Parent-child relationships tend to be flash points for conflict in families that often span several generations. Frequently, the precipitating circumstances that originated these conflicts are long forgotten by all of the participants, but the 'bad blood' remains.
To be sure, many of these disagreements are the result of real and tangible actions on the part of the parties involved in the conflict, but just as frequently they are a function of neuropsychological dynamics which we will attempt, in brief, to discuss here.
Based on research with 150 families over a period of fifteen years of follow up, the first and most well established rule of parent-child relationships is that the child who is most neuropsychologically similar to a given parent is the one with whom that parent will have repeated conflicts. This rule holds true until that child reaches the age of 30 years (the age at which the brain is fully mature) at which time that same conflict laden relationship may well transform itself into one of friendship between parent and child.
Before addressing the dynamics of this odd set of interpersonal transformations, one other research based factor requires a moment's consideration. The study of a large number of three generation families strongly suggests an interesting correlation between the neuropsychological configurations (measurements of the comparative strengths of the right and left frontal lobes, in front of the ears, and the the right and left hemispheres, behind the ears) and familial similarities that seem to 'skip generations.'
The core of these findings resides in the following:
1) One granddaughter in the family will have a neuropsychological configuration that is very similar to, or an exact duplicate of her maternal grandfather.
2) One grandson in the family will have a neuropsychological configuration that is very similar to, or an exact duplicate of his paternal grandmother.
We now have two research verified findings that can provide insight into the origins of longstanding conflicts in familial interpersonal dynamics. However, more concrete and experiential notes are required in order to make these findings understandable. I shall discuss these issues in the form of questions.
1. As a parent, why should I have a conflict with my son or daughter because he/she perceives the world, thinks and feels about it in the same way I do?
The answer to this question is deceptively simple. Conflicts with those whose neuropsychological configurations are similar to, or exact duplicates of our own are especially troublesome when they represent our own flesh and blood. In our children, we are more likely see our own failings, especially if we deny their presence in ourselves, as these shortcomings are clearly illustrated in the actions and attitudes of our offspring on a daily basis. If we have not been able to 'forgive' these failings in ourselves, we cannot offer absolution to our children. The worst case scenario is that we end up punishing those 'disowned' parts of ourselves in the next generation.
2. What happens when my child turns 30?
First and foremost, my offspring have at the age of thirty years a 'fully functional brain' to work with, and as a parent I am now thirty years older, hopefully 'wiser' and more willing to accept my own deficiencies. In addition, when my neuropsychological duplicate son or daughter comes into his or her full faculties, they are better able to see both their own strengths and liabilities, and perhaps willing to accept what they see in the mirror of their parent's attitudes and behavior as a joint heritage. As a result of these changes in both parent and child, the two may well become the best of friends as previously they were the worst of adversaries.
3. Why do my kids 'get on' with some of their grandparents better than with me?
Most parents recognize that their children often 'get on' better with grandparents than with their mothers and fathers. Some of the reasons for this difference are self-evident and include: 'They just visit here, you don't have to live with them!', 'They're better behaved here than at home.', "You don't have to set limits and do discipline.', 'You spoil them, that's why they're so nice here.'
All of these explanations have merit and yet, every parent has seen such a radical transformation in a child's behavior when in the presence of one or the other grandparent as to defy all reason. I think of this as the 30+30 transformation, that is, the grandparent is likely about 30 years older than the parent and roughly 60 or less years older than their grandchild. This beneficial interaction effect is most likely to be evident when a granddaughter interacts with a maternal grandfather and a grandson relates to a paternal grandmother.
Although the grandparent-grandchild effect is sometimes difficult to describe, the outcome of the relationship remains the same. With some granddaughters, maternal grandfathers will have a more convivial relationship, like old friends, than the child experiences with her parents and the same is true with some grandsons and paternal grandmothers.
The outcome of this 'friendship across generations' is the probable result of two factors. First, these two individuals (grandparent and grandchild) have similar if not exact neuropsychological configurations, which under the best of circumstances, would make them 'friends' as adults (after the age of 30 years). Second, the discrepancy in generations suggests that the grandparent has amassed a greater understanding of themselves and a greater tolerance for their own faults and those of others which allows them to 'see their grandchildren as growing into the world' with greater clarity than the child's parents can yet muster. Given these two dynamics, it is almost as if nature guarantees that, at least, one grandchild will relate at a 'deeper level' with a particular grandparent than with either parent. An old African saying suggests that: "It takes a whole village to raise a child." Little of substantive worth can be added to this ancient bit of wisdom as a village consists of a group of interrelated extended families.
