Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts

Friday, July 17, 2015

On Racism, Violence and Oppression

In his blog http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-metta/i-racist_b_7770652.html John Metta articulately reflects the reality of targets or racism (people of colour in general) but doesn't go far enough, in my opinion, to recognise that this is also the reality of all targets of systemised genocide, colonialism, violence (including war), trafficking and slavery (mostly women and children) and many LGBT. It's about a lack of empathy (not sympathy - not pity - but empathy). It's the inability to recognise "that could just have easily been me" or "that could just have easily been my child...partner...home..." etc. This lack of empathy is caused by an unfortunate quality of human nature to categorise "the other" as anyone far enough away either in difference or in distance. Just because it is a quality of human nature doesn't mean it can't be challenged or changed. We are also a creative species profoundly influenced by learning and the environment - so much so that learning can change our very genetic makeup. However it is a limitation of human nature we would be wise to be aware of and to challenge.  This limitation makes us vulnerable to being pitted against one another in such unfortunate ways as competing for a place in the "oppression lineup" and prevents us from working together to overthrow the sources of such mutual oppression.

Friday, February 28, 2014

Fight the Brain or Change the Brain

Recent research in neuroscience tells us what we had thought impossible is now possible. Early traumatic implicit (non-verbal bodily held) learning – the kind of learning that drives most forms of psychological distress, can actually be erased without touching the explicit (verbal – story) memory it was associated with. First let’s take a look at what this means.
Implicit learning is laid down in the nervous system – it is emotional and non-verbal. Here are some common examples:

I am inherently bad/dirty/stupid/ugly…etc.

Love is dangerous/painful/violent/exploitive and it’s best to avoid all risk or to expect all relationships to be like that

To love is to be mistreated/to mistreat

If I try I will fail, so best not to try

Dependence is wrong – it’s best not to have any needs

These kinds of “beliefs,” or “scripts” can drive large areas of life. They are usually laid down due to early (as in childhood) repetitive emotionally charged or even traumatic experiences and so tend to be immune to logical questions or arguments. 

This is because they are actually held in the body and nervous system rather than in the “thinking brain” and are faster and more automatic than logical thinking because they were originally somehow tied in to perceptions around survival (the messages may have originally been communicated by needed childhood caregivers, for example).

Fighting the Brain

Since most forms of psychotherapy are verbal, we have believed up until now that the only way to cope with this kind of dysfunctional learning was to challenge the logic of such beliefs and set up competing neural pathways that would eventually, through a great deal of practice, become available as the “preferred” neural pathway.  This is the foundation of much of cognitive and behavioural psychology.

Nevertheless, competing new beliefs learned logically in adulthood can never completely replace implicitly held beliefs laid down and reinforced in childhood, and so relapse must be constantly guarded against, especially when something associated with the earlier learning reappears in the current environment (e.g. a boss or spouse implying the same message).

The most common way set up competing beliefs is via Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, whereby the dysfunctional beliefs are deliberately challenged with new thoughts and learnings which are then rehearsed in new behaviours repeatedly until the old beliefs lose their original power. Psychoanalytic or psychodynamic interpersonal therapies also challenge old implicit learning via the therapeutic relationship itself, whereby repetitive experiences of (hopefully!) non-exploitive, consistent, secure attachment with the therapist replace the old beliefs that were based on exploitive, inconsistent, insecure early attachments.  

Example:

CBT: Old implicit learning: “If I try I will fail, so best not to try” as applied to job hunting (for example). CBT points out the illogic of the assumptions and encourages rehearsing new alternate thoughts such as “if I try, even if I fail, I can still learn something of value – and sometimes I will succeed.”  Behavioural rehearsal might involve the assignment of applying for xyz jobs and keeping track of any learnings or successes to challenge the old learning. Through  repetitive practice the new learning creates a new available pathway that offers an alternative to the older learning – however it doesn't replace it, and confirmations of the old learning (such as failures that don’t result in positive learnings) can always send the person back to the old learning.  I call this approach “fighting the brain.”

