I SUCK! But, at least I'm predictable...

Today's tagline is: I suck...but at least I'm predictable. 

Psychology is not the study of the mind. Rather, it is the study of the soul. As we delve into the soul we begin to find that human beings, despite how busy they become and how complex their lives are, they are fairly simple creatures. I tend to lean to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs as a template to gauge why people do what they do. It's fairly simple, actually. If you think about it, all behaviors have a purpose and typically they can fall into one of the 4-5 categories in Maslow's Hierarchy. Starting at the bottom there are PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS and going up from there is SAFETY, SOCIAL/ESTEEM, and finally SELF-ACTUALIZATION. Today, though, I want to speak briefly about Safety.

Safety, in my experience, is an umbrella term that encompasses all aspects of a person's life that makes them feel that life is comfortable, predictable, consistent, and stable. With a foundation of safety, which means that turmoil is minimal the individual believes that all is well. They feel and believe that their physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and sexual needs are aligned and sufficiently under their control.

Now, let's see how this principle of safety is not without a sense of irony. Take, for instance, an individual who is struggling with self-esteem, depression, anxiousness, obsessive compulsiveness, or ANYTHING where they feel that they are out of control. Here, you may find an individual who engages in covert behaviors (i.e. internal) that include self-berating, self-doubting, self-flagellation, etc. Their internal dialogue may be "I suck at this...I'm a failure....I'm not good at this....I'm a terrible person...etc." Not only do they say these things, but they may even seek out internal or external evidence for it. For example: "I suck at playing the trumpet, because I screwed up in the concert....I am a failure as a mother, because my child is struggling in school and I should have done more with him/her at home...I am a terrible employee, because my boss gave me negative feedback...etc." This internal process added to the seeking and finding of evidence leads to feelings of despair, hopelessness, and even sleepless nights. One would think that the results of this process might logically push a person to move away from such negative behaviors; thus enabling them to move up the hierarchy and work on their esteem, their social life and moving towards actualization. In some cases it does! However, in the cases that end out in my office it does not always look like this. In my opinion, this happens because the behaviors (internal and external) have a predictable and consistent result, thus logically maintaining a sense of ironic safety. After all, safety is a sense of stability and predictability. Therefore, why would the individual change when they know that their outcome will be the same and they have power over it?

Now that we've briefly unraveled this ironic sense of safety, one can see how it might be comfortable to remain in their unhappy state. So, one might ask how to help a person move from that state to a new state of safety. Truthfully, there are many ways. CBT or Gestalt therapy can help, person-centered therapy can help, existential therapy can help, and much more. Typically, it requires an empathetic ear that can help a person to become aware of their internal goings-on. Awareness can be a breeding ground for change that is brought on by the individual's will to seek a higher level of safety. Once they begin to move in that direction, then they need to be able to identify the progress, celebrate it, give themselves the proverbial pat on the back and develop their own self-efficacy (i.e. confidence). Then, their motivation to continue the new behavior can be internally driven. Finally, the new results can be just as predictable; just as stable; and just as consistent as the prior behaviors. Who wouldn't want that?

Dr Law

Post-Modern Prometheus and Apocalyptic Premeditations

Truthfully, the title has nothing to do with this blog-article (or blarticle as I like to call them). However, it made you wonder "Hmm, what the heck is this about?"In that case, if you're already reading, you may as well finish. I had an interesting conversation today with a peer. She is an excellent clinician and has wonderful insight. She reminded me how much I still have to learn in the field as a counselor, a supervisor, and an educator and I'm grateful for that. We were discussing how people have gifts, talents, and strengths that sometimes go untapped. She brought up the idea that at times individuals may have gifts that are untapped--that perhaps they recognize them, yet do not wish to recognize them; therefore, they avoid exercising them and may even go to the point of denying they have them. My response to her was something like this: "Well, that would make sense. If someone has an innate gift of capacity and they are not using it, then they are not accountable to it and they have less responsibility, because less is required of them." I'm sure my words were less than this with her, but it was something to that extent. The conversation was short and it made me reflect on myself and what talents I keep "hidden" or "dormant" and why. It also left me wondering what would happen if I did awaken them and used them. What would the result be? I suppose that it would result in more requirements; however, it might also mean that I feel or believe that I am feeling more fulfilled; thus, moving towards a higher level of self-actualization (to speak in Maslow's words). Furthermore, it caused me to realize that in order to do this, it would require me to pursue a higher level of vulnerability with others, which is something that is uncomfortable to me, and to many others. Therefore, do I forget my discomfort and/or lean into it or don't I? I guess one would lean into the discomfort and pursue a higher plane if they had a belief that it did lead to self-actualization. Or, it could mean that they believe that the Universe or a Higher Power has afforded them the gifts for the betterment of others and themselves. Ultimately, all of these things mean the same thing and require the same effort--i.e. a forgetting of one's discomfort, a trust in the existential process of life, and a hope that something fulfilling will come of it. Therefore, leaning into the discomfort would be a positive, yet uncomfortable means to an end--that end meaning the growth of the untapped gift, talent or capacity that would otherwise remain dormant, unused and/or completely lost; not doing anything positive or negative for others or oneself. I suppose that this may just be a brief rambling, but I wonder what others think about this subject…let's see if anyone responds. Also, it could just mean that I read too much and think too much and should spend more time watching TV and vegging out. Dr Jamison Law

