This is a great read unpacking the complexity of relationships…and giving insight into personal and relational change…

To Fight or Flight on the Intimacy Battlefield

by Mark Gorkin, LICSW Updated: Dec 1st 2000 (from Mentalhelp.net.com)

The Stress Doc examines the "Mars-Venus" battles of an intimate couple, including the psychic knots each are bound by and strategies for breaking away and possibly weaving together a vital and harmonious tapestry.

To Fight or Flight:

Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. The implication of John Gray’s title is that gender is bio-psychosocial, if not celestial, destiny. Still, as a therapist and organizational consultant, a key goal is helping folks acknowledge and express their gender essence while also transcending conventional brain-body-society expectations. For example, is the autonomy predisposition mostly limited to the male while the female manifests a predisposition for affiliation? Recent research does support the notion that when problem-solving under stress men often do their own thing with skills at hand. Women, however, more frequently "tend or befriend," reaching out to give or receive nurturance and, thereby, draw strength with or from others. At the same time, of course, the Rambo archetype is not confined to the male psyche. There are plenty of Rambettes out there, not to mention the sensitive men who’ve unmasked and forsaken the Lone Ranger gig.

Recalling therapy work with a mid-30s, never married female client in the midst of a serious five-month relationship with an early-50s, once divorced male has focused my attention on gender differences, including contrasting defenses and dependency issues. But first let me note some similarities: Both are very bright, high-energy successful career professionals. They share many common interests, plan activities together and enjoy each other’s friends. At the same time, constantly being busy and surrounded by people is a way of diverting themselves from their own murky and vulnerable emotional depths. And naturally they are facing the intimacy paradox: the more time spent together sexually and passionately, the more we truly open up, the harder it is to contain one’s psychic wellsprings. The person’s deep-seated sources of emotional memories, anxieties, hurts, rage, abandonments, control issues, vulnerable sense of self, etc., start emerging from out of the psychic shadows. And as these emotional depth charges surface the two, when together without friends, too frequently move away from each other or disguise their genuine feelings fearing some cataclysmic confrontation. And both their historical depths include some codependency dynamics. (For identification purposes, the couple is Ann and Bob.)

The Main Characters

Ann has had two significant previous romantic relationships; the first was in her 20s, lasting about seven years. This relationship was with a verbally abusive, if not cruel, cold and manipulative partner. The second of the romances, an 18-month scenario, started like a meteor. The couple shared many intellectual and cultural interests. Yet, her mate’s drinking problems and cyclical bouts of depression (for which treatment was refused) foretold the burnout and painful breakup.

Bob, as reported by Ann, was divorced about ten years ago. Since then a series of relationships have mostly revolved around sexuality and living for the moment rather than forging a partnership of genuine emotional sharing and mutual conflict resolution. (Bob, who I have not met, claims this pattern is in response to his unhappy experience with his ex-wife and that he still has not met "the right one.") Even more than Ann, he is reluctant to express deeper, uncomfortable feelings, emotions that often are screened out of his consciousness. Bob has only been in therapy for brief periods to regain emotional equilibrium during times of relationship crisis.

As for Ann, she is committed to exploring her emotional issues in depth and, certainly with some trepidation, is cautiously risking expressing her anxieties and frustrations directly with Bob. Ann acknowledges this is her most realistic and healthy romantic relationship. At the same time, she is rightly concerned about Bob’s tendency to quickly disconnect from uncomfortable emotions, his difficulty verbalizing his emotions and a need to distract through excessive joking around. (Joking off, if you will.) Which leads to the next communicational crown and cross: Bob likely expresses deeper affections and passions mostly through sexual communication as opposed to words. For Ann, a woman whose needs for reassurance and recognition ebb and flow, the lack of verbal affirmation can leave Ann (a highly verbal person) feeling deprived and also wondering if Bob is mostly absorbed in his own self-pleasure.

Also, Ann still fears that Bob is not capable of making a lasting commitment to an ongoing intimate and sexual relationship, despite his current monogamy and obvious involvement with Ann. His desire for occasionally watching pornographic videos with Ann and intermitent fantasizing about attending swinger’s clubs is understandably worrisome. So too is Bob’s patter about casual sex, such as his speculation that if either one had a brief fling on a business trip it would have no real bearing on their feelings for each other. So all of the above has made Ann wary of Bob’s intentions and commitment potential.

Case Study

Let’s see how some of the couple’s dynamics play out in a specific battle. Here’s a conflict situation that highlights a classic Mars and Venus interchange that leaves both parties frustrated. Ann is sharing with Bob a difficult recent encounter with a woman friend (whom I’ll call Sue). At a party, Ann was updating a second girl friend about her relationship with Bob. According to Ann, Sue felt like a bystander and in a subsequent phone call Sue expressed her upset at being excluded. While some reconciliation was made, Ann still felt criticized and negatively judged. Ann also related that this was not the first time she felt chastised by Sue.

Ann was able to recognize that Sue has her own emotional albatross. She appears to be trapped by emotional and sexual cravings for an aloof, cold and unreliable guy. Sensitive to abandonment and rejection in light of her self-defeating, codependent partnership, Sue is likely taking out on Ann some of this hurt and anger along with her self-loathing and feelings of humiliation.

In recounting the above with Bob, Ann acknowledges feeling anxious about having to confront Sue about her judgmental attack. Ann, notwithstanding some feelings of guilt and anxiety, is contemplating telling her fairly long-time friend that, "the friendship is not working for me." (Of course, it would be better if Ann would not sever her friendship before having a real heart to heart with Sue. Then Ann could determine if there is or isn’t a basis for continuing the relationship.)

Upon hearing her conflicted feelings, Bob fairly decisively states that Ann should, "let Sue go."

Ann immediately says it’s not such a simple decision; many complex emotions are involved. Bob repeats his declaration believing the issue and requisite action is cut and dried. After another round of disagreement Bob declares, "I’m getting bored with this discussion." Not surprisingly, the two withdraw from each other in a tense, stony silence.