Changing the Brain

In their recent book, Ecker, Ticic and Hulley (2012) present the basic components necessary to erase dysfunctional implicit learning, and then examine numerous contemporary forms of psychotherapy to determine which types incorporate these components. Not surprisingly, most do. However, some forms of therapy are more efficient, systematic, and deliberate in their use of these components than others, making for a considerable difference in the likelihood of success and the length of time it takes to get there. The components are as follows:
1.       Identify and access the memories of the original experiences that laid down the implicit dysfunctional beliefs
2.       Retrieve the accompanying  learning simultaneously with the memories:  both emotional and  schematic
3.      At the same time as the feelings, memories and beliefs are retrieved, provide repeated experiential disconfirmation of the dysfunctional learning
a.      Disconfirmation must “make sense” emotionally
b.      Original learning plus disconfirmation must be repeatedly paired within a 5 hour window
c.       After 5 hours a built-in mechanism re-locks the synapses

Each of these steps correspond precisely to phases 4 through 7 desensitisation stage of the standard 8 phase EMDR protocol, even though EMDR was developed 20 years prior to the current confirming discoveries in neuroscience.

My main concern here is that this “new” approach, if applied systematically, will probably have similar limitations and cause similar results to those that have emerged from years of research and practice in EMDR. It will seem miraculous when applied to dysfunctional learning caused by a single –incident trauma; but it won’t be so simple when dealing with the many ego states that develop in response to repeated developmental trauma and dysfunctional implicit learning.



When ego states are split off by trauma, they are sometimes unable to “share” information from one state to another. This is what enables many survivors to function at a much higher level than they might otherwise if the full impact of the traumas were experienced by all parts of self equally. This also means that it is essential, when applying the above steps, to make sure that the ego states that hold the implicit dysfunctional learning are the same ego states that are exposed to the disconfirmation of that learning.

I think we will find, as we did with EMDR, that more complex forms of traumatic implicit learning are most effectively addressed with a combination of trauma processing (or Implicit memory “erasure”), somatic mindfulness, and ego state work.

References:

Ecker. B, Ticic , R, & Hulley, L. (2012). Unlocking the Emotional Brain. New York: Routelege

Shapiro, F, & Forrest, MS, (2004) EMDR: The Breakthrough Therapy for Anxiety, Stress and Trauma. New York: BasicBooks

Tronson, N. C.; Taylor, J. R. (2007). Molecular mechanisms of memory reconsolidation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8 (4): 262–275


Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Self Empowerment: Actualizing the Power Within



To experience empowerment we must act on a sense of self worth, value and give voice to our own needs, and give equal validity to our own needs as to others'. As we develop a sense of empowerment, we begin to discover that a conflict of needs actually can present us with a creative challenge to imagine solutions that can empower all parties involved (rather than fearing that a conflict of needs must necessarily result in a "win-lose" battle).  I offer the following vignette as an example:
Mary does child care every night so John can go out with the "boys".  Mary becomes more and more resentful of John and their young children.  Finally, Mary initiates an assertive "conflict".  She says:

"I understand that you work hard all day and need time in the evenings to relax and unwind, but I've never pointed out to you that for you to relax and unwind by going out every night, you are counting on me to stay home with the kids, which is what I do all day.  So I don't get to relax and unwind and I become more resentful toward you and the kids and unpleasant to be around.  I need escape time too.  I'd like us to work out a way that we can both get what we need."
John agreed that Mary had become very unpleasant to be around (and didn't hesitate to tell her so.)  But after a number of arguments, they came around to agreeing on an experiment.  The experiment was that once a week John would go out while Mary watched the children, once a week Mary would go out while John watched the children, and once a week they both went out while Mary's mother watched their children.  The other two evenings they all stayed home as a family.  After two weeks of this experiment, not only did Mary feel better, but John felt better as well because he was feeling closer to his children and getting less resentment from his wife--and he still had time to see his friends.

The word "compromise" does not adequately describe the process of creating a "win-win" solution.  Compromise implies that neither side really gets what they want, whereas in "win-win" solutions, both sides get as much if not more than they wanted originally.  Assertiveness means acting from a place of respect – for self and other – and assuming equal value to the needs of self and other.  This presents many dilemmas that can also be seen as possibilities.  Power--the power of creative problem solving and acting--is mobilized rather than suppressed.

Power
Traditionally power has meant different things for men and women, taking on more positive connotations for men.  Think of the following words, first for men and then for women.  Pay attention to the feelings they evoke:

Men
Women
Powerful
Powerful
Aggressive
Aggressive
Forceful
Forceful
Ambitious
Ambitious
Assertive
Assertive
Competitive
Competitive
Authoritative
Authoritative
      
1. Women have traditionally been expected to defer to men, and have internalized the dominant cultural expectations of females as submissive and powerless
and
 2. There is something wrong with the present system of power distribution for all people, which we, as women, may be particularly sensitive to, having so deeply learned to respect the importance of other people's needs.

