How To Be LESS Assertive
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist for
twenty-five years, I deal with the same eight conditions
over and over. The most common is anxiety but the other
seven are sometimes equally problematic.
(The other seven are mood problems, children's behaviors,
ADHD and/or learning disorders, relationships issues,
low self-esteem, poor quality relationships and lack of
assertiveness).
The last issue, assertiveness, is very frequently
seen in my office, and the lack of assertiveness
undermines success in almost all the other areas mentioned
above. Usually, I try to describe ways to increase
assertiveness. This is the normal approach to a clinical
issue. But a lot of people do not read articles because
they figure they already know how to do this. Then, they
fail to "do" the things listed. I've found that some
people better respond to a negative approach. In other
words, a lot of people respond to a "backwards" description
of an issue. Paradoxically, the message often "goes in"
when delivered in this way. So, here are some things we
can do to NOT be assertive.
One way to be less assertive is to start out life
being shy. This is not a pathological condition, just a
temperamental orientation. Shyness causes kids to sit in
the back of the class, to not speak up, to avoid being in the
spotlight. It also negatively correlates with what
assertiveness demands; namely, the opposite of these three
(and other) behaviors. Shyness can be overcome, so
apparently it is not so "hard wired," but it can be difficult,
especially if early family experiences reinforce it.
Another way to be less assertive is to learn to hold
in feelings. Many families practice the old Biblical adage,
"Turn the other cheek," or in more modern parlance,
"If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
These ideas sometimes have their place, like when talking to
authority. However, largely these orientations are
psychologically unhealthy. Holding in feelings, again,
is the exact opposite of what assertiveness entails.
Assertive people speak up or at least share their experiences
out loud. Then, usually following this (but not always),
assertive people ask for what they want. The single most
effective way to boost assertiveness by about fifty percent
is to articulate our feelings. That means use a feeling word
in a sentence out loud and use it to describe what we feel and
then ask for what we want. Using the feeling word is the key
that makes the biggest difference. So, if we don't want to be
assertive, don't use feeling words, don't speak to them and
don't ask for what we want.
Another way to be less assertive is to be aggressive.
Aggression is behavior that is harmful to others, either verbal
or physical. If we want to not be assertive, call someone a
name or hit him or her. Easy. The consequences will
certainly be different than when being assertive, but this is
probably the quickest way of avoiding assertiveness.
Another way of doing something other than being assertive
is to de-focus. This could be altering awareness. Sleeping,
running away, doing drugs, engaging in non-verbal activities
like sports (especially extreme sports) come to mind. If we
alter our mindset, the usual verbal (and other) behaviors become
unusual in the new set of mind. For example, let's say I don't
want to express my feelings and I do want to avoid them.
If I use drugs, I change (sometimes obliterate) my awareness of
the normal way of being, and will start behaving differently,
depending upon which drug I use. Different drugs cause
different reactions, but most of them cause alterations of
awareness that are incompatible with assertiveness.
(Some people argue that some drugs make it easier to express
feelings. This is true, but that doesn't mean assertiveness
will follow. When drugs are used to "loosen" one's tongue,
judgment usually becomes proportionally impaired.)
I might speak up more with certain drugs but probably my
ability to be assertive will decrease. Conversely, many drugs
cause withdrawal, which is obviously the opposite of speaking up.
For more on assertiveness and how to learn it easily, see
the author's ebook on this subject.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page3.html
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Anxiety vs. Paranoia
Anxiety vs. Paranoia
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist I deal with
eight issues everyday. They range from addictions, to child
problems, to ADHD, learning disabilities, self-esteem, lack of
assertiveness, relationships, depression and anxiety.
This last one comes in many "flavors" ranging from mild to severe
symptoms. Anxiety also has many manifestations, ranging from mild
but chronic worry to panic attacks. The more severe versions of
anxiety are panic, phobias or posttraumatic stress disorders.
Many people have severe anxiety, which also shares some
components of paranoia. Paranoia is an irrational fear of
something when that something is not real. For example, when
driving down a street, I might think there is a police office
lurking just around the corner, waiting to give me a ticket.
When I approach the intersection, I see there is no police officer,
so my fear is allayed. Right? Not if I'm paranoid. If I'm
paranoid, I think I just miscalculated and that the police officer
is just around the "next" corner. When I get to that intersection
and again find no police officer, I just extend the thinking to the
next intersection beyond that, then the next one after that one.
What distinguishes paranoia is that no matter what is the fact, my
thinking doesn't change. The technical definition of paranoia is a
fixed pattern of thinking that does not respond to reality
(paraphrased). What makes me "just anxious" is when I think there
is a police officer just around the corner because I saw one there
yesterday, and yes, sure enough, there s/he is again, today.
I still fear the ticket I might get for speeding, but it is for a
good reason.
The reason anxiety and paranoia overlap, clinically, is because
of the dynamics that create both. Both are founded upon highly
suppressed, even repressed feelings. The greater the suppression,
the greater the anxiety. The more anger that is suppressed, the
more likely paranoia will start to surface, even if anxiety is the
primary disorder.
Anxiety disorder differ from paranoia is matter of degree and
dynamics as they unfold later in the development of the syndromes.
Anxiety can start any time, with any suppression of feelings or with
any perception of an event that will not be able to be controlled.
Same with paranoia, except that with paranoia, there needs to be a
higher level of suppression, in this case more likely repression, and
at the same time, there needs to be more anger involved. This is
because one of the main dynamics of paranoia is projection, which is
a defense that involves putting onto someone else the very things one
cannot deal with themselves. Rage is the usual culprit in paranoia,
which is the extreme form of anger, in this case projected outwards.
The police may be after drivers to give them tickets, which raises
my anxiety because I cannot control government officials very well.
But being paranoid about the police hiding around every intersection
speaks to my very bit angry feelings (probably hate, rage, etc.) at
police, that I cannot otherwise negotiate; hence the projection that
to do something to them.
Both syndromes involve anxiety, and both require excavation of
deeper feelings to resolve. Paranoia can also go one step
further-psychosis. Anxiety disorder suffers rarely suffer psychosis,
which is that state of being out of touch with reality. Paranoia
suffers do sometimes have psychotic breaks, and this often is the result
of organic causes. Sometimes this is genetic and sometimes this is the
result of environmental causes, like brain injury, brain tumors,
excessive drug use, etc.
Accordingly, when the symptoms of either syndrome become too intense,
usually medication is indicated. With anxiety disorders, minor
tranquilizers are often given (benzodiazapines) or antidepressants with
an anti-anxiety element (SSRI's). With paranoia-disorder, often the
medication of choice is an anti-psychotic, which works to "clean up" the
thinking, which then secondarily reduces anxiety.
For more on diagnosing your own anxiety, see the ebook on this subject by this author.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page2.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist I deal with
eight issues everyday. They range from addictions, to child
problems, to ADHD, learning disabilities, self-esteem, lack of
assertiveness, relationships, depression and anxiety.
This last one comes in many "flavors" ranging from mild to severe
symptoms. Anxiety also has many manifestations, ranging from mild
but chronic worry to panic attacks. The more severe versions of
anxiety are panic, phobias or posttraumatic stress disorders.
Many people have severe anxiety, which also shares some
components of paranoia. Paranoia is an irrational fear of
something when that something is not real. For example, when
driving down a street, I might think there is a police office
lurking just around the corner, waiting to give me a ticket.
When I approach the intersection, I see there is no police officer,
so my fear is allayed. Right? Not if I'm paranoid. If I'm
paranoid, I think I just miscalculated and that the police officer
is just around the "next" corner. When I get to that intersection
and again find no police officer, I just extend the thinking to the
next intersection beyond that, then the next one after that one.
What distinguishes paranoia is that no matter what is the fact, my
thinking doesn't change. The technical definition of paranoia is a
fixed pattern of thinking that does not respond to reality
(paraphrased). What makes me "just anxious" is when I think there
is a police officer just around the corner because I saw one there
yesterday, and yes, sure enough, there s/he is again, today.
I still fear the ticket I might get for speeding, but it is for a
good reason.
The reason anxiety and paranoia overlap, clinically, is because
of the dynamics that create both. Both are founded upon highly
suppressed, even repressed feelings. The greater the suppression,
the greater the anxiety. The more anger that is suppressed, the
more likely paranoia will start to surface, even if anxiety is the
primary disorder.
Anxiety disorder differ from paranoia is matter of degree and
dynamics as they unfold later in the development of the syndromes.
Anxiety can start any time, with any suppression of feelings or with
any perception of an event that will not be able to be controlled.
Same with paranoia, except that with paranoia, there needs to be a
higher level of suppression, in this case more likely repression, and
at the same time, there needs to be more anger involved. This is
because one of the main dynamics of paranoia is projection, which is
a defense that involves putting onto someone else the very things one
cannot deal with themselves. Rage is the usual culprit in paranoia,
which is the extreme form of anger, in this case projected outwards.
The police may be after drivers to give them tickets, which raises
my anxiety because I cannot control government officials very well.
But being paranoid about the police hiding around every intersection
speaks to my very bit angry feelings (probably hate, rage, etc.) at
police, that I cannot otherwise negotiate; hence the projection that
to do something to them.
Both syndromes involve anxiety, and both require excavation of
deeper feelings to resolve. Paranoia can also go one step
further-psychosis. Anxiety disorder suffers rarely suffer psychosis,
which is that state of being out of touch with reality. Paranoia
suffers do sometimes have psychotic breaks, and this often is the result
of organic causes. Sometimes this is genetic and sometimes this is the
result of environmental causes, like brain injury, brain tumors,
excessive drug use, etc.
Accordingly, when the symptoms of either syndrome become too intense,
usually medication is indicated. With anxiety disorders, minor
tranquilizers are often given (benzodiazapines) or antidepressants with
an anti-anxiety element (SSRI's). With paranoia-disorder, often the
medication of choice is an anti-psychotic, which works to "clean up" the
thinking, which then secondarily reduces anxiety.
For more on diagnosing your own anxiety, see the ebook on this subject by this author.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page2.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
Top Ten Ways to Make Your Anxiety Worse
Top Ten Ways to Make Your Anxiety Worse
In my capacity as an outpatient psyc
hologist for twenty-five years, I deal with the same eight conditions
over and over. The eighth and most common are anxiety disorders.
(The other seven are mood problems, children's behaviors,
ADHD and/or learning disorders, relationships issues,
low self-esteem, poor assertiveness and relationships).
Anxiety comes in many flavors. I classify anxiety
experiences into seven categories, the mildest being what I
call the worrisome personality (aka, the "grandmother syndrome"
characterized by light but chronic fretting). The worst
category is obsessive-compulsive disorder. In between are
things like generalized anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder
with anxiety, panic attacks, phobias and posttraumatic stress
disorder. In reality, just about any of the categories can
be the "worst" if the symptoms are severe.
In treating anxiety disorders, I've discovered that many
clients do things that make their conditions worse. I thought
it might be instructive to list them, even if in a tongue-in-cheek
style. Usually clients come to the office and present as being
very sincere, describing lots of anxiety symptoms. Most clients
want immediate relief from their symptoms and will do anything
do escape the pain of anxiety. However, unwittingly, many people
do a lot of other things that make their condition worse.
For reasons not altogether clear, clients shoot themselves in
the foot. Here are some of what they do.
#1: Use drugs. Drugs of any kind, prescription or otherwise,
including alcohol, nicotine or caffeine in any form. Should you
stop using drugs? Well, not if they are prescription. Consult
your doctor. However, make sure your doctor knows if anxiety is a
side effect of the drug(s) you are taking. Many doctors minimize
this or just plain don't know. Some drug interactions also cause
anxiety, even if individually they do not.
Should you stop drinking, smoking pot, or taking other
non-prescription drugs? Probably. None of these is good for you
even though their use is rampant at all levels of the population.
Virtually all of the non-prescription substances have the strong
potential of increasing anxiety, either during the active phase of
using, or afterwards (come down or rebound).
#2: De-compensate with sex. This is using too much of a good
thing, which usually spoils the good thing or develops a dependency.
#3: Change relationships. There are two areas in life that
change people the most--relationships and employment. Change either
and big psychological changes follow. While there are many times
when a change is indicated, make such a change with caution,
especially if you suffer from an anxiety disorder.
#4: Change jobs. See number three.
#5: Re-locate. Moving is an underrated stressor. On a scale
of ten, most people rate moving as a three or four. Wrong. The
farther you move, the higher up is moving on the scale. For most
people, moving is around a seven. Anything above four is annoying.
Anything above five is usually clinically significant.
#6: Withdraw and/or quit everything. The last thing you want
to do is abandon or separate from your support group. That is
usually friends, but can psychologically include hobbies or other
comfort activities.
#7: Ignore medical conditions: Hyperthyroidism is a common
underlying medical condition underlying anxiety. Why? Because it
drives the metabolism into higher gears, which produce symptoms that
look like anxiety (tachycardia, sweating, weight loss, etc.).
Allergies cause anxiety in half the sufferers. These are two of a
zillion possible medical conditions. If you have an anxiety disorder,
first consult your physician and eliminate the physical causes.
#8: Stop exercising. Exercising is probably the best physical
remedy for anxiety. Of course, when anxious, many people want to
sleep more, because anxiety burns energy, which causes fatigue.
The logic is rest remedies fatigue. True, unless exercise does it
better. This is counterintuitive, but true.
#9: Change your diet. A lot of people go straight to the junk
food when they feel anxious. Food changes our moods (increases blood
sugars, raises endorphins), and the sugar and fats seem to do that the
fastest or longest, respectively. Unfortunately, the effects are
very short-lived and usually negative with respect to anxiety.
If we binge, we feel guilty afterwards (another form of anxiety),
usually gain weight, then have to de-compensate in other ways to lower
this new anxiety (see numbers one, two, six, seven and eight, above).
Plus, anxiety-based eating usually ups our intake of preservatives,
food colorings and other wonderful ingredients.
#10: Changing sleep habits. Don't. Sleep may be the biggest
factor in regulating moods, which are first cousins to anxiety.
Normalize sleep as fast as you can, preferably without drugs
(see your M.D. if you really need to, but...).
Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page2.html
In my capacity as an outpatient psyc
hologist for twenty-five years, I deal with the same eight conditions
over and over. The eighth and most common are anxiety disorders.
(The other seven are mood problems, children's behaviors,
ADHD and/or learning disorders, relationships issues,
low self-esteem, poor assertiveness and relationships).
Anxiety comes in many flavors. I classify anxiety
experiences into seven categories, the mildest being what I
call the worrisome personality (aka, the "grandmother syndrome"
characterized by light but chronic fretting). The worst
category is obsessive-compulsive disorder. In between are
things like generalized anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder
with anxiety, panic attacks, phobias and posttraumatic stress
disorder. In reality, just about any of the categories can
be the "worst" if the symptoms are severe.
In treating anxiety disorders, I've discovered that many
clients do things that make their conditions worse. I thought
it might be instructive to list them, even if in a tongue-in-cheek
style. Usually clients come to the office and present as being
very sincere, describing lots of anxiety symptoms. Most clients
want immediate relief from their symptoms and will do anything
do escape the pain of anxiety. However, unwittingly, many people
do a lot of other things that make their condition worse.
For reasons not altogether clear, clients shoot themselves in
the foot. Here are some of what they do.
#1: Use drugs. Drugs of any kind, prescription or otherwise,
including alcohol, nicotine or caffeine in any form. Should you
stop using drugs? Well, not if they are prescription. Consult
your doctor. However, make sure your doctor knows if anxiety is a
side effect of the drug(s) you are taking. Many doctors minimize
this or just plain don't know. Some drug interactions also cause
anxiety, even if individually they do not.
Should you stop drinking, smoking pot, or taking other
non-prescription drugs? Probably. None of these is good for you
even though their use is rampant at all levels of the population.