After a couple of hours, Ann returns and begins to channel her hurt and anger into some risk-taking actions. With angry conviction, Ann informs Bob that she was insulted when he labeled her emotional venting as "boring." Initially, Bob limits his acknowledgment, if not an apology, to, "A poor choice of word." As the couple further debates the issues and their interchange, Bob admits that some of his frustration stems from Ann "dismissing his advice." And, of course, completing the Venus-Mars loop, Ann affirms that she was looking less for advice and more for Bob to show some understanding of her emotional conflict with Sue.

And for both parties, one suspects that messages sent are not messages received. Nor do the couple seem to get a fundamental Stress Doc relationship aphorism: Difference and Disagreement =/= Disapproval and Disloyalty.

Should You Have "Time for the Pain?"

Also not surprising, Ann is in my office wondering why she’s investing so much time and energy in a relationship that may not have a foundation for long-term compatibility and commitment. Actually, this is a good question. Is there value in slugging through the big relationship muddy with an Alpha Martian who may be commitment-phobe? (Am I being redundant here?) I believe there iseven beyond the fact that folks like Ann help me meet my fairly outrageous monthly rent payment. So here are "The Stress Doc’s Seven Strategic Motivations for Working Through Relationship Trials, Tensions and Tears":

1. Short-circuit Impulsive Escape. Ann’s concerns about Bob’s potential for infidelity "down the road" are understandable. Still, her contemplating a preemptive strike, i.e., ending the relationship before Bob enacts his "open relationship" policy is a also defensive ploy. She wants to remove herself from the natural uncertainty and anxiety, conflict and vulnerability of the post-early stage or post-honeymoon phase of romantic relationship building. Protecting her self-esteem, Ann will withdraw before being abandoned and will reject before being humiliated. Even if Ann’s motives are more self-preservation than retaliation, to bail out now will deprive her of a unique psychological wellness health room for developing emotional and communicational muscle.

2. Recognize the Dark Side of Anger. Early on in her therapy work, Ann realized her anger pattern in significant non-work relationships: to swallow her charged emotions and/or physically retreat and stew. On occasion, before withdrawal, she might shoot off a verbal stinger loaded with condescending tone. The challenge is to acknowledge her frustration and to risk expressing her desire for more emotional sharing and less sexual fantasy despite the concomitant fear that to do so will "push Bob away" and lead to their breakup.

Of course, there are two main issues: First, is Bob that fragile in the intimacy realm that Ann’s anger or need for more mutual emotional disclosure will invariably lead to his bailing out? But the more critical issue, in my opinion, involves Ann’s shame or anxiety for being angry in the first place, let alone expressing such feelings. Her self-talk includes such classic condemnations as: a) her anger is irrational, b) she’s making a big deal over some trivial issues or c) she’s being "too needy" and "controlling." Whether it is Bob impugning Ann’s wishes for more genuine sharing or Ann giving up on herself, giving up on saying what’s in her heart and gut, both onslaughts will, over time, weaken her integrity and enhance a sense of helplessness. And her right to be angry is further undermined.

One of the most significant challenges, perhaps the biggest in an intimate relationship, is whether there is time and space and psychological maturity for healthy anger. Couples often confuse hostile and blaming "acc-you-sations" – "You made me," "It’s your fault," "You only think of yourself," and "You always drop the ball" – along with the "silent treatment" with healthy or justified anger. Of course, righteous rationalizations can even excuse verbal rages or physical explosions. Blaming often is a projection of one’s own feelings of inadequacy onto the perceived antagonist. Rage is usually triggered less by amplified righteous anger and more by a sense of humiliation and helplessness, self-percepts the enraged individual doesn’t want to feel. Actually, the volatile "victim" wants to deny that he or she likely has been harboring this unstable psychic volcano for months, if not years or decades. And the best way to shut down these smoldering, latently explosive hurts is to intimidate a partner, to push him or her outside one’s own zone of acceptable interpersonal intimacy. So the rageful individual must attack first, to "self protect." And if successful, eventually, intimidation becomes its own rewarduntil the belligerent behavior is challenged. Or until one can walk away stating, "I no longer will be party to this dysfunctional or abusive drama." And we may need professional help sometimes to take a self-affirming stand.

3. Grieve Previous Abuse. Ann recognized that her past two most significant romantic relationships were fraught with emotional and communicational problems. The seven-year relationship in her 20s was awash in her partner’s hostility that periodically crossed the border into cruelty. He was a classical batterer: he would tear Ann down for being immature, for being so "needy," then manage a brief respite of remorse and conciliation. This brief diversion (even if at times sincere, it’s the pattern that makes the remorse suspect) was quickly followed by tirades when Ann became justifiably suspicious of his extra-relationship pursuits. (Clearly, hot button memories will be flamed by some of Bob’s "open partnership" predilections and fantasies.)

A half-decade was lost before Ann finally and fully realized she was not the primary cause of her first partner’s chronic discontent and aggression.

In her mid-30s, with her second significant "long term" partner, the problem was less Ann feeling so immature and inadequate and more that she got entangled in rescue fantasies, that is, Ann trying to salvage her relationship with Roger motivated, at least partly, by her own loneliness and issues of separation anxiety. The honeymoon period was filled with sharing common cultural pursuits; they had a whirlwind social calendar. But a dysfunctional demon was beginning to raise its headand Ann was still putting her head in the sand — Roger’s drinking problem. Also not allowed full access on Ann’s psychic radar screen was Roger’s apparent clinical depression. And with both medical and psychological pathologies Ann slipped into the classic codependent role: she would enable her mate to overcome his demons, even if he wasn’t ready to truly acknowledge his dual diagnosis. Then Ann’s self-defeating thinking regressed into, "Well if he loved me enough he would get help." Next Ann, herself, attended some Al-Anon meetings (for the partners of the alcoholic). But nothing changed Roger’s self-destructive path. Alas, the more intimate Ann’s desires and communication the more Roger withdrew from his "Intimate FOE: Fear of Exposure."

