communication, and how

 ~ the truth shall set you free (Jesus)

One of the most misleading bits of advice I've heard is that frequent, open, honest communication makes a couple stronger. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Too much communication can drive couples apart, and the wrong kind of communication can destroy them altogether (c.f. John Gottman's "Four Horsemen").

It is important to distinguish the types of communication we are using and to know their likely result when undertaking an important and potentially divisive conversation with a friend or partner. 

Aside from fact-sharing, which is a relatively benign form of communication*, there are two main styles of communication that can lead to very different outcomes: adversarial and collaborative. 

Among the adversarial styles are debate and argument. 

In a debate, each speaker represents a side or position and attempts to systematically submit facts, logic and evidence in support of it. In an argument, the debate devolves into trying to dominate one's opponent by being right, sometimes invoking what is morality "right" or "wrong" while often using defensive and aggressive strategies to buttress one's position and attack another's. While a debate may be clarifying as to why one holds a certain position, it usually does nothing to influence your adversary. An argument, on the other hand, is just another word for a fight, i.e. a forceful attempt to influence an adversary. If you choose to debate or argue with your friend or partner, expect it either to reinforce two already distinct positions, or to quash one side in favour of the other which is clearly not going to win any points with the loser. More communication like this in your important relationships and they will be over all too soon.

Among the collaborative styles are discussion and self-disclosure. 

Discussion is a tame form of argument. It is an active bilateral dialogue that does not seek to win but to exchange information in order to deliberate on a subject together, peacefully. Self-disclosure, on other hand, is more of a monologue. Like a debate minus the side-taking, it is a unilateral revelation of ideas, thoughts, feelings and beliefs so another can see into my reality, my truth. Where debate uses a lot of declarative statements, self-disclosure uses primarily I-statements, a personal and intimate style of communication which seeks to be seen without trying to force someone to agree (one hokey description I have heard of this is "into-me-see": intimacy).

When difficult topics arise, rather than promoting our view with debate or argument, relying on discussion and self-disclosure will maintain and even improve connection so decisions and/or choices can be made without driving two people apart. 

*Informing and consulting are a subset of factual communication mostly used for the purpose of clarifying logistics

a misconception about healing

progress not perfection
~anonymous

In the language of my profession we talk about healing, as though emotional wounds were like wounds of the flesh that could heal over time. While healing may occur with emotional pain, or with the memory of its sharpness which does fade over time, an emotional wound leaves a hole that time cannot refill. That is trauma.

Trauma impales the psyche irreversibly. New experiences may be overlaid and new strategies implemented to protect the wound from further re-injury or decay, but these merely mask or buttress the original trauma. What was there before the injury cannot be restored much like bone from a cavity cannot be restored by a dental filling. Once integrity is compromised, the nerve will be closer to the surface than before, making it more susceptible to being reactive in the future.

One cannot dull the nerve of trauma with numbing agents or by extracting its "root". But that would not heal the wound anyway. It would be an emotional root canal that replaces reactivity with deadness.

The word heal comes from the word haelan, to save or make whole. Time and therapy cannot, unfortunately, do that for anyone. True to the etymological origin of our profession, however, therapists can compassionately advise, guide and accompany the wounded person as their faithful attendant or therapon in the unique and creative process of their grieving and recovery.

EMDR

Research has shown that about five hours of EMDR treatment eliminates PTSD in 84 to 100 % of civilians with a single trauma experience including rape, accident or disaster
~Francine Shapiro

EMDR works. It's fast, simple and effective, with unprecedented success in the treatment of symptoms that have been traditionally hard to treat using CBT or talk therapy, and even medication. This success has made EMDR the most frequently sought treatment by clients, and the one most routinely prescribed by doctors and psychiatrists. Once the object of scorn within the scientific community, EMDR is now so wildly popular that its success has become a double-edged sword. 

Everybody wants EMDR!

The problem is that clients seem to believe that, because their symptoms are severe or have not responded to more conventional methods of treatment, they need EMDR, as though it were a kind of magic wand for a broad range of symptoms and problems. When all else fails, try EMDR. 

I wish it were that simple. But it is not so.