Virtually all of the non-prescription substances have the strong
potential of increasing anxiety, either during the active phase of
using, or afterwards (come down or rebound).
#2: De-compensate with sex. This is using too much of a good
thing, which usually spoils the good thing or develops a dependency.
#3: Change relationships. There are two areas in life that
change people the most--relationships and employment. Change either
and big psychological changes follow. While there are many times
when a change is indicated, make such a change with caution,
especially if you suffer from an anxiety disorder.
#4: Change jobs. See number three.
#5: Re-locate. Moving is an underrated stressor. On a scale
of ten, most people rate moving as a three or four. Wrong. The
farther you move, the higher up is moving on the scale. For most
people, moving is around a seven. Anything above four is annoying.
Anything above five is usually clinically significant.
#6: Withdraw and/or quit everything. The last thing you want
to do is abandon or separate from your support group. That is
usually friends, but can psychologically include hobbies or other
comfort activities.
#7: Ignore medical conditions: Hyperthyroidism is a common
underlying medical condition underlying anxiety. Why? Because it
drives the metabolism into higher gears, which produce symptoms that
look like anxiety (tachycardia, sweating, weight loss, etc.).
Allergies cause anxiety in half the sufferers. These are two of a
zillion possible medical conditions. If you have an anxiety disorder,
first consult your physician and eliminate the physical causes.
#8: Stop exercising. Exercising is probably the best physical
remedy for anxiety. Of course, when anxious, many people want to
sleep more, because anxiety burns energy, which causes fatigue.
The logic is rest remedies fatigue. True, unless exercise does it
better. This is counterintuitive, but true.
#9: Change your diet. A lot of people go straight to the junk
food when they feel anxious. Food changes our moods (increases blood
sugars, raises endorphins), and the sugar and fats seem to do that the
fastest or longest, respectively. Unfortunately, the effects are
very short-lived and usually negative with respect to anxiety.
If we binge, we feel guilty afterwards (another form of anxiety),
usually gain weight, then have to de-compensate in other ways to lower
this new anxiety (see numbers one, two, six, seven and eight, above).
Plus, anxiety-based eating usually ups our intake of preservatives,
food colorings and other wonderful ingredients.
#10: Changing sleep habits. Don't. Sleep may be the biggest
factor in regulating moods, which are first cousins to anxiety.
Normalize sleep as fast as you can, preferably without drugs
(see your M.D. if you really need to, but...).
Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page2.html
What To Do For Your Kids After The Divorce..., Part V
What To Do For Your Kids After The Divorce..., Part V
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have
worked with children of all ages for over twenty years.
Usually parents drag their kids into my office complaining
of a litany of bad behaviors, ranging from not cleaning up
their rooms, to getting bad grades, hitting their siblings,
or worse, stealing, fighting or doing drugs. I work with
parents to change their children's behavior. It is very
helpful for the parents to know their children's experiences.
This is the last article in a series of five. It focuses
on some of the more salient issues during visitations
following a divorce, and how the parents can make these
concerns easier to manage. Please read the previous four
articles in this series before reading this one.
Barring abuse or death in the family, the separation
of the parents is probably THE single, biggest trauma your
child has experienced to date. To compensate and to comply
with Family Law, usually kids are ordered to visit each parents,
then subsequently shuffled back and forth between each parent's
home. As discussed in the previous four articles, this
presents your child with some unique and very trying challenges.
Younger children do not like being separated from either
parent, so their visits with each parent will be shorter,
accommodating their need to more quickly re-unify with the
parent they just left. As children age, they can tolerate
separation from one parent longer, thus the visits with each
becomes more extended. Older children, from about age
thirteen on usually do not enjoy being uprooted from their
friends, no matter which parent they are visiting.
To help your child tolerate the separation, try giving
them "open phone" privileges. This simply means they can
call the other parent at certain times of the day, or maybe
at any time of day to "touch base," "check in" or whatever.
This reassures your child that the other parent is still in
the picture and diminishes your child's anxiety about
separation. In case it is not obvious, the more anxiety your
child has or the more the divorce itself remains an unresolved
psychological issue for all parties, the more likely your child
will sooner or later act out or have other mental health
symptoms (anxiety disorders, depression, dependence problems,
etc.).
It is very, very important to have the same rules in both
houses. In reality, this is never the case--but try to create
this experience as much as possible. This suggests that the
divorced parents will try to work together, which also almost
never happens. After all, as separated parents, the last thing
we usually want to do is work with our "ex." But the irony is
that under this kind of stress, your child, more than ever,
needs the parents to work together to help her or him cope with
the divorce, separation and the usually big changes that follow.
It is a very real tragedy that at this time parents are the
least likely to work together when your child most needs them to
do just that.
One thing parents can do is to initiate post-divorce
counseling, to address this situation and the very clear and now
more intense needs of the child. The younger the child, the
more this is needed when it comes to setting rewards and other
structure in the home(s). Older children, especially teens,
will respond less well to such structure, but there is still a
very strong need to deal with acting out, as teens are more
capable of creating havoc than very young children. In all
cases, it is best for the child to have some continuity
(sameness) between homes. With very young children, there
should be a system of rewards and prizes that is the same
between households. This almost never happens, but
occasionally two separated parents actually put their
differences aside and work together in this limited way.
After all, they may be separated but the now separated adults
will always be the parents of their common children. Divorced
parents have a hard time with this concept, but it is reality.
If this is one of the stumbling blocks to working together,
then the best thing either parent can do for the child is to
get his or her own individual therapy. It is very important
to put the needs of the child first.
This is the last of five articles that summarizes some of
the more important points to remember when divorcing and then
dealing with children after the divorce. For more in-depth
ways to structure and change children's behaviors in any
situation, but especially in difficult ones, see the author's
ebook on How To Change Children's Behavior (Quickly).
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page15.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have
worked with children of all ages for over twenty years.
Usually parents drag their kids into my office complaining
of a litany of bad behaviors, ranging from not cleaning up
their rooms, to getting bad grades, hitting their siblings,
or worse, stealing, fighting or doing drugs. I work with
parents to change their children's behavior. It is very
helpful for the parents to know their children's experiences.
This is the last article in a series of five. It focuses
on some of the more salient issues during visitations
following a divorce, and how the parents can make these
concerns easier to manage. Please read the previous four
articles in this series before reading this one.
Barring abuse or death in the family, the separation
of the parents is probably THE single, biggest trauma your
child has experienced to date. To compensate and to comply
with Family Law, usually kids are ordered to visit each parents,
then subsequently shuffled back and forth between each parent's
home. As discussed in the previous four articles, this
presents your child with some unique and very trying challenges.
Younger children do not like being separated from either
parent, so their visits with each parent will be shorter,
accommodating their need to more quickly re-unify with the
parent they just left. As children age, they can tolerate
separation from one parent longer, thus the visits with each
becomes more extended. Older children, from about age
thirteen on usually do not enjoy being uprooted from their
friends, no matter which parent they are visiting.
To help your child tolerate the separation, try giving
them "open phone" privileges. This simply means they can
call the other parent at certain times of the day, or maybe
at any time of day to "touch base," "check in" or whatever.
This reassures your child that the other parent is still in
the picture and diminishes your child's anxiety about
separation. In case it is not obvious, the more anxiety your
child has or the more the divorce itself remains an unresolved
psychological issue for all parties, the more likely your child
will sooner or later act out or have other mental health
symptoms (anxiety disorders, depression, dependence problems,
etc.).
It is very, very important to have the same rules in both
houses. In reality, this is never the case--but try to create
this experience as much as possible. This suggests that the
divorced parents will try to work together, which also almost
never happens. After all, as separated parents, the last thing
we usually want to do is work with our "ex." But the irony is
that under this kind of stress, your child, more than ever,
needs the parents to work together to help her or him cope with
the divorce, separation and the usually big changes that follow.
It is a very real tragedy that at this time parents are the
least likely to work together when your child most needs them to
do just that.
One thing parents can do is to initiate post-divorce
counseling, to address this situation and the very clear and now
more intense needs of the child. The younger the child, the
more this is needed when it comes to setting rewards and other
structure in the home(s). Older children, especially teens,
will respond less well to such structure, but there is still a
very strong need to deal with acting out, as teens are more
capable of creating havoc than very young children. In all
cases, it is best for the child to have some continuity
(sameness) between homes. With very young children, there
should be a system of rewards and prizes that is the same
between households. This almost never happens, but
occasionally two separated parents actually put their
differences aside and work together in this limited way.
After all, they may be separated but the now separated adults
will always be the parents of their common children. Divorced
parents have a hard time with this concept, but it is reality.
If this is one of the stumbling blocks to working together,
then the best thing either parent can do for the child is to
get his or her own individual therapy. It is very important
to put the needs of the child first.
This is the last of five articles that summarizes some of
the more important points to remember when divorcing and then
dealing with children after the divorce. For more in-depth
ways to structure and change children's behaviors in any
situation, but especially in difficult ones, see the author's
ebook on How To Change Children's Behavior (Quickly).
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page15.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
What To Do For Your Kids After The Divorce..., Part IV
What To Do For Your Kids After The Divorce..., Part IV
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have
worked with children of all ages for over twenty years.
Usually parents drag their kids into my office complaining
of a litany of bad behaviors, ranging from not cleaning up
their rooms, to getting bad grades, hitting their siblings,
or worse, stealing, fighting or doing drugs. I work with
parents to change their children's behavior. It is very
helpful for the parents to know their children's experiences.
This article addresses what the child experiences just before,
and then during visitation. Please read the previous three
articles in this series before reading this one.
Pre-visit jitters is my term for what the child
experiences just as s/he is about to leave one parent to visit
the other. There is the mourning or loss of leaving what has
become comfortable; that is, the child is familiar with the
routines in the house s/he is about to leave. Why would the
child want to change this and go to some "other" house where the
routines are not the same? The child becomes anxious and usually
becomes more difficult to control. This is especially true when
the child is younger (under six). Usually the child experiences
anxiety, which in younger children is usually acted out.
Signs of this are increased motor behavior in all areas,
culminating in doing one or more things that "test" parents.
The testing is often secondary to the real aim of the behavior,
which is to discharge uncomfortable impulses. The parent has to
"clamp down" just a little more to get the child to "get ready" to
visit (the other parents), which often spoils the tone of either visit.
The child final is ready and exits the first parent's house,
usually driving to other parent's place. In hostile divorce cases,
the drop off point is often a neutral place. In my geographic region,
this is the McDonald's parking lot. Often the receiving parent uses
this opportunity to feed the child while letting them run off this
"extra energy" at the McDonalds playground. The first parent exits
as the child now expresses the tension of the transition to the receiving
parent. This is unfortunate because it is not necessarily the fault
of the receiving parent that the child feels anxious, and then acts out
on them. However, as the saying goes, "The planet closest to the sun
takes the most heat."
Sooner or later, the child will calm down and the receiving parent
will taxi the child to the "other" home for some period. The child will
feel some anxiety entering this "new" environment, even though the
receiving parent is familiar to the child, and even though after many such
exchanges, the routine and changes will also be more familiar. Again, the
younger the child, the more prolonged and difficult the emotional reaction
can be. It is also worthwhile to note, that this same pattern can also be
very difficult with teenagers. Teenagers have friends and like to
"hang out" more with them than with parents. This becomes very evident at
age 13 and is completely normal. Changing venues can be disruptive to
social activities, so teen resistance to going to the other parent's house
can be formidable. Because teenagers can act out in more ways than
toddlers or slightly older children, their resistance can take the form of
sometimes-aggressive behavior. In either the case of the younger child or
teens, the approach to dealing with this transition phenomena is the same;
namely, sit down with the child and ask them to describe every feeling they
have, using words, not acting out. With younger kids, we first have to
teach them a vocabulary of their feelings. With older kids, we first have
to teach them how to behave so that that the parents will listen first,
punish second.
The last in this series of five articles will deal with the issues that frequently arise during the visits.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page15.html
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have
worked with children of all ages for over twenty years.
Usually parents drag their kids into my office complaining
of a litany of bad behaviors, ranging from not cleaning up
their rooms, to getting bad grades, hitting their siblings,
or worse, stealing, fighting or doing drugs. I work with
parents to change their children's behavior. It is very
helpful for the parents to know their children's experiences.
This article addresses what the child experiences just before,
and then during visitation. Please read the previous three
articles in this series before reading this one.
Pre-visit jitters is my term for what the child
experiences just as s/he is about to leave one parent to visit
the other. There is the mourning or loss of leaving what has
become comfortable; that is, the child is familiar with the
routines in the house s/he is about to leave. Why would the
child want to change this and go to some "other" house where the
routines are not the same? The child becomes anxious and usually
becomes more difficult to control. This is especially true when
the child is younger (under six). Usually the child experiences
anxiety, which in younger children is usually acted out.
Signs of this are increased motor behavior in all areas,
culminating in doing one or more things that "test" parents.
The testing is often secondary to the real aim of the behavior,
which is to discharge uncomfortable impulses. The parent has to
"clamp down" just a little more to get the child to "get ready" to
visit (the other parents), which often spoils the tone of either visit.
The child final is ready and exits the first parent's house,
usually driving to other parent's place. In hostile divorce cases,
the drop off point is often a neutral place. In my geographic region,
this is the McDonald's parking lot. Often the receiving parent uses
this opportunity to feed the child while letting them run off this
"extra energy" at the McDonalds playground. The first parent exits
as the child now expresses the tension of the transition to the receiving
parent. This is unfortunate because it is not necessarily the fault
of the receiving parent that the child feels anxious, and then acts out
on them. However, as the saying goes, "The planet closest to the sun
takes the most heat."
Sooner or later, the child will calm down and the receiving parent
will taxi the child to the "other" home for some period. The child will
feel some anxiety entering this "new" environment, even though the
receiving parent is familiar to the child, and even though after many such
exchanges, the routine and changes will also be more familiar. Again, the
younger the child, the more prolonged and difficult the emotional reaction
can be. It is also worthwhile to note, that this same pattern can also be
very difficult with teenagers. Teenagers have friends and like to
"hang out" more with them than with parents. This becomes very evident at
age 13 and is completely normal. Changing venues can be disruptive to
social activities, so teen resistance to going to the other parent's house
can be formidable. Because teenagers can act out in more ways than
toddlers or slightly older children, their resistance can take the form of
sometimes-aggressive behavior. In either the case of the younger child or
teens, the approach to dealing with this transition phenomena is the same;
namely, sit down with the child and ask them to describe every feeling they
have, using words, not acting out. With younger kids, we first have to
teach them a vocabulary of their feelings. With older kids, we first have
to teach them how to behave so that that the parents will listen first,
punish second.
The last in this series of five articles will deal with the issues that frequently arise during the visits.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page15.html
What To Do For Your Kids After The Divorce..., Part III
What To Do For Your Kids After The Divorce..., Part III
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have
worked with children of all ages for over twenty years.
Usually parents drag their kids into my office complaining
of a litany of bad behaviors, ranging from not cleaning up
their rooms, to getting bad grades, hitting their siblings,
or worse, stealing, fighting or doing drugs. I work with
parents to change their children's behavior. It is very
helpful for the parents to know their children's experiences.
This and the next article address what the child thinks about
the divorce and how s/he behaves during visitation. Please
read the previous two articles in this series before reading
this one.
After the divorce, kids experience a situation that is,
to them, very strange. Usually, one parent moves out, so in
order to "visit" with this parent, the child has to leave one
place and travel to another. The whole idea of visiting a
parent with whom the child probably lived with for a long time
is very awkward. "Why is Mommy/Daddy not in the same place
as always?" "What do you mean, visit? Visiting is what you
do with aunts and uncles." Why do we have to leave where we
are to see someone we already know?" These are questions I
often hear as a child psychologist. Kids are bewildered.