Lest we forget those grandchildren left without grandparents to verify their identity in the 'third' generation , let us pause to examine the question of 'surrogate grandparents.'
Similarity in neuropsychological configurations is not confined to 'blood lines.' In this examiner's research over the past 30 years and encompassing individuals and families from almost every continent on the globe, it is clear that the proportion of the many neuropsychological configurations in the general population (sample n = >5000) remains the same regardless of the vanities of race, nationality or religious creed.
Is it than necessary, or indeed even possible to locate a surrogate grandparent for a child without same? The answer is a forthright - yes! Given a brief neuropsychological evaluation of both the child and the prospective grandparent (grandaughter to grandfather, or grandson to grandmother), the match can be made. For all our self-serving imagings as to our individual competence as nuclear family parents, without this tribal continuity of neurological similarity across generations, it is difficult to imagine that the wealth of experiential knowledge, encompassing both personal successes and failures (the most important commodity transferred across generations) can be passed from one generation to the next.
Disappearing into the mists of deep time, we are all parts of a long line of progenitors who have lifted us up and moved us, not always with grace, along the rock strewn path into a future which we know not, to a destiny of which we are not yet aware.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Parent-child Relationships #1
One female student, who was acquainted with this researcher's work on the neuropsychological makeup of families remarked that: "It looks like a woman has only two choices, marrying the man she was genetically destined to mate, or having that same male as a son."
Although this is something of an overstatement, a kernel of truth therein resides. Mother nature, in attempting to match genetic, biochemical and immune systems in a complementary fashion (mediated by the everyday mechanisms of attraction - sight, sound, smell), wields an enormous hand in selecting our mates.
In truth, the genetic program for our species, as well as that of all other living organisms on the planet, is relentless. Without delving into the mysteries of mitochondrial (female) and nuclear (male) transmission of genetic traits, it is safe to say that up to 70% of who we are is dependent upon the genetically determined mechanisms of attraction that brought our parents together. Lest anyone be dismayed that we are but 'pawns of our predecessor's genes', it must be emphasized that we, each and everyone, have 30% absolute control over our personal destinies.
Now let us turn to the specifics of the matter. In a careful study of 150 families, a statistical analysis of the children of these families revealed that the neuropsychological makeup of the children could be predicted with 70% accuracy based solely on knowing their parents neuropsychological makeup. It is of interest to note that 70% is the percentage that all other aspects of the research suggests is the 'genetic contribution' that accounts for the central core of the perception, thinking style and personaltiy features for each of us. As parents then, 70% of our contribution to our children's future is genetic. This much is beyond our immediate control. We can only hold ourselves legitimately responsible for the 30% of the nurturance we provide when evaluating how our children's 'destines' eventually unfold.
On a personal note, I have worked with over 10,000 individuals and have seen children and adolescents who, reared in the most favored and nurturing environments, become terribly distressed adults and significant liabilities to society. By the same token, I have treated, nearly tearfully, young people who had been raised in environments, which only the conditions in a totalitarian death camp could rival, become delightful, productive adults and exceptional parents. Such is the legacy of working in the same practice for sixteen years as an observer of the inertia of genetics.
Understanding this nature (70%) - nurture (30%) phenomenon, born of clinical experience, one is of necessity constrained by the results of 30 years of research to the conclusion that cultures older than our own have long espoused, namely, that 'blood will tell.' In spite of all our vain imaginings and good intentions, we probably have much less control over our own, much less the destines of our children, than we believe.
This is not to say that we should adopt a laissez faire approach to child rearing! It rather suggests that we should take a page from the gardener's book.
In foregone times anyone who worked with living things was referred to as a 'husband', hence the term 'husbandry.' The use of this term suggests an individual who does not 'give birth to' a living organism, but rather sees to nurturing its normal growth, offers guidance and provides protection in the tender years of its development. Perhaps we should consider this ancient perspective embodied in the term 'husbandry' as the model for parenting.
