Category: Psychology

On Love

I have been single for most of my life. I have heard, and still hear, about how I should find someone, that when I get older it will be harder, that I must be feeling lonely. And yet…I don’t.

While studying for my Bachelor’s, my major was Psychology but one of my minors was Philosophy. I loved the subject as it suited my tendency to reflect on things in much greater depth. It was in this subject that I learned about a conceptualization of love that made me feel a little less concerned about why I didn’t feel upset when I didn’t seek out, or reciprocate, love. Or, more specifically, one type of love that my friends and family wanted me to find.

The Ancient Greeks are known for their approaches to anything vague which could lend itself to philosophical thought. According to these great thinkers, there are 8 types of love. Not only are each of these related to different expressions (and sometimes different targets) of love, they are also not mutually exclusive.

The 8 types of love are Eros, Pragma, Ludus, Storge, Mania, Philia, Agape, and Philautia. Eros, Pragma, Ludus and Mania are primarily romantic; Storge and Philia are primarily geared towards family and/or friends; and, finally, Agape and Philautia are associated with self-love.

Eros is the most well-known expression of love – passionate love. THIS is the form of love that my family and friends want me to find. The one in movies. The one we first think of when we think about the world ‘love’. The one we think about when we say we’re looking for chemistry. Often seen during the early period of a romantic relationship, it is characterized by pleasure and lust. While for many Eros is also the start of their “great love”, the Ancient Greeks were nonetheless very wary of it, considering it the most dangerous, as one could lose their ability to process and think in favor of a fulfillment of the primitive and innate drive to procreate.

Pragma is known as long-lasting or enduring love. Love that spans years, and is characterized by commitment and maturity. In terms of romance, it may be prioritized over, or even replace, the initial passion felt by the partners – much like how the sharp, beautiful yet unsteady edges of a cliff may erode with time, being replaced with a plainer, but smoother and firmer, structure. Hence, when people speak of the passion being lost in the relationship, the question for them is not if they “fell out of love”, but rather if their love changed. 

Ludus, or ‘playful love’ may be seen as the love that we feel initially towards a romantic partner. This type of love is characterized by superfluity, a frivolous endeavor for which there are no objectives or goals. That crush you had in high school? Flirting with someone? Those are examples of Ludus. While Ludus does at times leads to more passion, or even to a continuous relationship founded on continuous flirting, the outcome is almost inevitably either giving into Eros which leads into commitment to each other (therein being more like Pragma) or seeking the same elsewhere (a continuation of Ludus with different partners).

Mania, as a term in itself, refers to something that is frantic and obsessive. It should come as no surprise, then, that Mania as a form of love is also known as obsessive love, and is characterized by possessiveness and jealousy. To it’s extreme, it is expressed through stalking. In today’s virtual world, it can be expressed in the continuous checking of – and often commenting on – social media posts from the person of interest. The line between Eros and Mania is sometimes unclear, passion sometimes leading to obsession or obsession being an extreme form of passion. Ludus, too, can sometimes be associated with Mania, especially if one party begins to take the flirting more seriously than the other.

As stated earlier, love isn’t just between romantic partners. Storge and Philia do not relate to romantic love but rather love with family and friends.

Storge, or familiar love, is that which is shared with family or even friends who are close as family. Like Pragma, it includes some level of endurance. Characterized by loyalty, Storge is not targeted towards romantic partners as Pragma is. This is the type of love expressed when we say we would do anything for a person. It is the form of love when we say we love our parents , grandparents, siblings, cousins…and not all of these are blood relatives.

Philia is considered friendship love (although, before Aristotle renamed it, it was brotherly love). We often find this in our solidarity and patriotism. This is the love we have for “fellow man”. When our own people are threatened, at risk, such as in the case of African Americans and Asian Americans, we can see how our grief at the injustice against these populations come out of a threat to those with whome we share philic love. It is also this same type of love that supports individuals who systemically encourage such injustice. In this case, Philia – as with all emotions – overrules the thought processes with which we could objectively determine if our actions were just or not.