And, they have very negative feelings associated with a lot of
these questions.
The first big feeling is loss, followed by fear (or more
than the usual levels of anxiety), anger and frequently
depression. The family just experienced a major crash.
Kids don't like this at all. This is especially evident
when a child is between two and four years old. In the
previous article, constancy was discussed. Constancy, when
interrupted in toddlers, is devastating. They are at critical
developmental stages that require constancy to complete.
Divorce at this time potentially is double damaging to children.
To compensate, teach them a vocabulary of their feelings, as
previously discussed.
Again, what parents can do for their children at this
critical time is to help process the child's feelings.
Usually the parents have strong feelings of their own, so
perhaps taking the child to a counselor would help do this
better, but sooner or later the parent will have to do some
of this at home. Allow the child to feel anything s/he wants,
because chances are there will be a variety of strong, often
negative feelings, and all of them are probably appropriate,
even though at times they will present in extreme ways.
A big mistake parents make is to paint a pretty picture of
the divorce. The child knows better and resists changes,
often acting out to show their displeasure. But if the
parents do not encourage the child to speak (using words,
not so much with behaviors), the child learns to shut up.
This is tragic and will lead to much bigger problems later.
In the moment, the child needs permission to speak, even if
negatively. Emoting out loud (vs. acting out) using the
appropriate words is to be encouraged.
Set up this standard and many of the following conflicts
can be easier to manage. One of the biggest challenges to
parents is visitation. Children don't like going back and
forth from Mommy's to Daddy's house. Usually, the exiting
parent has moved to a neighborhood where there are no friends
of the children. To compensate, parents often bus their kids
back to their neighborhood-of-origin, which is counterintuitive,
even to a four year old. "Why are we going back to Mommy's"
is a question I often hear as Daddy is driving the kids back
to their own neighborhoods to play with friends that live just
down the street.
The visitation itself will be discussed in the next article,
but first there needs to be discussed the "pre-visit" jitters.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page15.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have
worked with children of all ages for over twenty years.
Usually parents drag their kids into my office complaining
of a litany of bad behaviors, ranging from not cleaning up
their rooms, to getting bad grades, hitting their siblings,
or worse, stealing, fighting or doing drugs. I work with
parents to change their children's behavior. It is very
helpful for the parents to know their children's experiences.
This and the next article address what the child thinks about
the divorce and how s/he behaves during visitation. Please
read the previous two articles in this series before reading
this one.
After the divorce, kids experience a situation that is,
to them, very strange. Usually, one parent moves out, so in
order to "visit" with this parent, the child has to leave one
place and travel to another. The whole idea of visiting a
parent with whom the child probably lived with for a long time
is very awkward. "Why is Mommy/Daddy not in the same place
as always?" "What do you mean, visit? Visiting is what you
do with aunts and uncles." Why do we have to leave where we
are to see someone we already know?" These are questions I
often hear as a child psychologist. Kids are bewildered.
And, they have very negative feelings associated with a lot of
these questions.
The first big feeling is loss, followed by fear (or more
than the usual levels of anxiety), anger and frequently
depression. The family just experienced a major crash.
Kids don't like this at all. This is especially evident
when a child is between two and four years old. In the
previous article, constancy was discussed. Constancy, when
interrupted in toddlers, is devastating. They are at critical
developmental stages that require constancy to complete.
Divorce at this time potentially is double damaging to children.
To compensate, teach them a vocabulary of their feelings, as
previously discussed.
Again, what parents can do for their children at this
critical time is to help process the child's feelings.
Usually the parents have strong feelings of their own, so
perhaps taking the child to a counselor would help do this
better, but sooner or later the parent will have to do some
of this at home. Allow the child to feel anything s/he wants,
because chances are there will be a variety of strong, often
negative feelings, and all of them are probably appropriate,
even though at times they will present in extreme ways.
A big mistake parents make is to paint a pretty picture of
the divorce. The child knows better and resists changes,
often acting out to show their displeasure. But if the
parents do not encourage the child to speak (using words,
not so much with behaviors), the child learns to shut up.
This is tragic and will lead to much bigger problems later.
In the moment, the child needs permission to speak, even if
negatively. Emoting out loud (vs. acting out) using the
appropriate words is to be encouraged.
Set up this standard and many of the following conflicts
can be easier to manage. One of the biggest challenges to
parents is visitation. Children don't like going back and
forth from Mommy's to Daddy's house. Usually, the exiting
parent has moved to a neighborhood where there are no friends
of the children. To compensate, parents often bus their kids
back to their neighborhood-of-origin, which is counterintuitive,
even to a four year old. "Why are we going back to Mommy's"
is a question I often hear as Daddy is driving the kids back
to their own neighborhoods to play with friends that live just
down the street.
The visitation itself will be discussed in the next article,
but first there needs to be discussed the "pre-visit" jitters.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page15.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
What To Do For Your Kids After The Divorce..., Part II
What To Do For Your Kids After The Divorce..., Part II
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have
worked with children of all ages for over twenty years.
Usually parents drag their kids into my office complaining
of a litany of bad behaviors, ranging from not cleaning up
their rooms, to getting bad grades, hitting their siblings,
or worse, stealing, fighting or doing drugs. I work with
parents to change their children's behavior. It is very
helpful for the parents to know their children's experiences.
This article addresses what the child thinks about the divorce.
The first thing to make very, very clear to the child is
that the divorce is not his or her fault. Children,
especially younger children, think egocentrically. They
are the center of their world. They are involved with
everything (that they perceive). Children are also irrational.
They think that if something happened, they must have created it,
or at least had some part in creating the situation. This
makes little or no sense, logically, but then children usually
are not logical. Very young children are especially illogical
because they just have not developed that capacity.
This is normal. Logic does not really start to surface until
late latency (ages nine or so), even though there are some
glaring exceptions in either direction.
So, to the illogical child, if the parents divorced, the
child "must" have had something to do with it. Right away the
child feels lots of negative things, like anxiety or guilt or
sadness or depression. Right away the child associated her or
his behavior with the negativity of the divorce. The child
thinks the parents split from each other because of when the
child cried, or when the child hit his sibling or didn't eat
their peas. Of course these behaviors probably had not such
cause and effect on the marriage. Divorces are rarely about
the children, although children do bring considerable stress to
marriages, and that stress does contribute to separations.
The child thinks s/he is the cause of that stress; "therefore"
the child must be at fault.
In the previous article of this series, the first
suggestion of things to do for kids in this situation is to
give them a vocabulary of feelings. They need tools to express
how they feel, and the right words are just that tool. In the
above example, the child needs words to describe anxiety, guilt,
worry, sadness and fear. Go to thesaurus.com and look for the
simplest versions of these words. Use them in sentences with
the child and allow the child to hear the words, while you say
them with calmness.
The next thing to do for your child in this circumstance
is to model calm behavior, using appropriate feeling words to
describe how people feel when they no longer want to be together.
It is important that the child hear words like, "love" applied to
the relationship between each parent and the child, even if
the changing superficialities, there is a stable, dependable,
"same" experience of support and security. Divorce is a huge
de-stabilizer of constancy, so parents can help their children
cope with changes by describing, in emotion-based words, the
things that stay the same.
In the next article, visitation will be discussed, as this
is one of the behaviors that most upsets constancy.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page15.html
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have
worked with children of all ages for over twenty years.
Usually parents drag their kids into my office complaining
of a litany of bad behaviors, ranging from not cleaning up
their rooms, to getting bad grades, hitting their siblings,
or worse, stealing, fighting or doing drugs. I work with
parents to change their children's behavior. It is very
helpful for the parents to know their children's experiences.
This article addresses what the child thinks about the divorce.
The first thing to make very, very clear to the child is
that the divorce is not his or her fault. Children,
especially younger children, think egocentrically. They
are the center of their world. They are involved with
everything (that they perceive). Children are also irrational.
They think that if something happened, they must have created it,
or at least had some part in creating the situation. This
makes little or no sense, logically, but then children usually
are not logical. Very young children are especially illogical
because they just have not developed that capacity.
This is normal. Logic does not really start to surface until
late latency (ages nine or so), even though there are some
glaring exceptions in either direction.
So, to the illogical child, if the parents divorced, the
child "must" have had something to do with it. Right away the
child feels lots of negative things, like anxiety or guilt or
sadness or depression. Right away the child associated her or
his behavior with the negativity of the divorce. The child
thinks the parents split from each other because of when the
child cried, or when the child hit his sibling or didn't eat
their peas. Of course these behaviors probably had not such
cause and effect on the marriage. Divorces are rarely about
the children, although children do bring considerable stress to
marriages, and that stress does contribute to separations.
The child thinks s/he is the cause of that stress; "therefore"
the child must be at fault.
In the previous article of this series, the first
suggestion of things to do for kids in this situation is to
give them a vocabulary of feelings. They need tools to express
how they feel, and the right words are just that tool. In the
above example, the child needs words to describe anxiety, guilt,
worry, sadness and fear. Go to thesaurus.com and look for the
simplest versions of these words. Use them in sentences with
the child and allow the child to hear the words, while you say
them with calmness.
The next thing to do for your child in this circumstance
is to model calm behavior, using appropriate feeling words to
describe how people feel when they no longer want to be together.
It is important that the child hear words like, "love" applied to
the relationship between each parent and the child, even if
the changing superficialities, there is a stable, dependable,
"same" experience of support and security. Divorce is a huge
de-stabilizer of constancy, so parents can help their children
cope with changes by describing, in emotion-based words, the
things that stay the same.
In the next article, visitation will be discussed, as this
is one of the behaviors that most upsets constancy.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page15.html
What To Do For Your Kids After The Divorce..., Part I
What To Do For Your Kids After The Divorce..., Part I
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with children of all ages for over twenty years. Usually parents
drag their kids into my office complaining of a litany of bad
behaviors, ranging from not cleaning up their rooms, to getting
bad grades, hitting their siblings, or worse, stealing, fighting
or doing drugs. I work with parents to change their children's
behavior by changing the way the parents approach the children.
There are two main engines that change children's behavior.
One is the ratio of positive-to-negative messages. The other
involves the characteristics of the reinforcers, which are three
in my system. These are discussed elsewhere (see Resource Box,
below).
This article discusses what not to do after the divorce,
or put more positively, what to do to help your child(ren) cope
and process this very big life-changing event. It focuses on the
parent and child's point of view.
Children of any age do not like divorce. It is indeed a very
rare exception when a child says, "Good, they're not living together
anymore." For that to happen, the pre-divorce behaviors must have
been really severe. By far the norm is for kids to regret the
separation, and to act out some of their feelings. As a general
rule, the younger the child, the more s/he will act out vs. talk
about her/his feelings. When children do not talk about how they
feel, acting out usually ensues.
So, the first thing to do for your children is to teach them a
vocabulary of their feelings. In the literature on emotional
intelligence, there are eight major feelings that encompass most of
what we humans emotionally experience. I looked at this list and
thought is left one out, so for this article, there are nine major
feelings. They are: anger, sad, happy, love, fear, hurt, surprise,
shame and disgust. The first things parents can do to help their
kid's process such a big stress, as a divorce, is to teach them a
vocabulary of their feelings. Start with the above nine and add
synonyms--as many for each of the nine feeling words as the child's
emotional maturity can absorb. I go to thesaurus.com and type in
each word, and then type in the synonyms. (I did this for a year
and had others do the same. At the end of a year I had nearly eight
hundred synonyms for the nine feeling words.) Younger children only
need three or four words for each of the nine feeling words.
Teenagers need five-to-ten.
When a child acts out, s/he is expressing feelings in non-verbal
ways, through behaviors that usually attract negative attention,
if not just downright cause trouble. This is normal. As a parent,
the task is to teach children what words go with what feelings they
are having at the time. Parents are usually pretty good at intuiting
what their kids feel, so if the child doesn't know what feeling s/he is
having, the parent can say something like, "When kids act like you are
right now, they are usually feeling ________. Is that what you feel now?"
Most times, this nails it and the child will say, "Uh-huh" or just nod
(indicating "yes"). The trick is to get them talking about what they
feel, not act so much to act out their feelings. It takes a little
practice, but kids catch on quickly, especially is there is a reward
that quickly follows for just trying.
It is important to teach children than what they are undergoing
(divorce) is painful, difficult, stressful, hard-to-deal-with, etc.
It is important to teach them that what they are experiencing is normal;
that most children feel just the same way as they do, now. It is
important to tell them about our feelings, as parents, to model how to
verbally express feelings.
The point of this technique is to give kids the verbal skills to
express themselves without getting into trouble. It also gives the
parents a more reliable way to more deeply communicate with children,
hence gives parents more control over the child's behavior with less
physical interventions.
The next article will be on children's perceptions and roles after
the divorce.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page15.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with children of all ages for over twenty years. Usually parents
drag their kids into my office complaining of a litany of bad
behaviors, ranging from not cleaning up their rooms, to getting
bad grades, hitting their siblings, or worse, stealing, fighting
or doing drugs. I work with parents to change their children's
behavior by changing the way the parents approach the children.
There are two main engines that change children's behavior.
One is the ratio of positive-to-negative messages. The other
involves the characteristics of the reinforcers, which are three
in my system. These are discussed elsewhere (see Resource Box,
below).
This article discusses what not to do after the divorce,
or put more positively, what to do to help your child(ren) cope
and process this very big life-changing event. It focuses on the
parent and child's point of view.
Children of any age do not like divorce. It is indeed a very
rare exception when a child says, "Good, they're not living together
anymore." For that to happen, the pre-divorce behaviors must have
been really severe. By far the norm is for kids to regret the
separation, and to act out some of their feelings. As a general
rule, the younger the child, the more s/he will act out vs. talk
about her/his feelings. When children do not talk about how they
feel, acting out usually ensues.
So, the first thing to do for your children is to teach them a
vocabulary of their feelings. In the literature on emotional
intelligence, there are eight major feelings that encompass most of
what we humans emotionally experience. I looked at this list and
thought is left one out, so for this article, there are nine major
feelings. They are: anger, sad, happy, love, fear, hurt, surprise,
shame and disgust. The first things parents can do to help their
kid's process such a big stress, as a divorce, is to teach them a
vocabulary of their feelings. Start with the above nine and add
synonyms--as many for each of the nine feeling words as the child's
emotional maturity can absorb. I go to thesaurus.com and type in
each word, and then type in the synonyms. (I did this for a year
and had others do the same. At the end of a year I had nearly eight
hundred synonyms for the nine feeling words.) Younger children only
need three or four words for each of the nine feeling words.
Teenagers need five-to-ten.
When a child acts out, s/he is expressing feelings in non-verbal
ways, through behaviors that usually attract negative attention,
if not just downright cause trouble. This is normal. As a parent,
the task is to teach children what words go with what feelings they
are having at the time. Parents are usually pretty good at intuiting
what their kids feel, so if the child doesn't know what feeling s/he is
having, the parent can say something like, "When kids act like you are
right now, they are usually feeling ________. Is that what you feel now?"
Most times, this nails it and the child will say, "Uh-huh" or just nod
(indicating "yes"). The trick is to get them talking about what they
feel, not act so much to act out their feelings. It takes a little
practice, but kids catch on quickly, especially is there is a reward
that quickly follows for just trying.
It is important to teach children than what they are undergoing
(divorce) is painful, difficult, stressful, hard-to-deal-with, etc.
It is important to teach them that what they are experiencing is normal;
that most children feel just the same way as they do, now. It is
important to tell them about our feelings, as parents, to model how to
verbally express feelings.
The point of this technique is to give kids the verbal skills to
express themselves without getting into trouble. It also gives the
parents a more reliable way to more deeply communicate with children,
hence gives parents more control over the child's behavior with less
physical interventions.