 As we endeavor to compete with men as their equals, some of us feel there is something sour about climbing up a ladder on top of other worthy people's heads, something deceitful about the notion of inferiority and superiority in our fellow human beings. We see that to gain others must lose, and having been relegated to losing for thousands of years, we may not feel comfortable inducing that experience in others.

When some people have less power than others do because external forces (e.g. money, status, physical strength, military force) block them, many problems arise for both the "winners" and the "losers".  The "losers" become afraid to express their needs because they fear (often rightfully) that what little they have will be taken from them.  They then become afraid to even feel their needs, to admit to themselves that they want something.  They become immobilized.  And, in certain critical ways, they stop growing; cease to thrive; development (the Power from Within) is blocked. The "winners" then miss out on the experience of sharing with equals and become self-preoccupied.  Their development is also blocked.
Let's consider these questions:

1. How do we reclaim our rights to power and effectiveness in the world without doing so at the expense of others?

2. How can we, as women, integrate the profound knowledge we gain from mothering and being nurtured by our mothers -- i.e., that we are each special, unique, and worthy in our own right, into a culture where value is so often seen in material terms?

We may want to begin by developing our own vocabulary to describe our experiences and perceptions.  Without words to communicate our experiences, we are trapped and limited.  If power only means the power to force others to do our will, we will feel that power is foreign to us, awkward and unfamiliar.  But power means many things, and many aspects of power can feel right for us.
I offer the following words and phrases to begin reclaiming our own vocabulary taken from Simos 1987 - (see below*)

 Power Over: the ability to force others to do your will through physical or financial coercion.  The power inherent in social or economic positions, or physical size or strength, regardless of skill or ability.

 Shared Power: power whose goal is to uplift or teach others to bring them to parity, as with a parent/child, teacher/student, or psychotherapist/client relationship

 Referred Power: the power others give us because they value, respect, and/or are attached us

 Expertise Power: the power others give us because they count on our knowledge and judgment

 Power With: the power to be effective interpersonally, to persuade, to inspire (not “command” or force) respect

Power From Within: the power of growth and development inherent in all living things.  It is the power to change, to overcome obstacles, to face our own fears, to learn new skills, to fail, and to try again.

Power can be used to destroy or create, to belittle others and over-inflate the self, or to belittle the self and over-inflate others.  We may call the use of power to harm or belittle the self passive power, and to harm or belittle others aggressive power. In contrast, assertiveness can be seen as the use of power to enhance and respect both self and other.  Assertiveness training, then, can be a way for women to reclaim their rights to power and effectiveness in the world without doing so at the expense of others.

Recommend this on Google Plus  
 * new vocabulary words taken from Miriam Simos (Starhawk) Truth or Dare, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1987

 Suggested Reading

Jean Baker Miller, M.D. (1976). Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston: Beacon Press
Pamela Butler (1981) Self-Assertion for Women. New York: Harper & Row Publishers
Margaret McIntosh () Feeling Like a Fraud a Work In Progress Paper of the Stone Center for Developmental Studies at Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass., 02181

Miriam Simos (Starhawk) (1987) Truth or Dare. New York: Harper & Row Publishers 

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Myths and Truths about "Happy Couples"



                                        by Judy Lightstone © January 2012


This article is partially based on extensive laboratory and longitudinal scientific research about couple satisfaction in long term relationships as presented in the book The Marriage Clinic, by John M. Gottman, published by WW Norton & Company in 1999.  Please see this book for more resources.
Most of us know by now that the fairy tale happily ever after stories are full of holes. Dashing men on horses don't usually rescue helpless women and live happily ever after in real life.  But most of us don't know how inaccurate our current popular expectations and beliefs are about what makes "marriage" work are (and by this I mean any long term committed romantic relationship).  

Mostly we look around at such things as divorce statistics and see that a lot of them don't work  This assessment is also unfair, given that this doesn't include long term committed relationships outside of marriage, nor does it consider that relationships may last several decades and still be included in divorce statistics. Most importantly, the numbers don't tell us what allowed some relationships to last and others to break up, and they don't tell us how much overall satisfaction existed in those relationships that stayed together or broke up.

Many of the following cultural myths perpetuate some of the problems that bring couples to counselling.