Now it was less intimidation (though Roger’s pattern of withdrawal after six months was becoming more confusing and hurtful) and more Ann’s own fantasies of recapturing their magical bliss that kept her fighting for and holding on to Roger. And, as often happens, coexisting with obsessive fantasy is a near paralyzing fear of abandonment; an existential emptiness that had Ann clinging to this shell of a relationship.

Also, when there is some family history of depression and, perhaps, some biochemical sensitivity for Ann, as well, then defining healthy boundaries and asserting vital needs in a relationship is still a very scary proposition. Of course, it’s harder to be objective when the current dysfunctional relationship is better than its predecessor.

4. Recognize Historical Repetition. Ann quickly noted how her anxious mother could be excessively critical and impatient with her more laid back father. The couple fought frequently, much to Ann’s chagrin. Ann’s response was to keep out of the line of conflict by staying out of the house as much as possible. Parallels are evident in Ann’s current avoidance response when dealing with emotional conflict and anger.

When examining her parents’ conflict dynamics, Ann gradually discerned that her mother saw her husband as passive and lacking ambition. Ann’s mother was perturbed that he allowed himself to be trapped in a less than fulfilling and financially successful career. (And it’s possible that Ann’s mother was also displacing some of her own frustrations at not pursuing a career onto her husband. Not benefiting from the options opened by The Women’s’ Movement, one suspects her mother had some self-regrets in the career arena.)

Not surprisingly, Ann internalized much of her mother’s intensity and ambition. What needed to be acknowledged, was that Ann labored under and endured dysfunctional relationships analogous to her father’s career stasis. He put up with depressing and demeaning work situations; Ann’s history involves clinging to dysfunctional "intimate" relations.

And the final turn of the stress screw was Ann’s conscious and unconscious attempt not to be an overbearing nagger and complainer like her mother. As discussed earlier, a predictable consequence is Ann stifling the natural and self-affirming expression of healthy anger with a romantic partner. In turn, this leaves Ann with a diminished capacity for: a) recognizing emotionally charged needs, b) asking for her desires while articulating her dislikes and c) managing the acute anxiety around letting go — from unrealistic expectations to dead end situations. Ann’s sense of competence and power is being compromised!

Let me highlight a profound maturational axiom: Not only are we influenced by the quality of communication between ourselves and our parents and the emotional integrity within the parental interchange but, as children, we also internalize the overt and subterranean psychological conflicts, genetic mood dispositions and self-perceptions that, like viruses and antibodies live in the shadows of the psyches of our influential significant others. (Antibodies are the human organisms health/defense system productions for neutralizing bodily toxins, bacteria, etc.) And not surprisingly, the battle between symbolic antibodies and viruses is a psychic war that is waged within the mind-body system of each and every one of us.

5. Assess Current Mate’s Strengths and Vulnerabilities. When a person has not worked out the painful, self-defeating self-talk and behavior patterns internalized from childhood and early adult relationships intimacy is daunting. One major obstacle is viewing objectively the motives and actions of a partner, not to mention assessing one’s own psychological dynamics. For example, to what extent does Bob’s view regarding "open relationships" reflect: a) unconventional values, b) dissatisfaction with the sexual relationship with his ex-wife, c) ego gratification upon discovering that a number of women find him a desirable sexual partner, if not a mate, d) immature fear around making a commitment, that is a narcissistic dread of loss of freedom, e) or the narcissistic fear of forsaking meeting an even more desirable, more perfect, the quintessential Miss Right and even f) a fantasy or sex addiction that can be subtle enough so that its dysfunctional modus operandi – to numb emptiness and feelings of inadequacy or to keep one pumped with adrenaline and testosterone – is readily denied or rationalized away?

And to the degree that Ann doesn’t understand clearly Bob’s dysfunctions along with her own codependency fears around setting boundaries and her separation anxieties, then Bob’s desire for "openness" is too often perceived and judged through a "badness-goodness" lens. Ann’s not good enough for Bob and is left feeling bad about herself. Or, in an angry moment, he is just a rake and a user of women. For example, when Bob labeled her venting as "boring," Ann initially withdrew in shock and hurt; she felt judged. The retreat revealed one source of her anger: is her role always to keep Bob stimulated, physically or otherwise?

What Ann seemed to minimize was that Bob’s comment about being "bored" likely had to do with his lack of development in the area of "emotional intelligence." It may well reflect a general dis-ease in matters emotional. It’s important not to confuse impatience or attention deficiency for a lack of empathy. The latter seems more pertinent here. Bob has difficulty feeling for Ann, for putting himself in her shoes around her conflicted dilemma with her female friend. In addition, Ann’s not agreeing with his strategic suggestions. This not only is a blow to Bob’s sensitive ego in this arena but, on some level, Ann is indicating a lack of trust in his problem-solving judgment and social sophistication. Clearly, she’s beginning to place autonomy over accommodation.

And this questioning of Bob is progress for Ann. Resisting reflexive self-blame is a slowly growing sign of self-awareness and interpersonal integrity.

