Category Archives: General and Miscellaneous

Practicing the Golden Rule and Its Variants

March 13, 2022General and Miscellaneouscompassion, Golden Rule, self-care, self-worthRobert Daniel

We are all familiar with the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Variations of this guideline appear throughout various cultures and religious traditions. Most of us probably endorse it, whether we follow it or not. Yet this adage focuses only on how we treat others. How we treat ourselves, though, is also worthy of attention. We shall consider two variants which mirror and complement the standard Golden Rule. The first proclaims, “Do unto ourselves as we would do unto others.” The other version advises, “Allow others to do for us as we would do for them.” Then, we will address the roles of experience and action – being compassionate and doing generous acts – in this endeavor. But first, we need to consider the focus and assumptions of these sayings.

Golden Rule Variants for Self-care

All three versions presented here address our treatment of ourselves and others. Of course, this advice would hardly be necessary if we all demonstrated abundant caring and generosity. Similarly, these sayings would be virtually meaningless if we already showed similar concern for all involved, ourselves included. However, by encouraging us to treat ourselves and others comparably, these adages all assume a disparity in caring. Whereas the Golden Rule encourages us to treat others better, our two variants urge better self-care. And while the standard adage relates to self-absorbed individuals, our two variants apply to those who habitually put others first.

Selfish and Selfless

Thus, the traditional Golden Rule and our two variants address two contrasting groups. Together, they represent polar opposites along a continuum ranging from selfish to selfless. Generally, we judge the former critically while praising the latter. Most of us recognize the shortcomings of being self-centered, with its tendency to alienate others. (I explore this orientation in more detail in my post, Narcissists’ Self-Promotions Trump Cooperation.) In contrast, we tend to disregard the downside for the selfless givers, who consistently put others first.

Being Generous to a Fault

Unbridled generosity often has adverse consequences for the giver. When we are constantly giving, without replenishing our emotional supplies, we become depleted. Our recipients come to take us for granted, such that they show little appreciation. We might then become resentful, which only builds over time. That sabotages our spirit of generosity, which we have been cultivating through our self-sacrifice. (I address these drawbacks in my post, Caretaker Burnout and Compassion Fatigue.)

Fostering Entitlement

Our pervasive giving frequently has dire consequences for the receiver, as well. With the support of their benefactors never in question, the recipients often take it for granted. This feeds into their sense of privilege, which cultivates unrealistic expectations of others. As such, they feel more deserving, such that they disregard others’ wants and needs. In fact, the term “afluenza” has been coined and used to describe the unhealthy entitlement of teens spoiled by their doting parents.

“Killing with Kindness”

In some instances, excessive generosity can foster dependency, rather than or in addition to entitlement. This is especially true when givers offer services which their recipients can provide for themselves, though not without some effort. These donors further “enable” dependency by implicitly defining their recipients as incapable of fending for themselves. Particularly when coupled with critics’ harsh judgment, the enablers’ good intentions transform their recipients into victims of low expectations. While not literally killing their charges with kindness, they often deaden their spirit. (I delve into this topic further in my post, Escaping the Victim Role.)

Thus, the recipients’ feeling bad about needing help often mirrors the givers’ feeling good about providing the needing support. After all, who wants to be considered a charity case? Yet committed caretakers often overlook this connection, as their core identity is so tied into being helpful to others. Without it, they can feel disoriented and lost, without a sense of purpose.

Striking a Balance between Polar Opposites

The Golden Rule and our two variants all propose solutions to our self-care and concern for others being out-of-balance. Selfish people need to treat others better, while selfless ones need to take better care of themselves. When taken together, the Golden Rule and our two variants suggest a balance between these two extremes. This is but one instance in which choosing a middle path works out better than operating at either opposing pole. (In Muddling down a Middle Path, I note various other polarities for which this advice applies. These include freedom vs. order, security vs. adventure, and belonging vs. individuality.)

The Two Inverse Variants of the Golden Rule

With all the preceding concerns, it may seem like I’m saying that generosity is bad. That’s certainly not my intent. Rather, I am asserting that an excessive commitment to serving others can be bad for all involved. Furthermore, I am affirming the helpfulness of balancing generosity with a healthy dose of self-interest. Now, we can consider how our two inverse variants of the Golden Rule address this imbalance. While one version explores how we treat ourselves, the other focuses on how we encourage others to treat us.

“Do unto Ourselves as We Do unto Others”

Perhaps we best demonstrate the meaning of treating ourselves as we treat others when we don’t follow this guideline. What does it mean when we take better care of others than we do of ourselves? Are we not implying that others are more deserving than us? Or that they are needier? If so, others may take us up on this attitude by expecting our support while disregarding our needs. Or are we suggesting that our service makes us better than others? Then others may resent our condescending attitude and perhaps feel bad about receiving our support. Whichever message we send – whether of being undeserving, less needy, or morally superior – it undermines healthy relations.

By contrast, treating ourselves as we treat others puts us on more even footing with them. We attain our identity and self-worth from both our advocacy for ourselves and our generosity toward others. On the one hand, we proclaim our self-worth through our self-assertion. On the other hand, we feel good about ourselves when we give to others. This balanced approach does not lay claim to any special treatment or entitlement. Taken together, these two sources of self-esteem support our being “just as good as,” but not necessarily “better than.” Furthermore, these ways of establishing our self-worth are less likely to convey a “holier than thou” attitude. Thus, it puts us more on par with others.

“Allow Others to Do for Us as We Would Do for Them”

Our second variant of the Golden Rule focuses on letting others help us. “Allow others to do for us as we would do for them.” Just as we feel good about ourselves for helping others, so can they feel good about themselves for helping us – yet only if we let them! Research studies have shown that generosity has a positive impact for the giver as well as for the receiver, and sometimes even more for the giver. So, do we really want to be selfish in hoarding those warm, fuzzy feelings for ourselves? Or are we willing to allow others those feel-good opportunities by accepting and appreciating their support?

Reluctance to Accepting Support

When such occasions arise, we may resist accepting support. We might be unwilling to giving up what we consider the moral high ground. (“’Tis nobler to give than to receive.”) Or we might balk at relinquishing the control of being in charge. Still yet, we might hesitate because receiving help implies that we are needy and therefore deficient. Whatever the cause, such staunch independence deprives others of the opportunity for feeling good about extending themselves.

Receiving Compliments

This hesitancy to receive support even extends to fielding compliments, which have very little cost for the giver. We have all witnessed occasions when someone receiving a compliment has minimized, qualified, or refuted it. Perhaps we can even recall instances when we have done so ourselves. While we might justify this response in the name of humility, we are also questioning our admirers’ judgment. Is that really how we want to reward someone’s graciousness? Just how hard would it be to show appreciation for their admiration?

Motivation Matters

Thus far, we’ve been focusing on the act of giving. We should recognize, though, that the intentions behind the support matter. We might offer support in response to social pressure, or to boost our reputation. Or we might give out of a sense of obligation. Recipients are less likely to respond favorably to these intentions than to giving out of caring. They might well feel beholding or obligated to us in return. Or they might even resent being used to bolster our status. Still yet, they may feel inadequate for needing help. In contrast, giving out of caring is more likely to engender gratitude. Motivation matters. Thus, effective charity involves being as well as doing – being compassionate while doing the giving. We might even propose yet another variant of the Golden Rule: “Be for others as we would be for ourselves.”

The Golden Rule Applied to Conflict

Thus far, discussion of the Golden Rule and its variants has focused on support, whether for others or for ourselves. But what if we are in conflict with others? We might well find ourselves disapproving of others, rather than accepting. Does the Golden Rule apply here? Well, it does state “do unto” others, not “do for” them. We’re probably not feeling so charitable in such cases – nor should we be. Offering acceptance or support implies condoning, if not actually enabling, those actions of which we disapprove. So how does the Golden Rule – and our variants of it, for that matter – apply in those cases?

Exercising Accountability

We all have the right to challenge others’ actions that affect us — as they do with us. For exercising accountability, a qualified version of “Love the sinner, hate the sin” appears in order. Our reservation centers on the blame involved in our labeling an action a “sin” and the doer a “sinner.” We should recognize that it is not our place to pass judgment. We can reduce this judgmentalism by regarding the offending action as a transgression against ourselves or others, rather than as a moral defect.

