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

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.

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…

3 simple eye-opening questions that can untangle conflict.

By Tammy Lenski

http://conflictzen.com/

One of those characteristics is clarity…what it’s really about and what most needs to be discussed to clear the air and get back on track. I want to offer up three eye-opening questions that can unlock even the most complicated conflicts.

Clarity Question 1. What is this really about for me?

It may be tempting to answer this one quickly, making it all about them. Don’t do it! Examples of throw-away, trap-ridden answers in workplace conflict include,

1. How sick I am of his passive-aggressive attitude.
2. Her disrespectful treatment of me in front of others.
3. The way she passes off all responsibility for problems and puts the blame on my shoulders.

The hint that you’ve taken the easy way out is when your answer is essentially a restatement of your diagnosis of the other person and their behavior. The problems with diagnosing outwardly instead of gaining inner clarity are:

• You may be right. You also have a reasonable chance of being wrong. Every person you have conflict with has others who think they’re terrific.
• Even if you are right, is it likely that your repeated diagnosis is going to lead to their changing that part of themselves? When you make it all about them you give up all your negotiating power to their discretion.
• You assume the problem behavior is a state of being for them, when it could just as easily be a reasonable reaction to something they see from you.
• You’ve missed the real key to unlocking the conflict: Your own actionable clarity.

Don’t take the easy way out.

Ask yourself the question again, with the emphasis on the last two words: What is this really about for me?

Building off the examples above, here are more meaningful answers that give you clarity about how to proceed:

1. Wanting to know that when he and I agree on something, he’s fully agreeing and will act on that agreement.
2. Wanting to be seen as the competent manager I am.
3. Willingness to assume responsibility to the degree I should, but not take on blame for someone else’s actions.

The first type of answer gets you trapped, the second opens up meaningful dialogue

See the difference?

Tempting answer 1: How sick I am of his passive-aggressive attitude.

Makes the conversation about: Whether or not he’s passive aggressive (he’ll no doubt say he’s not), how it’s got to stop, and how wrong you are.

Better answer 1: Wanting to know that when he and I agree on something, he’s fully agreeing and will act on that agreement.

Makes the conversation about: How to ensure you’re getting genuine agreement instead of an avoidant response. This offers fertile ground for change. Maybe he’s afraid to disagree with you. Maybe when he tries to disagree he feels ignored, so he’s given up and just nods to get the conversation over with. Maybe he feels pressed for time and isn’t aware that taking time to sort out a truly effective agreement is worth it to you. Maybe something else worth discovering.

When you get clarity on what it’s about for you, you open up the possibility of discovery. And effective conflict resolution is all about discovery.

Clarity Question 2: What do I need them most to understand?

This question has the greatest potential for insight if you answer what’s often the hidden second portion of your reply. First-blush answers, for instance, might be:

1. That I can’t trust him when he acts passive-aggressively.
2. That I won’t tolerate being disrespected in front of other members of my team.
3. That she needs to learn how to accept responsibility for her own actions.

The problem with those kinds of responses is that you’re making it about the other person and relying on them to change in order get what you need. When they hear those responses, their reaction is likely to be a defensive one, and the conversation will no longer be about what you need them to understand.

Instead, find what you most want them to understand by adding a short phrase to your knee-jerk reply, like this:

1. That I can’t trust him when he acts passive-aggressively and the impact on me is never feeling like a decision is firm and then I have to monitor what happens, taking time and energy I need for other projects.
2. That I won’t tolerate being disrespected in front of others and the impact on me is that my authority is repeatedly undermined.
3. That she needs to learn how to accept responsibility for her own actions because when doesn’t, the impact on me is that that I feel like I’m not part of a healthy team.

Aha! Now you’re getting somewhere. In my examples, what you most want them to understand is:

1. I want us to make decisions that will really work for us and don’t require us to keep re-visiting them.
2. I’m worthy of your respect even when I do something you don’t agree with.
3. I want us to create a healthy team where we can make occasional mistakes and not feel like we have to push the blame elsewhere.

See how it works? The first set of answers don’t change the conversation much. But the last set of responses drill down to what’s really meaningful. And once again, you’ve invited possibility to the table.

Clarity Question 3: What do I need to understand about or learn from them?

In disagreements at home and work, most people spend the bulk of their energy trying to be heard, trying to be understood, and trying to get the other person to support their solution to the problem. It’s a version of the old 80/20 rule — 80% of your time on you and 20% on them.

Mediators and conflict coaches know to help you flip the 80/20 rule — 20% of your energy on your own story and perspective and 80% on theirs. Why? Because 20% is enough — you know your story and perspective well enough already. Spend your energy where it will make a difference.

And once you’ve helped the other one be heard and made a genuine attempt to understand them, the likelihood of their doing the same for you is multiplied.