Trauma and Resiliency, Responsibility, and Agency...What a Boring Title!

The following is an excerpt from an unpublished paper I wrote on psychological resiliency after enduring a difficult or traumatic event. I would love to hear anyone's thoughts

Focus on responsibility and agency.

Several clients come into our offices talking about their individual traumas and how they have made things difficult for them. They also talk about how it has affected their relationship with the perpetrator(s), other close people, the community, and God. Many of them have guilt and blame themselves and/or hold severe grudges and harbor anger and hate towards the perpetrators. At times they question why life has been more difficult for them than for others and how they were dealt such a poor hand. The following is going to be more of an explanation based on psychology and spirituality in hopes to answer some of the questions.

Traumatized clients’ relationships change and function on a level that deviates from the norm. Much of that is due to the trust that has been broken time and time again. In Maslow’s heirarchy of needs, their level of safety, love, and esteem have not been established or maintained. Therefore, their ability to self-actualize (Maslow’s hierarchy) is not possible. The only level that is actually, at times, maintained is their physiological needs (i.e. food, water, shelter, etc.), though that can be in question with neglected children/childhood as well. On the level of safety, an individual must feel comfortable and secure in their environment with minimal attack on their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual self. If attacked, their capacity for moving to the higher hierarchical needs is diminished. They may struggle with giving and receiving love or having esteem for themselves and others. Thus, can be a large factor with esteem. When a client has been traumatized time and time again they begin to lose trust with initially the perpetrator, and then it can spread to others who are close to them, the community, and to God (depending on their beliefs). Recently, a client (whose name we’ll call Matthew) disclosed horrific traumas from his childhood. Much of it involved abuse and neglect from his family and a large part involved a neighbor who befriended then molested him time and time again. He did not trust his family for help so endured the continued abuse. He described other economic difficulties, physical health problems, and general loneliness. He asked why it is that he was given a difficult life. He felt that it must have been something he did to deserve the pain and suffering without much respite. To try to escape the pain he had attempted suicide many times, though without success. When asking why he had to suffer I explained something to him, that I hope will help others. First and foremost, everyone has the right to act (free will). Anyone can do what they want. Whether they are conscious of the results depends on each individual. Some people, however, have made the choices to act against others in a way that is harmful, degrading, and usually self-serving. Such acts can be considered abusive, because it is in an attempt to remove or negate another’s free will and control them or change their acts. Such self-serving acts do not serve the victim (the receiver of the self-serving acts) in any positive ways. It can change the victim’s life perspective (specifically on relationships) and attacks their general need for safety (Maslow’s hierarchy). Therefore, the abuser (the one who acts self-servingly) is responsible for their acts and how it affected the victim. Responsibility lies solely with them and none other, especially the victim. Therefore, the victim is not the guilty party. The guilty party in the technical sense is only the abuser. Guilty signifies “1 : justly chargeable with or responsible for a usually grave breach of conduct or a crime. 2 obsolete : justly liable to or deserving of a penalty” according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Therefore, it is not possible for the victim to be guilty for the self-serving act when they were the individual being acted upon rather than acting. Matthew blamed himself as that was the only logical reason he could come up with. Why else would it happen if there wasn’t something so terribly wrong with him or his character–something innate that called to abusers “Here I am! Hurt me! That’s what I’m here for!” The truth of the matter is that each person can act in whichever way that they please, selflessly or selfishly.
That brings us to the next point that Matthew brought up, which is also a point other clients have made regarding God. If God was a merciful and a just God, how is it that he could let such terrible things happen to undeserving people and let the abusers go unpunished? At that point one can revert back to free will. If free will is truly something that exists, an ability given to all to act; and God is God–all powerful and all knowing with the ability to do what He wants, would he not allow the individual to exercise their free will “according to the dictates of their own conscience?” Any other way would be tyrannical, dictatorial and contraindicative of what free will is.