Having planted and 'husbanded' over 1000 trees, including bonsai plants, I am aware that a tree can be distorted into any shape imaginable. Yet, the 'inner beauty' of that living system can only be realized with adequate care and minimal intervention on the part of the gardener.
As parents we are called to be good gardeners and practice 'husbandry' with our children, most particularly when they 'grow' in ways that do not always fit our plans for them. Recognizing that our offspring are no more than our 'charges', not clay that we can form into our own image, we may have both greater success and satisfaction in living with the next generation.
We are summoned to prop our young plants against strong winds, provide good soil, water, sunshine, room to grow, defend them against natural enemies, offer protection against excessive heat and cold, and even from time to time transplant them into more suitable habitats. Perhaps of all these husbandry tasks, the most difficult to manage resides in realizing that our job is done and stepping back, simply allow the fruits of nature's and our own small labors mature.
Although this is something of an overstatement, a kernel of truth therein resides. Mother nature, in attempting to match genetic, biochemical and immune systems in a complementary fashion (mediated by the everyday mechanisms of attraction - sight, sound, smell), wields an enormous hand in selecting our mates.
In truth, the genetic program for our species, as well as that of all other living organisms on the planet, is relentless. Without delving into the mysteries of mitochondrial (female) and nuclear (male) transmission of genetic traits, it is safe to say that up to 70% of who we are is dependent upon the genetically determined mechanisms of attraction that brought our parents together. Lest anyone be dismayed that we are but 'pawns of our predecessor's genes', it must be emphasized that we, each and everyone, have 30% absolute control over our personal destinies.
Now let us turn to the specifics of the matter. In a careful study of 150 families, a statistical analysis of the children of these families revealed that the neuropsychological makeup of the children could be predicted with 70% accuracy based solely on knowing their parents neuropsychological makeup. It is of interest to note that 70% is the percentage that all other aspects of the research suggests is the 'genetic contribution' that accounts for the central core of the perception, thinking style and personaltiy features for each of us. As parents then, 70% of our contribution to our children's future is genetic. This much is beyond our immediate control. We can only hold ourselves legitimately responsible for the 30% of the nurturance we provide when evaluating how our children's 'destines' eventually unfold.
On a personal note, I have worked with over 10,000 individuals and have seen children and adolescents who, reared in the most favored and nurturing environments, become terribly distressed adults and significant liabilities to society. By the same token, I have treated, nearly tearfully, young people who had been raised in environments, which only the conditions in a totalitarian death camp could rival, become delightful, productive adults and exceptional parents. Such is the legacy of working in the same practice for sixteen years as an observer of the inertia of genetics.
Understanding this nature (70%) - nurture (30%) phenomenon, born of clinical experience, one is of necessity constrained by the results of 30 years of research to the conclusion that cultures older than our own have long espoused, namely, that 'blood will tell.' In spite of all our vain imaginings and good intentions, we probably have much less control over our own, much less the destines of our children, than we believe.
This is not to say that we should adopt a laissez faire approach to child rearing! It rather suggests that we should take a page from the gardener's book.
In foregone times anyone who worked with living things was referred to as a 'husband', hence the term 'husbandry.' The use of this term suggests an individual who does not 'give birth to' a living organism, but rather sees to nurturing its normal growth, offers guidance and provides protection in the tender years of its development. Perhaps we should consider this ancient perspective embodied in the term 'husbandry' as the model for parenting.
Having planted and 'husbanded' over 1000 trees, including bonsai plants, I am aware that a tree can be distorted into any shape imaginable. Yet, the 'inner beauty' of that living system can only be realized with adequate care and minimal intervention on the part of the gardener.
As parents we are called to be good gardeners and practice 'husbandry' with our children, most particularly when they 'grow' in ways that do not always fit our plans for them. Recognizing that our offspring are no more than our 'charges', not clay that we can form into our own image, we may have both greater success and satisfaction in living with the next generation.
We are summoned to prop our young plants against strong winds, provide good soil, water, sunshine, room to grow, defend them against natural enemies, offer protection against excessive heat and cold, and even from time to time transplant them into more suitable habitats. Perhaps of all these husbandry tasks, the most difficult to manage resides in realizing that our job is done and stepping back, simply allow the fruits of nature's and our own small labors mature.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Right versus Left Hemispheric Attraction and Attachment
In a popular vein much has been written regarding the differences between men and women with respect to their wants and needs in intimate relationships. However, little has been noted with respect to the neurological differences that to a significant extent are evident regardless of gender.