The next article will be on children's perceptions and roles after
the divorce.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page15.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
Friday, March 19, 2010
Affairs and Relationships
Affairs and Relationships
As an outpatient psychologist who has been practicing twenty-five years,
I run across eight conditions, over and over. They range from anxiety and
depression, work problems, kid behavior problems, substance ab/use, addiction
issues, and of course, relationships. One of the most egregious affronts to
on-going relationships is an affair.
There is a lot of literature on affairs already on the market, most of
which concentrates on what the partner is not getting at home, therefore
strays to get elsewhere. While this is relevant, it fails to explain the
real dynamics underlying infidelity.
Relationships go through stages, four by my reckoning. The first stage
is Novelty, which is characterized by having a lot of fun. Things are new,
fresh and exciting, hence engaging. We typically stay up all night talking,
going to new movies and restaurants together, and of course, having good sex.
Stage two is when things settle down and we have decided to date only
each other. We have survived the crisis of commitment and now have the
certainty and stability of predictability; that is, we can bank on having a
significant other in our lives. But with stability comes loss of novelty.
This is the time when we really begin to see our partners for who they are,
good or bad. This is the time when the occasional lull in excitement makes
a deeper impression.
But for most of us, the relationship progresses into stage three. This
is commitment made manifest. This is signaled by engagement or marriage,
moving in together if we have not already, buying bigger, more permanent items
together (cars, houses), setting up budgets and schedules that maintenance our
things, etc. We really have to get along during this stage, especially if
children come along (the "great challenge" to marriage).
The first two stages typically last about six months. The third stage
can last a lifetime, unless it goes Boom, in which case it can last a week.
If marriage fails, we enter stage four--divorce or at least separation.
The purpose of this article is not to focus on the four stages, as that
has been covered in other articles by this author. Rather, the important
aspect here is that people change as they progress through the stages.
Unfortunately, if they change in the direction of requiring continuous novelty
when the relationship is changing in this very important aspect, trouble will
ensue.
The need for novelty is not the only reason couples "stray." In the
literature, there are at least six major reasons and another ten minor ones.
The underlying dynamics of choosing to cheat is really the problem in all of
these areas. These boil down to personality and impulse control issues, which
form what I call Negative Loops.
One example is immaturity, which by definition usually means poor judgment
and/or lack of impulse control. If the partner of such an individual is the
opposite; namely, more mature and more in control of impulses, the contrast
between the partners will grow as the real personalities emerge. Again, this
is a function of time and continued contact. If the impulsivity grates on the
second partner, s/he will start to react and this will actually make the first
partner more, not less prone to dally. Once strayed again, the other partner
will be very, very annoyed, which is probably the very thing that set off the
first partner. This is the loop, and it is very, very destructive (negative).
This is a very broad outline of some of the dynamics to watch out for in
relationships where there is infidelity. It covers relationship stages, one
aspect of change in the relationship (novelty), one negative loop (patterns of
estructive interaction between the partners), and one very maladaptive behavior
(acting out with a person outside the relationship. For more in-depth
information on these and why relationships fail in general, see the author's
ebook.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
As an outpatient psychologist who has been practicing twenty-five years,
I run across eight conditions, over and over. They range from anxiety and
depression, work problems, kid behavior problems, substance ab/use, addiction
issues, and of course, relationships. One of the most egregious affronts to
on-going relationships is an affair.
There is a lot of literature on affairs already on the market, most of
which concentrates on what the partner is not getting at home, therefore
strays to get elsewhere. While this is relevant, it fails to explain the
real dynamics underlying infidelity.
Relationships go through stages, four by my reckoning. The first stage
is Novelty, which is characterized by having a lot of fun. Things are new,
fresh and exciting, hence engaging. We typically stay up all night talking,
going to new movies and restaurants together, and of course, having good sex.
Stage two is when things settle down and we have decided to date only
each other. We have survived the crisis of commitment and now have the
certainty and stability of predictability; that is, we can bank on having a
significant other in our lives. But with stability comes loss of novelty.
This is the time when we really begin to see our partners for who they are,
good or bad. This is the time when the occasional lull in excitement makes
a deeper impression.
But for most of us, the relationship progresses into stage three. This
is commitment made manifest. This is signaled by engagement or marriage,
moving in together if we have not already, buying bigger, more permanent items
together (cars, houses), setting up budgets and schedules that maintenance our
things, etc. We really have to get along during this stage, especially if
children come along (the "great challenge" to marriage).
The first two stages typically last about six months. The third stage
can last a lifetime, unless it goes Boom, in which case it can last a week.
If marriage fails, we enter stage four--divorce or at least separation.
The purpose of this article is not to focus on the four stages, as that
has been covered in other articles by this author. Rather, the important
aspect here is that people change as they progress through the stages.
Unfortunately, if they change in the direction of requiring continuous novelty
when the relationship is changing in this very important aspect, trouble will
ensue.
The need for novelty is not the only reason couples "stray." In the
literature, there are at least six major reasons and another ten minor ones.
The underlying dynamics of choosing to cheat is really the problem in all of
these areas. These boil down to personality and impulse control issues, which
form what I call Negative Loops.
One example is immaturity, which by definition usually means poor judgment
and/or lack of impulse control. If the partner of such an individual is the
opposite; namely, more mature and more in control of impulses, the contrast
between the partners will grow as the real personalities emerge. Again, this
is a function of time and continued contact. If the impulsivity grates on the
second partner, s/he will start to react and this will actually make the first
partner more, not less prone to dally. Once strayed again, the other partner
will be very, very annoyed, which is probably the very thing that set off the
first partner. This is the loop, and it is very, very destructive (negative).
This is a very broad outline of some of the dynamics to watch out for in
relationships where there is infidelity. It covers relationship stages, one
aspect of change in the relationship (novelty), one negative loop (patterns of
estructive interaction between the partners), and one very maladaptive behavior
(acting out with a person outside the relationship. For more in-depth
information on these and why relationships fail in general, see the author's
ebook.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
Worth and Long-Term Relationships-Part II
Worth and Long-Term Relationships-Part II
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with people for almost twenty-five years. By far, the single
most central element, the one thing that pervades almost every
other issue is self-esteem. It touches everything-sex and
relationships, work problems, anxiety, depression, addictions;
you name it. There are four primary elements of self-esteem.
I call them "Powers" because when we develop any one of them,
we become more personally powerful. The Four Powers of Self-Esteem
are: Worth, Competence, Ego-Strength and Self-Acceptance. This
article is Part II, so please read Part I before reading this one. It deals with the first Power of self-esteem and its expression in Negative Loops, which is a cyclical expression of basic behavior patterns learned from one's family-of-origin (explained in Part I).
Here is an example of a Negative Loop that expresses deeply learned behavioral tendencies between two people in a long-term relationship. The following is quoted from this author's ebook on Why Relationships Fail.
Assertiveness vs. Avoidant Styles.
"He's assertive, she's not. He speaks up and wants
their communication to be direct. She avoids clear
communication and is not assertive. She may ask for
something for the kids, really wanting something for
herself. He busts her, telling her it would be a lot
better if she just stated what she wanted, leaving the
kids out of it. In response, she feels criticized and
further shrinks. She may withdraw, play solitaire or
just leave the house to go for a workout at the gym.
He enjoys the separation until his frustration surfaces
at not having help with chores, or just having a
compatible mate. He becomes even more determined and
"comes down" on her with more force--greater insistence
that she "speak up." This drives her more deeply into
her hole. Her compensations are even less direct,
"driving him up the wall."
The early patterns go something like this: He is articulate and
a hard worker. He may be impatient, but sooner or later needs to
speak up. He does not handle stresses well and might be compromised
by physical ailments, disturbed father-son relationships, poor results communicating with older female siblings, etc. He may be very dynamic.
He may be used to getting what he wants more or less immediately.
He could have trouble dealing with impulses and want immediate
gratification. He may have a higher sex drive. Many of these values
evolved from his family-of-origin experiences. They now are default experiences that seep into his daily interactions without him having
much awareness of them. Were these adaptive, they would not be giving
him trouble. They would automatically function in a more positive way. However, he is paired with a partner, who in this case also has default tendencies to behave in certain ways. Unfortunately, her behaviors
contradict or undermine his, again outside of either's awareness.
In this case...
She is more likely to have come from a family of avoiders.
She probably does not like and often runs from conflict. She tends to
mask her real wants in general terms, which drives the more
specific/direct types crazy. She may do very well in non-personal
relationship environments, such as work, where she may perform very well
because of the lack of deeper personal dynamics. But at home, her
personal side is exposed and she runs from intimacy, including sex.
She may have social avoidance tendencies or just the opposite with a
twist. I have seen such individuals be very social, even though they
may be very socially superficial.
The basic assumptions of each are at odds and this couple goes
round and round, until frustration emerges. Sooner or later, such a
couple goes to neutral corners, or worse. Their values of Worth are
expressed in ways that are mutually incompatible, hence the rising
conflicts.
The point of this article is that each probably learned such
behavior patterns early on, and unconsciously acts them out in their
behavior styles towards each other. The behavior styles reflect each
partner's sense of worth, albeit in different, and in this case
incompatible ways. In a future article, compatible behavioral styles
will be addressed in relation to basic feelings of Worth.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with people for almost twenty-five years. By far, the single
most central element, the one thing that pervades almost every
other issue is self-esteem. It touches everything-sex and
relationships, work problems, anxiety, depression, addictions;
you name it. There are four primary elements of self-esteem.
I call them "Powers" because when we develop any one of them,
we become more personally powerful. The Four Powers of Self-Esteem
are: Worth, Competence, Ego-Strength and Self-Acceptance. This
article is Part II, so please read Part I before reading this one. It deals with the first Power of self-esteem and its expression in Negative Loops, which is a cyclical expression of basic behavior patterns learned from one's family-of-origin (explained in Part I).
Here is an example of a Negative Loop that expresses deeply learned behavioral tendencies between two people in a long-term relationship. The following is quoted from this author's ebook on Why Relationships Fail.
Assertiveness vs. Avoidant Styles.
"He's assertive, she's not. He speaks up and wants
their communication to be direct. She avoids clear
communication and is not assertive. She may ask for
something for the kids, really wanting something for
herself. He busts her, telling her it would be a lot
better if she just stated what she wanted, leaving the
kids out of it. In response, she feels criticized and
further shrinks. She may withdraw, play solitaire or
just leave the house to go for a workout at the gym.
He enjoys the separation until his frustration surfaces
at not having help with chores, or just having a
compatible mate. He becomes even more determined and
"comes down" on her with more force--greater insistence
that she "speak up." This drives her more deeply into
her hole. Her compensations are even less direct,
"driving him up the wall."
The early patterns go something like this: He is articulate and
a hard worker. He may be impatient, but sooner or later needs to
speak up. He does not handle stresses well and might be compromised
by physical ailments, disturbed father-son relationships, poor results communicating with older female siblings, etc. He may be very dynamic.
He may be used to getting what he wants more or less immediately.
He could have trouble dealing with impulses and want immediate
gratification. He may have a higher sex drive. Many of these values
evolved from his family-of-origin experiences. They now are default experiences that seep into his daily interactions without him having
much awareness of them. Were these adaptive, they would not be giving
him trouble. They would automatically function in a more positive way. However, he is paired with a partner, who in this case also has default tendencies to behave in certain ways. Unfortunately, her behaviors
contradict or undermine his, again outside of either's awareness.
In this case...
She is more likely to have come from a family of avoiders.
She probably does not like and often runs from conflict. She tends to
mask her real wants in general terms, which drives the more
specific/direct types crazy. She may do very well in non-personal
relationship environments, such as work, where she may perform very well
because of the lack of deeper personal dynamics. But at home, her
personal side is exposed and she runs from intimacy, including sex.
She may have social avoidance tendencies or just the opposite with a
twist. I have seen such individuals be very social, even though they
may be very socially superficial.
The basic assumptions of each are at odds and this couple goes
round and round, until frustration emerges. Sooner or later, such a
couple goes to neutral corners, or worse. Their values of Worth are
expressed in ways that are mutually incompatible, hence the rising
conflicts.
The point of this article is that each probably learned such
behavior patterns early on, and unconsciously acts them out in their
behavior styles towards each other. The behavior styles reflect each
partner's sense of worth, albeit in different, and in this case
incompatible ways. In a future article, compatible behavioral styles
will be addressed in relation to basic feelings of Worth.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
Worth and Long-term Relationships-Part I
Worth and Long-term Relationships-Part I
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with people for over two decades. The single most central
element, the one thing that pervades almost every other issue
is self-esteem. It touches everything--sex and
relationships, work problems, anxiety, depression, addictions;
you name it. There are four primary elements of self-esteem.
I call them "Powers" because when we develop any one of them,
we become more personally powerful. The Four Powers of
Self-Esteem are: Worth, Competence, Ego-Strength and
Self-Acceptance. This article is about the First Power and
its effect on long-term relationships.
"Worth is the First Power and the most common term used
to describe self-esteem. Specifically, Worth has to do
with your basic feeling of value. Are you a basically
good human being? You might even think of this
category as "Goodness" instead of Worth. Both work.
Are human beings worthwhile as a species? Are you
valuable? Important? What are the markers of your
Worth (and I don't mean lots of money, although that can
contribute...).
Another dimension of Worth is health. Are you
mentally or physically ill? You might have a basic
sense that you are defective. Are you adequate?
Or, do you feel useless or flawed?
Another dimension has to do with your
characteristics. Are you significantly different from
others? Are you too tall? Too short? Too many
freckles? Too smart or dumb? Are you not so
handsome or not so beautiful? Do you think you
are not the perfect weight?
The last dimension of Worth is behavior. Depending
upon how we were raised, we have tendencies to handle
situations, feelings and thoughts in characteristic ways.
While some of this is genetic and personality driven
(see this author's other articles on this subject
in this article directory), most of it is learned, and
learned from those who originally raised us.
Of the four powers, Worth is the first to develop and
tends to be most central to our functioning as adequate
human beings.
It is important to understand how the strength or
weakness of our sense of Worth. This understanding
often provides one of the first directions in
psychotherapy, which is a process of talking about
and uncovering early experiences, and then looking at
how they play out in our current lives. Of particular
relevance to this article is how Worth influences
relationships. The direction Worth takes in its
expression and the strength of its expression forms
one of the first experiences of compatibility with our
partners. This can be good or bad, depending
upon the mixture of characteristics manifested by
either partner in relation to each other."
In an ebook, this author writes about Negative Loops, which
is a dynamic based upon Worth values, gleaned from
family-of-origin experiences. In this case the values of Worth
are negative and reflect in maladaptive behaviors. A Negative
Loop is when one partner does something that
irritates/angers the second partner. The second partner's
reaction, being negative, is expressed in behavior(s) that
actually make the first partner madder, because it was this
behavior from the second partner that originally made the
first partner mad. Now, the first partner does the very
thing again, this time with more anger, which of course is the
very behavior that made the second partner angry. But the
second partner's now frustration propels the second partner to
counter-behave also with increased amounts of frustration,
thus escalating the exchange. The first partner then takes
it from there, escalating even further by doing the same thing
again. This intensity increases at each level until one of
the partners does something more extreme. The relationship
goes BOOM!
This article is continued in Part II
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with people for over two decades. The single most central
element, the one thing that pervades almost every other issue
is self-esteem. It touches everything--sex and
relationships, work problems, anxiety, depression, addictions;
you name it. There are four primary elements of self-esteem.
I call them "Powers" because when we develop any one of them,
we become more personally powerful. The Four Powers of
Self-Esteem are: Worth, Competence, Ego-Strength and
Self-Acceptance. This article is about the First Power and
its effect on long-term relationships.