MYTHS
1. Arguing = trouble.
2. Distance = trouble.
3. Opposites attract.
4. Flattery will get you nowhere.
5. You have to agree on the BIG issues (like children, sex and money).
6. People divorce because they “grow apart”.
7. Couples divorce because they get older and change physically.
8. The more sex the better.
9.  A fat woman will lose her man.
10. Both partners have to be equal in a good marriage.

TRUTHS
1. Fighting per se is not necessarily a problem.  If there is basic mutual respect, the ability for partners to cool down and soothe each other afterward, and lots of good stuff in the "emotional bank account", the tendency to fight is more a result of personality style than trouble in the relationship.  In his book The Marriage Clinic, John Gottman talks about the "emotional bank account"  and the "fondness and admiration system" in which he describes the ability of a couple to draw on "stores" of good feelings that have been deposited there by each partner.  It is the ratio of negative interactions and positive interactions -he advises the ratio should be at least 5 (positive) to 1 (negative) -that is more of a predictor of a satisfying relationship than the number of arguments.  Some couples like to handle problems directly, and if each of the two people are this way, then they may resolve their problems more quickly and with less bitterness if they approach them head on.

2. Other couples are more avoidant and have a similar level of tolerance for putting off confrontations.  It is the compatibility of problem solving style between the two people rather than the style itself that is more predictive of failure. When two people prefer to avoid conflict together they don't necessarily get into trouble unless this escalates to avoidance of positive regard for one another.  If they can accept each other's differences and remain loving toward one another they may be able to avoid conflict for a long time.  It is more a problem if one is a conflict avoider and the other is a conflict confronter.  This difference can be worked out (although sometimes help from a therapist is required) if there's a lot of overall positive regard.

3.  Differences may make the courtship stage of a relationship more exciting, but they can make a lasting relationship more difficult.  Not all differences are alike, however.  The most important differences that can cause trouble are: difference in conflict style (see above), differences in mutual respect for each other's life dreams (note I did not say the dreams had to be alike, only the amount of respect accorded the other person for his/her dreams), differences in libido (sexual drive), differences in lifestyle (e.g. degree of accumulation vs. simplicity desired), etc.  All of these differences can be worked out in a healthy relationship and don't necessarily signal danger - they just make things harder rather than easier.

4. Some would say the solution to all marital difficulties is honesty - always saying what is on your mind because that is the Truth.  But in my practice I have seen this become an excuse for disrespect and contempt, and these are the things that will cause ruptures rather than healing.  True, people need to be able to express themselves freely to their partners, but this doesn't mean there is no room for tact.  And what may feel "honest" at one moment, may feel irrelevant at another.  Flattery, if that means complimenting your partner frequently, showing your affection regularly in symbolic or romantic ways, and bragging about her or him to others - will get you everywhere.  I don't mean saying things that aren't ever true, but focussing on the positive and building up credit in that emotional bank account makes a huge difference in how well your relationship will weather rockier times.

5.  There isn't a couple around today that doesn't have some "BIG" issue that it can't resolve.  There are too many choices and options available today to assume they must all be agreed upon in each romantic partnership.  Gottman estimates that 60% of all problems couples encounter are ultimately irresolvable.  Once again, the issue isn't the problem itself,  it's how couples learn to manage perpetual problems over the long haul.  This point is critical to understand.  As in other areas of life, many problems stay with us a long time- some throughout the life span - what matters is how we cope with this fact.  Do we comfort each others' experiences of frustration? Do we accept that there are some things that may never be perfect but know that we can keep trying anyway? Do we have enough good stuff in the bank to get us through? Gottman calls this the ability to "dialogue with perpetual problems".  Ultimately, it's the quality of the dialogue, not the seeming seriousness of the problem itself, that will predict the success of the relationship.

6.  Although this may be somewhat true when couples meet at a young age, because the younger they start, the more quickly they will change and might simply become so different they are no longer compatible, for most couples who claim they just "grew apart", this is an excuse that tends to gloss over the deeper issues that can cause serious trouble in a love relationship. 

So if fighting, avoidance, differences, growing apart, and "honesty" aren't the real problems, and huge differences like children, sex and money don't necessarily predict disaster - why is there so much divorce? And what is the solution?  Gottman refers to the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" as being:  1. Criticism 2. Defensiveness 3. Contempt and 4. Stonewalling, and says these 4 patterns are the most reliable predictors of divorce/separation or of a long but miserable relationship. When these four horsemen take over a relationship, the end is near, even if the couple physically stay together.  But with help (professional help is usually necessary for this) you can learn to consistently "build in the antidotes.1"
Here are some "antidotes" I have found effective:
*for Criticism: try complaining without suggesting that your partner is somehow defective
*for Defensiveness: try accepting responsibility for a part of the problem
*for Contempt: learn to create a marital culture of praise and pride to replace the contempt, and
*for Stonewalling: provide self soothing, stay emotionally connected and give the listener nonverbal cues of your attention.