In the course of working with over 10,000 patients, I have frequently asked these individuals whether they thought most women or most men were right or left brain dominant insofar as they understood these terms. Although a wide range of opinions were offered, most women thought that men were left brained, and most women were right brained because women were more feeling centered in their relationships. The men thought that most men were right brained because they were more mechanical and that the women were left brained because they were not mechanically gifted. In a very real sense both the men and women in this informal sample were correct.
Neuropsychological research with 5000 of these patients over the past 37 years suggests that, in fact, more than 70% of the human race is right brain dominant regardless of gender. Casting back to my patient survey, both the men and women polled were equally correct in their judgments while at the same time, both groups were equally incorrect.
Careful analysis of an ongoing sampling of my patients using a valid and reliable neuropsychological instrument indicates that the proportion of males and females that are right and left brain dominant is the same within one percentage point. I must hasten to add that right brain dominance manifests itself in different ways in males and females, but the proportions in both genders are nearly exactly the same.
In the attempt to better understand how intimate relationships work we must take into account how the differences in brain dominance interface between partners. It should be noted that the findings which follow have proven to be both experimentally valid and practically useful whether the couple is heterosexual of homosexual in their relationship preferences.
Before proceeding with the findings related to the differences between right and left brain dominant males and females, we must mention the role that the overall proportion of right brained (70%) and left brained (30%) males and females plays in the population with respect to our choices in selecting a mate.
Research with over 200 couples and families indicates that men and women 'find' each other attractive based on slight to significant differences in their brain dominance. That is, individuals with slightly stronger right brains tend to be attracted to those with slightly stronger left brains. It is nevertheless true that there are simply more right brain dominant males and females (70%) than left brain dominant members (30%) of the human race. As a result of mother nature's reluctance to even things out (50-50), it therefore becomes more likely than not that right hemispheric males and females will 'find' one another attractive. However, even when right brain prospective partners are attracted to each other, one inevitably has a 'stronger' right brain dominance than the other so that a neuropsychological differential remains in place for every couple.
As a peripheral note, it is interesting to note that in a study of multiple marriages among the same initial partners over a fifteen year interval, subsequent marital partners for each member of the original couple tended with each successive union to 'find' partners who were, based on neuropsychological measures, increasing more like themselves.Indeed, in some cases where there were four or more marriages, the original couple partners' last choice for a new mate was almost an exact duplicate of their own neuropsychological configuration.
Whether we are considering the intuitive powers of right brain males and females in discerning the emotional states of their fellows, or the conceptual flights and logical rigor of their left brain fellows, nature always decrees some measure of liability to complement these strengths.
The cost-benefit balance that nature builds into each of us is a natural outgrowth of the fact that we are a social species whose strength flows from a division of labor. Each of us is vested with different perspectives and abilities which can, under the best of compassionate 'team effort' circumstances accomplish more than any of us can manage individually.
Individually, each and every one of us is quite fallible when confronted with the multifaceted challenges that the mandates of the universe and our own mistakes serve up. As individuals the problem is the same for us all. Our challenge consists in the simple fact that the universe offers an infinite number of mysteries requiring more than a single perspective to fully comprehend, and more than a momentary life span to encompass. Whether admitted or denied, in reaching for the stars we all stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellows and on a foundation erected upon the blood and sweat of a long line of nameless ancestors whose line fades beyond our myopic vision into the mists of time.
Hemispheric Differences: Right Brain Dominance
Let us begin our discussion of right-left brain differences with the 70% right brained majority of humankind. Whether male or female, right brain dominant individuals tend to emphasize same sex solidarity. This means that women tend to enjoy discussing their concerns with their girlfriends and are more likely to be open about issues of a personal nature with those same sex friends. The same is true of men who are more likely to open up with their buddies than with their spouses. As one woman put it, 'Men ought to go do boy things and give me time with the girls.' In short, right brain men tend to share their concerns with other men and right brain women tend to share their secrets with their girlfriends.