"Worth is the First Power and the most common term used
to describe self-esteem. Specifically, Worth has to do
with your basic feeling of value. Are you a basically
good human being? You might even think of this
category as "Goodness" instead of Worth. Both work.
Are human beings worthwhile as a species? Are you
valuable? Important? What are the markers of your
Worth (and I don't mean lots of money, although that can
contribute...).
Another dimension of Worth is health. Are you
mentally or physically ill? You might have a basic
sense that you are defective. Are you adequate?
Or, do you feel useless or flawed?
Another dimension has to do with your
characteristics. Are you significantly different from
others? Are you too tall? Too short? Too many
freckles? Too smart or dumb? Are you not so
handsome or not so beautiful? Do you think you
are not the perfect weight?
The last dimension of Worth is behavior. Depending
upon how we were raised, we have tendencies to handle
situations, feelings and thoughts in characteristic ways.
While some of this is genetic and personality driven
(see this author's other articles on this subject
in this article directory), most of it is learned, and
learned from those who originally raised us.
Of the four powers, Worth is the first to develop and
tends to be most central to our functioning as adequate
human beings.
It is important to understand how the strength or
weakness of our sense of Worth. This understanding
often provides one of the first directions in
psychotherapy, which is a process of talking about
and uncovering early experiences, and then looking at
how they play out in our current lives. Of particular
relevance to this article is how Worth influences
relationships. The direction Worth takes in its
expression and the strength of its expression forms
one of the first experiences of compatibility with our
partners. This can be good or bad, depending
upon the mixture of characteristics manifested by
either partner in relation to each other."
In an ebook, this author writes about Negative Loops, which
is a dynamic based upon Worth values, gleaned from
family-of-origin experiences. In this case the values of Worth
are negative and reflect in maladaptive behaviors. A Negative
Loop is when one partner does something that
irritates/angers the second partner. The second partner's
reaction, being negative, is expressed in behavior(s) that
actually make the first partner madder, because it was this
behavior from the second partner that originally made the
first partner mad. Now, the first partner does the very
thing again, this time with more anger, which of course is the
very behavior that made the second partner angry. But the
second partner's now frustration propels the second partner to
counter-behave also with increased amounts of frustration,
thus escalating the exchange. The first partner then takes
it from there, escalating even further by doing the same thing
again. This intensity increases at each level until one of
the partners does something more extreme. The relationship
goes BOOM!
This article is continued in Part II
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
Self-Esteem and Personality
Self-Esteem and Personality
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with people for almost twenty-five years. By far, the single
most central element, the one thing that pervades almost every
other issue is self-esteem. It touches everything--sex and
relationships, work problems, anxiety, depression, addictions;
you name it.
There are four primary elements of self-esteem.
I call them "Powers" because when we develop any one of them,
we become more personally powerful. The Four Powers of Self-Esteem
are: Worth, Competence, Ego-Strength and Self-Acceptance. This
article focuses on the workings of Worth and personality. From
my ebook on self-esteem is the following quote on the first power.
"Worth is the First Power and the most common term used to
describe self-esteem.... Specifically, Worth has to do with your
basic feeling of value. Are you a basically good human being?
You might even think of this category as "Goodness" instead of Worth.
Both work. Are human beings worthwhile as a species? Are you
valuable? Important? What are the markers of your Worth (and I
don't mean lots of money, although that can contribute...).
Another dimension of Worth is health. Are you mentally or
physically ill? You might have a basic sense that you are
defective. Are you adequate? Or, do you feel useless or flawed?
Another dimension has to do with your characteristics. Are you significantly different from others? Are you too tall? Too short?
Too many freckles? Too smart or dumb? Are you not so handsome or
not so beautiful? Do you think you are not the perfect weight?
These are all "default" values, ones that most people think
they are more or less stuck with and therefore probably cannot change.
The Worth scale tends to reflect early history or chronic
conditions. It has a lot to do with our fundamental values, usually
gleaned from our family-of-origin. Of the four powers, it is the
first to develop and tends to be most central to our functioning as
human beings."
Some of you might recognize these descriptions as similar to the definitions of personality. Personality values do look like the
criteria of Worth. However, personality is largely genetic,
hard-wired and waiting for the environment to trigger it. Hence,
while Worth is fundamental; meaning basic and forms from
family-of-origin experiences, it is still superficial in comparison
to personality. Think of personality as the foundation and Worth
as the first layer of materials built upon it when constructing a
house. They are intimately related but fundamentally different.
For example, personality is comprised of traits like extraversion
(social) vs. introversion (more prone to avoid certain kinds of
activities that involve people), intellectual (cognitive) vs. somatic
(body or physically oriented), aggressive, neurasthenic (weakness),
etc. Some folks describe the above as temperaments, which in this
author's view are certainly personality-like, but are not necessarily
so fixed.
Layered on top of any of the above can be Worth values. These
are things like being trustworthy, sincere, loving, gentle, and
respectful. These latter qualities are better described as traits,
but their intrapsychic inculcation (taking in and "owning" of the
value) is better understood to come from exposure to others who
demonstrate and teach, hence pass on these traits. These people
usually are the early caretakers. While some personality types are
more prone to being this way, it probably is the case that exposure
and learning must take place before such traits cement themselves
into "personality." In other words, it is clear that certain
personality types better lend themselves to absorbing certain
compatible traits; usually the traits have to be presented in the
environment before the person takes them in. The earlier we are
exposed to such traits, the more likely they will be lifelong
penchants. This is the source of the first power, Worth, and is
usually encountered in the family-of-origin.
For more on self-esteem, see the author's website's below.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page6.html
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with people for almost twenty-five years. By far, the single
most central element, the one thing that pervades almost every
other issue is self-esteem. It touches everything--sex and
relationships, work problems, anxiety, depression, addictions;
you name it.
There are four primary elements of self-esteem.
I call them "Powers" because when we develop any one of them,
we become more personally powerful. The Four Powers of Self-Esteem
are: Worth, Competence, Ego-Strength and Self-Acceptance. This
article focuses on the workings of Worth and personality. From
my ebook on self-esteem is the following quote on the first power.
"Worth is the First Power and the most common term used to
describe self-esteem.... Specifically, Worth has to do with your
basic feeling of value. Are you a basically good human being?
You might even think of this category as "Goodness" instead of Worth.
Both work. Are human beings worthwhile as a species? Are you
valuable? Important? What are the markers of your Worth (and I
don't mean lots of money, although that can contribute...).
Another dimension of Worth is health. Are you mentally or
physically ill? You might have a basic sense that you are
defective. Are you adequate? Or, do you feel useless or flawed?
Another dimension has to do with your characteristics. Are you significantly different from others? Are you too tall? Too short?
Too many freckles? Too smart or dumb? Are you not so handsome or
not so beautiful? Do you think you are not the perfect weight?
These are all "default" values, ones that most people think
they are more or less stuck with and therefore probably cannot change.
The Worth scale tends to reflect early history or chronic
conditions. It has a lot to do with our fundamental values, usually
gleaned from our family-of-origin. Of the four powers, it is the
first to develop and tends to be most central to our functioning as
human beings."
Some of you might recognize these descriptions as similar to the definitions of personality. Personality values do look like the
criteria of Worth. However, personality is largely genetic,
hard-wired and waiting for the environment to trigger it. Hence,
while Worth is fundamental; meaning basic and forms from
family-of-origin experiences, it is still superficial in comparison
to personality. Think of personality as the foundation and Worth
as the first layer of materials built upon it when constructing a
house. They are intimately related but fundamentally different.
For example, personality is comprised of traits like extraversion
(social) vs. introversion (more prone to avoid certain kinds of
activities that involve people), intellectual (cognitive) vs. somatic
(body or physically oriented), aggressive, neurasthenic (weakness),
etc. Some folks describe the above as temperaments, which in this
author's view are certainly personality-like, but are not necessarily
so fixed.
Layered on top of any of the above can be Worth values. These
are things like being trustworthy, sincere, loving, gentle, and
respectful. These latter qualities are better described as traits,
but their intrapsychic inculcation (taking in and "owning" of the
value) is better understood to come from exposure to others who
demonstrate and teach, hence pass on these traits. These people
usually are the early caretakers. While some personality types are
more prone to being this way, it probably is the case that exposure
and learning must take place before such traits cement themselves
into "personality." In other words, it is clear that certain
personality types better lend themselves to absorbing certain
compatible traits; usually the traits have to be presented in the
environment before the person takes them in. The earlier we are
exposed to such traits, the more likely they will be lifelong
penchants. This is the source of the first power, Worth, and is
usually encountered in the family-of-origin.
For more on self-esteem, see the author's website's below.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page6.html
Self-Esteem Test
Self-Esteem Test
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with people for almost twenty-five years. By far, the single
most central element, the one thing that pervades almost every
other issue is self-esteem. It touches everything-sex and
relationships, work problems, anxiety, depression, addictions;
you name it.
There are four primary elements of self-esteem. I call them
"Powers" because when we develop any one of them, we become more
personally powerful. The Four Powers of Self-Esteem are: Worth,
Competence, Ego-Strength and Self-Acceptance.
I've researched the topic, the literature and had over two
decades of experience looking into people's minds. These four
powers seem to be the default values of self-esteem. That is,
these four qualities are THE elements that make or break self-image.
These four aspects or powers also develop more or less
chronologically; meaning, worth generally is created before
competence, which generally precedes ego-strength, then follows
self-acceptance. This is not absolutely true, because some
elements of one can begin to form in conjunction with another,
but overall, this is the general progression.
I developed several techniques to deal with problem
self-esteems, but before anyone can really "undo" and "redo" the
powers, one has to understand something about their genesis and
relationships. For this, it is helpful to do a little digging,
which is where the self-esteem test helps.
Self-esteem tests need to measure each of the four powers,
minimally, and then explain how the powers fit in with each other,
then fit that interpretation in with an understanding of how
self-esteem evolved in the first place. Equally importantly,
the test results must help to resolve the "lacks" in early
environments, or traumas along the way that must have occurred to
create crummy self-images. If a self-esteem test omits one of
the powers, the interpretations is less than ideal, so great care
was taken to create at least a face-value self-esteem test to
address just these issues.
This test is embedded in an ebook about the four powers,
which also explains in detail just how we got a self-esteem in the
first place. As one might expect, self-esteem is a relatively
complex phenomenon, built up over time. In fact the term
"phenomenon" is actually a misnomer, because self-esteem is really
an "epiphenomenon." An epiphenomenon is something that emerges
out of a collection of data or experiences, that is based upon
the experiences but is not the experiences themselves. An example
is wetness in water. Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen
molecules combined. Nowhere in either hydrogen or oxygen is there
wetness. Wetness is what millions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms
create when they are combined in a certain way. Hydrogen and
oxygen are phenomena. Wetness is an epiphenomenon.
(Another example is color. Look at the color of clothing you are
wearing. The fabric is made up of zillions of atoms, none of
which have actual color. Yet we "see" color based upon how these
atoms absorb or reflect bands of light. The fabric is made up of
phenomena and the color is the epiphenomenon.)
To change the epiphenomenon of self-esteem, one has to change
the phenomena that make it up. Just as color is perceived to
change as we change the kind of materials that make up the fabric,
or the dyes used to color it, so too does self-esteem change as we
change the composition of the powers that comprise it. This is
why is it very important to understand the powers themselves, and
to have a technique that accomplishes this task.
The technique in this case is embodied in the Anchor Concept.
This is the one technique that changes bad scores on any of the
subtests for self-esteem and is the subject of another article.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page6.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with people for almost twenty-five years. By far, the single
most central element, the one thing that pervades almost every
other issue is self-esteem. It touches everything-sex and
relationships, work problems, anxiety, depression, addictions;
you name it.
There are four primary elements of self-esteem. I call them
"Powers" because when we develop any one of them, we become more
personally powerful. The Four Powers of Self-Esteem are: Worth,
Competence, Ego-Strength and Self-Acceptance.
I've researched the topic, the literature and had over two
decades of experience looking into people's minds. These four
powers seem to be the default values of self-esteem. That is,
these four qualities are THE elements that make or break self-image.
These four aspects or powers also develop more or less
chronologically; meaning, worth generally is created before
competence, which generally precedes ego-strength, then follows
self-acceptance. This is not absolutely true, because some
elements of one can begin to form in conjunction with another,
but overall, this is the general progression.
I developed several techniques to deal with problem
self-esteems, but before anyone can really "undo" and "redo" the
powers, one has to understand something about their genesis and
relationships. For this, it is helpful to do a little digging,
which is where the self-esteem test helps.
Self-esteem tests need to measure each of the four powers,
minimally, and then explain how the powers fit in with each other,
then fit that interpretation in with an understanding of how
self-esteem evolved in the first place. Equally importantly,
the test results must help to resolve the "lacks" in early
environments, or traumas along the way that must have occurred to
create crummy self-images. If a self-esteem test omits one of
the powers, the interpretations is less than ideal, so great care
was taken to create at least a face-value self-esteem test to
address just these issues.
This test is embedded in an ebook about the four powers,
which also explains in detail just how we got a self-esteem in the
first place. As one might expect, self-esteem is a relatively
complex phenomenon, built up over time. In fact the term
"phenomenon" is actually a misnomer, because self-esteem is really
an "epiphenomenon." An epiphenomenon is something that emerges
out of a collection of data or experiences, that is based upon
the experiences but is not the experiences themselves. An example
is wetness in water. Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen
molecules combined. Nowhere in either hydrogen or oxygen is there
wetness. Wetness is what millions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms
create when they are combined in a certain way. Hydrogen and
oxygen are phenomena. Wetness is an epiphenomenon.
(Another example is color. Look at the color of clothing you are
wearing. The fabric is made up of zillions of atoms, none of
which have actual color. Yet we "see" color based upon how these
atoms absorb or reflect bands of light. The fabric is made up of
phenomena and the color is the epiphenomenon.)
To change the epiphenomenon of self-esteem, one has to change
the phenomena that make it up. Just as color is perceived to
change as we change the kind of materials that make up the fabric,
or the dyes used to color it, so too does self-esteem change as we
change the composition of the powers that comprise it. This is
why is it very important to understand the powers themselves, and
to have a technique that accomplishes this task.
The technique in this case is embodied in the Anchor Concept.
This is the one technique that changes bad scores on any of the
subtests for self-esteem and is the subject of another article.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page6.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
The First Power
The First Power
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with people for almost twenty-five years. By far, the single
most central element, the one thing that pervades almost every
other issue is self-esteem. It touches everything-sex and
relationships, work problems, anxiety, depression, addictions;
you name it. There are four primary elements of self-esteem.
I call them "Powers" because when we develop any one of them,
we become more personally powerful. The Four Powers of Self-Esteem
are: Worth, Competence, Ego-Strength and Self-Acceptance. This
article is about the First Power. The following is a quote from my
ebook on this subject.
"Worth is the First Power and the most common term used to
describe self-esteem, which is also why it can be confusing.
Specifically, Worth has to do with your basic feeling of value.
Are you a basically good human being? You might even think of this
category as "Goodness" instead of Worth. Both work. Are human
beings worthwhile as a species? Are you valuable? Important?
What are the markers of our Worth (and I don't mean lots of money,
although that can contribute...). If you are Catholic and believe
in original sin, you have the potential for a negative Worth right
out of the starting gate. You can repair this, but you have to do
what Catholicism prescribes, then you'll be OK. If you happen to be
Buddhist, you may not have this problem, but if you believe in
reincarnation then you "messed up" in a previous incarnation and have
to "come back" to better yourself or atone. You're still not "OK"
right from the beginning.
Another dimension of Worth is health. Are you mentally or
physically ill? You might have a basic sense that you are defective.
Are you adequate? Or, do you feel useless or flawed?
Another dimension has to do with your characteristics. Are you
significantly different from others? Are you too tall? Too short?