What do I need to understand about or learn from them changes the 80/20 rule into the better 20/80 habit.

Conflict Zen by Tammy Lenski is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at ConflictZen.com.

This post arriving in my inbox is soooo timely for me.

Just last week I tried to express to my husband my sadness and despair around the quality of our conversations. We had gone out for lunch and the people we were meeting were an hour late so we sat down to have a cup of tea while we waited. I noticed, for this hour, his attention was predominantly drawn to the screen showing music videos in the cafe. I started to feel resentful. My need for connection and fun were not being met by his attention being elsewhere. At first I self-empathised.

BUT then I noticed my thinking kicked in. Just staying with self-empathy was not enough to change the situation I was not enjoying. I told myself I still needed “him to want to want to communicate with me”.

“This happens a lot. I can’t remember a conversation for ages where he has been joyfully engaged.”

“Why do I have to put all the effort in to starting/keeping a conversation going?”

“The least he could do when we are together is “be here” and talk with me.”

Then came thoughts about

Well, I’ll sit here and wait and see how long he can “not talk to me”

As you can imagine the hour passed with me feeling increasingly resentful, despairing and with a growing sense of disconnection.

What I had not done was envision how I wanted this situation to be and taken control of it myself.

I hadn’t taken self-care to the next level which is actively taking responsibility for getting what I want. I could choose to change my experience in the moment. That is not to say I still couldn’t do with some empathy around all of the thoughts above – and I can take the next step in self-care and make a request for that with some of my empathy buddies (or journal it).

AND I can take care of the moment where I want a nice time with my husband by making it a nice time. Noticing where he is at (tired, distracted, uncertain?) and connecting there first. I could have changed the environment – invited him to come for a walk while we wait (reframe, create energy). Once I connected to my need to take care of myself, in addition to my need for connection and ease,  a number of strategies (more useful than the one I chose) may have arisen.

Please enjoy LaShelle’s posting. I have!

F. Scott Fitzgerald said:

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

To which I’d add that the test of a first-rate capacity for empathy is the ability to hold two opposed positions in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to think for yourself. 

The Buddhists capture this approach when they say,

“Truth waits for eyes unclouded by longing.” 

Want more truth about your social situation?  Put yourself in other people’s shoes. But to do that, you have to get out of your own.  Our eyes are clouded by the longing to see ourselves in a favourable light. If you can’t afford, or refuse to relinquish your authority, self-conferred exemptions and specialness, it becomes next to impossible to get next to yourself, in other people’s shoes.  When you put yourself in another person’s shoes you risk seeing yourself as others would see you—not quite as special as you think. But the pay-offs are worth it.

Most of us think we’re already great listeners and fabulous empathizers, but thinking it doesn’t make it so.  So what does?  Here are three practices:

Uncloud your Mind:

This state is often called Presence. It is a quality of emptying out in order to fill up or one elegant way to describe it is:

“full heart ~ empty mind”

Active Listening:

You probably have heard of this technique. It’s about as powerful a skill as I’ve ever seen come out of psychology. And it’s very simple.  If you find yourself in a conflict or rift with someone, stop the decision-making for a moment and simply repeat in your own words, the other person’s argument as persuasively as possible. Then ask whether you heard it right. And then wait for an answer.

“Wait Nicole, before we go any further here I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. Please tell me if I’ve got this right:  You think I’m being too nosey here, that it’s your decision to make and that though I have concerns, now that I’ve declared them, I should back off.  Is that what you’re saying?”

Here you are capturing their gist, showing you understand their meaning and hearing them how they would like to be heard.

Sense for and guess underlying needs:

Starting where we left off with Nicole we might then, after hearing from her that we have reflected back what she meant us to hear, sense for her needs.

“Wait Nicole, before we go any further here I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. Please tell me if I’ve got this right:  You think I’m being too nosey here, that it’s your decision to make and that though I have concerns, now that I’ve declared them, I should back off.  I wonder if you are really needing some privacy and autonomy here?”

It takes your breath away when you are at the receiving end of blame, judgement, criticism, cynicism, and sarcasm or when you are interrupted, talked over or given unwelcome advise.

You can feel it in your body – the retraction, the numbing or the rising emotions, the tightening or bracing.

You can hear thoughts coming ranging from “maybe they are right” leading to disconnection from your own inner knowing or “how dare they!” making the other person an enemy to be defended against.

How can you manage this? One tried and true method is feeling compassionate.

Strange as it may sound, when you feel under attack, compassion can be the best form of self-defence.

It not only disarms the attacker, it provides a safe space for you.

Compassion provides a powerful defence against psychological harm. Through perspective taking, it changes false meanings about self  we may infer from the behaviour of others because compassion keeps your attention on the person behaving inappropriately or causing the hurt. Thus the abuse/comments are not internalised but seen as the abuser’s or critic’s problem.