A general rule of thumb is to demand accountability for actions, rather than passing judgment on the person. Here, the distinction between doing and being comes into play. We challenge the doing of the action, while still showing respect for who the person is. Indeed, failure to call out the transgression conveys our low expectations for the transgressor. That hardly expresses respect. Thus, holding others accountable appears quite compatible with the standard Golden Rule – provided that we welcome constructive input ourselves. We address our readiness to receive challenging feedback in an upcoming section, “Being Called Out by Others.”

One particular insight helps us to cope with others’ transgressions against us. It is the realization that each transgression gives us the opportunity to advocate for ourselves, thus affirming our self-worth. Without such conflicts, we would have little need to take such action.

Calling Out Ourselves

Exercising accountability for ourselves involves taking stock of ourselves. This can be particularly problematic for those of us who are our own worst critics. My story of The Man with a Monkey on his Back dramatizes such struggles. And indeed, a “searching and fearless moral inventory” is often the most challenging of the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.) Here, the distinction between being and doing applies. Focusing on the kind of person we see ourselves being likely evokes shame. This feeling often immobilizes us, thus interfering with our efforts to change what we do.

Holding Ourselves Accountable for our Actions

Identifying how our “doings” transgress against others, or even against ourselves, however, likely causes guilt. This feeling calls our attention to our actions, which we can work at changing. Changing what we do is generally easier than changing who we are. With sufficient work at changing our behaviors, we might notice ourselves developing positive traits. And when we acquire enough healthy traits, we develop our character, or who we are. While this might be a “fake it till you make it” approach, it usually works better than an attempt at a “total makeover.” We might identify this variant of the Golden Rule as, “Hold ourselves accountable, as we would do with others.”

Being Called Out by Others

It would be great if we were able to recognize our transgressions toward others consistently. Unfortunately, that is often not the case, as we all have our “blind spots.” As a result, others often recognize our shortcomings before we do.” When they point these flaws out to us (or to others in our presence), we often experience shame and humiliation. This one-two punch usually involves our feeling judged, even if others are attempting constructive feedback. If this be the case, another variant of the Golden Rule applies: “Allow others to call us out, as we would want to call them out.”

Receiving Constructive Feedback

In accepting criticism from others, we recognize that they can help us with our personal growth – even if that’s not their intent. We also appreciate that our adversaries might more readily point out our shortcomings than would our friends. Furthermore, they are more likely to offer perspectives different than our own. Thus, we can often learn more about ourselves from our adversaries than from our allies. Again, this applies only if we listen! Of course, we may need to filter out their toxic judgment or blame to hear their constructive feedback.

Constructive Feedback, or Judgment and Blame?

How can we best respond to feedback, whether constructive or judgmental? I would suggest that we respond to each in the same way – with due consideration and gratitude. For input intended as helpful, this would obviously be an appropriate response. But what about for accusatory feedback? Yes, the same approach for that, as well. For one thing, we can learn valuable lessons, even if we don’t particularly care for how they are packaged. Furthermore, our adversaries would likely be unprepared for such a receptive response, thus catching them off-guard. Additionally, our not following their script for an “us versus them” confrontation can knock them off-balance. This often flushes out their agenda to shame and humiliate us. Thus, this strategy can prove effective for exposing and deflecting their verbal sneak attacks.

This approach warrants caution and skill, though. If we are too deferential, our adversaries might attempt to dominate us, particularly if there is an audience. In exercising due consideration, we can inquire into the assumptions behind their criticism. First, this exploration can help us to understand their outlook, such that we adapt valid aspects to our purposes. Second, this inquiry serves as a strategy for challenging their perspectives. Our questioning might just reveal some unwarranted assumptions or logical inconsistencies which they had not considered. And third, we can command respect through our discerning inquiry and poise. Even if they deny us their respect, they cannot take away our self-respect – that is, unless we let them.

Summary and Recommendations

Hopefully, our exploration of the Golden Rule and our proposed variants of it has expanded and deepened our understanding of fair treatment. In particular, we have noted how these concerns apply both to others and to ourselves. This is best achieved when our self-interest and our concern for others are fairly comparable. This balance both validates our self-worth and strengthens our emotional bonds with one another. Furthermore, the support works best when involving both experience and action – being compassionate and doing good works. This is equally true and relevant for our treatment of others and ourselves. When we alternate between the roles of giving and receiving, these guidelines help to foster greater understanding and cooperation.

I should note that I am not advocating a limit to the amount of compassion and generosity. Generally, more is better. In practice, though, judgmentalism is often the limiting factor: more judgment generally means less compassion. Instead, I am espousing that caring and giving be fairly evenly distributed between ourselves and others. When others claim more than their fair share, we should be ready to call them out. And by the same token, we should accept others calling us out. In this way, we can maintain our balance of self-interest and care for others. And when we all practice this balancing act and alternate between giving and receiving, we transcend independence and dependence. Instead, we foster healthy interdependence, and that works best for all.

Nightmare in Trump’s America

October 2, 2020General and MiscellaneousAmerica, democracy, nightmare, trumpRobert Daniel

nightmare illustration — Nightmarish Agony in Trump’s America

I awoke about 3 am this morning, just as a nightmare was coming to a resolution. I’d just dreamt that I and a crew of renegades were making our escape from an oppressive authoritarian regime that had overtaken our country. And when we were on the cusp of achieving freedom, some glitch occurred, such that we were being found out. That’s when I awoke from this nightmare.

Fantasies of Chaos in America

It didn’t take much insight to realize that my nightmare was my personal reaction to our national crisis. Just this Tuesday I watched the Presidential Debacle, in which President Trump highjacked the debate. I had fantasies of the follow-up to the election November 3. In one scenario, Republican state legislators overrode the election results, backing Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud. They declared the vote null and void and sent their slate of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College. In another version, I envisioned a defeated Trump activating his vigilante stormtrumpers, whom he had on stand-by. He justified and supported this move by declaring martial law, blaming antifa and Black Lives Matter for the unrest.

I make no claim regarding the plausibility for either of these nightmarish scenarios. I’m simply reporting on how our current political specter has haunted me, even in my sleep. I fell into a black hole fueled by fear, distrust and anger. And the pull of this nightmare continued in the above fantasies after I awoke. This susceptibility gave me some appreciation for how Trumpsters could fall prey to QAnon conspiracy theories.

Subduing the Nightmare

I was all keyed up from my nightmare, and I realized that sleep would not easily return. So I got up and read from Steven Mitchell’s translation and interpretation of the Tao Te Ching. I realized that I could open it up to almost any page and experience some solace. It did not disappoint. I felt centered. My mind quieted. And I felt sad. Sad for the toll our current socio-political climate is taking on me – and on my brothers and sisters across this country. I mention the Tao Te Ching not to plug it, though it contains some profound truths. Rather, I seek to encourage others to turn to their sources of inspiration and solace.

Mourning in America

And I wept. Lest some Trumpsters interpret this as a sign of weakness, these are not tears of a victim feeling sorry for himself. Nor of a bleeding heart pitying poor, helpless victims. These are tears of grief. I was mourning for the emotional poverty this country has been experiencing as it prays at the altar of property, power, prestige, and privilege. And out of this grief comes not resignation, but resolve. Resolve to confront these false gods and to recover our lost humanity.

A Prelude to the Nightmare of Trump‘s America

This fall from grace did not start with Trump. We had plenty of warning signs along the way. There was Robin Leach’s Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. More recently, we have the Kardashians and The Real Housewive’s of LA, NY, DC, or wherever. Perhaps our idolatry of material success and fame provides some distraction from our nightmare of unspoken discontents. We seem to have lost our moral compass. We reveal the values we practice through the icons, memes, and idols that we follow on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. All this continues while our wealth disparity widens, the pandemic spreads, and our climate heats up. These crises are brought to us courtesy of our sponsors – dark money from superPacs, special interests lobbies, lax oversight for business practices, and tax breaks for the wealthy.

Trump – Type-Cast for the Role of Demagogue

Trump has been but a mere symptom of this cultural decline. His niece has portrayed a profile of emotional poverty in his upbringing. Perhaps as an antidote, he has bought into the religion of the 4 P’s (i.e., property, power, prestige, and privilege). And as a result, he has been a lightning rod for the current cultural tensions. Perhaps his impending defeat, financial downturn, and the risk of criminal prosecution have led to his escalating desperation. In any event, he has played his character to the hilt in this reality TV melodrama.