First of all, EMDR is not a broad spectrum treatment. It works only when the core of the problem can be defined and targeted by the practitioner. While its use need not be limited to symptoms of a single trauma (see above quote), when the cause of symptoms is too diffuse or undefined, i.e. a traumatic childhood, relationship or another complex cause, it cannot be treated with EMDR. There may be aspects that can be targeted but the EMDR still has to focus on one particular occurence in much the same way as radiation therapy aims at one particular tumor. It would be absolutely useless, if not to say unethical, to subject a client to EMDR to rid them of the general discomfort manifesting as, say, generalized anxiety, depression, chronic pain or low self-esteem. We would need to deal with the discomfort the same way we would deal with feathers poking through a pillow, one feather at a time. Moreover, in isolating the direct cause, other interventions may be necessary along the way.

Another thing that should be clarified is the acronym EMDR which stands for Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocesing. Though EMDR originally used eye movements to bilaterally stimulate the brain*, it was never to reach the unconscious (as in hypnotherapy). Nor is EMDR the same as tapping (EFT), mental re-programming (as in NLP) or somatic experiencing therapy 

EMDR is remarkably efficient. It is a quick fix, but it is not a panacea.

* a better acronym would be BSRT (Bilaterally Stimulated Reprocessing Therapy)

. 

fast thinking

For lent I gave up
~anonymous

They say to starve a fever and feed a cold, but I think we should starve any disease that wants to consume us. That includes addiction and any and all thoughts that lead to addiction. It also includes other diseases like anorexia, anxiety and OCD and all thoughts leading to them. Starve them before they starve you. 

Fast on ideas rather than things so as not to allow your own thoughts to consume you. This is after all the purpose of fasting, isn't it? Freedom, not weight loss or a buff physique*.

*The popular "intermittent fast" may actually feed addiction by indulging restrict-binge cycles that reinforce craving rather than freedom.

I'd rather be safe

There is a saying that goes, "Either you're right or you're in a relationship." I first came across it during Imago Therapy training. My supervisor printed it on a magnet and stuck it on her filing cabinet. 

The gist of the expression, and why it is relevant to couples, is that you cannot maintain a collaborative partnership when you're both trying to be right. It is one thing to support your view with evidence or reasoned argument; quite another to argue your point by interrupting, talking over, discrediting, demeaning or devaluing your opponent... which can further devolve into name-calling, yelling, mud slinging and stonewalling. 

Trying to be right feeds a power struggle where each party wants to win and the other side has to agree, or lose. This adversarial stance is antithetical to relationship. It feeds a warmonger mindset and has no place in relationship, let alone love. I hate it very much.

Then there are those who would rather be in relationship than be right. These are the ones who can put themselves in your shoes, see where you are coming from and validate your truth even if it is different from their own. They value keeping the peace and will agree to disagree sooner than fight over who is right. These are my peeps and I love them.

BUT

While being able to acknowledge another person's perspective is a quality that peaceful society cannot live without, it can become pathological when you are dealing with someone unable to reciprocate on this level (civil) plane. 

Relationship at any cost is popularly known as codependency*. The codependent is an unwitting passenger or co-pilot on someone else's ride. Though your original intention was not to choose someone on a power trip, to remain with a person who cannot be civil to you in a reliable or consistent way is insanity.

Another expression puts it this way: "If you're on his side and he's on his side, who's on your side?" 

Though it is good to see others as legitimate and separate entities with rights equal to our own (and treat them as such), relationships become unilateral when only one person is doing all the work. In a sense, this is as antithetical to relationship as always wanting to be right. 

Though I would rather be in a relationship than be right, when being in relationship means always being wrong, I would rather be safe, unbuckle and get on another ride.

*codependency originally referred to the loving partner (parent, sibling or friend) of someone dependent on alcohol or abusing some other substance. 

heterogamous havoc (part two)

 ~evil appears as good in the minds of those whom gods lead to destruction

(Sophocles; Antigone)

 

In part one of this blog post, I shared my XY theory of value differences tending to coincide with gender. I concluded that, even if there is no right way to settle value differences, there are limits as to what can be valuable to pursue.  