6. Wander and Battle in the Intimacy Mindscape. A willingness to grapple with all the emotions stirred by the process of intimacy — past and present, conscious and unconscious — is, first and foremost, a commitment to living on the courageous edge. As childhood vulnerabilities surface in adult love nests and battlefields, hostile fight or humiliated flight is a common outcome. A key therapy goal becomes helping Ann realize that continuing her self-exploration through the intimacy dance with Bob is not a sign of dysfunctional dependency, at least for now; it’s not the same as her past clinging to unhealthy and immature relationships. The challenges and benefits are clear:

a. Self-Emersion and Healthy Discrimination. Discovering that one can momentarily be flooded with emotion without drowning or without having to escape or erupt is a sign of maturational evolution. Ann’s choosing to withdraw from Bob’s "boring" stab was functional because she used the time to clarify her smoldering jumble of feelings. She didn’t just feel sorry for herself and lick her wounds or obsessively plan a retaliatory counterattack (though it may have crossed her mind). She was able to clarify her needs and dislikes and courageously express anger.

b. Transformation of Hurt and Humiliation into Constructive Anger. Ann let Bob know she felt "judged" and "dismissed" by asserting herself: she wanted an ear, not expertise. Ann refrained from blaming "You" messages: "You were hostile," "You have no capacity for empathy," "You have no real feelings for me," etc. Perhaps feeling like a wounded child initially, Ann eventually returned to the intimacy arena taking anxious yet definite steps toward adult intimacy and problem-solving.

c. Development of Integrity and New Identity. The capacity to withstand and transform the heat of the intimacy crucible, to express healthy anger with a partner and to discover that neither you nor the partner dissolve or resort to hostile or volatile retaliationthis is the formula for building real trust in a relationship. Through this process Ann is beginning to develop self-trust. Her anger is appropriate to the provocation and her expression is clear and clean. She is also discovering that the expression of anger doesn’t automatically lead to abandonment or abuse. Ann likely will risk again genuine assertion during times of conflict, though, sometimes she will move forward, sometimes she will back away. Ann is beginning to glean the true meaning of Jonas Salk’s words as it applies to building personal integrity and identity. The pioneer of the polio vaccine declared: "Evolution is about getting up one more time than we fall down; about being courageous one more time than we are fearful; about being trusting just one more time than we are anxious." Ann is definitely on an evolutionary path.

d. Therapy as Safety Net. What happens if Ann keeps growing, being able to express her needs for emotional sharing along with having reasonable expectations regarding Bob’s intimate involvement with her? That is, Ann may need to accept that Bob may never become truly fluent in verbalizing his emotions. Yet, if he can accept some coaching, he has the potential to be "good enough" in this interpersonal arena. Or, Bob may never fully let go of some of his unconventional ideas or wistful fantasies, but he can still commit to intimate fidelity if he’s willing to do the head work, heart work and homework.

Ann will need to establish her bottom line if she believes Bob is resisting growth critical to a healthy and intimate give and take: a) asking Bob to join her in a therapy session or b) asking him to go for individual counseling. If Bob agrees, and really commits to the therapy process, with their individual strengths forging a vital intimate relationship is a realizable goal.

And if Bob refuses counseling or prematurely drops out then Ann has a clear signal regarding the long term potential of the relationship. Ann also knows she gave her all to make it work. And while seeing her partnership dissolve would be acutely painful, as Donna Summer said, "I will survive!" And as the Stress Doc affirmed: "Whether the loss is a key person, a desired position or a powerful illusion each deserves the respect of a mourning. The pit in the stomach, the clenched fists and quivering jaw, the anguished sobs prove catalytic in time. In mystical fashion, like Spring upon Winter, the seeds of dissolution bear fruitful renewal."

7. The Unexpected Value of Conflict. When rational or, even, irrational conflict is engaged with heartfelt anger, not contaminated with sarcastic or passive hostility and rage, then passionate expression becomes the catalyst for self-affirmation. It also provides the communicational building blocks for forging intimate bridges between disconnected or fractious parties. As Ann overcomes her dread, as she lets go of a need to displace her own fears and feelings of inadequacy and/or shame, as she courageously stays with the interpersonal conflict she will discover two pearls of wisdom, one poetic the other acronymic:

For the Phoenix to rise from the ashes
One must know the pain
To transform the fire to burning desire.

And the second pearl is the unexpected payoff from tolerating the tension and friction that builds when partners clash over feelings and facts, short-term goals and enduring values; when the parties can engage in a healthy battle over autonomy or control without chronic win-lose competition. Clearly there’s a fight both for intimacy and for one’s individual sense of identity within the relationship crucible. So consider the oft-unrecognized potential of vital conflict and a good fight:

"S" stands for status quo. With genuine conflict you cannot do business as usual.
"U" is for the underlying feelings that finally come out with a good fight.
"C" means clarification. Constructive conflict compels people to be clear and to take a stand.
"C" stimulates creative synthesis. Opposition may not equal obstruction; it can turn on an expanded and integrated solution.
"E" allows for empathy. You finally understand and feel where your partner in conflict is coming from.
"S" is spontaneity. Healthy conflict propels people to risk a range of emotions, especially anger. And finally,
"S" signifies the strengthened relationship that blossoms in the soil of conflict and through this challenging and potentially growth-producing process.

S-U-C-C-E-S-S. By harnessing the energy in conflict, you’ve discovered the intimate secret for success!

And an acronym for reminding us toPractice Safe Stress!

Mark Gorkin, LICSW, "The Stress Doc," is the Internet’s and America Online’s "Online Psychohumorist". An experienced psychotherapist, "The Doc" is a nationally recognized speaker, and training and OD consultant specializing in Stress, Anger Management, Reorganizational Change, Team Building and HUMOR! An expert advisor for www.AdviceZone.com and iVillage/allHealth, his writings are syndicated by iSyndicate.com and appear in a wide variety of online and offline forums and publications, including AOL/Online Psych and Business Know How, Mental Help Net, 4Therapy.com, WorkforceOnline, HRHub.com, SelfhelpMagazine.com, Financial Services Journal Online, CONVENE (The Journal of the Professional Convention Management Assn.), OpportunityWorld and Counseling Today. Recently, he has been quoted and/or featured in such publications as Cosmopolitan Magazine, Bloomberg Report/News, Forbes Magazine, FoxNews.com, Dallas Morning News and The Washington Flyer. The Doc also leads his national "Shrink Rap and Group Chat" for AOL/Digital City and WebMD.com. Check out his USA Today Online "Hotsite" Website — www.stressdoc.com . For info on his workshops or for his free newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 202-232-8662. Fall 2000, look for Practice Safe Stress with the Stress Doc, published by AdviceZone.com.