And so we come to the past two forms of love. Agape and Philautia are both self-love, but differ in one major aspect – one refers to the world beyond oneself, and the other is oneself in the world.

Agape, or selfless love, is characterized by generosity and charity. Focusing on the self in the world, this form of love is what we express when we do for others. Unlike the other forms of love, there is no one specific target – this is a more general love where we favor others before we favor ourselves. The ostensible expression of this is charity and sharing joy with others through multiple paths – artists, therapists, retail workers, everyone does it in some form or another. The other, more subtle, way is when we identify ourselves as nurturers, or find ourselves “gunning for the underdog”.

Then we have the opposite – Philautia, or self love. Yes, it can go to the extreme, which is what we know as narcissism. However, it is actually the form of love that we often encourage and more often than not find the most challenging. Sometimes we neglect it, at other times we do it and then label it as ‘selfish’ or ‘immodest’. It is love of the self, of who one is in essence. Not on the basis of how others define us or describe us, but how we know ourselves. After all, we often hear that to love others, we should love ourselves first. Everything from self-care, self-respect, to boundary-setting with others; all of these are an expression of Philautia.

I like to think that the Ancient Greeks had it right. There is not just one form of love, and merging all of these forms into one abstract, vague cloud sets us up for more than one type of misconception. It is possible to transition between the forms of love, and it is just as possible that one form of love can be experienced in its own right.

And this is where I stand. Yes, I do not seek out or reciprocate Eros, Pragma, Ludus, or Mania. But what I miss in not seeking these out I find in the rich experience I have with Storage, Philia, Agape and Philautia. In the end, my “great love” may not be romantic love at all!

Being and Doing are Different

I am one of those people others think are naïve. I believe that people are essentially good. There’s just one thing that makes me feel that not naïve – I still account for bad behavior.

Simply put, a person and their behavior are different entities. Yes, it is a person who behaves a certain way. But defining an individual by what they do negates the fact that a person is more than what they do.

In psychology, we talk about the Gestalt approach – the whole is greater than the sum of parts. We are also introduced to the cognitive diamond; our functioning depends on the symbiotic relationship between our thoughts, emotions, physiological responses and actions. Taking all of this in consideration, it may make some sense as to why I don’t believe that only one’s actions define them.

There is a difference between lying and being a liar. There is a difference between stealing and being a thief. There is a difference between lashing out and being dangerous. There is a difference between making mistakes and being stupid or incorrigible.

A 45-years-old woman has been drinking since she was 16 years old. She has tried often to reach the goal of sobriety, but falls off the wagon almost every time. It is not difficult to imagine the amount of times she is perceived – or has even been told – that she is hopeless, or weak, or lacks willpower.

We have no idea why she keeps relapsing. The thoughts that run through her mind when she’s not drinking. The physiological side-effects when she doesn’t drink. The emotional numbing that she, perhaps, finds relief in when she’s drinking.

In the process, we provide neither opportunities to learn constructive emotional or cognitive coping skills, nor do we help alleviate the physiological side-effects of withdrawal. She relapses again, we confirm our beliefs that she is hopeless, or weak, or lacks willpower, and there is no change for her situation.

However, calling her an alcoholic brings to mind that drinking is part of her identity, part of who she is. In her own mind, she too may begin defining herself in the same way; “I’m an alcoholic”, not “I drink too much” or “I have a problem with drinking”. Take a moment to consider which of these statements would give the listener more hope for change?

As an alcoholic, it is no longer just an action but embedded in the person as much as their identified ethnicity, personality, sexual orientation. It is unchosen, unbidden…unchangeable.

Now consider her as an individual with a problem with drinking, or an individual with substance use disorder. Drinking or having a substance use disorder are actions. Yes, unchosen. And still unbidden. But not unchangeable. Indeed, old patterns of behavior can be unlearned, and replaced with new, more constructive ones.

Looking past “they do…” to “they are…” not only allows us not to judge a person, it also gives us the opportunity to develop more constructive and healthy relationships with them. If we can isolate a person’s behavior from their identity, we learn to be more non-judgmental. We are able to see the woman as one who continues to have the will to change, and has not stopped trying to do so. A woman with hope. A woman who is strong enough to pick herself up to try again. Indeed, a woman that we may be more willing to help.