The "Z " value introduces those limits. It represents the inflation or deflation of values as reflected on the horizontal and vertical axes of connection and power. Z is vitality, energy and desire. It is what motivates pursuit*.

In a heterogamous world, the discrepancy between conflicting values may prompt us to restrict our pursuits to satisfy others. We might sacrifice what we value, or go for compromise rather than satisfaction. This can be all right for a short time but, if we are driven by too much obligation, it begins to drain our vital energy and replace it with the burden of responsibility. Picture a kind of inversion on the Z axis which collapses upon itself into a black hole. This is deflation, and is experienced as burnout, depression and resentment. In this phase, the strain of frustrated desire threatens to rebound into a binge.

In the binge phase, we have a diametrically opposed scenario where we overinvest our own values by accepting trade-offs with values on the opposite axis. If we value relationships, for example, we might relinquish personal power to satisfy our need for connection. If we value productivity, we might accept loss of family time to feel more productive at work. Our curve begins to bulge in the quadrant of our most cherished values. Yet the intermittent and elusive nature of satisfaction motivates us to pursue them even more. This is not sustainable. Picture an overinflated balloon. Desire runs amok and threatens to burst into the chaotic pursuit of an addiction.   

At the intersection of the three axes, right in the middle of the Z axis, is an alternative to the binge/restrict cycle of pursuit. Paradoxically, it depends on tolerating the unbridgeable gaps between different values, and accepting the unattainability of the perfection we nevertheless desire. It is at rest yet has a transcendent quality because, not satisfied by material things, it accepts that reality. Though we may still value power over connection, or vice versa, we are no longer driven by either. Nor do we succumb to impulse or obligation, but respond in every situation with deliberation and self-control. A steady state of being okay is nurtured which does not depend on anything outside of itself. That is why it is free, leaving room for peace to rush in instead of folly.

Most religions try to locate where fulfillment lies, and all concur to some degree: it is in the mysterious place where there is stillness and trust, and contentment right where we are. But this is not some esoteric concept that does not apply to real life or real life relationships. In part three I will give some practical examples of how this theory works in practice.

*Coinzidentally, the last letter of our alphabet is derived from the Greek word zeta which in turn is derived form the Hebrew word zayin, meaning weapon, or sword. Both zeta and zayin have a numerical value of 7.

heterogamous havoc (part one)

 Would you rather be right, or in a relationship?

~ unknown

I have a working template that helps me understand the genders. I have been wanting to share it publicly for a long time but hesitated because I didn't want to come across as sexist or reactionary. I finally decided that it has been valuable enough to me personally and professionally, that it is worth taking the risk.  

My working template is based on years of practice as a couple therapist. I call it the X/Y Theory, harking back to those graphs we drew in school composed of two axes (a horizontal X axis, and a vertical Y axis) upon which we plotted points depending on their X and Y values.

My theory is that, just as a point has a horizontal and a vertical value, so does an event in the world have both a "masculine" (Y) and "feminine" (X) value. Things with a high Y value tend to promote verticality: performance, provision and power, things that men traditionally seek and value. Things with a high X value tend to promote horizontality: compassion, connectedness and cooperation, things that women traditionally seek and value*. 

Regardless of gender, problems arise when the same event has a high value for one and a low value for the other: talking, for example. When two people get into a disagreement, one may want to seek mutual understanding by talking it through (high X value promoting connectedness), while the other may want to cut to the chase and fix the problem (high Y value promoting power).

There is no right way to solve this. We need to agree to disagree. This is the beginning of genuine empathy for each other. Instead of trying to be right or force my own truth, I accept your values as different from mine, and your truth as legitimate as my own. 

But there are limits to what can be valuable to pursue, even from my own X or Y perspective.

Pursuing what is valuable can lead to more complex dilemmas requiring a response other than relativism. There is a value that cuts through these axes that I call the Z value, and I will look at some real life examples of how it affects everything in part two...

*genderally speaking, men tend to value things that start with P as in potency, power, paternity, provision, production, performance, etc. Women, on the other hand, tend to value things that start with CO, as in collaboration, compliance, cohesiont or compassion. I do not think this is a coincidence. These prefixes convey the vertical or horizontal force of being over or being with, and these indeed reflect our traditional gender roles.