7. Attraction is more related to what's in the emotional bank account than to physical appearance.  When loss of attraction or change in physical appearance is used as an excuse for divorce or constant criticisms,  it is more indicative that the person doing the criticising is having self esteem or identity issues.  Although these problems may require individual or couples treatment,  it is not physical changes that are at the heart of the deterioration of a marriage.

8. Sexual compatibility, not frequency, is the key to couple sexual satisfaction.  Difficulties (again, not irresolvable) arise when there is a difference in the amount of sex desired by each member of the couple.  Many satisfied couples have little or even no sex because this is all each of them desires.  Gottman found that it is the nature of the friendship, more than the frequency of sexual relations, that gets people through in the long run. When frequent sex is desired by both partners, and sex is part of the overall fondness and affectional system, it can be a wonderful asset.  When one is wanting more sex than the other, it is likely to cause stress in both partners.  However, more often than not, the development of sexual problems is a symptom rather than a cause of relationship difficulties. Because sexual intimacy requires each partner to be vulnerable to the other, when the relationship is experienced as emotionally unsafe by one or both partners, sexual disturbances will likely arise.

9.  I have worked with many couples who were dealing with changes in one partner's body size.  I have seen some couples break up when there was no perceptible physical change and other couples thrive through considerable physical changes. When there is a wealth of positive regard in the relationship, physical attraction tends to follow that regard.  It is unfortunately common for someone with an eating problem to project their body image insecurities onto a partner.  This can be true for certain same sex couples too- one partner "absorbs" the bad body feelings and the other projects them.  When this is the case it is important for each member of the couple or family to work separately on his or her eating problem and put a special effort into being loving and respectful of the partner's food and body boundaries.  It is not easy to go against the cultural dictate of thinness for everyone, but a family can work together to develop a culture of love and respect for differences that will ultimately solve way more problems than the temporary (for usually it is no more than that) weight gain or loss of one or more of its members.

10. There are many ways for couples to share power and responsibility that do not necessarily correspond to absolute equality in all areas.  What is more important is that each partner have equal influence on the other.  Weiss'2 coined the term: "positive sentiment override" (PSO) to describe this ability.  He coined the term "negative sentiment override" (NSO) for the opposite. What this means is that when partners feel trusting  of one another, they tend to hear each other's suggestions and complaints non-defensively. There doesn't have to be agreement on the issue, just willingness to talk about the differences. Statements judged neutral or negative by observers can be interpreted positively by a partner with a couples history of respectful conflict (PSO) just as statements judged neutral or positive by observers can be interpreted as negative by a partner with a  couples history disrespectful conflict (NSO) as in the following examples.

PSO Example:

Partner 1: Will you shut up and let me finish?
Partner 2: Sorry, go ahead.
Though partner 2 may not be very happy about this comment, he still recognises that his partner felt hurt by his interruption and gives her the benefit of the doubt.

NSO Example:
Partner 1: Will you shut up and let me finish?
Partner 2: To hell with you, I’m not getting a chance to finish either. You’re such a bitch, you remind me of your mother.

Here partner 2 assumes negative intent and feels he must defend himself.

In summary, this does not mean that a couple in trouble can just start being loving and affectionate during their arguments.  It takes work and often professional intervention to get out of negative cycles.  Repeating affirmations that have no meaningful basis is not the solution either.  Genuine positive regard, if not already deeply embedded in the marriage, can only emerge once the relationship is made emotionally safe for both partners.
************************************************************************
*   * This article does not apply to couples struggling with physical or sexual abuse. Much stronger interventions are required in those cases to first and foremost keep all parties physically safe.  For resources on this topic, please see: http://www.womensrefuge.org.nz
Link to:  Couples therapy

Notes:

1. Gottman, John M.  The Marriage Clinic, NY:  WW Norton & Company; 1999, page 193.
2. Weiss, R. L. (1980) Strategic behavioral marital therapy: Toward a model for assessment and intervention. In J.P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment and theory (Vol. 1, pp. 229-271). Greenwich, CT; JAI Press.