Any Chance for Redemption?

I offer such speculation not to excuse his abusive behavior, but to understand it. I could muster up some compassion for him, as he appears to be pretty miserable. However, his willingness to inflict harm on others for his ego needs discourages me from doing so. He first needs to repent, before he can find true redemption. He likely needs to undergo the humiliation of defeat before he can develop the humility to beg forgiveness. Then there’s the matter of making amends. And just how likely is that?

A Silver Lining

Just one note of gratitude. I am thankful that Trump’s flaws are becoming increasingly apparent, such that most of us can now recognize them. Hopefully, this will pull us back from the brink of despotism. In contrast, a more polished demagogue would have posed an even greater risk. Perhaps this episode can enlighten future generations of such threats to our democracy.

A Call to Arms (Figuratively Speaking)

Thank you for indulging my rant, as it has been cathartic. Hopefully, it strikes a chord with some of you, so that you might feel somewhat less isolated in this toxic climate. And maybe it’ll prompt you to take some action – like voting! And volunteering for and contributing to campaigns supporting our ideals of democracy would be even better. Still better, you might share this post with others who may be on the fence. Note that I plan to exercise my resolve by completing my post, entitled Bridging the Great Political Divide. This work will be a follow-up to my last post, Understanding Political Polarization. Meanwhile, I’m going to catch some shut-eye – hopefully, without any further nightmares .

(Author’s note: I wrote this post prior to the news of the Trumps’ positive tests for COVID-19. I extend my wishes for their complete recovery.)

Self-conscious or Self-aware – Does It Matter?

July 30, 2020General and Miscellaneous, Subjectivity and Objectivitymindfulness, self-awareness, self-consiousness, self-reflectionRobert Daniel

How is it that being self-aware is generally viewed favorably, whereas being self-conscious is not? After all, aren’t awareness and consciousness pretty much the same thing? Much has been made of being self-aware, going back to ancient Greece and the Socratic counsel to “know thyself.” More recently, mindfulness meditation, particularly with its focus on experiencing our bodies (e.g., our breathing), encourages self-awareness. As for being self-conscious, I recall the scene from The Lonely Guy in which the Steve Martin character eats out alone. A spotlight follows him as the maitre d’ escorts him to his table. The scene, with a gauntlet of gawking couples staring at him, captures the essence of self-consciousness.

The Mirror as a Symbol of Self-reflection

Being self-aware and being self-conscious both are examples of self-reflection. The most apt symbol of this is a mirror. A mirror allows us to gain perspective in viewing ourselves. We are looking at ourselves looking at ourselves. Yet, if we were in a hall of mirrors, we would quickly become disoriented and overwhelmed. This is the physical equivalent of watching ourselves reflecting on our experience of examining our thoughts. Difficult to follow? Well, then I’ve made my point. Such an internal hall of mirrors is one facet of self-consciousness.

Conducting our own Experiment

We can explore the quality of our self-reflection by looking at ourselves in the mirror. No, this is not one of Einstein’s “thought experiments.” So get up off your duff and go into the bathroom and look at yourself in the mirror. Who and what do you see? How much of this experience would you label as self-awareness, and how much as self-consciousness? And on what basis do you make this distinction? Is this distinction important to you? Why, or why not?

What’s Your Take?

Do you buy into Socrates’ dictum that “An unexamined life is not worth living”? Or does all this self-reflection just get in the way of living? And is the distinction between self-awareness and self-consciousness relevant to answering this question? And if so, what distinguishes the two experiences from one another?

An Invitation to Participate

If you are looking to me for answers on this, you’ll have to wait a while. Rather than waiting until I’ve thoroughly addressed these questions, I want to put this topic out there now. Furthermore, I would like this exercise to be more interactive, so I welcome your input. I’ve done the exercise in front of the mirror myself, but I’ll hold off on sharing that. After all, I wouldn’t want to lead the witnesses. I will post your responses, either attributed to you or anonymously, as you wish. If you don’t specify, I’ll use my judgment. And if I don’t get much feedback, I might just go off on my own tangent. You wouldn’t want that, now would you?

Melania Trump’s “Be Best” Campaign

September 10, 2019General and Miscellaneous, Political Applications, Self-esteemself-esteem, self-worthRobert Daniel

What Does It Mean?

On first glance, our First Lady’s “Be Best” campaign appears straightforward and noncontroversial, even if grammatically awkward. My critique, though, is not so much one of grammar, as of meaning. A single word could clear this up. Does she call upon us to “be our best” or to “be the best”? Though a subtle distinction, the implications can be major. Whereas both appeal to our sense of self-worth, the former promotes intrinsic self-esteem, while the latter supports conditional self-esteem. Since these terms are likely unfamiliar to many, this calls for further explanation.

Intrinsic Self-Esteem

Intrinsic self-esteem is based on the notion that we all have basic self-worth, regardless of our status in life or achievements. Our Declaration of Independence affirms this in stating that “all men are created equal,” as long as we interpret “all men” as “all people.” Colloquially, it is expressed in the bumper-sticker slogan, “God don’t make no junk.” The call to “be our best” means living up to our potential, whatever that may be.

Conditional Self-Esteem

In contrast, conditional self-esteem refers to feeling good about ourselves based upon our attributes and achievements. Here, the standards are relative, based upon how we compare with others. That comparison might be in terms of intelligence, attractiveness, dominance, achievement, or some other criteria. This version of self-worth is rather transient. As salesmen say, “You’re only as good as your last sale.” In its extreme, winning becomes everything. Unfortunately, for every winner, there is at least one loser, if not more. To “be the best” means to be better than all the rest. For example, each year only one team is Superbowl champion, versus 31 teams who lost along the way. When self-esteem is primarily conditional, “loser” is a loaded term: even achieving your personal best is not good enough.

In Praise of Intrinsic Self-Esteem

Thus, I am endorsing intrinsic self-esteem as the better foundation for achieving our sense of value. First, it is a more stable source of self-worth, less susceptible to disappointment and loss. Second, when firmly established, it depends somewhat less on the ongoing support of others. Relying on our own self-assessment reduces our vulnerability to critics, naysayers and bullies. Even so, the encouragement of our supporters can be quite helpful. This addresses the central concern of our First Lady’s initiative against bullying. Third, when we fall short, we can still console ourselves with the notion that we gave it our best shot. This view is reinforced when we commit ourselves to learning from our mistakes. And fourth, practicing intrinsic self-esteem encourages cooperation over competition, allowing us to tap into the power of teamwork.

Putting Conditional Self-Esteem in Perspective

In making the above argument, though, I am not saying that conditional self-esteem is all bad. In fact, with a basic foundation in intrinsic self-esteem, conditional self-esteem augments our motivation to achieve our goals. The call to be our best means living up to our potential, whatever that may be. When runners compete by this standard, they are just as interested in achieving their personal best as in winning.

Summary

Hopefully, I have presented a persuasive argument supporting intrinsic self-esteem. Conditional self-worth and competition still have their place and can motivate us for achievement, yet require a basic foundation in intrinsic self-worth to function effectively. Otherwise, the struggle will be all about winning and losing, and the particular issues at stake in the conflict will get lost in the shuffle. And when each side effectively blocks the other side from winning, both sides lose.

Recommendations

With the above considerations about self-worth, I recommend a subtle modification to the “Be Best” campaign: “Be Our Best.” (I had initially supported “Be Your Best,” but later decided that this is more of a team project.) I would encourage our First Lady to modify her slogan to clarify her meaning. I could be wrong, but I assume that her intended meaning is closer to “be our best” than to “be the best.”

Benefits of Updating the Slogan

By revising the motto our First Lady would be modeling healthy self-assertion, provided she remains true to her convictions. That might involve calling me out on my unsolicited feedback, should she find it impudent or disagree with it. Or she might challenge her husband on his excessive emphasis on winning. She could point out how it defines others as losers and divides our country. Her tactfulness in doing so would demonstrate that assertion does not imply disrespect or bullying of others. Furthermore, the modification would convey the message that the pursuit of our ideals is an ongoing challenge, one achieved through successive approximations. It might even help revitalize her campaign by enlisting more support, as the project has been rather silent lately.