For right brain dominant men and women, competition is an essential feature of their sense of bonding with their peers, or solidarity group. Often this rivalry is 'good natured', but nonetheless present. The solidarity group provides an important, if not the essential tent pole of their self-esteem. In short, my standing in my group - 'crew' defines my value as a person. My group is also integral to defining who I am, and my place in society at large. This is an essential component of the 'tribal' definition of right brain self-worth. In our brief moment of cultural and temporal existence amidst the immensity of the cosmos, this right brain bond is described in a simple, but extremely potent word, 'friend.'
The notion of 'friendship' is crucial to the right brain individual in any superficial, and more importantly, intimate relationship. This emotional inclination and indeed, genetic predisposition among right brain individuals is adequately portrayed in the old aphorism: 'Do not walk before me, as I may not follow, do not walk behind me as I may not lead, just walk beside me and be my friend.'
For right brain males and females, intimate relationships represent the most fulfilling definition of a 'perfect friendship' imaginable. In the eyes of a right brain mate, if a partner is not their 'best friend', the long term prospects for the relationship, no matter how intimate it might otherwise be, are dismal.
The core of all right brain male and female relationships resides in an exchange of feelings which most often occurs with little or no reliance on words, i.e., 'I saw it in her eyes.', 'He gave me that look.', 'Our eyes locked.', or in disagreement, 'We didn't see eye to eye.'
The right side of the brain holds the key to nonverbal understanding of human behavior, its feelings and underlying motivations. The capacities of the right side of the brain include discerning facial expression (the slight differences in the left and right sides of the face - the left side carries 80% of the most basic emotion of which the brain is capable), tone and melody of voice, posture, gesture, and a myriad of signals that we are not yet able to measure).Hence for right brain persons, emotional communication occurs simultaneously (at first sight) and at many entirely convincing levels. As a result, these individuals experience a moment by moment emotional reinforcement, or instantaneous negation of their investment in their partners. Hence, 'a look' may communicate more than 'ten thousand words' among individuals who are possessed of right brain dominance.
In addition, right brain individual tend to experience their 'sense of self' right down to their fingertips. That is, their ego boundaries are the same as those of their skin - they are, in a word, their bodies. To 'impact' this right brain ego boundary in any way, by a glance, a word, a gesture, approaching too closely, or not closely enough, or more significantly, a touch, or failure to do any of these at the moment a partner anticipates is to, at minimum offend, at worst to reject.
For the right brain majority, to violate their personal space (which extends farther beyond their skin than the 'owned' space required by left brain individuals) and thereby their ego, either by acts of omission or commission, is to infringe on their sense of self and perhaps more significantly, their dignity, and often summons retaliation.
Given that 70% of the world's population is right brain dominant, the bloody history of our species no longer qualifies as a mystery. To give offense to another represents the path of least resistance, while to diplomatically thread one's way around and through the prickly barriers that most of us maintain about us requires the compassion of a Ghandi and the sophistication of interpersonal skill that can only be a function of divine guidance.
Just as left brain dominant individuals require constant reinforcement focused on the excellence of their services and products to maintain a sense of self-worth, so right brain males and females require a feeling of being valued for the 'emotional contribution' that they make by simply 'being there.' In relationships then, right brain individuals need to be needed for who they are, not what they do!
The left brain individuals do and therefore have value, right brain persons have value because they are. As one of my right brain patients put it, "You have to accept me and like me, warts and all, and if you don't, you're not my friend.' Another patient added the tribal piece to this right brain puzzle with her statement, 'If I do the wrong thing and my friends don't stop me, its their fault.'
For the right brain individual, timing and spacing of word and action (visual-spatial strength) is crucial in relationships. Hence, the right action is only effective if performed at the right time. The perfect confession of affection is worthless if it is made at the wrong time, 'You should have said that years ago.', is a phrase I have heard in the consulting room all too often.
Right brain individuals are crafted by nature to most quickly and easily grasp what they see and what others do, not what their partners say, even if what is said is consistent with their partner's actions. It is almost as if a left brain partner's words gut their own well intentioned actions in the eyes of their right brain dominant mate simply by the act of verbalizing intent. That is, actions that stand by themselves without the intervention of words have greater value for the right brain dominant partner than any 'superfluous' or 'distracting' verbalization offered by a left brain dominant partner. This phenomenon may, in fact, be the result of weaker auditory-verbal processing capacity in right brain males and females.