Helping an individual separate their behavior from their identity is no easy task. Often, individuals have heard their behavior defining who they are so often that it has become ingrained. They may have heard it since a young age, so that it was organically embedded into their identity. Alternatively, even if an individual did not believe that the behavior defined them, hearing it often enough could lead them to doubt themselves and then accept what others were saying as truth.

At times, it may appear impossible to bring an individual to this realization. We may feel like the individual is resistant. However, we will again be making the error from earlier – judging the person by their actions. It is possible that they are in the pre-contemplation stage of growth; the first stage in the stages of change model.

The Pre-contemplation stage is characterized by a lack of awareness, or a denial, that there is a problem (in this case, the problem being that the behavior is not the same as the whole person). If an individual is in this stage, it simply means that the person is not ready for change. Trying to help the individual separate the behavior from the individual’s identity, then, would be akin to bringing the horse to water but not being able to make it drink. It is important to know when to stop trying and accept that the individual is not ready for such a change.

But it is important to try first. It may indeed be difficult, but once this assumed connection is broken there are simultaneous benefits in rapport-building and in behavior change. Seeing past an individual’s behavior to the identity behind it gives value to the existence of the person. For a person who has lacked validation for some time, this becomes a lifeline, which in turn translates into a sense of trust. Meanwhile, as the behavior is no longer embedded to the point that it is indispensable, it is easier to unlearn and replace with a healthier and more constructive behavior.

A very important sent side note here – We are not obliged to accept everyone regardless of what they do. We, too, have our limits. These limits are just as important as helping those who have not received the help that they deserve.

Behavior must receive consequences. Negative behaviors that do not lead to appropriate consequences are illicitly approved. This is particularly dangerous if we consider extreme negative behaviors. However, such consequences should be limited to the behavior and not the person behind it.

Anything Can Happen

Like a soldier in an enemy camp
She moves silently
Watchful eyes ahead
Ears perked to sounds behind.

Its a short walk to the store,
Just down the way and round the corner.
Yet in her heart she knows
Anything can happen in this short time.

Glancing down every driveway,
Scanning every street,
She looks for signs of life
That could be threatening

Not that she has seen any
Over the past 3 years
But anything can happen
In this short time.

Wait a second.
Her steps slow down
Almost stopping altogether.
A man turns the corner up ahead.

She begins walking again,
Slower than before as she approaches him
Eyes even sharper,
Ears now trained to the front.

As they pass each other,
She speeds up
Her ears once again perked behind
For sounds from a man who had said nothing

She reminds herself
she will see people as she walks
And in front of the store;
Nothing has happened…

“Yet.”
Says her heart.
Anything can happen
In this short time.

Oh, the Masks we Wear!

I have often wondered about all the roles we play in life. We are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, a friend, sometimes a teacher or student, in school or at work. How overwhelming would that be; not knowing which role you’re playing at any one time, or mixing them up without realizing it. Indeed, that DOES happen.

For instance, many individuals may unwittingly play the role of a student in a doctor’s office, rather than a patient; listening and not clarifying, taking the doctor as the authority in the situation although – as a patient – you are the authority of your own body.

Carl Jung, prominent psychologist (and student of Sigmund Freud) spoke of the “Persona”; “a kind of mask, designed on the one hand to make a definite impression upon others, and on the other to conceal the true nature of the individual”.

Taking this as a basis, I believe that our person as DO hide our true selves, but that (i) we do not only have one Persona, and (ii) that we do have a choice about which Persona we use at different times. Given that my conceptualization of Jung’s Persona is different, I prefer to think in terms of “masks”.

As a student, we have facets that come to the fore; listening, open to learning, conscientious in completing our schoolwork and homework, and so forth. As a patient, these may shift – we increase the value of speaking, our conscientious now only focuses on the task of taking our medication or following suggestions, and we have a greater awareness of our bodies.

In social relationships, too, do we wear masks. These masks, depending on our relationship with the person in front of us, can have more or less solidity as well as have different facets. I may be more goofy and silly with one friend or group of friends, but be more mature with another. And there is always the case of being able to share some things with our friends that we don’t share with our family and/or vice versa.