The power of free will is that many can exercise it in a way achieve Maslow’s highest achievement which is self-actualization. In spite of the difficulties one has faced, or the traumas caused, one can utilize and strengthen their ability to act to achieve safety and overcome the trauma–thus developing resiliency.

There are no guarantees with behavior, thoughts, or emotions. There can be guarantees with action due to agency and responsibility.

A Few Points Regarding Trauma and Free Will

It is important to observe how such a characteristic can be developed even when trauma has been present. Several clients come into our offices talking about their individual traumas and how they have made things difficult for them. They also talk about how it has affected their relationship with the perpetrator(s), other close people, the community, and God. Many of them have guilt and blame themselves and/or hold severe grudges and harbor anger and hate towards the perpetrators. At times they question why life has been more difficult for them than for others and how they were dealt such a poor hand. The following is going to be more of an explanation based on psychology and spirituality in hopes to answer some of the above questions.
Traumatized clients’ relationships change and function on a level that deviates from the norm. Much of that is due to the trust that has been broken time and time again. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, their level of safety, love, and esteem have not been established or maintained. Therefore, their ability to self-actualize (Maslow’s hierarchy) is not possible. The only level that is actually, at times, maintained is their physiological needs (i.e. food, water, shelter, etc.), though that is questionable with neglected children/childhood as well. On the level of safety, an individual must feel comfortable and secure in their environment with minimal attack on their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual self. If attacked, their capacity for moving to the higher hierarchical needs is diminished. They may struggle with giving and receiving love or having esteem for themselves and others. Thus, can be a large factor with esteem. When a client has been traumatized time and time again they begin to lose trust with initially the perpetrator, and then it can spread to others who are close to them, the community, and to God (depending on their beliefs). Recently, a client (whose name we’ll call Matthew) disclosed horrific traumas from his childhood. Much of it involved abuse and neglect from his family and a large part involved a neighbor who befriended then molested him time and time again. He did not trust his family for help so endured the continued abuse. He described other economic difficulties, physical health problems, and general loneliness. He asked why it is that he was given a difficult life. He felt that it must have been something he did to deserve the pain and suffering without much respite. To try to escape the pain he had attempted suicide many times, though without success. When asking why he had to suffer I explained something to him, that I hope will help others. First and foremost, everyone has the right to act (free will). Anyone can do what they want. Whether they are conscious of the results depends on each individual. Some people, however, have made the choices to act against others in a way that is harmful, degrading, and usually self-serving. Such acts can be considered abusive, because it is in an attempt to remove or negate another’s free will and control them or change their acts. Such self-serving acts do not serve the victim (the receiver of the self-serving acts) in any positive ways. It can change the victim’s life perspective (specifically on relationships) and attacks their general need for safety (Maslow’s hierarchy). Therefore, the abuser (the one who acts self-servingly) is responsible for their acts and how it affected the victim. Responsibility lies solely with them and none other, especially the victim. Therefore, the victim is not the guilty party. The guilty party in the technical sense is only the abuser. Guilty signifies “1 : justly chargeable with or responsible for a usually grave breach of conduct or a crime. 2 obsolete : justly liable to or deserving of a penalty” according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Therefore, it is not possible for the victim to be guilty for the self-serving act when they were the individual being acted upon rather than acting. Matthew blamed himself as that was the only logical reason he could come up with. Why else would it happen if there wasn’t something so terribly wrong with him or his character–something innate that called to abusers “Here I am! Hurt me! That’s what I’m here for!” The truth of the matter is that each person can act in whichever way that they please, selflessly or selfishly.
That brings us to the next point that Matthew brought up, which is also a point other clients have made regarding God. If God was a merciful and a just God, how is it that he could let such terrible things happen to undeserving people and let the abusers go unpunished? At that point one can revert back to free will. If free will is truly something that exists, an ability given to all to act; and God is God–all powerful and all knowing with the ability to do what He wants, would he not allow the individual to exercise their free will “according to the dictates of their own conscience?” Any other way would be tyrannical, dictatorial and contraindicative of what free will is.
The power of free will is that many can exercise it in a way achieve Maslow’s highest achievement which is self-actualization. In spite of the difficulties one has faced, or the traumas caused, one can utilize and strengthen their ability to act to achieve safety and overcome the trauma–thus developing resiliency.