When right brain individuals are mated to those with greater left brain strength it is inevitable that the right brain partner will raise the 'psychic' argument and direct their discontent in this form against the left brain dominant partner. The argument goes something like this, 'If you were any kind of man or woman, you would have known what a man or a woman wants and needs and when!'
This right - left brain dominant conflict among partners stems from the superior visual-emotional perceptual ability of the right brain dominant individual who accurately perceives the emotion, motivation and intent written on their left brain partner's face and is dismayed at the lack of their partner's empathy.
However, there is a caveat, in an equal number of instances that same right brain dominant partner may inaccurately 'project' their own feelings onto their partner whether those feelings exist in that left brain partner or not. In short, the right brain partner may be 'seeing' their own unfulfilled needs, which may have arisen in the far distant past and gone unmet, as once again going unsatisfied in their relationship to their current mate. The left brain partner's lack of a timely, soothing and 'hoped for' response is perceive by the right brain dominant individual as an offense, namely, that the right brain dominant he or she's needs are being ignored, at best, or at worst being rejected.
Offsetting the enormous intuitive power of right brain men and women is a profound and unavoidable tendency among these individuals to 'project' (like a film projector displays images on a screen) their own feelings onto others. In short, despite the conviction that often dramatizes these individuals words and actions, they are just as likely (50-50) to be talking about and taking action on their own feelings which they have 'projected' onto others as they are to be responding accurately to the feelings and motivations they 'see' in those around them.
Projection among right brain dominant men and women is of special significance in one other important regard. The feelings, needs and emotionally traumatic memory contents that are 'projected' by right brain individuals inevitably reflect those aspects of their own history and feelings that they find unacceptable in themselves. Over time, the right brain individual must as a result of this tendency inevitably become more cautious, cynical and even suspicious of those around them as they 'see' in others their own worst characteristics and emotional tendencies enacted.
Among left brain men and women the tendency to project needs and feelings onto others is no less prominent, but is of a notably different character. Among these left brain dominant individuals projection takes the form of a tendency to expect the best from others, that is, they project their most positive feelings and needs onto others. The consequence of this projective tendency is that left brain men and women are more likely to be codependent at best, and victimized by individuals less scrupulous than themselves, at worst.
The tendency for right brain individuals to project their own personally unacceptable feelings and needs onto others is particularly evident when both partners in a relationship are predominantly right brain dominant in their perspective.
From the observer's viewpoint, conflicts between right brain partners in the consulting room represents a literal 'hall of fun house mirrors' accentuated in its distortion to a degree proportionate to the level of the conflictual stress existing between them. Each partner is actively, albeit unconsciously, engaged in 'projecting' their own unacceptable feelings onto their partner with little or no appreciation of what the other is feeling.
In such cases there is no recourse save to work with each member of the couple individually in order to discover what experiences and memories inform their own experience of themselves and others. This approach is essential as right brain dominant individuals are genetically vested with an incredible sensory memory ability. Their memories stretch back into the remote past, are compelling, and of a vividly sensory character. These include events of emotional significance in their lives that often predate the era of childhood verbal competence. Only when their own feelings can be 'disentangled' from those which they have projected onto their partner is any resolution of the couple's conflict possible.
Finally, the real time sensory, feeling based memories of right brain dominant individuals are of incredible durability. An example in point is the phenomenon of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) which is seen among many individuals subjected to overwhelming stressors of the sort that war veterans in particular experience.
This incredible emotional memory capacity informs the ability of right brain dominant individuals to 're-experience' events that transpired in the far distant past as just as 'real' in the present as those that occurred only moments ago. Perhaps of greater significance is that the emotional 'punch' of those events from the distant past hurt as much as any trauma experienced merely seconds ago.
Of significance to our discussion of loving and attached relationships, these right brain dominant mates' historical- emotional memories can be elicited by 'triggers' which their partners (right or left brain dominant) inadvertently and unintentionally precipitate, by word or deed, in a manner that accentuates the historical trauma. Such 'triggers' can set off conflicts between partners that can never be resolved by even the most studious examination of the contemporary problems that the couple is facing.
From the perspective of the partner of a right brain dominant loved one who is faced with such conflicts, the natural question is, 'Where did that come from?' It is the therapist's job to answer just that question.