A Caveat

I temper my presumptuous suggestion by acknowledging that I have no inside scoop on Melania Trump’s situation as First Lady. Her “Be Best” slogan might be the best she can achieve, given the current political climate. Since we can only do our best, by definition that is good enough. Of course, we can always work at enhancing our best through understanding and practice. In any event, it has presented a springboard for me to promote my views on self-worth, hopefully without disrespecting our First Lady in the process.

The Monks’ Interesting, Not-So-Silent Retreat

January 21, 2019General and Miscellaneous, Stories and Fablesabbot, judgmentalism, meditation, retreatRobert Daniel

Just as the former Soviet Union banished its dissidents to the Siberian gulags, so, too, did the Vatican exile its freethinking clergy to settings where they would cause minimal disruption among its faithful. Such was the case with Brother Costello, whose natural curiosity led him to question all matters, even what the Church considered to be established doctrine. In his case, the Church not only exiled him to a remote cloister in rural Ireland, but also promoted him to the position of abbot. This particular monastery experienced considerable tension among its monks, and the Church establishment apparently intended to give Brother Costello a taste of his own medicine with his new assignment.

When the new abbot arrived at his post, he found the monastery in total disarray, with its few remaining residents constantly bickering. After a few weeks of trying to achieve harmony among the friars, the new abbot was at his wits’ end. Still, he needed to address the crisis at hand, and the monks’ rancor interfered with his clarity of judgment and ability to devise a strategy. It was at this point that the abbot imposed an overnight silent retreat upon his subordinates, if only to allow him a brief reprieve from the chaos.

The Retreat

On the evening of the retreat, Abbot Costello had the monks, Brothers Thomas, Paul, Sean, Michael, Richard, and Patrick, sit in a small circle in the chapel, facing inward. The retreat was to begin at dusk, with silence imposed upon the monks until dawn. He began the event by lighting a candle, which he placed at the center of the circle. He then got up from his seat, indicating that he would return at sunrise.

The retreat was rather uneventful for the first several hours, until the candle burned itself out, plunging the chapel into total darkness. This had an unsettling effect on the monks, who became quite squirmy and fidgety. Finally, Brother Thomas could stand it no more, breaking the restless silence, “Brother Paul, go get another candle and light it – I can’t stand the darkness!”

Brother Paul fired back, “Go get it yourself, if you can’t stand it – I’m not your servant!”

Then, without a moment’s hesitation, Brother Sean blurted out, “Brothers, we’re supposed to keep quiet!”

Then Brother Michael chastised them, “You losers can’t even keep your mouths shut for a few hours! Now you’ve messed things up for all of us.”

Brother Richard quickly countered, “Not if we keep quiet about it. We don’t have to tell on ourselves.”

Brother Patrick was feeling rather smug at this point, as he was the only monk who had kept his silence. Still, he was rather miffed that the other brothers apparently didn’t realize this. “Hey, don’t include me in this – I’m the only one who hasn’t talked.”

This exchange transpired in a matter of minutes, after which they said not another word until dawn. Still, it was a rather noisy silence, as they all mulled over in their heads the blame for disturbing the peace. The remaining hours until sunrise seemed to drag on forever.

The Review

When Abbot Costello returned at dawn, he sat down in the empty seat and asked them how the retreat went. All hung their heads and no one spoke up. At this point, the abbot realized that extracting any confessions from them would be counterproductive. “Very well, then, we can start the second part of the retreat. Even though you’ve remained silent, I trust that you have all had your meditations disrupted by intrusive thoughts, even if you haven’t spoken them out loud. Or do we have any living saints among us who weren’t bothered by disruptive thoughts?”

Still, the monks remained silent. Perhaps they considered the question rhetorical, but more likely they suspected it a trick question.

“Very well, then, we’ll proceed. It really makes little difference whether you’ve spoken your thoughts out loud or kept them to yourselves. In a way, though, it’s unfortunate that you kept your silence, as speaking your concerns out loud would have highlighted the more troubling challenges to your serenity. So who would like to start us out by sharing the thoughts that disrupted your tranquility?” The monks’ silence continued, yet the abbot remained patient, waiting out the monks until they could no longer stand the tension.

The Reckoning

Finally, Brother Sean spoke up, stating how it was quite upsetting to him when others could not or would not obey the rules and guidelines. The other monks glared at him for implicating their breach of silence with his admission. The abbot ignored the implied accusation, instead directing his curiosity toward how Brother Sean developed this obsession with unquestioning obedience. Brother Sean explained how his parents were quite strict with their rules and severe with their punishments. Thus, he learned to obey the letter of the law and to become quite anxious when his brothers and sisters broke the rules.

Abbot Costello reflected upon this, only commenting, “Interesting.”

Soon, Brother Richard chimed in, noting his having had similar parents and rather unruly siblings. He noted how his parents had punished all the children when anyone got into trouble. While he could not control his siblings, he encouraged them to be sneaky, in order to escape detection. He recognized how he developed a habit of “playing with his cards close to his vest”, such that he was wary of revealing too much of himself.

Abbot Costello considered this, then commented, “Interesting.”

Next, Brother Michael related his similar experiences with parents who were quite demanding and critical. Thus, he learned that he could never do anything adequately. Michael had decided that the best defense is a good offense, and his parents were excellent role models for this. Thus, he learned to be highly critical, with both himself and others. He noted how he often caught himself being just like his parents in his judgmentalism, a trait he despised in himself.

Abbot Costello pondered this, then commented, “Interesting.”

Brother Thomas then noted how his family background was chaotic and at times even violent. He described how his parents often fought over the kids. As the oldest, Thomas tried to impose order on his younger siblings to keep them from upsetting their parents. He acknowledged his bossiness, but had felt it justified in order to keep the peace.

Abbot Costello thought about this, then commented, “Interesting.”

Brother Paul shared how he could relate to Brother Thomas’s family situation, though from the standpoint of the youngest child. As a child, he had resented his older brothers for bossing him around. This developed into a gnawing resentment toward elders and authorities.

Abbot Costello contemplated on this, then commented, “Interesting.”

All the monks had spoken, except for Brother Patrick, who appeared deep in thought. He then admitted how he, an only child, had difficulty relating to the others’ stories. Furthermore, his mother teaching him at home allowed only limited contact with his peers. Patrick felt rather awkward interacting with other children, who often teased him for his lack of social graces. The young boy heeded his mother’s counsel, that he was special and others were simply envious of him. Thus, he learned to discount others, if not outright ignore them.

Abbot Costello meditated on this, then commented, along with the chorus of the other brothers, “Interesting.”

The abbot then shared his opinion that the brothers had made good use of their silent retreat. He noted, though, that the larger challenge lay ahead of them. One particular goal is to keep the lessons fresh in their mind. A second task is to apply this understanding to their relationships with one another. The brothers agreed to continue with the retreats and to apply the new insights about themselves and each other to their daily lives.

The Issue of Darkness

Before adjourning, the abbot noted a key feature of the retreat that the brothers had not addressed. He asked the monks about their reactions to darkness when the candle went out. The brothers were rather wary of this inquiry, as they had not mentioned it in their discussions. Still, the experience had been so unsettling that they decided that it deserved further attention. This unfinished business also allows us to explore the meaning of the darkness for ourselves.

The above story is an embellishment and Westernization of a popular Zen parable. The original can easily be found on the internet by googling “Learning to Be Silent parable.”

Are You Afflicted with Pareidolia?

March 9, 2018General and Miscellaneous, Subjectivity and Objectivityinkblots, objectivity, pareidolia, projective techniques, Rorschach, subjectivityRobert Daniel

Have you ever gazed up at the clouds and found human, animal, or mythological images, whether full-bodied or just facial, in them? If so, chances are that you have a condition known as pareidolia. For further assessment, though, take a look at the following figures:

What does this look like to you?

And this? What do you see here?

How about this? Does this look like anything to you?

What sort of images do you see in these splotches of ink? Animal, vegetable, or mineral? Or perhaps human, mythological, or extra-terrestial? Or maybe landscapes or seascapes?

Then again, you may only see them as blotches of ink – symmetrical, yes, but without any particular patterns or images embedded in them. If so, then you probably don’t have pareidolia, which is the tendency to see meaningful objects, human, animate, or otherwise, in ambiguous or random visual stimuli.