Too many freckles? Too smart or dumb? Are you not so handsome or
not so beautiful? Do you think you are not the perfect weight?
These are all "default" values, ones that most people think they
are more or less stuck with and therefore probably cannot change."
The Worth scale tends to reflect early history or chronic
conditions. It has a lot to do with our fundamental values, usually
gleaned from our family-of-origin. Of the four powers, it is the
first to develop and tends to be most central to our functioning as
adequate human beings. It is also the most difficult to change if
it is faulty. Fortunately, it can be changed using a variety of
techniques.
It is important to understand how strong or weak our sense of
Worth is. To do this, there are lots of tests of self-esteem, some
of which directly measure this and the other four powers.
(One such test is one this author created that can be found in an
ebook located on the websites listed below.) Any test that measures
family-of-origin values will usually touch on this very central
experience. This usually provides one of the first directions in
psychotherapy, which is a process of talking about and uncovering
early experiences, and then looking at how they play out in our
current lives. Self-esteem is central to virtually every aspect of
our current lives. We just do not recognize it often because it is
so pervasive and blends in so well with our daily goings-ons. It is
always functioning in the background of our awareness.
Basic worth overshadows the other three Powers in relationships
because it usually starts controlling personal relationship dynamics
about the sixth month into the relationships. The same dynamic
usually underlies work problems, particularly those related to
relationships (employee-employer troubles). Failure to understand this
results in troubled personal and work relationships. Specifically
relating to the personal relationships, when two people have
reciprocally damaging senses of Worth, partner experiences can become
very, very trying. These relationships usually fail without
professional help. This is the subject of another article and ebook.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/pge6.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I have worked
with people for almost twenty-five years. By far, the single
most central element, the one thing that pervades almost every
other issue is self-esteem. It touches everything-sex and
relationships, work problems, anxiety, depression, addictions;
you name it. There are four primary elements of self-esteem.
I call them "Powers" because when we develop any one of them,
we become more personally powerful. The Four Powers of Self-Esteem
are: Worth, Competence, Ego-Strength and Self-Acceptance. This
article is about the First Power. The following is a quote from my
ebook on this subject.
"Worth is the First Power and the most common term used to
describe self-esteem, which is also why it can be confusing.
Specifically, Worth has to do with your basic feeling of value.
Are you a basically good human being? You might even think of this
category as "Goodness" instead of Worth. Both work. Are human
beings worthwhile as a species? Are you valuable? Important?
What are the markers of our Worth (and I don't mean lots of money,
although that can contribute...). If you are Catholic and believe
in original sin, you have the potential for a negative Worth right
out of the starting gate. You can repair this, but you have to do
what Catholicism prescribes, then you'll be OK. If you happen to be
Buddhist, you may not have this problem, but if you believe in
reincarnation then you "messed up" in a previous incarnation and have
to "come back" to better yourself or atone. You're still not "OK"
right from the beginning.
Another dimension of Worth is health. Are you mentally or
physically ill? You might have a basic sense that you are defective.
Are you adequate? Or, do you feel useless or flawed?
Another dimension has to do with your characteristics. Are you
significantly different from others? Are you too tall? Too short?
Too many freckles? Too smart or dumb? Are you not so handsome or
not so beautiful? Do you think you are not the perfect weight?
These are all "default" values, ones that most people think they
are more or less stuck with and therefore probably cannot change."
The Worth scale tends to reflect early history or chronic
conditions. It has a lot to do with our fundamental values, usually
gleaned from our family-of-origin. Of the four powers, it is the
first to develop and tends to be most central to our functioning as
adequate human beings. It is also the most difficult to change if
it is faulty. Fortunately, it can be changed using a variety of
techniques.
It is important to understand how strong or weak our sense of
Worth is. To do this, there are lots of tests of self-esteem, some
of which directly measure this and the other four powers.
(One such test is one this author created that can be found in an
ebook located on the websites listed below.) Any test that measures
family-of-origin values will usually touch on this very central
experience. This usually provides one of the first directions in
psychotherapy, which is a process of talking about and uncovering
early experiences, and then looking at how they play out in our
current lives. Self-esteem is central to virtually every aspect of
our current lives. We just do not recognize it often because it is
so pervasive and blends in so well with our daily goings-ons. It is
always functioning in the background of our awareness.
Basic worth overshadows the other three Powers in relationships
because it usually starts controlling personal relationship dynamics
about the sixth month into the relationships. The same dynamic
usually underlies work problems, particularly those related to
relationships (employee-employer troubles). Failure to understand this
results in troubled personal and work relationships. Specifically
relating to the personal relationships, when two people have
reciprocally damaging senses of Worth, partner experiences can become
very, very trying. These relationships usually fail without
professional help. This is the subject of another article and ebook.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/pge6.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
Relationships Fail Because...Part IV
Relationships Fail Because...Part IV
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I see problems
with personal relationships every day. In Part I of this series
of articles, I described some of the dynamics of these relationships,
focusing on the "deep stuff"--the buried material that surfaces after
a critical time in relationships. One example of the dynamics was
given to illustrate the process. Part III delved into another
example and explored the likely history and dynamics behind the
transference behaviors. In this article, the last of the four in
this series, the aspects of Negative Loops are described.
Please read Parts I, II and III before reading this article.
They should be in this same article directory.
Negative Loops come in three classes or categories, which are
summarized below from another source, also written by this author.
The first category is the negative response loop (expanders,
constrictors, aggressive or passive aggressive). These are behaviors
that most superficially and visibly reflect underlying transference.
Examples include over-reacting, under-reacting, acting out physically
or getting even in an underhanded manner. We usually see these kinds
of behaviors first when examining transference phenomena.
The second category is the negative trait loop (controlling, avoiding,
superior, inferior). These represent more stable aspects or
qualities or patterns of behavior, often developed over time in
response to chronic stressors. These are more subtle and not always
acted out so clearly (directly) as the negative responses.
These aspects usually reflect deeper and more chronic and subtle
attitudes, that creep into behaviors over time. Last, there is the
"negative personality type loop (narcissistic, impulsive, even
antisocial). These are deep-seated, chronic orientations that
reflect the absence of learned behaviors. They are chronic and very
resistant to treatment. When these surface, most people run in the
opposite direction because the consequences of staying around such
people are usually painful, difficult and costly. Examples include
feelings of entitlement, acting without thinking and violating the
rights of others. Moreover, these groupings of behaviors and classes
of transferences are not mutually exclusive. There can be elements
of any, or all at play. Sometimes Negative Loops are hard to see and
require couples counseling. But one thing is certain, repeating
patterns like these are dead giveaways that transference is lurking,
probably not too far from the surface of awareness.
And to the last point; usually there is a primary Negative Loop.
This is what often drives couples into therapy. It is the most
visible behavior pattern or perhaps the most annoying. But there is
often a secondary loop that is less obvious that surfaces when the
primary loop comes into focus. For example, if one of the
Negative Loop patterns is "Assertiveness vs. Avoidant," there might
be a secondary loop of "I'm rich vs. I'm poor." In this sub-theme,
the assertive person confronts from a position of power whereas the
avoidant one avoids by spending to make up for feelings of
"being deprived."
Lastly, almost all Negative Loop problems are couched in the
phrase, "We don't communicate." This is something that is discussed
in depth in the ebook, Why Relationships Fail. There is a
communication technique that exposes Negative Loops and another
refining technique that teases out the transferences, thus allowing
them to be resolved. For more information on this text, go to:
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
http:://www.drgriggs.org
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I see problems
with personal relationships every day. In Part I of this series
of articles, I described some of the dynamics of these relationships,
focusing on the "deep stuff"--the buried material that surfaces after
a critical time in relationships. One example of the dynamics was
given to illustrate the process. Part III delved into another
example and explored the likely history and dynamics behind the
transference behaviors. In this article, the last of the four in
this series, the aspects of Negative Loops are described.
Please read Parts I, II and III before reading this article.
They should be in this same article directory.
Negative Loops come in three classes or categories, which are
summarized below from another source, also written by this author.
The first category is the negative response loop (expanders,
constrictors, aggressive or passive aggressive). These are behaviors
that most superficially and visibly reflect underlying transference.
Examples include over-reacting, under-reacting, acting out physically
or getting even in an underhanded manner. We usually see these kinds
of behaviors first when examining transference phenomena.
The second category is the negative trait loop (controlling, avoiding,
superior, inferior). These represent more stable aspects or
qualities or patterns of behavior, often developed over time in
response to chronic stressors. These are more subtle and not always
acted out so clearly (directly) as the negative responses.
These aspects usually reflect deeper and more chronic and subtle
attitudes, that creep into behaviors over time. Last, there is the
"negative personality type loop (narcissistic, impulsive, even
antisocial). These are deep-seated, chronic orientations that
reflect the absence of learned behaviors. They are chronic and very
resistant to treatment. When these surface, most people run in the
opposite direction because the consequences of staying around such
people are usually painful, difficult and costly. Examples include
feelings of entitlement, acting without thinking and violating the
rights of others. Moreover, these groupings of behaviors and classes
of transferences are not mutually exclusive. There can be elements
of any, or all at play. Sometimes Negative Loops are hard to see and
require couples counseling. But one thing is certain, repeating
patterns like these are dead giveaways that transference is lurking,
probably not too far from the surface of awareness.
And to the last point; usually there is a primary Negative Loop.
This is what often drives couples into therapy. It is the most
visible behavior pattern or perhaps the most annoying. But there is
often a secondary loop that is less obvious that surfaces when the
primary loop comes into focus. For example, if one of the
Negative Loop patterns is "Assertiveness vs. Avoidant," there might
be a secondary loop of "I'm rich vs. I'm poor." In this sub-theme,
the assertive person confronts from a position of power whereas the
avoidant one avoids by spending to make up for feelings of
"being deprived."
Lastly, almost all Negative Loop problems are couched in the
phrase, "We don't communicate." This is something that is discussed
in depth in the ebook, Why Relationships Fail. There is a
communication technique that exposes Negative Loops and another
refining technique that teases out the transferences, thus allowing
them to be resolved. For more information on this text, go to:
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
http:://www.drgriggs.org
Relationships Fail Because...Part III
Relationships Fail Because...Part III
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I see problems
with personal relationships every day. In Part I of this series
of articles, I described some of the dynamics of these relationships,
focusing on the "deep stuff," the buried material that surfaces
after a critical time in relationships. One example of the dynamics
was given to illustrate the process. Part II discussed Negative
Loops and expanded upon the example
provided in Part I.
In this article, there is an even more detailed example of a
Negative Loop, with an explanation of some of the possible
transference dynamics, based upon the underlying family-of-origin
assumptions. Please read Parts I and II before reading this article.
They should be in this same article directory.
Some people have a hard time conceptualizing not just what is
a Negative Loop, but how it manifests. Here's a more in-depth look
at one and a discussion of some of the "deep stuff" that emerges as
transference behavior. (The following is taken from another source
by this same author.)
"Controlling vs. Passive Aggressive. He wants to control things,
what she has, when she goes out, where she goes, whom she socializes
with, or whatever. She resents this because, well, who likes to be
controlled? However, he is more overt in his attempt to control her,
even though he might also be indirect if he resorts to manipulation to
achieve his goal. Either way, she feels the pressure, resents the
intrusion and sabotages the efforts, usually quietly, under the
surface, passively aggressively. He does not recognize her "under
the radar" ploys, but certainly feels frustrated when his attempts
fail to control her. So, he amps up the process, doing more of the
things to control her, thinking, more is better and "this time" it
will work. She is more frustrated because, well, who likes to be
more controlled? Her machinations, again, are off the radar screen;
that is, underhanded, out of sight, indirect. The result is that she
undermined his attempts again, probably retaliating by doing more of
the same things he did not like in the first place that motivated him
to try to control her. The level of intensity has escalated because
the side effect of acted out negative transferences is frustration,
hurt or increased anxiety. These feelings, once ignited, power
escalation. The result is that both experience an increase in
negative feelings because neither got what they wanted. Because
there is no insight into or control over the process, it quickly
gets out of hand. When this dynamic reaches "critical mass" one or
both parties act out in some other way. This can be bad. One might
resort to simple withdrawal. Either might start yelling, or things
could actually degenerate into a physical altercation.
The transferences (acted out deep stuff) are fairly predictable
and might go something like the following. He has gotten used to
controlling others. At some deeper level he expects this to be OK,
the norm, or just the way it is. He may have seen this in his
parent interactions, or he may have been the oldest and is used to
thinking of himself as the boss of younger siblings. He may have a
position of authority at work, and then comes home and unwittingly
treats his wife and/or kids like employees. He got this
control-others idea "somewhere." At this point, we just do not
know from where. In history, he might have gotten his way with
violence. If it works, it is reinforced and the tendency increases
to repeat the experience in the future.
She, on the other hand, has learned to "not make waves," but at
the same time not give up her personal power. She does what she
wants, resisting his controlling ways, only she cannot be
"found out." In her mind, there might be too much risk. She may
have had a controlling father who was critical, or worse, violent.
She may have had sisters that got what they wanted by subtly
competing, but again, "behind the scenes," i.e., manipulating.
She may be narcissistic and not care about what the husband wants.
Narcissism can be severe, as in a personality disorder, or it can
be mild, as in just being spoiled as a child. Again, she learned
this style of interacting with intimates "somewhere" and is acting
it out, more or less automatically, probably unconsciously."
For more a more comprehensive exploration of this topic, see
the ebook (Why Relationships Fail) by this author at:
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I see problems
with personal relationships every day. In Part I of this series
of articles, I described some of the dynamics of these relationships,
focusing on the "deep stuff," the buried material that surfaces
after a critical time in relationships. One example of the dynamics
was given to illustrate the process. Part II discussed Negative
Loops and expanded upon the example
provided in Part I.
In this article, there is an even more detailed example of a
Negative Loop, with an explanation of some of the possible
transference dynamics, based upon the underlying family-of-origin
assumptions. Please read Parts I and II before reading this article.
They should be in this same article directory.
Some people have a hard time conceptualizing not just what is
a Negative Loop, but how it manifests. Here's a more in-depth look
at one and a discussion of some of the "deep stuff" that emerges as
transference behavior. (The following is taken from another source
by this same author.)
"Controlling vs. Passive Aggressive. He wants to control things,
what she has, when she goes out, where she goes, whom she socializes
with, or whatever. She resents this because, well, who likes to be
controlled? However, he is more overt in his attempt to control her,
even though he might also be indirect if he resorts to manipulation to
achieve his goal. Either way, she feels the pressure, resents the
intrusion and sabotages the efforts, usually quietly, under the
surface, passively aggressively. He does not recognize her "under
the radar" ploys, but certainly feels frustrated when his attempts
fail to control her. So, he amps up the process, doing more of the
things to control her, thinking, more is better and "this time" it
will work. She is more frustrated because, well, who likes to be
more controlled? Her machinations, again, are off the radar screen;
that is, underhanded, out of sight, indirect. The result is that she
undermined his attempts again, probably retaliating by doing more of
the same things he did not like in the first place that motivated him
to try to control her. The level of intensity has escalated because
the side effect of acted out negative transferences is frustration,
hurt or increased anxiety. These feelings, once ignited, power
escalation. The result is that both experience an increase in
negative feelings because neither got what they wanted. Because
there is no insight into or control over the process, it quickly
gets out of hand. When this dynamic reaches "critical mass" one or
both parties act out in some other way. This can be bad. One might
resort to simple withdrawal. Either might start yelling, or things
could actually degenerate into a physical altercation.