In bringing the discussion of the right brain individual to closure, it would not be evenhanded to move on without noting that these men and women represent not only the majority of the human race (70%), but are also eminently suited to flights and wonders of feeling that left brain individuals can only approximate in words, music and art.
Hemispheric Differences: Left Brain Dominance
In attempting to understand this minority in the population (30%), it is important to recognize what sets left brain men and women apart from the right brain mainstream (70%) of humanity.
For the right hemispheric majority, self-esteem (ego) extends from their emotional center to the most extreme boundaries of their body.
For left brain individuals, self-esteem (ego) resides in their head and expresses itself in their ability to solve problems, provide services and produce products. For left brain men and women, their bodies are simply vehicles that serve to nourish the brain and transport its sensory apparatus from one place to another in the service of their endless curiosity.
This is not to suggest that left brain individuals ignore their physical functioning, indeed they are often very much invested in healthy eating habits, and taking vitamins and supplements. At the same moment, they often skimp on sleep, as sleeping is seen as time that might be better used in doing or learning something.
Driven by curiosity, left brain individuals seldom engage in physical activities unless they can thereby learn something new or accomplish a task they have set for themselves. In a word, they seldom engage in physical activities for the sake of the simple 'joy' of experiencing their body in motion. Neither is their interest in physical conditioning customarily driven by a need to 'look good', or even to excel at some sport, but is rather focused on the notion that if physically fit, they are better able to do their job. In order to justify physical activity, something must be produced or learned, lest the effort be expended in vain.
Left brain men and women form non-romantic relationships with individuals who share their overwhelming curiosity. Curiosity among these individuals is universal when they are dealing with others and specific when one hits upon their area of personal interest. The rabid, fast paced, and often humor laden exchanges with other left brain individuals frequently elicit jealousy from their right brain romantic partners who feel slighted by the interest evident in a left to left brain interaction.
Left brain men and women want to be esteemed for what they know, namely, they wish to be seen as 'experts' and as exemplary purveyors of outstanding products and essential services. Generally perceived as radically independent individuals, left brain men and women are, in fact, quite dependent on the praise of others in order to achieve verification of their worth which is founded on the exercise of their knowledge, production of products and provision of services.
Left brain men and women tend to be rather oblivious to the emotional content of verbal, and in particular nonverbal commuications. As noted previously, nonverbal communication carries 80% of the feeling message in interpersonal exchanges. These indigenous left brain deficits come about as a result of a curious bit of functional neuroanatomical transmission circuiting among left brain individuals.
For both right and left brain individuals, the most fundamental source of basic emotion flows from an ancient structure buried deep in the brain called the limbic system. This structure tells us when to run (flight) and when to stand and defend ourselves (fight). It is also the seat of nurturing (parent to child) and bonding feelings as well as rejection, shock, hate, revenge, panic, revulsion, and horror. Refinements of these feelings are supplied by the outer, one cell thick layer shell of the brain called the cortex. In this latest addition to the brain, the raw feelings generated by the limbic system undergo refinement and under the best of circumstances become tolerance, willingness to compromise, love, altruism, compassion, the capacity for objective self-examination and attachment.
Among right brain individuals, the circuits from the limbic system (raw, primitive emotion) travel upon a broad highway through the right side of the brain before arriving in the cortex. Inasmuch as the circuits from the limbic system to the right brain are older and more well worn than those from the limbic structure to the left brain, the right brain experiences a swifter and more intense response to 'raw emotion' than the left brain which receives the signals 'second hand' along circuits from the right brain.
However, the more left brained a particular individual happens to be, the greater the likelihood that there is a significant comparative weakness in the right side of the brain. As a result of this right brain 'weakness' the 'raw feeling' messages from the limbic system experience a difficult time traversing a pothole ridden and meadering dirt road through a comparatively less competent right side of the brain in order to reach the left hemisphere where left brain individuals 'live.' As a result of this anatomical difference, what is a tidal wave of irresistible emotion for right brain persons, becomes a mere trickle of feeling for left brain dominant men and women. In short, it is not that left brain men and women 'don't get it' emotionally, it is rather that they can't get it with anywhere near the speed and intensity that their right brain brethern experience.