Underneath all of these masks, however, is our true selves. A conscientious person, for instance, may be more so in one situation and less in another, but that does not mean they stop being conscientious altogether. I do not stop being mature completely with one group of friends, or cease making jokes with the other. The difference here is in levels.

Some may consider using these masks as hypocrisy – after all, one’s true self is not the same as one is portraying. A mask, however, obscures the true nature of a person, but it does not change it and does not express the opposite. If the person who speaks of politics is a Democrat, for instance, they may keep quiet about the same if they wish, but it is when they express support for the Republican party or its politics that we can consider the person a hypocrite.

To be a hypocrite, however, one has to be fully aware that they are going against their true selves – that which lies behind the mask. It is only when we know what facets lie behind the mask that we can decide the degree to which we want to express them, if at all.

For instance, I know I am empathetic. This may be more visible in my work as a therapist but slightly less as a teacher (at least in schools where information dissemination is more important than meaningful learning, but that is a topic for another post!) However, even if the level at which I express it may differ, that does not change the fact that I am empathetic.

Why is it so important to remember that we wear masks? Because the mask is not the whole of our true selves, but only a part of it. One’s true self is the foundation for our masks, not the other way around. And since no one knows our true selves as well as we do, we are the ones who decide how to create our masks the way that fits US best in the role we play.

Here I come to the second aspect of ‘masks’. I believe that our choice of mask isn’t only dependent on making a definite impression on others, but rather the aspects of our true selves that we are comfortable sharing with the other person.

For example, someone may choose to show a concrete mask to a person they have just met rather than a less solid one (as is often the case with individuals with trauma history). That might not lead to a definite impression. In fact, it would be possible that the individual left no impression on the person.

The importance of agency, or a person’s choice, figures into the masks we use. We choose how to create our mask based not on the impression we want to make, but how comfortable we would feel wearing it. The mask must conform to our true selves for it to be comfortable, and depending on the outside world for such information would be ineffective. Doing so could also confuse us about our own true selvesw or could lead to us being hypocrites.

Masks are not a bad thing – often we will meet individuals with whom some facet or another of our true selves would be incompatible. Masks allow us to interact with various people with minimal distress, and can be altered or exchanged for other masks if significant incompatibility is noticed.

It is when we wear the masks for ourselves, however, that they may be dangerous. If the masks begin to be the source of who our true selves are, there is a risk of us ignoring or even going directly against who we believe we are. In such a situation, one would in effect allow the world to suppress one’s true identity, increasing emotional and psychological distress in the process.

Perhaps the one of the most important things to remember is to take off one’s mask with themselves. Being free of masks allows us to breathe, to be ourselves in a wholistic and healthy way. To explore if the world outside had given us anything that we wanted to identify with, that we liked or disliked…to add to our true selves that becomes more detailed every day.

So, go ahead. Enjoy your ‘student mask’, ‘teacher mask’, ‘friend mask’, ‘daughter mask’, ‘son mask’…just remember to hang it up at the door when you get home.

Enjoy the Silence.

I have ADHD, I am considered an extrovert, and my being quiet has often led to others believing that I am depressed. The truth is, however…I recognize the importance of being with myself in silence.

How often do we face silence and either try to fill it with words or with doing something (like play with our phones)? Silence is difficult for most people – when we are with another person, we feel like there should be some form of communication happening. When there ISN’T anyone around, we seek them out virtually.

Admittedly, no man (or woman, or child) is an island. Social well-being is, after all, a part of our overall well-being. But words are not the only way we can be social. Indeed, verbal communication makes up only a quarter of what we are sharing with another.

Those silences? They are actually full of conversation, we just don’t realize it. Consider how some silences feel comfortable while others agitate us. How we perceive the silence depends on so many things – It might be the person we’re with, or the context, our expectations or what we think the other person expects. It may even be the impression we want to make.