If you did see objects or meaningful images, you don’t need to be alarmed. Pareidolia is a normal condition that affects most people. It mainly causes problems when we have trouble distinguishing what is real from what is illusion. There are times when this condition can cause serious problems. These include visual hallucinations and drug-induced visions, such as a bad LSD trip. Here, the issue is more a matter of impaired reality testing than of the illusory experiences themselves.

In fact, pareidolia can be adaptive and beneficial. In the event of crises, recognizing danger in a split second can be the difference between life and death. Misperceiving an object as threatening is usually less risky than failure to recognize a real menace. Better to be safe than sorry! Pareidolia offers an advantage in evolutionary terms. Activating the fight-or-flight response quickly allows one to live and procreate another day.

Pareidolia and Psychological Projective Assessment

You may be aware that psychologists have used the pareidolia response as a projective technique for personality assessment. Interpretations are based on the variations in what people read into the ambiguous stimuli. Psychologists and psychiatrists having found that differences in these responses on the test instruments reflect more general differences in daily experiences and behavior.

Use of Pareidolia in the Clinical Case Study

Clinicians initially developed their use of pareidolia as a projective technique informally, through clinical case studies. They used their own particular theoretical perspectives to analyze their patients’ response patterns to the ambiguous stimuli, which they extrapolated to explain the psychological processes in daily life. They used their clinical intuition to integrate the considerable detail offered by the case studies, yet the theory determined what data was considered relevant, such that such an exploration and interpretation could hardly be considered objective and unbiased.

Use of Pareidolia in the Experimental Research Design

Subsequent experimental researchers questioned the scientific rigor of the case study approach, which they considered anecdotal. In effect, they were accusing the traditional clinicians of a process similar to the pareidolic activity of their subjects (i.e., reading meaning into subjective and ambiguous data without having objective verification). The experimental researchers such as John Exner undertook the challenge of testing the various hypotheses which the clinicians had proposed, but not proven objectively. This endeavor resulted in validation for some hypotheses but not for others. The findings were often in rather general terms, in contrast to the clinicians’ more specific interpretations derived from their intuitive analysis of the case studies.

Objective Personality Assessment

Regardless of whether the diagnostic approach involved clinical case studies or more rigorous experimental designs, the psychological interpretations used rather technical and abstract concepts to describe psychological functioning. This approach, with its appeal to objective science for its legitimacy, has a rather sterile, reductionistic flavor, particularly when contrasted with a more literary or humanistic approach to portraying life’s existential challenges. (Perhaps this is a major reason why psychiatrists and psychologists are often referred to as “shrinks.”)

Inkblots as a Trigger for Pareidolia

The Rorschach inkblots, a series of ten cards, is the most familiar of the various projective techniques. As with the other assessment instruments, researchers have conducted extensive research on how the pareidolic responses to the inkblots are related to more general styles of personality, and can thereby serve as indicators of these styles. Thus, these inkblots serve the objective analysis of human experience and behavior.

An Alternative Approach to Inkblot Interpretation

The inkblots shared in this post are not from the Rorschach set. Nor have there been any studies to establish the frequency of the various pareidolic responses to each of these figures. Thus, they have no current value as an objective technique to analyze the psychological processes of persons responding to these designs.

The absence of this scientific framework leaves an opening for an alternative approach – namely, a subjective exploration of the personal experience of encountering these ambiguous stimuli. Granted, it does not offer the certitude of pronouncements based on scientific objectivity. Yet I would suggest that this limitation is overshadowed by the depth of rich, subjective experience that it offers.

Rediscovering the Subjectivity of Experience

Rather than “shrinking” personal experience through objective analysis, this exercise can be mind-expanding in its appreciation of the ambiguities of the human condition. This is a topic which I explored in my article, Muddling Down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life. By sharing our own personal responses to these inkblots, without the choke of objective analysis constricting our experience or censoring our sharing, we offer one another and ourselves windows into our psyches. And if that is too lofty of an aspiration for this exercise, well, we might just have some fun with it, as play feeds off of ambiguity.

But don’t take my word for it – try it, and see what happens. And don’t stop with your images – consider your thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and associations to the images. And if you dare, share your experiences with your friends, and see where it leads.

Here are a couple more inkblots to pareidolate. (I’m not sure that’s a real word – I’ve been known to neologize.) I’d be glad to hear back from you on your experiences.

**Do you have different reactions to these two versions? If so, how?**

Being in Group Therapy

August 8, 2015General and Miscellaneous, Interpersonal Roles, Personal Conflictassertiveness, authority, confidentiality, expert advice, feedback, group, group leader, group therapy, judgmentalism, peer-to-peer, privacy, relationshipsRobert Daniel

While many clients prefer individual therapy, group therapy offers various benefits beyond what we might typically expect in individual therapy. First, group therapy offers the opportunity to learn vicariously from the experiences of others who share in the group. Learning from the others’ mistakes means getting valuable lessons without having to suffer the consequences of learning from our own trials and errors. When this sharing is back and forth, everyone benefits. Another important benefit of group therapy is getting feedback from other group members. It should be noted that such feedback can be no better than the information upon which it’s based. For this reason, telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is essential for getting the most helpful feedback. Opening up like this requires trust in the group leader and the other group members, both that they will respond constructively in the group and that they will honor the confidentiality of the material being shared.

Feedback from the Group Leader

Feedback, whether from an individual therapist or from a group leader, carries the extra baggage of being “authoritative” – which can be both good and bad. On the positive side, the education, training, and experience of the leader can offer some valuable concepts, principles, and knowledge that members can apply in their own lives. Yet authoritative feedback has its downside, as well. On the one hand, group members might embrace the feedback or advice of a group leader as the ultimate truth, without any questioning – buying into the authoritative reassurance of, “Trust me, I’m a doctor,” even when it is neither stated nor intended. Members could use such blind trust to avoid personal responsibility for their own actions (e.g., “I was only following the doctor’s orders – you can’t blame me for this mess.”). On the other hand, authoritative statements can trigger a backlash for those who have “authority issues.” This often involves an attitude of, “Who are you to tell me what I should think or do?” This reflex reaction often involves rebellion, opposition, or defiance, which is quite different from the reflective understanding of independent thought (e.g., processing and weighing how the feedback is relevant to one’s particular situation, then reaching one’s own conclusions about its usefulness). A useful perspective on feedback from authorities is implied in the famous line from The Wizard of Oz, when Toto pulls back the curtain to reveal the wizard as a little old man: “Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain.” This paradoxical message actually redirects the viewer’s focus from the larger-than-life authority image projected on the wall to the actual person behind that projection. In doing so, it conveys the message that even the experts in whom we place our trust are only human, too. This realization suggests that we can only empower ourselves when we think for ourselves.

The Group Leader and Confidentiality

The group leader should maintain the confidentiality of information shared within the group, except for some particular circumstances. These include situations where there is a risk of members harming themselves or others, reasonable suspicion of incidents of abuse or neglect of children or elders, and court orders and subpoenas for records. However, ther are times when group members may want the leader to provide progress reports or treatment summaries to their referral sources, particularly when these sources are requiring satisfactory involvement in treatment. In these cases, members must sign an authorization to allow the leader to share information. This latter exception to privacy may well discourage some members from being completely candid in the group, yet it should be noted that members have little to worry about as long as they continue to do the next right thing.

Feedback to and from Group Members

Peer-to-peer feedback can reduce many of the pitfalls of authoritative or expert advice noted above. Often it is easier to receive and use feedback based on peers’ similar personal experiences rather than on advice based on abstract knowledge and principles. Here, offering one’s own past or current experience on the issue is usually more productive than passing judgment or offering advice. Sharing one’s similar experiences emphasizes the peer-to-peer relationship in the group, in contrast to an unequal relationship, such as between therapist and client or mentor and student. It is important that the feedback be offered in a positive, constructive manner, rather than with an attitude of criticism, judgmentalism, condescension, or blame. Members who offer authoritative advice tend to evoke resentment from other members, who can be even more resistant to receiving the expertise of their peers than they are when it comes from authority figures.

There may also be times when members are motivated to provide feedback because they view another member’s participation as infringing upon their rights as group members (e.g., monopolizing the group time, interrupting other members, or introducing topics irrelevant to the group purpose). Here, it is important to discuss the situation in terms of the disruptive behavior and its impact on one’s comfort and involvement in the group, rather than through an attack on the other’s character or personality. We can then ask for a change in that offending behavior. This offers the opportunity to practice one’s assertiveness skills. For some, this may require some toning down of verbally aggressive feedback, which may have a rather judging or blaming tone. For others, the challenge is to speak up for oneself in the first place, particularly when one has tended to avoid conflict in order to keep the peace.