(c) Mark Gorkin 2000 Shrink Rap Productions

Authors: Chun Siong Soon, Marcel Brass, Hans-Jochen Heinze & John-Dylan Haynes
Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain.
Nature Neuroscience April 13th, 2008.

Already several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. This is shown in a study by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, in collaboration with the Charite University Hospital and the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin. The researchers from the group of Professor John-Dylan Haynes used a brain scanner to investigate what happens in the human brain just before a decision is made. "Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings." (Nature Neuroscience, April 13th 2008)

In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their left or right hand. They were free to make this decision whenever they wanted, but had to remember at which time they felt they had made up their mind. The aim of the experiment was to find out what happens in the brain in the period just before the person felt the decision was made. The researchers found that it was possible to predict from brain signals which option participants would take already seven seconds before they consciously made their decision. Normally researchers look at what happens when the decision is made, but not atwhat happens several seconds before. The fact that decisions can be predicted so long before they are made is a astonishing finding.

This unprecedented prediction of a free decision was made possible by sophisticated computer programs that were trained to recognize typical brain activity patterns preceding each of the two choices. Micropatterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex were predictive of the choices even before participants knew which option they were going to choose. The decision could not be predicted perfectly, but prediction was clearly above chance. This suggests that the decision is unconsciously prepared ahead of time but the final decision might still be reversible.

"Most researchers investigate what happens when people have to decide immediately, typically as a rapid response to an event in our environment. Here we were focusing on the more interesting decisions that are made in a more natural, self-paced manner", Haynes explains.

More than 20 years ago the American brain scientist Benjamin Libet found a brain signal, the so-called "readiness-potential" that occurred a fraction of a second before a conscious decision. Libet’s experiments were highly controversial and sparked a huge debate. Many scientists argued that if our decisions are prepared unconsciously by the brain, then our feeling of "free will" must be an illusion. In this view, it is the brain that makes the decision, not a person’s conscious mind. Libet’s experiments were particularly controversial because he found only a brief time delay between brain activity and the conscious decision.

In contrast, Haynes and colleagues now show that brain activity predicts even up to 7 seconds ahead of time how a person is going to decide. But they also warn that the study does not finally rule out free will: "Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer ahead than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made. We need to investigate whether a decision prepared by these brain areas can still be reversed."

This post from Conflict Zen  really spoke to me …. it feels familiar from both sides of the impact.

I confess there have been times when I have ducked in behind my “intentions” before fully acknowledging the impact of something I have done or said. I have done this out of embarrassment or shame. I have done this because hearing about the impact  challenges how I think about myself (my self-identity). I like to think of myself as considerate, caring, thoughtful and so on. But the reality is that I have, and express, those qualities sometimes, and sometimes I do not. By quickly expressing my intentions I seek to bring myself back closer to who I like to think I am – and in doing so I take myself away from the present moment between myself and the other person. And my guess is that they feel this. My guess is that they feel the hiding, the withdrawal, the loss of relationality that includes them.

I have also experienced being at the impact end of someone else’s intentions. And I sure know how different it feels when the impact is acknowledged or not acknowledged. I know if the impact is not acknowledged I find it hard to believe in their “good” or “innocent” intentions. For me this is because I am not seeing/hearing/feeling any “good” intentions when their impact on me is left hanging between us or brushed aside or when they want me to hear how it is for them and this “being heard” is not reciprocated.

So…it seems to me that being more explicit about what is happening might be one way forward. Expressing how I am feeling and what I am needing from either side of the equation.

I am so sorry, I can hear you say that what I did impacted in this way and you are feeling … I can hear how you wish the situation had been different and this is what you want to happen now.  Is that how it is? Is there anything else you want to let me know?

…now wait a moment before launching into the other side…allowing a “taking in” of what has been shared…

Can I share with you, now, what was going on for me when I said/did…?  I was thinking…and feeling…. and my needs were to ….. so I chose the strategy……  Now, hearing the impact on you I feel….and the needs or values that are up for me are………  I wonder how it is for you to hear this?

Here is the post from Conflict Zen:

Organizational conflict: benign intentions don’t cancel bad impact

Posted: 29 Jun 2010 03:26 AM PDT

Benign intentions don’t cancel bad impact.

A few years ago, while cooking and lost in thought, I opened an upper cabinet door right into my husband’s head. He yelped as the corner of the door dug sharply into his skull.

The first words out of my mouth were, “Sorry about that, I didn’t do it intentionally!”

Rubbing his skull, he replied, “That sure makes my head hurt less.”

We inadvertently create three problems when we wrap assurances of our benign intentions into conflict conversations:

1. We imply that because our intention was benign, the other person should miraculously suffer less. But they don’t. The impact we had on them still stands until we address that. In organizational conflict situations, addressing the impact usually means figuring out how to prevent similar impact in the future. How are you encouraging your people to focus more on impact than intention?

2. We distract ourselves from the more valuable conversation. When we make the conversation about our intentions instead of the impact we too often end up in a conversation about fault and blame. When we make the conversation about impact we end up in a conversation that can turn conflict into opportunity for change. How are you leveraging conversations about unintended impact to strengthen organizational systems and processes?

3. We make the conversation about us and our goodness instead of about the problem. Ego-soothing yes, but when we inadvertently hurt or have other negative impact on someone, our best energy is spent on them, not us. They want us to know we understand the impact and when we’re only talking about ourselves, that’s difficult to show. Are you modeling compassion instead of self-protectionism for your team?

© 2010 by Tammy Lenski. Work originally published at ConflictZen.com.

Simple Gratitude ~ a quality of paying attention to what seems obvious, predictable, and normal in our lives.

I recently went on a course about writing responses to Ministerial enquiries. A Ministerial Enquiry is when a constituent writes to their local MP and asks them one of two questions:

Why has this happened to me – in my neighbourhood – to my community?

or

Why hasn’t his happened to me – in my neighbourhood – to my community?

It can be about anything. An urban development, not getting into a course, the state of the roads in their neighbourhood, some issues with government rules, a new treatment for an illness, access to medical care or support and so on.