Silence is, in fact, an opportunity to use our non-verbal skills to express what we would use words for.  I recall sitting next to my sister in silence one day. She sat there on her phone, I sat next to her, desperately restraining myself from telling her “you know, it’s rude to be on your phone when I’m sitting right here. If nothing, at least we could DO something together”. I knew from experience, however, that verbalizing this often led to arguments which I did not want to waste my time on.

So, I tried something new – I turned towards her at an angle, took my phone out and fiddled with it, but looked up at her in intervals. At one point, she caught my eye and asked, “what?” My response was simple – “if you’re done, can we do something together?” I had not said anything to catch her attention, and yet she heard me loud and clear. There is a reason that non-verbal communication makes up more than half of our communication (if you’re wondering, the other quarter of communication is para-verbal, sounds that replace words (like grunts, or “m-hmm”).

Of course, at times it is silence because there IS no one to talk to; an imposed silence (unless you listen to music, watch something electronically, or talk to yourself). However, even in this case, silence can be valuable. It is in silence that we can focus our attention inwards. Physically, our senses do not need to work as hard as they do otherwise – there is nothing to hear, nothing to say. No observations to make of the person in front of us. Instead, we can hear sounds we would not have paid attention to otherwise, natural (birds singing, trees and leaves rustling) or not (whirring refrigerator or air conditioner). In fact, one of the strategies for mindfulness involves focusing on what our senses perceive in complete silence so as to validate existing in the present.

Meanwhile, silence does not necessarily mean inactivity – we may not move around much, but our minds most definitely are. What has happened, what is happening, what will happen…our minds do not stop. When we are ensconced in silence, with our senses demanding less of us, we have the opportunity to direct our thoughts the way WE want them to go, without having them directed by unconscious processes or emotional states. Self-reflection, questioning the validity of how we thought about events or experiences we had, gleaning from them what we learned and where we confirmed our old strengths and found new ones…silence can involve a great deal more growth than we give it credit for.

So embrace silence. Use it. It isn’t an unnecessary and redundant vacuum – it is full of possibilities.

Kids Say the Darndest Things: The Case for Keeping it Simple

People say as you grow older, things become clearer thanks to our life experiences. I agree with that, but I noticed something different, too. I think we all could do with a little regression. Why would I suggest that we all go against our physical, cognitive and emotional progress? Because progress also means elaboration, which is sometimes completely unnecessary, or even harmful.

Think about it. How often have you heard a kid say something that startles you? Sometimes, they make you think about something in a whole new light, or answer a question in a way that we didn’t even think of ourselves. And perhaps the reason that it strikes us is because what we were pondering for hours, days, or maybe even years, was answered in less than 5 minutes by someone decades younger than us. And it stuns us because of how simple it was.

Kids wait for us to tell them what we think. But as adults, we start believing we can read another person’s thoughts. We plan meticulously how to create something, kids just leap into making it (and sometimes do it better than we ever could!) We keep thinking of success as a long, drawn-out and endless journey; kids celebrate successes every day, sometimes with us accompanying them in doing so. 

We naturally evolve as we grow. Of course we see things as more complex, that not everything is black and white, it’s not all or nothing, etc, etc. Sometimes we ARE right, it’s not so simple. Even when it isn’t, however, just how far down the rabbit hole are we going to go? We think a single thought, go into “if a then b”, then it becomes “unless b is c, then if a then c”…our thoughts go from just a single thought to a web of thoughts, each with their own emotions, physical responses and behaviors. Kids say “but what if we just act on a and see what happens?”

In “The Value of Being Immature”, I mention that kids act and learn from consequences of their actions. As adults, we try to preempt negative consequences by thinking about what may happen if we do something. Sometimes we are able to avoid negative consequences, at other times we can’t.  Because we can’t predict the result of our actions – the world is not under our control, nor can we predict how it will react to our actions.

If we do face negative consequences, we don’t just try again later, or think “ok, I’m not doing THAT again!” and try to think of another action instead – basically, what a kid might do. Instead, we tear apart our actions, we berate ourselves for not thinking about something in advance, we don’t try again or try to find another solution completely different from what we did earlier. We think and think about courses of action, worry ourselves about what could happen, and sometimes decide not to try at all.