One of the primary benefits of group therapy is in receiving feedback from others who can be neutral and objective because they are not involved in our daily life. For this reason, we encourage exercizing caution in developing relationships with other members outside the group. Such relationships outside the group could adversely affect our willingness to share in the group. After all, if we could easily open up with our family and friends, we might not need therapy in the first place. A further concern is the potential for conflicts to arise during interactions outside the group. These events could interfere with the effective functioning of the group. Should such situations arise, it could be helpful for the members to share the issues with the group. Otherwise, the group leader and the other group members may notice some underlying tension, yet not have enough background information for understanding and addressing it.

Confidentiality among Group Members

An essential condition for group therapy is confidentiality among its members, as we cannot comfortably share our personal issues when we do not feel safe in doing so. So like Las Vegas’s tourist slogan (i.e., “What goes on in Vegas, stays in Vegas.”), group members need to preserve the privacy of information shared in the group. We are free to share our own personal experiences in group therapy, but this should never involve divulging the identity or personal information of other group members. While group leaders are unable to guarantee that all members will honor the confidentiality of others, we will do our best to reinforce the code of confidentiality. Serious or repeated violations of privacy could result in excluding the violator from further group involvement, not as punishment, but for the safety of the other members. So as to discourage this from happening, group members are encouraged to discuss their privacy concerns any time that these arise during the course of the group. This also presents an opportunity for group members to exercise their self-worth in asserting their concerns and rights within the group.

Summary of Benefits of Group Therapy

Group therapy offers many of the benefits of individual therapy, while also providing an opportunity to learn from one’s peers. This learning can come not only from what members share in the group discussion, but also from the style through which we interact with others. Furthermore, members have the opportunity to receive feedback from their peers, as well as from the group leader. The group also provides a sort of laboratory in which its members can experiment with developing new and potentially more effective ways of interacting with one another. These benefits can be more striking when its group members share significant issues in common, such as substance problems, anxiety and depression, or codependency. Because of the members’ often hard-learned lessons from the school of hard knocks, I often refer to them as my “panel of experts.” Their real-world experience complements the conceptual and theoretical understanding that is often provided by the group leader. With such understanding among its members, groups can function as a dress rehearsal in dealing with many of the issues its members face in daily life.

Worry, Worry, Worry

April 25, 2015General and Miscellaneous, Personal Conflict, Stress, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationshipsanxiety, mindfulness, relationships, sleep, Tao Te Ching, vicious cycle, worryRobert Daniel

Do you ever lose sleep with worry over some situation that seems out of your control? And even though you realize that worry doesn’t help, you do it anyway? Or perhaps you try blocking it out to get some sleep, but it just won’t go away? And next day, does your sleep deprivation keep you from focusing on what caused all the worry in the first place? I hate when that happens.

Possible Quick Fixes

Well, what can you do about this pattern? Perhaps you can convince your doctor to prescribe sleeping pills. They might knock you out for the night, so that you can be more rested the next day. Or maybe your doctor would be willing to prescribe a tranquilizer. Then the challenging situation wouldn’t bother you so much – you can accept it, rather than struggling over it. Or you might practice mindfulness by living in the “here and now.” Concentrating on your breathing, or on a mantra, might release the grip of fret and worry.

All of these options may serve to relieve your anxiety and worry temporarily. This could allow you to tackle the situation fresh and relaxed when in occurs. Still it may do little to help you actually resolve the dilemma that has you stuck. While you may stop spinning your wheels with useless worry, you still stay stuck. Without a new outlook toward the situation, you are likely to play out the folksy definition of insanity. That is, you keep taking the same approach (or some variation of it), while expecting different results.

Gaining Perspective: Recognizing the Pattern

Whenever we are overcome with worry, it’s usually because someone has found a way to push our buttons, intentionally or not. Some people, particularly in families, are particularly adept at pushing our buttons, perhaps because they helped install them. And often we have pushed their buttons, as well. Frequently this becomes a back-and-forth exercise of escalating tensions, one which I have explored extensively in my posts on vicious cycle patterns in relationships.

The Blame Game

One of the factors which perpetuate the struggle is the debate over who started it. This often is a ruse to gain the higher ground of moral righteousness, rather than an attempt to resolve the issue: this not only inflames tensions, but also distracts from finding a healthy resolution. You don’t need to crawl out of a hole in the same place you fell in. When we recognize that in such dramas there are actually no winners, such concerns become insignificant.

Finding Acceptance through Understanding

A loose translation of one of the proverbs in the Tao Te Ching states that when we understand how a system (e.g., a vicious cycle pattern) works, we can have compassion for each and every participant in that pattern – including ourselves. Achieving this understanding on the level of the heart, and not just the head, can go a long way toward liberating us from the worries spawned by such interaction patterns.

Finding the Stillness in the Eye of the Storm

An analogy implicit in the vicious cycle model is that of the vortex, with tornadoes and hurricanes being destructive examples. These natural phenomena offer a hint for staying calm during chaos: the stillness in the eye of the storm. Yet such storms are usually on the move, requiring our constant attention to avoid getting swept by them. When we apply this image to our relationships, we recognize that others who are caught up in the drama often are more than willing to have us join them in the destructive pattern. Yet the real danger of getting sucked into the drama is often internal: our egos frequently draw us into power struggles and cause us to lose sight of our mutual goals. Here, our compassion for all involved in the struggle can help keep us centered and balanced in the midst of the storm.

Extricating Ourselves from Conflict

Here, I find the analogy of Velcro™ helpful. well. In order for Velcro™ to work effectively, one side has the hooks and the other side has the loops. In order for others to hook us, we have to expose our loops: no loops, no snag. We often overlook this simple insight because we focus on our adversaries’ faults (the hooks). And in turn, they hone in on ours vulnerabilities (the loops). By working on healing ourselves, we can free ourselves from the tangle. While this appears rather simple in the Velcro™ analogy, recognizing our loops is a daunting task, one which I have delved into in my posts on vicious cycle patterns (Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 2.0, and Escaping the Victim Role). I would refer you to these articles to explore the particular guidelines of engagement in more practical terms.

Note that I am not advocating withdrawal and avoidance. Often, that is not possible without sacrificing much that is important to us. When we have a stake in the race, we want to know what our adversaries are up to. As the adage goes, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” We need to engage, but we need to avoid getting locked into power struggles that threaten to knock us off-balance.

Self-Exploration and Mindfulness

This self-exploration to resolve interpersonal conflicts causing worry is compatible with relaxation strategies. Thus, I am not renouncing the mindfulness training (or the judicious use of psychiatric medications, for that matter). Indeed, we can use meditation to cultivate the clear-headedness needed to achieve insight into our involvement in these conflicts. Many mindfulness exercises offer a temporary reprieve from worry by focusing attention elsewhere. This often is on current sensory experiences, such as music, nature, or our own breathing. Yet for these exercises to help alleviate conflict, they must be strategic retreats, not avoidance.

Making Peace with Uncertainty

We can expand our view of mindfulness practices to include attention to some unsettling feelings. These might include frustrations and resentments over past interactions or apprehensions about the future – in short, worry. We might observe our minds calling up past events or conjuring up fantasies of future interactions. Yet we resist the pulls that threaten to engulf us in these scenarios. We can note our emotional reactions to these events, real or imagined, whether that might be anger, resentment, guilt, shame, embarrassment, envy, worry, disgust, fear, loathing, etc. Again, we observe our feelings, preferably with compassion for ourselves, yet without allowing ourselves to be consumed by these feelings. We might also step back to recognize how vicious cycles have engulfed others, Furthermore, we realize that they, too, are suffering, regardless of their roles they have assumed.

Letting Go of Unrealistic Expectations

By undertaking these steps, we might transform our worry into an acceptance for how things are. This contrasts with our earlier protestation over how things are not as they are meant to be. When we recognize that reconciliation is unavailable, we may need to grieve. Then, we may realize that it is time to let go of the relationship.