For example if my spouse tells me I am selfish or calls me a terrible name compassion for him protects me from internalising the hurt. Rather I can see that he is hurt or fearful and I can then be with him from that space.

This, then disarms the defences of the person attacking you. The attention is brought back to them and what they need and not on you and what you need to do.

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Curious?

You can get a chapter of his latest book The Unfolding Now here:

Lighting up the Now

Warp drive…

I made a Star Trek move recently. I went into warp drive creating a heated and extended argument with my husband this week in which, I am not proud to admit, I found myself diagnosing, blaming, judging and advising over something that really had nothing to do with me. Now why would I do that? Why did I go into warp drive with nary a thought?

At first I was convinced it was all about him (during the argument of course). Then later a nagging feeling started to grow in the pit of my stomach -this appears to be where my conscience lives – down deep where it is is all churned up, messy and in process!  No, not for me a conscience which lives in the clear air, with a 360 degree view, where angelic wings can flutter. Damn it.

I began to get curious and wonder if the very qualities of character, his responses to the event, the interpretations he was making and which I was bridling against so strongly were actually parts of me I have never listened to fully. After all, the events meant very little to me. It was how he was responding the events that triggered me.

So here I was making judgements about character. Hmmm. What is acceptable character and what is not. More hmmm. Now I am curious. What makes some stuff send me into warp drive and some stuff barely registers on my radar? And why doesn’t all the intellectualising about “people all having different ways of being in the world” stop the triggering? Well, I think part of the answer lies with Jell-O and part of the resolution lies with the seeming simple act of being heard.

Exploding Jell-O

Now, here, dear reader, I ask you to bear with me for a moment. We have all heard about projecting our shadow parts on to other people. That is where we least accept in others what we least accept in ourselves. These are the parts of ourselves our parents, caregivers, rule-makers in our culture showed and told us were unacceptable as we grew up, so we learned to eliminate them from our conscious life one way or another. However, they are not eliminated, they are just stuffed down into our subconscious life. They become like Jell-O. Most of they time they just sit there, wobbling in response to the normal bumps and grinds of life. But every now and again comes a big squeeze, more pressure than normal and like Jell-O, it squeezes out through the gaps between our conscious mind and our subconscious mind and appears in our life. Only it comes out fast –it flies out and splats onto the other person. Now it looks like their stuff.

So, how does this relate to my argument with my husband – who is now covered in multicoloured “Leona” Jell-O. Well, in NVC he can, if he has the presence of mind, wash it off. He doesn’t have to own it. He can check in for what is his material and what is not; he can give himself some emergency self-empathy. Secondly, he can check out my Jell-O. He can respond to it. He can say – hey Leona, it sounds like you really care about… and you are really stunned as to how anyone can respond like…. I’m wondering how you feel when you notice that response and what needs of yours are not being met. So, he can offer empathy to my exploding Jell-O.

Or

I can learn to listen more fully to myself. This is the part I like most because it feels, to me, self-empowering, self-loving, self-connecting and self-accepting. I can:

• acknowledge the rising tide of pain – a simple “hello rising tension and tightness I sense you there” and “I wonder if you are a part inside of me that has never really been allowed into the light?” and then pause and notice what comes…

• then later, when I have time and space, listen to my “shoulds” – I can take some serious time to hear how life has been for those parts of me that I have not been allowed/continued to allow into my life. I don’t necessarily need to go into the story of why that happened but rather acknowledge its pain of living in the shadows, of not being acceptable and accepted.

• listen for feelings, needs/values, to the metaphors – the intricate, unique richness of each part’s living experiences

• reflect back what you hear so that these parts know they are heard. Ask if they feel heard. Invite them to tell you more.
• Let them know that more than one conversation is possible. That this is about gently getting to know each other again – becoming friends again after a long estrangement.

This process of deep self-empathy takes some effort – actually it takes a huge effort. I reckon bungy jumping has nothing on the deep self-empathy process in terms of courage (and yes, I have jumped).

How can you do this process? Well, here are some of the ways I have tried and others I respect have I tried:

1. Journaling – writing as a dialogue – listener and speaker so each part gets heard
2. Moving between chairs – the chair represents each part and we mediate between the part that holds the “should” and the part that now wants to be heard (aka the shadow). This is a form of NVC mediation. We are helping our parts to hear and understand each other.
3. Listening partner – to reflect each part, to hold the safe energy and support you.
4. Movement – allowing the body to move and express the living energy of each part; really feeling into how our muscles, cells and body structure has held both the “should” and “the part that needs to be fully heard”.

Why does this matter? Isn’t it selfish for it to be “all about me”?

Could it be that if our inner world is at peace then our relationship with the outer world can hold space for peace?