What has gratitude to do with this? Ministerials require a quick and accurate response from public servants. They require us to stop what we are doing and answer the questions asked and explain how or why something has or hasn’t gone the way the person would have liked. They can feel like being put in the spotlight in a negative way – if you think of it like that! But at this course the trainer did an amazing thing. She reframed how I think about Ministerials.

Ministerials are evidence of democracy in action. They show we live in a society where people are not afraid to ask questions of the government and its public servants. There is no punishment, no reprisals for exercising your democratic rights. They also show that the public are willing to use non-violent means to get heard and express their wishes and needs.

I am grateful for Ministerials.

What else that I have complained about in the past or not even noticed  and am now simply grateful for?

• traffic lights – for keeping me safe
• Medicare – for ensuring I have reasonable access to health care
• electricity – so I can stay warm, cook my food etc
• paying tax – so I can drive on good roads, educate my children, support those in need
• queues – so that I know I will be seen when it is my turn and I do not need to fight for attention and service
• my job – I get to contribute to the well-being of others and get paid every week

~ Simple Gratitude ~

for those things we hardly notice or take for granted

In the past few weeks I have experienced some pretty challenging times emotionally and relationally. Two major rows with my husband sent me back to my journal to try and write my through the ins and outs of my experience. What is going on for me in all of this? So after quite a number of venting pages I became clearly aware of how a deep yearning of mine was impacting on my experience.

“I want to live in a congruent world where I can trust people will speak and act honestly. I want people to be congruent.”

I know – it sounds naive. I know it sounds childlike and inside me the yearning does have a childlike quality. This part of me doesn’t want to be cynical or jaded.

So, then I took my statement and started some “Work” on it.

Is it true that people and the world are not congruent?And what follows is my journal entry…it is stream of consciousness so bear with the chaos…

YES! all the evidence points to people not being congruent.  What do I mean by being congruent? That people are real in that they are genuine, authentic; that their inner experience and outer expression match – and there is some honesty in this too.

AND NO! Hmmm…so actually, at some level, a more realistic level, the world and people are congruent in as much as they do do what they do. I may not like what they do, I may not be able to predict what they will do, I may not be able to mitigate the impact of their words/actions…

How do I react when I think this thought?  I cannot be sure that what someone says is what they think and I feel both sad and frustrated and helpless that the world isn’t congruent. As I write this I can feel my need for safety coming up. Clarity and predictability too that is more about being able to “read” the situation than knowing what will happen ahead of time. The child in me is letting me know that being able to “read” the situation makes the world feel more safe for me. I can make sense of it. It makes the difference between safety and unsafety, fear and terror, control and helplessness. I need congruence to be able to protect myself. I also need it to prevent embarrassment, humiliation or being shamed (from getting my reading wrong, saying or doing the wrong thing, making a mistake, being insensitive etc).

So…hmm…I can’t (couldn’t in the past) walk into a room or situation and just be myself because first I have to work out how it is in there…how are people feeling, what are they needing, what is going on, what’s the general atmosphere. Then, I needed not show this anxiety, nervousness or fear because that is not acceptable and will be met with negative responses. So on goes (went) a mask of confidence, competence – my persona.  I have become somewhat hyper vigilant, other-focused and incongruent. My outer expression is not the same as my inner experience.

Well, no wonder I don’t like it in other people. I have pushed my real, vulnerable self into the shadowland. I, without self-awareness, was not being congruent myself. This is my turnaround. I want to be more congruent with myself. I want to be more congruent in the world.

Ohh…I can feel a welling of compassion for all the confusion, the mixed messages, the loss of a sense of safety in the world. I can feel it for the childlike part of me and for me now, in the here and now. A big breath comes into my body and some kind of holding on is released. My body relaxes just a little. And sadness comes too…for being in the world in this way and all the lost opportunities for connection and realness. Niceness, not being selfish, being other-focused has it’s price. I disconnected with my real self which is sensitive, vulnerable, often unsure and a bit confused, needing support or understanding. And in doing so I became uncomfortable and judgemental about those qualities in others.

I can feel my heart.

It seems we hardwire ourselves. We lay down neural pathways by the lifestyle, thinking and feeling patterns of our life. We literally embody our habits.

The Buddha pointed to this 1500 years ago with an infamous quote”

“Watch your thoughts, for they become words.

Watch your words, for they become actions.

Watch your actions, for they become habits.

Watch your habits, for they become character.

Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

And its not just what we do, it seems, that is embodied – but also what we don’t do. Our broken promises create neural pathways too (and wreck havoc on relationships).

Even when we make a promise silently to ourselves and fail to keep it our subconscious remembers. It notices we fail to show up for ourselves and we feel this in our body; that heavy feeling in the belly, the twinge of our conscience, a tightening of our breathing. No amount of justifications and excuses remove this embodiment.

So are we condemned to feeling guilty, dragging around lots of old broken promises like a burden inside? I don’t believe so. In a short series of blogs I will explore what we can do to refresh our lives, honour our commitments while acknowledging human frailty and the struggle to live in the way we would like to live.

This series has been prompted by the article from the Sydney Morning Herald below:

Broken promises by Sam de Brito

April 23, 2010

Not to get too stuck on Norman Mailer, but in my Googling research for this post a few weeks back, I came across a quote from him about writing that I thought had resonance beyond just us weirdos who stick words together for a living.

In his book The Spooky Art: Thoughts on Writing, Mailer says that, if writers tell themselves they’re going to sit down and write but fail to do it, their unconscious stops trusting them and will no longer turn up.

“The rule in capsule: If you fail to show up in the morning after you vowed that you would be at your desk as you went to sleep last night, then you will walk around with ants in your brain.

“Rule of thumb: Restlessness of mind can be measured by the number of promises that remain unkept,” writes Mailer.