Developing a Plan and a Strategy

Or the acceptance might be more hopeful, if we can envision ourselves as taking a different approach, one that might improve prospects for a constructive resolution, or at least might allow our disentanglement from the vicious cycle pattern.

Rehearsal: Developing Skills

In the latter case, we might go beyond the mindfulness mindset to engage in rehearsal of how we might respond to our anticipated challenges more effectively. We undertake this step, realizing that we lack some interpersonal skills for relating to others. By performing a self-evaluation, we can identify areas requiring further work. These areas may include asserting our positions, asking for what we want and need, setting limits with others, using leverage appropriately, active listening to others’ perspectives, bargaining a compromise, and collaborating. At this point, we can practice and develop these skills.

From Worry to Planning

Here, it may be better to rehearse these positions and develop a strategy, rather than winging it and learning strictly by trial and error. Through these steps, we have the potential to transform debilitating worry into constructive contingency planning, possibly leading to conflict resolution on the practical plane and reconciliation on the deeper personal level. Hopefully, we don’t have to figure this out at 3 AM.

Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationships 1.0

September 15, 2013General and Miscellaneous, Vicious Cycle Patterns in Relationshipscritic, empathy, Games Alcoholics Play, intimacy, judgmentalism, Persecutor - Victim - Rescuer cycle, rebel, rescuer., self-esteem, Steven Karpman, Tidewater Psychotherapy Services, vicious cycles, victimRobert Daniel

The following is an article that I wrote about twenty years ago, yet my message is much the same now, though I have elaborated on it and integrated it with other themes, particularly the explorations of relationships as organic systems, rather than in terms of simple cause-and-effect relationships. The Beetle Bailey comic strip by Mort Walker that I cite is from October 6, 1991, and it continues to be a timeless pattern.

THE CRITIC – VICTIM/REBEL – RESCUER CYCLE

Adapted from the Persecutor-Victim-Rescuer Cycle, by Stephen Karpman, from the book, Games Alcohols Play, by Claude Steiner (1971)

VICIOUS CYCLES IN RELATIONSHIPS

AND TIPS ON HOW TO STOP SPINNING YOUR WHEELS

By Bob Daniel, Ph.D.

Tidewater Psychotherapy Services

How often have you found yourself caught up in a struggle with a spouse, friend, or other significant person, and the harder you try to resolve the problem, the worse the situation becomes? And despite realizing this, you are compelled to keep trying the same approach, only harder? Chances are that your partner in this struggle is experiencing a similar frustration and compulsion, though from a quite different perspective. These features define the basic vicious cycle pattern of interaction.

An example will illustrate this phenomenon. In a “Beetle Bailey” comic strip a while back, General Halftrack’s wife scornfully predicts that he will stop off to have several drinks before returning home after golf. He becomes sullen and indignant at her insinuation of his lack of self-discipline. So how does he cope with his distress? That’s right – he finds solace at his favorite bar. We can further assume that Mrs. Halftrack will continue to address her loneliness by nagging him even more for his drinking and absences. Though each spouse has a legitimate need – the wife’s wish for companionship and the husband’s desire for respect and confidence in him – each is responding in a manner that practically negates those possibilities.

ADDICTION AND CODEPENDENCY

This pattern is one of many profiled in the current literature on addictive and codependent behavior. Whatever the outlet – alcohol, drugs, pornography, gambling, food, compulsive shopping, etc. – the addiction offers the addict an escape from the codependent’s demands and provides an impersonal mode of tension relief. This in turn enables the codependent partner to deflect attention away from his or her own inner pain and to focus on the partner’s addictive behavior. The codependent then typically engages in a campaign of complaining, pleading, bribing, blaming, demanding, threatening, and withholding in order to correct and control the partner’s behavior. As we saw in the case of the Halftracks, this only serves to perpetuate the problem.

CRITIC – VICTIM – RESCUER TRIANGLES

The addiction-codependency pattern is only one version of the vicious cycle. Other cycles may involve a third person, with each participant assuming a specialized role. Such is the case with the critic-victim-rescuer cycle. In this pattern the critic blames and punishes the victim, typically for some inadequacy or weakness. The victim feels hurt, rejected, and fearful. Rather than confront the critic, the victim seeks solace from the rescuer, who identifies with the victim’s pain and assumes a protective posture. The rescuer implicitly condones the victim’s retreat by interceding with the critic for patience and understanding for the victim. A frequent implication of this message is that the critic has been cruel and insensitive. The critic feels rejected and alienated by the victim-rescuer alliance and expresses this by blaming the rescuer for coddling the victim and by again criticizing and punishing the victim at the next instance of weakness, thus starting the cycle over. These interactions serve to accentuate the roles of the participants: critic as punitive outcast, victim as helpless dependent, and rescuer as self-sacrificing martyr. These amplified roles in turn strengthen the vicious cycle.

FAMILY TRIANGLES

Families are perhaps the prevalent setting for this triangular cycle, and families with rigidly defined roles are often the most susceptible. In our culture the father commonly serves as disciplinarian, while the mother often provides protection and support. Rigid adherence to these roles tends to polarize the parents into extreme positions, thereby setting up a critic-victim-rescuer cycle. In this case the father places harsh, unrealistic demands on the child and the mother protects the child from even the normal risks required to develop competence and independence. Another version frequently occurs in alcoholic and chaotic families, wherein one parent victimizes the other. In this case the child attempts to fulfill the rescuer role, sacrificing his or her childhood to assume responsibility prematurely. In severe cases of either variation, escalation to abuse and violence is possible, and imminent risk would require the intervention of authorities for protection. Furthermore, these patterns may persist well into the offspring’s adulthood, with these well-learned roles and interactions available to be played out in other settings – including the next generation’s family.

THE PERSISTENCE OF VICIOUS CYCLES

Given the futility of vicious cycles, we might wonder why people stay in these downward spirals. A basic reason is that the roles and interactions are well-learned from our family backgrounds, and we are apprehensive about trying anything new and unfamiliar. Besides the security of the familiar, there also seems to be an innate human tendency to rework frustrating situations until we get them right. This urge even extends to the choice of one’s spouse. It has been observed that the overly responsible children of alcoholics often end up marrying alcoholics or similarly addicted personalities, even when they consciously try not to. Thus, the partners tend to be well-matched in their complementary roles, which further strengthens the grip of the vicious cycle.

Attempts to give up dysfunctional roles often pose threats to the identity upon which our self-esteem is based. Identity involves who we are not, as well as who we are. Persons living out deeply ingrained roles often view other choices as totally alien: “That’s just not me.” A critic will feel comfortable expressing anger but not hurt, which is taken as a sign of weakness. A victim will show hurt and doubt but not anger, which is seen as bad. A rescuer will show hurt and anger for others, yet view doing so for oneself as selfish. These definitions of self narrow the participants’ options and further lock them into their vicious cycle roles.

FINDING THE WAY OUT

Once you recognize that you are in a vicious cycle, how can you escape it? Actually, recognition is a major step, since stepping back to gain perspective releases you from the tunnel vision that keeps you focused on your partner’s role in the struggle. Reflection usually shows that there is no single culprit responsible for the mess, but that each person plays a part. This tends to counter the good vs. evil thinking that often perpetuates the struggle: participants may blame each other and ignore their own choices, or they may attempt to relieve the distress of guilt, inadequacy, or assigned blame through some addictive or otherwise self-destructive behavior. Gaining the perspective it takes to get yourself into the picture enables you to see the overall problem and to explore new options to resolve it. When both partners in a vicious cycle get an overview of their dilemma, it can lead to an exciting process of mutual discovery.

Even if only one partner were wanting to work on breaking the cycle, simply declining to participate in the vicious cycle in the usual way can help. If Mrs. Halftrack stops complaining, the general might start assuming responsibility for his drinking, since he can no longer blame it on her nagging. Or if he could stop drinking to relieve his distress, she might begin attending to her own loneliness. Note that these are only possibilities, not guarantees. You can influence others, but you cannot control them. The paradox of influence is that it works best when you give up the illusion of control. Thus, the most effective way out of a vicious cycle is to work on changing yourself. Even then, it might not be enough, especially if your partner is deeply committed to his or her role. Then, getting out of the vicious cycle may mean getting out of the relationship.