How often have we thought about doing something, ‘predicted’ it would go badly, and stopped ourselves from doing it? It took me at least 15 years to start writing this blog, worrying about how people would react and deciding it was safer to keep my thoughts to myself. I realized I was getting suffocated by all these ideas that I wanted to share, so I finally acted. The world would react as it will.

It took even longer to tell my family how I felt about the roles they were either intentionally or unintentionally making me play which were at opposites to my true nature. My fear of excessively negative – and very hurtful – reactions was winning this fight, but suppressing my desire to say something hurt more, so I took the plunge. Sure enough, I had to weather a storm of negative consequences. But I felt freer, and over time they understood my point.

Kids truly are doing what we could benefit from doing ourselves. Speaking their minds because no one else can. Acting as they see fit because experiencing consequences themselves is the only way they can learn. Feeling how they feel without guilt or shame for feeling that way. Because every action has consequences, and we have no control over the response we will get (nor can we predict it). Because even as kids, we have the capacity to try again, to tolerate negative consequences and to terminate or replace our actions accordingly (again, with accompanying changes in thought and emotion). Because as adults, we do have more choices in how to think, act, and feel – and often the best choice is what we did as kids.

Just do it. Whatever will be will be.

The Value of Being Immature

I am a 39 years old woman. I have often, however, heard how I am naive, or child-like, or even immature. For the longest time, I resented being told these. It’s amazing how our perspectives can change with a little self-reflection.

It occurred to me one day that it is just as easy for me to be an adult as it is for me to be a child. Since I believe that no one thing can exist without its opposite (e.g. we know sadness because we know what happiness feels like, we know light because we’ve seen dark), it started to make sense that with being mature, we are naturally childish at times.

Thinking about it, I have always been able to develop relationships with kids. Indeed, when I started my current job, my clients were children for the most part. Out of 48 clients, I had – at one point – only 2 young adults. All the rest were between the ages of 4 and 10 years.

My child-like nature is what I use when I connect with my younger clients. I maintain confidentiality even with a 4 years old child (although I do tell them that I can help them tell something to their caregiver if they want). I play games with them, join them in their excitement at the little things, and – perhaps most importantly – ask parents not to consider behaviors as “bad” but rather as exploratory. 

Exploration is one of the ways we learn. We try something out, if it leads to good consequences we keep doing it. If it doesn’t, we stop. Classic operant conditioning, right? It’s something we do throughout our lives, the difference being that we are capable of thinking before taking action as adults while, as children, we act and then learn from the consequences.

That doesn’t mean that we are always insightful as adults, though – we’ve all attempted something in our lives that hasn’t led to good consequences and decided not to do that again. After all, we are not omniscient, we can’t predict everything in the world. So, sometimes our explorations are much like those that kids do. Yes, sometimes we are ALL childish.

Going back to my belief that one thing can only exist because we know of its opposite, we often know we are being mature if we look at times when we were childish. The difference, however is HOW we look at it. What if we looked at our previous behavior without judgment? Not with “I can’t believe I ever thought that!” but rather with a sense of “well, that was I thought at the time” or “I learned something new from that”? And with the acceptance that taking action and facing negative consequences of it can happen again, and that would be OK?

Essentially, being childish isn’t a bad thing. Because it is a part of who we are – we had to be a child to get to where we are today. Valuing the child in us doesn’t negate our maturity – it adds to it.

More than a Diagnosis: a Different Approach.

I hold a very basic principle that guides my work as a therapist – everyone is born good, it is their actions that can be considered “bad” (maladaptive, destructive, violent, etc). Even personality disorders are developed in response to events that an individual experiences.

Take, for example, borderline personality disorder. There is a significant amount of research that correlates trauma history with borderline personality disorder. This is not solely traumatic events in adulthood, but also in childhood. Why do I bring the distinction up? Because I believe childhood trauma precedes the development and presence of Borderline Personality Disorder. Is it not possible, then, for an individual to develop Borderline Personality Disorder in response to events they have experienced?

