you really are, how deeply do you reflect on your life, and the things you want to stand for, how well do you mold what you stand for with how you actually act in daily life? Someone with high self-awareness can give encouraging answers to these questions. When asked to describe his acting choices Clooney said, "When they do those tributes, those lifetime awards, I want to be able to look back and say that I did things that lasted more than an opening weekend. I want to do important things, things that interested me and leave an impact on the world." It's easy to say it but what was truly impressive was that he thought it to himself awhile ago, and spent the last fifteen years living it out. Not so easy.

His self-awareness was even more evident when he talked about why (as director) he broke his own commitment to himself and assigned the role of Edward R. Morrow to another actor. Even though he wanted to play the role, he knew that Morrow was a figure he needed to be perceived as having 'the weight of the world on his shoulders' and Clooney knew that the public could never perceive him as that person. Knowing how others see you is an advanced level of self-awareness.  It's no surprise what he says about the characters that he most enjoys playing (specifically, he cites 'Up in the Air' and 'Michael Clayton'): "I love playing characters who are so confident, so assured, and then as the movie unfolds, everything they thought they knew comes crashing down." He's so self-aware that he enjoys embodying people who seem self-aware, learn how blind they really are, only to eventually be able to see themselves with true clarity.

Kindness: This is another key character strength and clearly a skill that underlies personal life satisfaction and relationships. Clooney, when asked what was the most important characteristic in working with someone, said 'kindness.' "Nothing good comes out of creating space that you don't feel welcome in." Who would have thought a Hollywood star would say something so Buddhist. It's also striking how much he's thought of kindness given that it's one of the least endorsed, least prevalent of the character strengths.