GETTING HELP

Breaking a vicious cycle can be a truly difficult process, and support and guidance can be critical to its success. If you are prone to vicious cycles, then your self-image will tend to be narrowly defined by your assumed role, with significant aspects of the psyche relegated to the “not me.” Just as you require a mirror to reflect your body image, you come to see your personal self reflected in the eyes of others. Thus, friends outside your vicious cycle can help you discover the disowned aspects of yourself that can help free you from the cycle. Yet they may also become involved in the vicious cycle themselves, often in the rescuer role. This usually just reinforces the narrow view of yourself defined by the vicious cycle. It thus is important to assess their advice and support, rather than simply accepting it on blind faith. Support groups, such as those focused around addictions and codependency, can be quite beneficial, since the members tend to be at various stages of recovery and disengagement from vicious cycles. Psychotherapy can also be quite helpful. While their techniques will vary according to theoretical orientation, therapists have the conceptual tools to support disengagement from vicious cycles. Furthermore, therapists have often undergone extensive training and self-exploration to avoid getting caught up in the vicious cycles themselves in providing therapy.

THE REWARDS: SELF-ESTEEM AND INTIMACY

Escaping the vicious cycles offers the opportunity to expand one’s identity and to establish emotional intimacy with one’s partner. A victim who uses her previously disowned anger to challenge her critics can become self-confident and gain the respect of others. A rescuer who learns to advocate for herself and put her needs first can find greater satisfaction in relationships and discover her intrinsic self-worth. A critic who admits his pain and vulnerability often finds greater acceptance from others, which helps to release him from the pressure of his own self-imposed unrealistic expectations. Additionally, the self-defeating roles themselves can be transformed in healthier modes of relating. A harsh critic who softens his judgmentalism can serve as an instructive mentor, guide or coach. A rescuer who refrains from taking on others’ problems can care for others, rather than take care of them. A victim who assumes responsibility for dealing with his problems can learn from authority figures rather than avoiding them as critics or seeking refuge through them as rescuers. Furthermore, his expression of feelings can serve the self-disclosure required for his partners’ empathy. When partners alternate among these various roles, then mutual support and intimacy become possible. While breaking out of vicious cycle roles is difficult, the rewards of healthy self-esteem and enhanced intimacy are well worth the effort.

Dr. Bob Daniel is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist in private practice with Tidewater Psychotherapy Services in Virginia.

[whohit]vicious cycle patterns in relationships[/whohit]

Wants and Needs vs. Shoulds

August 18, 2013General and MiscellaneousRobert Daniel

There’s nothing quite as effective as obligating yourself to something for turning play into work, especially if you put a schedule or a deadline to it. I found that out quite early in my blogging career, with my setting a goal of posting a blog each weekend. Here it is Weekend Two, with my having plenty of ideas in mind, as demonstrated by my Preview of Coming Attractions: Blogs under Construction, and yet I am obsessing about what to put out. Of course, having difficulty finding and retrieving past files and navigating HTML and the blogging platform doesn’t make it any easier. Still, I am left with the question as to why it is so easy to change something that I want to do into something that I have to do. When I make something a “should,” I am externalizing the control, with my responding to what I perceive as an external demand, even if it did originate with me. And with my being somewhat of a rogue, and therefore closer to the individuality pole of the individuality – belonging continuum, I tend to resist this force, even if it is largely internalized. (This pattern will be addressed in more detail in my upcoming blog regarding the critic – victim/rebel vicious cycle pattern.) When I stopped to realize just what was going on, this gave me a sense of liberation, since I now recognize what I was dealing with. (By the way, I owe a debt of gratitude to Hugh Livingstone, the sculptor in The Eskimo Who Lost His Art and Soul, who experienced with a similar struggle with his sudden fame.) So, part of my resolution is to use this struggle as fodder for my blog, following the adage, “If life gives you a bowl of lemons, learn to make lemonade.”

Still, this does not present a broader answer to the dilemma of living in the shadow of the “should”s. In exploring this issue, I am recognizing that the answer is not simply a clear-cut matter of authenticity, or “being true to oneself.” If I want to communicate with others, I must speak in a language that they understand and I must establish some predictability in order for others to come find my messages. These involve at least two different polarities, that of “being there for myself” versus “being there for others,” and that of order versus freedom. These both involve paradoxes, as empirical data and logic will not tell me just exactly where I “should” be on either of these continua. This realization brings with it a certain freedom, and yet a certain responsibility, as well.

If I am to reach other people in a meaningful way, I must be willing to sacrifice a certain degree of my “being there for myself,” or selfishness, as well as a certain degree of my freedom. If I were to make such sacrifices out a sense of duty or obligation, I would likely view these constraints as an encroachment on my liberty. I would then feel rather oppressed, or perhaps repressed, if I were not aware of these forces. If, on the other hand, I were to make the sacrifices out of a sense of love or caring for others, I would more likely experience compassion, rather than resentment. Then, these concessions of my “egocentric imperative” (i.e., having everything on my terms) for the greater cause of sharing would still be authentic, as it would express a genuine “being there for others.” Then, I would still be doing what I want, rather than what I think I should be doing.

Another factor in the oppressiveness of “should”s has to do with our living up to certain expectations, which are also frequently experienced as external, even if they originate within ourselves. This is where we can be our own worst critics. I am not going to make specific recommendations in this blog post as to how to deal with this predicament; rather, I will point you to my story of The Man with a Monkey on His Back.

In reviewing this blog post, I recognize that I am utilizing my perspective on the paradoxical nature of the human condition without having previously laid the conceptual groundwork. While this shortcoming may impose some limits on your understanding of this entry, it provides a concrete example of this process being played out in real-time, as I am composing the blog post. Hopefully, it will also stimulate your curiosity to pursue these issues in more depth in the coming weeks and months. I also invite you to share your own examples of such dilemmas, yet with a caution that I may post your comments on my website, unless you request otherwise.

[whohit]wants & needs vs. shoulds[/whohit]

Golden Rule Variants for Self-care

Selfish and Selfless

Being Generous to a Fault

Fostering Entitlement

“Killing with Kindness”

Striking a Balance between Polar Opposites

The Two Inverse Variants of the Golden Rule

“Do unto Ourselves as We Do unto Others”

“Allow Others to Do for Us as We Would Do for Them”

Reluctance to Accepting Support

Receiving Compliments

Motivation Matters

The Golden Rule Applied to Conflict

Exercising Accountability

Calling Out Ourselves

Holding Ourselves Accountable for our Actions

Being Called Out by Others

Receiving Constructive Feedback

Constructive Feedback, or Judgment and Blame?

Summary and Recommendations

Share this:

Like this:

Fantasies of Chaos in America

Subduing the Nightmare

Mourning in America

A Prelude to the Nightmare of Trump‘s America

Trump – Type-Cast for the Role of Demagogue

Any Chance for Redemption?

A Silver Lining

A Call to Arms (Figuratively Speaking)

Share this:

Like this:

The Mirror as a Symbol of Self-reflection

Conducting our own Experiment

What’s Your Take?

An Invitation to Participate

Share this:

Like this:

What Does It Mean?

Intrinsic Self-Esteem

Conditional Self-Esteem

In Praise of Intrinsic Self-Esteem

Putting Conditional Self-Esteem in Perspective

Summary

Recommendations

Benefits of Updating the Slogan

A Caveat

Share this:

Like this:

The Retreat

The Review

The Reckoning

Abbot Costello reflected upon this, only commenting, “Interesting.”

Abbot Costello considered this, then commented, “Interesting.”

Abbot Costello pondered this, then commented, “Interesting.”

Abbot Costello thought about this, then commented, “Interesting.”

Abbot Costello contemplated on this, then commented, “Interesting.”

Abbot Costello meditated on this, then commented, along with the chorus of the other brothers, “Interesting.”

The Issue of Darkness

Share this:

Like this:

Pareidolia and Psychological Projective Assessment

Use of Pareidolia in the Clinical Case Study

Use of Pareidolia in the Experimental Research Design

Objective Personality Assessment

Inkblots as a Trigger for Pareidolia

An Alternative Approach to Inkblot Interpretation

Rediscovering the Subjectivity of Experience

Share this:

Like this:

Feedback from the Group Leader

The Group Leader and Confidentiality

Feedback to and from Group Members

Confidentiality among Group Members

Summary of Benefits of Group Therapy

Share this:

Like this:

Possible Quick Fixes

Gaining Perspective: Recognizing the Pattern

The Blame Game