The transferences (acted out deep stuff) are fairly predictable
and might go something like the following. He has gotten used to
controlling others. At some deeper level he expects this to be OK,
the norm, or just the way it is. He may have seen this in his
parent interactions, or he may have been the oldest and is used to
thinking of himself as the boss of younger siblings. He may have a
position of authority at work, and then comes home and unwittingly
treats his wife and/or kids like employees. He got this
control-others idea "somewhere." At this point, we just do not
know from where. In history, he might have gotten his way with
violence. If it works, it is reinforced and the tendency increases
to repeat the experience in the future.
She, on the other hand, has learned to "not make waves," but at
the same time not give up her personal power. She does what she
wants, resisting his controlling ways, only she cannot be
"found out." In her mind, there might be too much risk. She may
have had a controlling father who was critical, or worse, violent.
She may have had sisters that got what they wanted by subtly
competing, but again, "behind the scenes," i.e., manipulating.
She may be narcissistic and not care about what the husband wants.
Narcissism can be severe, as in a personality disorder, or it can
be mild, as in just being spoiled as a child. Again, she learned
this style of interacting with intimates "somewhere" and is acting
it out, more or less automatically, probably unconsciously."
For more a more comprehensive exploration of this topic, see
the ebook (Why Relationships Fail) by this author at:
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
Relationships Fail Because...Part II
Relationships Fail Because...Part II
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I see problems
with personal relationships every day. In Part I of this series
of articles, I described some of the dynamics of these relationships,
focusing on the "deep stuff," the buried material that surfaces after
a critical time in relationships. One example of the dynamics was
given to illustrate the process. In this article, there is a
discussion of Negative Loops, plus more details of the previous
example are provided. Please read Part I before reading this article.
It should be in this same article directory.
"Deep stuff" is acted out most commonly in what I call
"Negative Loops." In my ebook, I describe it as:
"... what couples "automatically" (read, unconsciously) do
to each other that makes the other person worse, not better,
and is tied to unconscious expectations and assumptions
(transference). Here is a simpler explanation. These
transference ideas or unconscious basic assumptions dictate
our adaptive behaviors. They drive how we interact with
our partners. They are responsible for the patterns of
behaviors that we have manifested, usually for a long time.
Remember, in relationships, as we go through the stages,
transference phenomena gradually surface. They
increasingly color our interactions. If we have adaptive
ways of behaving, good basic assumptions, etc., the loops
we form with our (also healthy?) partner are reciprocally
supportive. If one of the partners has one or more negative
transferences, the relationship manifests this and the
relationship at least partially degrades. If two of the
partners have such negative patterns, the relationship might
downright suffer.
When the patterns are mutually exclusive; that is, play off
one another to actually make what the other partner does
worse, then we have a Negative Loop."
In the previous article, an example of a negative loop was given.
To expand, "she" was raised in a "spoiling" environment and got most
of what she wanted with little effort when growing up. "He" was
raised with few material things and had to work hard to get the things
he had. Fast forward in time. Both are adults and these
"basic assumptions" now lie dormant. They meet, date and do not see
the deep stuff because of the whirlwind of their superficial
experiences during the beginning (stage one) of their relationship.
Then, as the rush of the relationship dies down, each sees more and
more of the real person, which includes, not coincidentally, the deep
stuff that now begins to emerge. She begins to hint that it would be
nice if she could have such and such, while he thinks, OK, maybe just
this one time. But it happens again, then again and she begins to
feel neglected because he isn't just jumping to get her what she wants.
She may get mad because he does not think to initiate getting her
things, even when she does not ask. Her underlying deep stuff is
transferring onto her partner, more or less automatically
(read: unconsciously). He, on the other hand, feels increasingly put
upon, assuming from his early history that "things" aren't really
necessary, so why should he or would he think of them so often, much
less give her some. Bottom line? He begins to resent her for being
spoiled, and she begins to resent him for being Spartan.
Both build resentment and over time because the basic assumptions
are increasingly thwarted when expressed. They mutually collide
because they each assume an opposite value or experience to be true.
Resentment continues until the frustration is palpable. Then one of
them acts out, usually with considerable anger.
More on the eight most common Negative Loops can be found in
my ebook, Why Relationships Fail. Part III will discuss another
example and classify the kinds of Negative Loops.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist, I see problems
with personal relationships every day. In Part I of this series
of articles, I described some of the dynamics of these relationships,
focusing on the "deep stuff," the buried material that surfaces after
a critical time in relationships. One example of the dynamics was
given to illustrate the process. In this article, there is a
discussion of Negative Loops, plus more details of the previous
example are provided. Please read Part I before reading this article.
It should be in this same article directory.
"Deep stuff" is acted out most commonly in what I call
"Negative Loops." In my ebook, I describe it as:
"... what couples "automatically" (read, unconsciously) do
to each other that makes the other person worse, not better,
and is tied to unconscious expectations and assumptions
(transference). Here is a simpler explanation. These
transference ideas or unconscious basic assumptions dictate
our adaptive behaviors. They drive how we interact with
our partners. They are responsible for the patterns of
behaviors that we have manifested, usually for a long time.
Remember, in relationships, as we go through the stages,
transference phenomena gradually surface. They
increasingly color our interactions. If we have adaptive
ways of behaving, good basic assumptions, etc., the loops
we form with our (also healthy?) partner are reciprocally
supportive. If one of the partners has one or more negative
transferences, the relationship manifests this and the
relationship at least partially degrades. If two of the
partners have such negative patterns, the relationship might
downright suffer.
When the patterns are mutually exclusive; that is, play off
one another to actually make what the other partner does
worse, then we have a Negative Loop."
In the previous article, an example of a negative loop was given.
To expand, "she" was raised in a "spoiling" environment and got most
of what she wanted with little effort when growing up. "He" was
raised with few material things and had to work hard to get the things
he had. Fast forward in time. Both are adults and these
"basic assumptions" now lie dormant. They meet, date and do not see
the deep stuff because of the whirlwind of their superficial
experiences during the beginning (stage one) of their relationship.
Then, as the rush of the relationship dies down, each sees more and
more of the real person, which includes, not coincidentally, the deep
stuff that now begins to emerge. She begins to hint that it would be
nice if she could have such and such, while he thinks, OK, maybe just
this one time. But it happens again, then again and she begins to
feel neglected because he isn't just jumping to get her what she wants.
She may get mad because he does not think to initiate getting her
things, even when she does not ask. Her underlying deep stuff is
transferring onto her partner, more or less automatically
(read: unconsciously). He, on the other hand, feels increasingly put
upon, assuming from his early history that "things" aren't really
necessary, so why should he or would he think of them so often, much
less give her some. Bottom line? He begins to resent her for being
spoiled, and she begins to resent him for being Spartan.
Both build resentment and over time because the basic assumptions
are increasingly thwarted when expressed. They mutually collide
because they each assume an opposite value or experience to be true.
Resentment continues until the frustration is palpable. Then one of
them acts out, usually with considerable anger.
More on the eight most common Negative Loops can be found in
my ebook, Why Relationships Fail. Part III will discuss another
example and classify the kinds of Negative Loops.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
Relationships Fail Because... Part I
Relationships Fail Because... Part I
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist I deal with
eight issues everyday. They range from addictions, to child
problems, to ADHD, learning disabilities, lack of assertiveness,
anxiety and depression, and so on. The big ones are job problems
and relationships. These latter two seem to plague everyone, and
not coincidentally, jobs and relationships are THE experiences
that make or break people in the real world.
This article focuses on relationships of the personal kind.
When we focus on this kind of relationship, all kinds of "other"
associations pop up, dating from our experiences of the last
relationship, or dating back to our very first relationships with
our parents and/or siblings. Having a personal relationship is
"sticky;" meaning, it is never just a simple deal, straight out of
the box, so to speak. Relationships come with associations to the
past, commonly labeled "baggage." Do not misunderstand--baggage
can be good. While it usually is not, this does not mean our
history always is negative. Unfortunately for most of us, baggage
usually is bad. By definition, we are not in the relationship(s)
of the past, and there is usually a reason. This and many such
memories work on us from the inside out; that is, from the back of
our minds there comes some "associations" that lurk while we
blithely go about forming a new relationship. Its complicated.
Our history starts to really emerge when the novelty of the
new relationships diminishes. Like all experiences, relationships
go through stages. Stage I is the novelty stage. This is when
newness dominates our experiences. While "things" are fresh, the
relationship takes on an almost magical quality. It is fun,
exhilarating, joyful, engaging and stimulating. This is great,
and not surprisingly, such an "up" state masks who we really are;
that is, covers our histories.
But somewhere in the middle of stage one, and certainly by the
beginning of stage two, novelty subsides. Then what starts to
emerge is what I call the "deep stuff." This is the collective
influence of our history. This is the memory and/or associations
of all past relationships and of the family of origin itself.
Each partner has "deep stuff." The real determinant of
relationship success is the compatibility of the deep stuff.
Two partners have to have ways of relating to each other that
compliment and support the others' ways, but the deep stuff
determines how compatibility plays out, or not. This is what
makes or breaks relationships. (I'm talking about personal
relationships in this article, but it turns out this same dynamic
works in all relationships and is responsible for successes or
failures at work, too.)
This is not what e-harmony measures. This is not what
match.com talks about. This is not what Great Expectations or any
other dating or meet-people website discusses. They deal with
much more superficial qualities, which while interesting, sooner or
later fade as the deep stuff dynamics take over.
The lieutenant of the deep stuff is what we psychologists
call transference. Transference is the acting out of our primary
expectations, gleaned from history. If we were spoiled as a child,
it stands to reason that we will have some "expectations" of being
treated as such. It may be fairly unconscious, but being spoiled
will be "in our blood," so to speak, and will influence how we
expect to be treated as adults. Again, this will not be so obvious
in the beginning stages of relationships, but sooner or later, it
will emerge. And, if our partner comes from an environment that is
emotionally or physically Spartan, he or she will have somewhat
opposite experiences and later opposite unconscious expectations.
Put the two partners together in a relationship and likely sooner
or later this high potential for conflict (different unconscious
expectations) manifest. Again, this will not be so visible
initially, but will later emerge. One can only imagine what will
happen when both sets of histories start to emerge in the same
relationship.
This and a lot more are covered in my ebook,
"Why Relationships Fail." This article continues with Part II,
which is probably on this same directory.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist I deal with
eight issues everyday. They range from addictions, to child
problems, to ADHD, learning disabilities, lack of assertiveness,
anxiety and depression, and so on. The big ones are job problems
and relationships. These latter two seem to plague everyone, and
not coincidentally, jobs and relationships are THE experiences
that make or break people in the real world.
This article focuses on relationships of the personal kind.
When we focus on this kind of relationship, all kinds of "other"
associations pop up, dating from our experiences of the last
relationship, or dating back to our very first relationships with
our parents and/or siblings. Having a personal relationship is
"sticky;" meaning, it is never just a simple deal, straight out of
the box, so to speak. Relationships come with associations to the
past, commonly labeled "baggage." Do not misunderstand--baggage
can be good. While it usually is not, this does not mean our
history always is negative. Unfortunately for most of us, baggage
usually is bad. By definition, we are not in the relationship(s)
of the past, and there is usually a reason. This and many such
memories work on us from the inside out; that is, from the back of
our minds there comes some "associations" that lurk while we
blithely go about forming a new relationship. Its complicated.
Our history starts to really emerge when the novelty of the
new relationships diminishes. Like all experiences, relationships
go through stages. Stage I is the novelty stage. This is when
newness dominates our experiences. While "things" are fresh, the
relationship takes on an almost magical quality. It is fun,
exhilarating, joyful, engaging and stimulating. This is great,
and not surprisingly, such an "up" state masks who we really are;
that is, covers our histories.
But somewhere in the middle of stage one, and certainly by the
beginning of stage two, novelty subsides. Then what starts to
emerge is what I call the "deep stuff." This is the collective
influence of our history. This is the memory and/or associations
of all past relationships and of the family of origin itself.
Each partner has "deep stuff." The real determinant of
relationship success is the compatibility of the deep stuff.
Two partners have to have ways of relating to each other that
compliment and support the others' ways, but the deep stuff
determines how compatibility plays out, or not. This is what
makes or breaks relationships. (I'm talking about personal
relationships in this article, but it turns out this same dynamic
works in all relationships and is responsible for successes or
failures at work, too.)
This is not what e-harmony measures. This is not what
match.com talks about. This is not what Great Expectations or any
other dating or meet-people website discusses. They deal with
much more superficial qualities, which while interesting, sooner or
later fade as the deep stuff dynamics take over.
The lieutenant of the deep stuff is what we psychologists
call transference. Transference is the acting out of our primary
expectations, gleaned from history. If we were spoiled as a child,
it stands to reason that we will have some "expectations" of being
treated as such. It may be fairly unconscious, but being spoiled
will be "in our blood," so to speak, and will influence how we
expect to be treated as adults. Again, this will not be so obvious
in the beginning stages of relationships, but sooner or later, it
will emerge. And, if our partner comes from an environment that is
emotionally or physically Spartan, he or she will have somewhat
opposite experiences and later opposite unconscious expectations.
Put the two partners together in a relationship and likely sooner
or later this high potential for conflict (different unconscious
expectations) manifest. Again, this will not be so visible
initially, but will later emerge. One can only imagine what will
happen when both sets of histories start to emerge in the same
relationship.
This and a lot more are covered in my ebook,
"Why Relationships Fail." This article continues with Part II,
which is probably on this same directory.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
The Citadel of Self
The Citadel of Self
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist of over
twenty years, I have come to recognize that most of the
problems I treat in my office stem from one simple
problem--self integrity. This is often referred to by other
names-self-esteem and self-image being the two most common.
In all walks of life, people take in messages about
themselves, starting at a very young age and continuing to death.
The messages are a mixture of goods, bad, and neutrals, but they,
en toto, form a composite version of personal reality, which we
call self. I call this representation an epiphenomenon; meaning,
the thing that emerges as the aggregate of every experience of
self garnered along the way.
The heart of our selves is what I call the citadel of self.
On the surface this is how we see ourselves, as precipitated from
the many experiences we glean from others, who directly or
indirectly contribute to our epiphenomenon. Just under this
persona is a collection of impulses, some coordinated, some
disjoint and colliding--not just with one another but with the
self-image on the surface, too. Just under that is the deep stuff,
as I like to call it. This is that aspect of self that we
experience when we wake up at three in the morning and we have yet
to move or even open an eye. Yet, we know we exist because we
observe our own consciousness. We are active just by being aware,
in this case probably without much thought. We know we exist
because we are self-aware, not just aware of things outside our skin.
At three in the morning there is little to distract us, so our
perception of the deep stuff is clearer. It is as if we are
observing the pilot light of consciousness itself. Think of this
region as the geographic center of identity.
The functioning of the last level seems to be automatic and is
the basis for our very existence. Without this basic energy of life,
no psychology is possible. The psychological problems I see in the
office involve the two top levels, which largely stem from our past, particularly early family experiences. It does not matter how
intact our very existence is, the layering of experience on top of
it is what sets up problems. Most of us lose sight of the deep stuff,
so we concentrate on the subjective conflicts and daily goings-ons
that cover it up. Its like sitting on the bottom of a deep pool
where it is serene, then looking up. On the surface there are
ripples and even waves as the wind plays on the water. Most people
are stuck looking at the waves and miss the serenity.
Interestingly, when we focus on the deep stuff, and just admire
if you will the fact that we exist, our attention is drawn away from
the more superficial annoyances and the conflicts, negative messages
and other information working on our self-esteems. It is not a matte
of distracting ourselves, as in "just think positive." This approach
is more about focusing on the basic, or primary experience of existing,
which has a very big effect on the subjective experience of self.
In a word, using this approach expands our feelings at deep levels,
which has the effect of vanquishing other more superficial feelings. Presumably the big feeling knocks out or at least modifies the little
feeling.