I reckon our brains work in a similar way with many of the promises we make to ourselves whether it’s about our fitness, our love life, career or family …

In my book Building a Better Bloke, I write that “if you want a magic bullet to being taken seriously as a man … it is to be true to your word”.

You’ve probably heard the saying “He’s a man of his word” and I would go as far as to invoke the hoary cliche that “a man is his word”.

If you say you’re going to do something and you do not, and you do this enough times, you cease to be someone whom people can depend on; you become a “maybe”, an “if”, and this is the opposite of what it means to be a man.

We are a verbal species; our entire world is created by and powered by words, yet so many people fail to see that a disconnect between what you say you are and how you act is the battleground of reality.

The promises we make to ourselves can be just as powerful.

If you walk around telling yourself you’re giving up drinking, smoking and the punt, yet the next day you’re drunk and puffing bungers at the TAB – it sends a message to others that your word means less to you than does that beer, ciggie and betting ticket.

It also sends a message to your unconscious that you can’t be trusted and it builds a dirty momentum whereby we expect to fail before we even attempt something.

You say: “Why bother? I’ve broken promises so many times before, why even kid myself I can get fit, or maintain a decent relationship or get this job done on time?”

Sound familiar?

I had that conversation with myself about 432,567 times when it came to smoking cigarettes as well as a couple of other habits I’m not going to discuss in a public forum.

I also know I’m happiest when I keep my promises to myself – when I look back at my day and I’ve run, written and been good to the people I love by doing the things I said I would (vacuuming).

When I don’t keep my promises to myself – especially with habits that are self-destructive – the guilt grinds around inside me like broken dinner plates.

So, if you’re feeling antsy some days, it might be worth remembering that quote from old legspread Mailer and check if you’ve kept your promises to yourself.

What promises do you break?

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

STOP! Now our culture would normally have us make a list and feel bad, really bad. This inventory is not about creating a weapon to beat yourself up with. It is about honestly looking at how our habits can actually become the next step towards a better life. So before you start…

Think of someone or something (music, art, nature, the sound of the ocean, surfing, running, yoga, your pet) that supports you, gives you strength and love. Take that feeling into your body. Stay with it for at least a minute – maybe two or three – allow it to settle there.

Invite a quality of care, or kindness, or love, or patience or gentleness to be present for this process – to hold and support you as you take your inventory. This quality of self-empathy is both the arms around you and the ground under your feet.

Now ask: what is in the way of me taking this inventory? Wait…now as each thought or feeling, image or body sense arise acknowledge it and then gently put it aside…it may need to go outside, it may need to sit on the other chair in the room, or it may need to go to the beach. Keep clearing a space until you feel nothing more is in the way of taking your inventory.

From this cleared space and with your self empathy nearby ask your question with a gentle curiosity. “Ahhh, so what promises do I break?” Remember to breathe. As you note each broken promise wait there a minute with it. Keep it company and become aware of how your body knows it. You might get a sensation, an image, a metaphor, a sound, a body posture or gesture, a phrase or an emotional quality that really “gets” it. Write down the promise and the felt sense of it that your body holds.

Ask what’s the worst of this? Wait – let your body respond not your habitual mind. You will know when your body responds by a sense of release (a breath, a sigh, a laugh or smile, tears or just a shift of awareness within). Ask what “it” needs – “it” being your felt sense. Write this down.

Notice how you feel inside after asking these questions. Take your time with this…sensing the complexity and richness of how your body is now compared to when you started. Now ask what is the best of this? Enjoy this moment – allow it to expand – give it time to be taken in and embodied.

You do not need to act on any of this in a hurry. Give yourself some time for your unconscious to point you towards a new way of living. Journal about what you are noticing now in your life. Pay attention to your dreams. Notice what other things you see around you that you weren’t seeing before. Each day invite a new step – of this whole list – what is the next right forward movement for me…thoughts, plans and ideas will immediately pop into our mind because it is trained to answer questions. Wait…drop into that whole space inside your body and listen for your body’s answer. Again, it may be a metaphor, a phrase, a movement or gesture, an image etc. Hold that a moment and sense “is this it?” and you will know because it is just right for you. It will feel right and whole and good and life serving. It won’t contain shoulds, musts or have-to’s.

Good luck.

Tidying up my bookshelves this morning, as one does when one has an assignment due, I stumbled across a book, Wise Women by Susan Cahill, which I flipped open randomly.

Natalia Ginzburg (1916-1991) wrote:

As far as the education of children is concerned I think they should be taught not the little virtues but the great ones.

Not thrift but generosity and an indifference to money; not caution but courage and a contempt for danger; not shrewdness but frankness and a love of truth; not act but love for one’s neighbour and self-denial; not a dire for success but a desire to be and to know.

The little virtues arise from our deepest instincts, from a defensive instinct; but in them reason speaks, holds forth, displays its arguments as the brilliant advocate of self-preservation.

The great virtues well up from an instinct in which reason does not speak, an instinct that seems to be difficult to name.

What are your great virtues? What wells up, with no need for reason or logic within you and within our community?

Which virtues appear for you in times of another’s great need when there is no time to think?

And when they well up what happens? How do they find expression in your life?

from: New York Times,  March 17, 2010, 2:34 pm By RONI CARYN RABIN

ZenShui/Getty Images

Deep conversations made people happier than small talk, one study found.

Would you be happier if you spent more time discussing the state of the world and the meaning of life — and less time talking about the weather?

It may sound counterintuitive, but people who spend more of their day having deep discussions and less time engaging in small talk seem to be happier, said Matthias Mehl, a psychologist at the University of Arizona who published a study on the subject.

“We found this so interesting, because it could have gone the other way — it could have been, ‘Don’t worry, be happy’ — as long as you surf on the shallow level of life you’re happy, and if you go into the existential depths you’ll be unhappy,” Dr. Mehl said.

But, he proposed, substantive conversation seemed to hold the key to happiness for two main reasons: both because human beings are driven to find and create meaning in their lives, and because we are social animals who want and need to connect with other people.