That’s not to say that experiences and actions cannot become habits and then patterns of behavior that an individual is now identified with. William Durant (not Aristotle) once said “we are what we repeatedly do”. When an individual continuously reacts to the world around them in the same way, they may well say that it’s part of who they are. That can be a good thing or a dangerous one. I often find myself rephrasing “I’m loud” to “I talk loudly”, “I’m stupid to I do stupid things” or “I’m impulsive to “I do impulsive things”. This is, however, a difficult activity.

Why rephrase at all? Simply because we are more than what we do. The moment a person realizes that something they do does not define who they are, the behavior becomes a little less permanent and the individual now has greater power to change it. It is definitely easier for a person to moderate their volume or manage their impulsivity when it isn’t considered part of who they are but just something they do.

The distinction between identity and action brings to mind another concept – labelling. Indeed, I would probably never give a diagnosis if it wasn’t for insurance reasons. Why? Because there are no two people with the same diagnosis, meeting the same criteria for the diagnosis, whose circumstances and experiences of them are exactly them same.

Diagnoses do, however give us something – Looking at the criteria for any diagnosis, they are all associated with visible actions and reactions. If this is the case, then what I think makes even more sense; separating the “I am” from “I do” makes it even easier to address all diagnoses, including personality disorders and even psychoses. As we address behaviors, managing symptoms and utilizing healthy coping strategies become second nature as they replace behaviors that have been detached from a person’s identity and improved on. A healthier cycle of behavior develops, and an awareness of this healthier cycle then is developed within the member using mindfulness.

This is the way I have approached my work. It has worked in some cases, and not in others. Then again, who said one approach fits all? Wouldn’t that be labelling in itself?

Extravert: to be or not to be?

Everyone who has ever met me (and not just those who know me) know that I am a friendly outgoing person. In fact, I was once told that I was the epitome of extraversion! I often smile at people as I pass them on the street, and I might even say “hello”. I talk to everyone, which has at times annoyed family members who wonder why I know people after spending a week somewhere.

In my family, there are just two of us who are like this – my father and myself. But this is where our similarity in sociability ends – because despite how I am to the outside world, I actually prefer to be alone. I noted earlier that I was told I am the epitome of extraversion? Personally, I prefer not to be.

Jung’s personality traits include introversion-extraversion as one of the dimensions. However, with time and through various iterations of the concept (including in the Big Five model of personality), the original form has been lost. Jung defined extraversion as “a mode of psychological orientation where the movement of energy is toward the outer world” (Luton, retrieved on 7/9/2020). Introversion, meanwhile, is defined as “a mode of psychological orientation where the movement of energy is toward the inner world” (ibid.)

What does that mean? It means that extraversion and introversion are not limited to one’s sociability, but are actually related to how we think of our world. In the former, our thought processes are predominantly led by the influence of the world around us – people, places, objects, anything we encounter outside of us. Introversion, meanwhile, refers to the trait where our thoughts processes are predominantly guided by our own personal belief systems and internalized values.

Thinking of extraversion-introversion in its original form, it is more of how we process information than how friendly we are. Extraversion and introversion are also dynamic, meaning someone may vary between the two throughout their lifespans. In addition, since introversion and extraversion exist on a spectrum, it is possible to be at a lower level of extraversion or a higher one. The same is true for introversion. However, no matter what, you are only ever predominantly one.

I believe that I am indeed predominantly an introvert. When it comes to making decisions, or reflecting on them, I do so from my own personal perspective and am less guided by the perspectives, thoughts or observations from the world around me. Part of that comes from how exhausting it is to “keep up with the joneses”, to fit my perspectives and beliefs off of what I get from the world around me which is oftentimes not agreeable with my personality. The other part emerges from my belief that, like everyone else, my life and my expereinces are unique to me. Referring to the outside world to process information hence doesn’t make sense to me.

However, trying to explain this to individuals who see me as solely an extravert because of how sociable I am has often proven to be an unsuccessful endeavor.  Instead, I have begun to define myself as a “reluctant extravert”.