One can do this kind of work in any deep, quiet state that allows
clear perception and thinking. Obviously, this lets out drug or
alcohol-induced experiences. One can sit quietly and just
"be with oneself," as Arthur Deikman suggested in The Observing Self.
Or, one can practice any number of meditation techniques, or even
hypnosis. The point is to quiet the chattering mind, thus allowing
awareness to settle. Once quieted, the mind tends to enjoy the
lack of perturbations, which all by itself feels good at deeper levels.
Not everyone can do this kind of self-esteem work. I think of
ADHD types or anyone sufficiently internally stimulated or anyone who
cannot allow their attention to come to rest. This approach is not
for everyone.
For more on how to repair a crummy self-image, read my ebook,
entitled, The Four Powers of Self-Esteem.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page6.html
In my capacity as an outpatient psychologist of over
twenty years, I have come to recognize that most of the
problems I treat in my office stem from one simple
problem--self integrity. This is often referred to by other
names-self-esteem and self-image being the two most common.
In all walks of life, people take in messages about
themselves, starting at a very young age and continuing to death.
The messages are a mixture of goods, bad, and neutrals, but they,
en toto, form a composite version of personal reality, which we
call self. I call this representation an epiphenomenon; meaning,
the thing that emerges as the aggregate of every experience of
self garnered along the way.
The heart of our selves is what I call the citadel of self.
On the surface this is how we see ourselves, as precipitated from
the many experiences we glean from others, who directly or
indirectly contribute to our epiphenomenon. Just under this
persona is a collection of impulses, some coordinated, some
disjoint and colliding--not just with one another but with the
self-image on the surface, too. Just under that is the deep stuff,
as I like to call it. This is that aspect of self that we
experience when we wake up at three in the morning and we have yet
to move or even open an eye. Yet, we know we exist because we
observe our own consciousness. We are active just by being aware,
in this case probably without much thought. We know we exist
because we are self-aware, not just aware of things outside our skin.
At three in the morning there is little to distract us, so our
perception of the deep stuff is clearer. It is as if we are
observing the pilot light of consciousness itself. Think of this
region as the geographic center of identity.
The functioning of the last level seems to be automatic and is
the basis for our very existence. Without this basic energy of life,
no psychology is possible. The psychological problems I see in the
office involve the two top levels, which largely stem from our past, particularly early family experiences. It does not matter how
intact our very existence is, the layering of experience on top of
it is what sets up problems. Most of us lose sight of the deep stuff,
so we concentrate on the subjective conflicts and daily goings-ons
that cover it up. Its like sitting on the bottom of a deep pool
where it is serene, then looking up. On the surface there are
ripples and even waves as the wind plays on the water. Most people
are stuck looking at the waves and miss the serenity.
Interestingly, when we focus on the deep stuff, and just admire
if you will the fact that we exist, our attention is drawn away from
the more superficial annoyances and the conflicts, negative messages
and other information working on our self-esteems. It is not a matte
of distracting ourselves, as in "just think positive." This approach
is more about focusing on the basic, or primary experience of existing,
which has a very big effect on the subjective experience of self.
In a word, using this approach expands our feelings at deep levels,
which has the effect of vanquishing other more superficial feelings. Presumably the big feeling knocks out or at least modifies the little
feeling.
One can do this kind of work in any deep, quiet state that allows
clear perception and thinking. Obviously, this lets out drug or
alcohol-induced experiences. One can sit quietly and just
"be with oneself," as Arthur Deikman suggested in The Observing Self.
Or, one can practice any number of meditation techniques, or even
hypnosis. The point is to quiet the chattering mind, thus allowing
awareness to settle. Once quieted, the mind tends to enjoy the
lack of perturbations, which all by itself feels good at deeper levels.
Not everyone can do this kind of self-esteem work. I think of
ADHD types or anyone sufficiently internally stimulated or anyone who
cannot allow their attention to come to rest. This approach is not
for everyone.
For more on how to repair a crummy self-image, read my ebook,
entitled, The Four Powers of Self-Esteem.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page6.html
Personal Power in Relationships
Personal Power in Relationships
As an outpatient psychologist of over twenty years, I work
with couples in trouble, probably two or three times every day.
I have written extensively in articles and ebooks about why
relationships fail, but one thing that needs to be addressed is
personal power in relationships.
Personal power is about being assertive and effective in
communication. What is assertiveness? I define it in three
stages--beginning, intermediate and advanced. Beginning
assertiveness is simply sharing with our partner how we think
and feel. Think of it as playing a hand of cards and we lay
our cards on the table, face up for our opponent, in this case
partner, to see. Our partner now knows our hand. We haven't
requested to see our partner's cards. We are just sharing what
we have.
Intermediate assertiveness is asking for something we want.
Once having shared our experience (thoughts and feelings,
metaphorically speaking) it is only natural to request something
based upon sharing this information. For example, we are hungry.
Once having shared that fact, it is only natural to ask for food.
Advanced assertiveness is for professionals, and is not
something most of us will ever have to practice. An example is
when the police negotiate with criminals in banks who hold hostages
for money. An example is when a psychologist talks with a patient
on the phone when they are poised at the top of a building,
considering whether or not to jump. Less extreme examples are
very complicated business deals that involve millions of dollars.
These are scenarios better left to competent, well-trained
specialists.
In relationships there first has to be a sense of healthy
entitlement. This is different from the narcissistic kind, which
is based upon infantile and unrealistic needs. Healthy entitlement
works off of a developed self-esteem that recognizes that most needs
are normal and to express those need in the context of a dynamic and
interactive relationship is appropriate, even necessary to maintain
continued psychological health.
Usually this comes spontaneously, especially if self-esteem is
well developed. Sometimes, this dynamic evolves as couples get used
to each other and develop psychological routines (who speaks first
about what, which topics are OK, which are not, etc.) Regardless,
there has to be a sense of appropriateness to the communication,
and it has to be underlying, understood and more or less automatic.
Otherwise, trouble will brew.
The power aspect emerges when there is a mismatch, hence
"problem" in one or more of several dynamic areas. One area is when
either partner has a significantly greater need for something than the
other. This could be good or bad, which usually sets up conflict or compatibility. An example is when one partner has a need to reduce
anxiety and compensates in ways that cause problems (addiction to food, spending). This creates a counter need to control the negative
compensations, which now functions as a fulcrum of conflict. The two
partners battle each other, wielding personal power in ways to meet the
need and then to control the damage of the compensation.
One is when either partner has greater skills in communicating.
One then dominates the other, who presumably is less comfortable speaking
up. In this case, the speaker, forcing the non-speaker to find other
ways to neutralize the power differential, wields overt power. Again,
the compensation might be adaptive or not, depending upon a host of
factors.
In general, power is synonymous with control. When control is
mutual, so is the overall spread of personal power, allowing for minor differences due to personality and other intrapersonal factors.
When power is not evenly divided, look out. This is the "stuff" of
marital therapy. Usually these dynamics hail from family-of-origin
dynamics, which is one of the central themes in my ebook,
Why Relationships Fail.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
As an outpatient psychologist of over twenty years, I work
with couples in trouble, probably two or three times every day.
I have written extensively in articles and ebooks about why
relationships fail, but one thing that needs to be addressed is
personal power in relationships.
Personal power is about being assertive and effective in
communication. What is assertiveness? I define it in three
stages--beginning, intermediate and advanced. Beginning
assertiveness is simply sharing with our partner how we think
and feel. Think of it as playing a hand of cards and we lay
our cards on the table, face up for our opponent, in this case
partner, to see. Our partner now knows our hand. We haven't
requested to see our partner's cards. We are just sharing what
we have.
Intermediate assertiveness is asking for something we want.
Once having shared our experience (thoughts and feelings,
metaphorically speaking) it is only natural to request something
based upon sharing this information. For example, we are hungry.
Once having shared that fact, it is only natural to ask for food.
Advanced assertiveness is for professionals, and is not
something most of us will ever have to practice. An example is
when the police negotiate with criminals in banks who hold hostages
for money. An example is when a psychologist talks with a patient
on the phone when they are poised at the top of a building,
considering whether or not to jump. Less extreme examples are
very complicated business deals that involve millions of dollars.
These are scenarios better left to competent, well-trained
specialists.
In relationships there first has to be a sense of healthy
entitlement. This is different from the narcissistic kind, which
is based upon infantile and unrealistic needs. Healthy entitlement
works off of a developed self-esteem that recognizes that most needs
are normal and to express those need in the context of a dynamic and
interactive relationship is appropriate, even necessary to maintain
continued psychological health.
Usually this comes spontaneously, especially if self-esteem is
well developed. Sometimes, this dynamic evolves as couples get used
to each other and develop psychological routines (who speaks first
about what, which topics are OK, which are not, etc.) Regardless,
there has to be a sense of appropriateness to the communication,
and it has to be underlying, understood and more or less automatic.
Otherwise, trouble will brew.
The power aspect emerges when there is a mismatch, hence
"problem" in one or more of several dynamic areas. One area is when
either partner has a significantly greater need for something than the
other. This could be good or bad, which usually sets up conflict or compatibility. An example is when one partner has a need to reduce
anxiety and compensates in ways that cause problems (addiction to food, spending). This creates a counter need to control the negative
compensations, which now functions as a fulcrum of conflict. The two
partners battle each other, wielding personal power in ways to meet the
need and then to control the damage of the compensation.
One is when either partner has greater skills in communicating.
One then dominates the other, who presumably is less comfortable speaking
up. In this case, the speaker, forcing the non-speaker to find other
ways to neutralize the power differential, wields overt power. Again,
the compensation might be adaptive or not, depending upon a host of
factors.
In general, power is synonymous with control. When control is
mutual, so is the overall spread of personal power, allowing for minor differences due to personality and other intrapersonal factors.
When power is not evenly divided, look out. This is the "stuff" of
marital therapy. Usually these dynamics hail from family-of-origin
dynamics, which is one of the central themes in my ebook,
Why Relationships Fail.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
http://www.drgriggs.org
The Trouble About Troubled Relationshiops
The Trouble About Troubled Relationships
Each person has had a unstable relationship. We understand the signs--
poor communication, icy silence, blow-ups, cold shoulders, fights (verbal
or physical), and so one.
Even the connection with another that we have now, if we have one, is
probably not great. Subtler elements of the above problem-behaviors intrude
into our everyday interactions, even if we are relatively contented with
our partner.
As an outpatient marriage and family therapist who deals a lot with
couples struggling with these issues, I have found a few common themes that
seem to make the difference between the "haves and the have nots"
when it comes to compatible and satisfying relationships.
We all know communication is fundamental, but what is not well know are
what "elements" of communication make for a great relationship.
It is one thing to say what we feel or ask for what we want. But
there is one crucial dynamic and two crucial areas that need to be
addressed. These three aspects of communication precipitate the
effective from the ineffective communicators.
The first subject is the dynamic of the communication itself.
What people do not realize is that there are actually two levels of
communication. I call these "content" and "process." Content refers
to the most superficial aspects of what is being communicated. It is
the "issue" or concern or topic. If I complain about my wife leaving
the cap off of the toothpaste tube, this is the content--the cap,
the toothpaste tube and her leaving the cap off. Only about ten
percent of what is communicated is actually communicated at the level
of content.
The more important dynamic is what I call process. This includes
all the non-verbal aspects that accompany the actual verbal description
of the issue (content). Non-verbal cues are things like intensity of the
spoken word, alacrity of the words, word choice, word timing and body
language
(which is actually quite full and complex). Process
comprises about ninety percent of what is actually communicated between
folks when speaking face-to-face. It still comprises up to fifty
percent of what is communicated even in telephone conversations,
because of the subtleties and richness of the voice mouthing the
spoken words.
A significant aspect of the content-process dimension is
congruence or incongruence. Congruence is when the speaker's
non-verbal signals agree with or say the same thing as the
words themselves. For example, if I am angry I should be frowning.
Incongruence is when the non-verbal cues are different or possibly just
contradict the verbal ones. For example, when I am angry I am smiling.
The two elements that most people omit when communicating are
articulating the process and validating. Articulating the process is
putting the non-verbal or process aspects of communication into words;
that is, actually describing what is normally non-verbal with actual
words. For example, if I were angry, normally I would show that
feeling by my non-verbal cues (genuineness, sincerity, etc.).
If I articulate my process, I just say I am angry, using just the
right word to capture the degree of anger (frustration, irritation,
miffed, and so on). In other words, I don't leave anything to chance.
I spell out exactly what I want to express at a feeling level, which it turns
out, is
about seventy-five percent of process communication.
The second area of communication is validation. This is when
I paraphrase or put into my words the communication of my partner
BEFORE I respond. And, I re-iterate the communication at both levels,
content and process. (It also is helpful if my partner "checks"
my paraphrasing to insure I don't miss anything.) This is the most
rudimentary and bare presentation of these very important and often overlook
or omitted dynamics and crucial areas of communication. For a very
detailed description, see my ebook, Why Relationships Fail.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
Each person has had a unstable relationship. We understand the signs--
poor communication, icy silence, blow-ups, cold shoulders, fights (verbal
or physical), and so one.
Even the connection with another that we have now, if we have one, is
probably not great. Subtler elements of the above problem-behaviors intrude
into our everyday interactions, even if we are relatively contented with
our partner.
As an outpatient marriage and family therapist who deals a lot with
couples struggling with these issues, I have found a few common themes that
seem to make the difference between the "haves and the have nots"
when it comes to compatible and satisfying relationships.
We all know communication is fundamental, but what is not well know are
what "elements" of communication make for a great relationship.
It is one thing to say what we feel or ask for what we want. But
there is one crucial dynamic and two crucial areas that need to be
addressed. These three aspects of communication precipitate the
effective from the ineffective communicators.
The first subject is the dynamic of the communication itself.
What people do not realize is that there are actually two levels of
communication. I call these "content" and "process." Content refers
to the most superficial aspects of what is being communicated. It is
the "issue" or concern or topic. If I complain about my wife leaving
the cap off of the toothpaste tube, this is the content--the cap,
the toothpaste tube and her leaving the cap off. Only about ten
percent of what is communicated is actually communicated at the level
of content.
The more important dynamic is what I call process. This includes
all the non-verbal aspects that accompany the actual verbal description
of the issue (content). Non-verbal cues are things like intensity of the
spoken word, alacrity of the words, word choice, word timing and body
language
(which is actually quite full and complex). Process
comprises about ninety percent of what is actually communicated between
folks when speaking face-to-face. It still comprises up to fifty
percent of what is communicated even in telephone conversations,
because of the subtleties and richness of the voice mouthing the
spoken words.
A significant aspect of the content-process dimension is
congruence or incongruence. Congruence is when the speaker's
non-verbal signals agree with or say the same thing as the
words themselves. For example, if I am angry I should be frowning.
Incongruence is when the non-verbal cues are different or possibly just
contradict the verbal ones. For example, when I am angry I am smiling.
The two elements that most people omit when communicating are
articulating the process and validating. Articulating the process is
putting the non-verbal or process aspects of communication into words;
that is, actually describing what is normally non-verbal with actual
words. For example, if I were angry, normally I would show that
feeling by my non-verbal cues (genuineness, sincerity, etc.).
If I articulate my process, I just say I am angry, using just the
right word to capture the degree of anger (frustration, irritation,
miffed, and so on). In other words, I don't leave anything to chance.
I spell out exactly what I want to express at a feeling level, which it turns
out, is
about seventy-five percent of process communication.
The second area of communication is validation. This is when
I paraphrase or put into my words the communication of my partner
BEFORE I respond. And, I re-iterate the communication at both levels,
content and process. (It also is helpful if my partner "checks"
my paraphrasing to insure I don't miss anything.) This is the most
rudimentary and bare presentation of these very important and often overlook
or omitted dynamics and crucial areas of communication. For a very
detailed description, see my ebook, Why Relationships Fail.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page14.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