In This Corner We Have...

A question was posed the other day to me by a family member. She asked, "how can some people from a terrible background still end out so well off...?" It was something to that effect. I will get to my thoughts on that towards the end of this article. First, I feel it important to address determination vs. free will. A good definition of determinism is as follows: "Determinism is the theory that all human action is caused entirely by preceding events, and not by the exercise of the will." (http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/determin.htm). In other words, cause and effect or stimulus and response. Things happen as they will due to their preceding events. Free will is more or less being able to act in a way that one wants or chooses. It doesn't entirely negate determinism, but certainly appears to be contradictory to it. Rather than delve into a philosophical discussion of the two, which could be quite lengthy, let's just assume that both exist. One non-behavioral (human) example of determinism is what happens when a tennis ball hits a wall. What does it do? It bounces back. The extent to which it bounces back involves other variables such as the density of the wall, how much air is in the tennis ball, how hard it was thrown, etc. However, the response will be for it to bounce back. It is a natural response. The same thing would happen if you threw a tennis ball at somebody's head. The tennis ball would bounce back. It has no choice. There are physical laws that "make" it respond in such a manner. Let's assume that the person who was hit retaliates and socks the thrower in the face while saying, "you made me mad...you hurt me...you deserved it...you made me do it...it's your fault, etc." Were his actions a result of physical laws (determinism) or an exercise of will? He said "you made me," but did the alleged assailant truly physically "make" him retaliate? It doesn't seem so. Between the time of getting hit and retaliating, the individual made a decision to attack. At lightning fast speed he made the decision. It took less time for him to make the decision than to double his fist, pull his arm and shoulder back, and launch it at the other guy's face. It certainly seems that WILL was a factor. Let's take it a step further. Some might say, "well, the guy who was hit by the ball might have been having a bad day...might have been abused or neglected as a child and not know how to cope with difficult situations...might have the wrong friends who have influenced him in a bad way...might have a chemical imbalance due to heredity that makes him unstable...might have been bullied a lot at school, therefore, only knows how to fight back with his fists...or has a bad attitude about everything...wasn't breast fed long enough...might have been high or under the influence of something...might be posessed with an evil spirit...might have cognitive distortions that affect rational thinking..." Well, which one is it? If you notice, not one of these is placing the responsibility of the action back on the person. To me, it seems that the "reasons" are giving license for the negative behavior. Sure, it might be fascinating (and I find it to be) to understand what brought the individual to make such decisions, but does it change anything? Maybe not. The truth is, he made the choice to retaliate. Nothing more. We could go even further with this when it comes to "why we do what we do?" It is possible that an individual is raised in a situation that is abusive, neglectful, and violent. It happens a lot and I see it frequently in my job. Just because a person is abused or exposed to violence does not necessarily mean that they will carry on the tradition as they grow older. If it were like that, then all of us would be carbon copies of our parents. We would act and be just like they are. But, we're not. We make choices and change as we live. We exercise our WILL to change and make choices. Why is it that some people from abusive/violent situations end out being abusive and violent? CHOICE! There are choices that they make that continue the negative behaviors.
I recently attended a conference on domestic violence. One of the speakers spoke of a study that he did on domestic violence perpetrators. They interviewed known perpetrators, their families, and friends to discover if there was a correlation between their environment and their violent behaviors. The results were somewhat staggering. They found sibling groups, all raised in the same environments--exposed to the same stimuli (abuse, neglect, violence) that did not end out carrying on the negative behaviors. Some of the perpetrators have siblings that were strong and non-violent citizens. What was the difference between the perpetrators and their non-violent siblings? CHOICE! Over time, the people made poor choices that resulted in perpetration. I am not saying that it was just one choice at one time. It makes sense that it was many choices over a long period of time. Can their environment be influential on their ability to make choice? Sure it can. But, it does not determine the end result. If that were the case, then none of us could make our own choices. I do feel that there are aspects about our physical human existence over which determinism maintains control. But, one universal truth (I believe) is that there are both determinism and WILL. There are things in this world that can be "acted upon" (determinism) and others that can "act" (will). I am sure that I will go more on this in the future. Until next time...