What do I mean? Basically, although I interact with the world around me more than other people would, I do so through my personal lens, finding evidence for and against my personal thoughts and beliefs (as I usually do as an eternal student). At the same time, since no man is an island, I often have to compromise my personal perspective to take into account the valid perspectives of others. While I may not be averse to doing so professionally, it is more of a problem when I have to do it in the outside world. However, my desire to avoid conflict often wins out in that battle. Hence, I am a reluctant extravert.

That’s not to say people cannot be extraverts and proud of it, or introverts who are comfortable with neing themselves in the world around me. But it is my insecurity that leaves me as a reluctant extravert and another person as a reluctant introvert. I wish I could be brave enough to make my own decisions without worrying about the potential conflict with others from doing so. Just the way I do when I’m alone.

Meanwhile, the reluctant introvert may wish to ask others or refer to others when making decisions but is unable to either becaise of fear of judgment or simply because there is no one to ask.

Just a thought. I have no evidence for what I’ve written here other than my own experience. But if this thought has elicited self-reflection, then it has done its job.

Mirroring: A Subtle Way to Effect Change.

I’ve grown up in a house of noise. My mom’s hearing has always been a problem since we were young, and my dad’s absentmindedness often left us feeling like we had to be particularly loud to be heard (or that he had to be). Sometimes it felt like we were all vying for attention, with one person’s voice being drowned out by another’s. Conversations, TV shows, music…all of it was at decibel levels that might even be considered noise pollution! Add to that the fact that I have ADHD and often don’t pay attention to how loud I get when I’m excited, and you have a therapist who sticks to a professional volume in the office, but not outside of it!

This higher decibel level at which I talk is completely opposite to my nature, however. As a kid, the lack of predictability in the response people had when I came in taught me to always come in quietly. In fact, I have been guilty of startling people with an alarming frequency because I unwittingly make no noise coming into a room. As a countermeasure, I learned to announce my entrance before I came into a room, at least when I’m on my own, either by starting to speak before coming in or wearing high heels!

In all cases, I do attempt to lower my volume. What caught my attention, however, is how bashful or apologetic a person appeared when they told me to tone it down. Or how they would apologize after saying it. Indeed, there’s been a few times when I’ve had to tell them “it’s fine, I didn’t realize how loud I got!” There have been times where I’ve been on the other side, too. People who talk too loudly, or too much. My running thought is usually “wow, so THAT’S how I sound!”. I guess my tolerance for these people comes from the fact that I can identify with them.

But it is possible to bring down the tone without making a clear statement when the concern is of offending the person. How? Mirroring.

Mirroring is a subconscious form of communication where thoughts, behaviors or emotions expressed by one individual elicit a same or similar state in the other individual. Kind of like when we spend time with someone who’s in a good mood (and we’re feeling neutral) we start feeling good, too. Or when we talk about “infectious smiles” – the smile of the other person automatically brings out one of our own.

Talking to someone who is excited in a calm voice while still using words expressing excitement is one way to help the individual calm down. The verbal message is the same as the person is expressing. But the energy level in the paraverbal (i.e.. tone, volume, pitch, etc) and non-verbal communication is intentionally less than the speaker’s. The speaker, if (s)he feels connected to the listener, will unintentionally be calmer non-verbally and paraverbally.

You might have noticed that I added a couple of caveats here. One, mirroring of emotional states is more effective when the states aren’t too diametrically opposite; and two, there must be a degree of rapport between the individuals.

For the first point, it is more likely that we can connect with an angry individual by being calm rather than by being happy. Anger and happiness are antagonistic enough that the individual couldn’t mirror the emotion even if it was intentional. When the individual becomes calm, mirroring can then involve happiness, as it is no longer beyond the brain’s capacity to transition between the emotional states.

The second point is that of rapport. For one’s internal state to be influenced by another’s, there must be enough value given to the relationship by both individuals. Just as one will not willingly talk about their internal states with a stranger unless they can trust them, one will not br influenced by the internal state of another unless they trust the person. Rapport and connection with the listener, or the person expressing the emotional state that should be mirrored, allows for the speaker to trust that emotional state even if it did not originate with them.

Ask yourselves – is this a technique that you can see yourself using professionally or personally? How would it help? Where would you need to be careful?