“By engaging in meaningful conversations, we manage to impose meaning on an otherwise pretty chaotic world,” Dr. Mehl said. “And interpersonally, as you find this meaning, you bond with your interactive partner, and we know that interpersonal connection and integration is a core fundamental foundation of happiness.”

Dr. Mehl’s study was small and doesn’t prove a cause-and-effect relationship between the kind of conversations one has and one’s happiness. But that’s the planned next step, when he will ask people to increase the number of substantive conversations they have each day and cut back on small talk, and vice versa.

The study, published in the journal Psychological Science, involved 79 college students — 32 men and 47 women — who agreed to wear an electronically activated recorder with a microphone on their lapel that recorded 30-second snippets of conversation every 12.5 minutes for four days, creating what Dr. Mehl called “an acoustic diary of their day.”

Researchers then went through the tapes and classified the conversation snippets as either small talk about the weather or having watched a TV show, and more substantive talk about current affairs, philosophy, the difference between Baptists and Catholics or the role of education. A conversation about a TV show wasn’t always considered small talk; it could be categorized as substantive if the speakers analyzed the characters and their motivations, for example.

Many conversations were more practical and did not fit in either category, including questions about homework or who was taking out the trash, for example, Dr. Mehl said. Over all, about a third of all conversation was ranked as substantive, and about a fifth consisted of small talk.

But the happiest person in the study, based on self-reports about satisfaction with life and other happiness measures as well as reports from people who knew the subject, had twice as many substantive conversations, and only one-third of the amount of small talk as the unhappiest, Dr. Mehl said. Almost every other conversation the happiest person had — 45.9 percent of the day’s conversations — were substantive, while only 21.8 percent of the unhappiest person’s conversations were substantive.

Small talk made up only 10 percent of the happiest person’s conversations, while it made up almost three times as much –- or 28.3 percent –- of the unhappiest person’s conversations.

Next, Dr. Mehl wants to see if people can actually make themselves happier by having more substantive conversations.

“It’s not that easy, like taking a pill once a day,” Dr. Mehl said. “But this has always intrigued me. Can we make people happier by asking them, for the next five days, to have one extra substantive conversation every day?”

__________________________________________

So…why do we feel happier after a deep conversations?

1. Because human beings are driven to find and create meaning in their lives, and
2. because we are social creatures who want and need to connect with other people.

So this week try doing two things:

Decide that you will do your best to avoid colluding in the superficial banter that seems to have become part and parcel of daily interaction for at least 1 or 2 conversations a day.  When you ask “how are you?” invite the person you asked to tell you more. If they say they are busy at work ask another “how, what, or when” question.

1. Stop what you are doing and listen…no multitasking when having a deep conversation.
2. Ask yourself: Who will I be speaking with today and what are the conversations with these people that matter most?

Try this practice for the next week and see if the happiness research bears out in your life.

I’d like to share this  response that Ann Weiser Cornell wrote recently in her Weekly Tips and Support Newsletter.

“Focusing is a simple matter of holding a kind of open, non-judging attention to something which is directly experienced but not yet in words.” –from the introduction to The Focusing Student’s and Companion’s Manual by Ann Weiser Cornell and Barbara McGavin.

Something which is directly experienced but not yet in words? What is that?
Well, that’s what we call a “felt sense,” and it’s really the heart of the matter.

A “felt sense” is what a problem or a situation “feels like” when you pause and get a sense of the whole thing. It’s not your usual emotions or thoughts–which can get stuck and keep you going around in circles–but rather it’s fresh, immediate, and often contains new information or a new perspective.

People are not used to pausing and getting felt senses. If more people would do this, I believe the world would be quite different!
Focusing starts with that pause…

The basic premise underlying Transformative Communication is that people are trying to connect when they communicate.

Unfortunately sometimes the “way we connect” such as our words, behaviour or strategies do just the opposite…they lead to a communication breakdown.

Furthermore, our culture has developed a language structure that contributes to this breakdown; either in our inner talk or the way we talk with and to others.

Marshall Rosenberg identifies four “D’s” leading to disconnection:

1. Diagnosis: judgements, analysis, criticism & comparison
2. Denial of responsibility
3. Demand
4. Deserve-oriented language

Examples:

1. Diagnosis
   1. Judgement = She is lazy. Those people are greedy.
   2. Analysis = They are just attention- seeking. She is so needy.
   3. Criticism = That’s the wrong way. When will you grow up?
   4. Comparison = Your sister always tries harder at school. She is prettier than me.

1. Denial of responsibility:
   1. You made me angry/sad/punish you.
   2. I have to…..x, y, z
   3. They made me….
   4. I have to follow the rules.

1. Demand:
   1. Direct: You have to do the dishes/clean up your room/go to bed.
   2. Indirect: Can you swap shifts with me? Remember I swapped with you for your sister’s wedding.

1. Deserve-oriented language:
   1. He broke the law so he deserves to be punished.
   2. What goes around comes around.
   3. They are poor because they don’t work hard enough and save their money.

These forms of communication have developed over thousands of years and many are embedded in the way our language, English, is structured. For example the verb “to be” enables us to label ourselves or others and makes something that is “just in this moment” sound like a statement of fact or permanent:

‘I am depressed’, implies that

• I always feel sad, will always feel sad, and I can do nothing about it.

‘Is’ and ‘are’, like all present tense verbs, imply no time, no space and absolute truth. ‘I am depressed’ abbreviates what has happened in the past. So perhaps it means:

I felt sad on many occasions in the past, and I feel sad now.

• With a partner identify which communication breakers you have experienced receiving and briefly state how you felt and still feel, e.g. I feel defiant when I hear moralising; I feel hurt when I hear name calling
• With your partner identify which a communication breaker you use most often with other people and briefly note the situations in which you use them, e.g. judging when frustrated, praising when wanting to get something done, withdrawal when feeling overwhelmed.
• What need were you trying to meet when using a communication breaker? For example. Using praise to get someone to do what I want – I have a need for ease.