This is not to suggest that left brain men and women are incapable of affection. Indeed, their experience of feelings is simply diluted as such emotions are refined by the cerebral cortex emerging into consciousness in a moderated form when compared to those experienced by their right brain partners. In contrast to the 'raw' limbic feelings that their right brain peers experience, left brain individuals are subject to feelings that make them prone to attachment rather than to more primitive forms of affection such as unexamined infatuation and love.
As a side note, it may well be that it is just this right brain 'primitive' and unexamined outpouring of feeling that is the likely 'attractant' force which drives left brain individuals toward their right brain mates. The search for self-verifying emotion which can only be satisfied via a direct line to the limbic system cannot be gratified within the left brain individual, but only through partnership with a right brain man or woman.
Given this brief list of left brain attributes, it becomes immediately apparent why right brain men and women often find their left brain partners, 'boring', 'childlike', 'nerds', 'emotionally bland', 'not team players', and 'out of touch with popular culture.'
In their defense, left brain men and women express loving attachment toward their partners through the provision of products and services which, based on their neurology, they naturally anticipate their right brain partners will 'see' as profound expressions of enduring affection. Having given the best they have to give, the left brain men and women are crestfallen when they discover that they are being rejected because they are not 'fun to be with.'
In truth, forming attachments rather than infatuated or loving relationships is the path of least resistance among left brain men and women. It is perhaps for this reason that they are considered 'sudden' or naive in their relationships with partners that they find attractive. That is, they form attachments easily and so are frequently disappointed when their tribally more 'savvy' right brain prospective partners reject them.
Although nature wants those with greater left than right brain strength to 'get together' for the benefit of their offspring, the partners in this nature directed mating protocol are not always happy with one another. The left brain individuals are emotionally destroyed if their 'love offerings' in products and services go unnoticed or are rejected, while their right brain partners feel unappreciated for their gifts of feeling and fun.
In ages past O'Henry wrote an instructive short story, "The Gift of the Magi", in which both members of a young couple give up what they valued most in order to purchase the gift which their partner most dearly desired. This simple and yet compelling story more than adequately illustrates the most enduring truth about attached relationships. For each of us, the truth of our existence resides in the recognition that what nature has molded us to 'give' may not be what our partner is engineered to gratefully 'receive.'
Nature's mandate is to mate those with greater left to those vested with greater right brain strength for the benefit of succeeding generations. The challenge for any union's partners, drawn often against their conscious will into such partnerships, is to utilize the last one million years of evolution embedded in the constantly evolving cerebral cortex to hazard the frustrations which are necessitated in any interaction with a partner possessed of what we perceive to be an 'alien' neurology.
At one moment, left brain men and women are cognitively complex and emotionally simple individuals. Driven by a need to know and do, they are fun handicapped. Perhaps in a program as yet unknown to this researcher, nature has decreed that intellectual curiosity (left brain) must be paired with the joy of living (right brain) for the offspring of that union to survive and thrive.
Although not a founded fact, this researcher suspects that both insatiable intellectual curiosity and the simple joy of living are equally necessary ingredients in the rearing of the next generation from the vantage of both nature and nurture. More simply stated, as scientists we are all students and whatever mother nature instructs we are ill advised to ignore.
In the course of working with over 10,000 patients, I have frequently asked these individuals whether they thought most women or most men were right or left brain dominant insofar as they understood these terms. Although a wide range of opinions were offered, most women thought that men were left brained, and most women were right brained because women were more feeling centered in their relationships. The men thought that most men were right brained because they were more mechanical and that the women were left brained because they were not mechanically gifted. In a very real sense both the men and women in this informal sample were correct.
Neuropsychological research with 5000 of these patients over the past 37 years suggests that, in fact, more than 70% of the human race is right brain dominant regardless of gender. Casting back to my patient survey, both the men and women polled were equally correct in their judgments while at the same time, both groups were equally incorrect.
Careful analysis of an ongoing sampling of my patients using a valid and reliable neuropsychological instrument indicates that the proportion of males and females that are right and left brain dominant is the same within one percentage point. I must hasten to add that right brain dominance manifests itself in different ways in males and females, but the proportions in both genders are nearly exactly the same.
In the attempt to better understand how intimate relationships work we must take into account how the differences in brain dominance interface between partners. It should be noted that the findings which follow have proven to be both experimentally valid and practically useful whether the couple is heterosexual of homosexual in their relationship preferences.
Before proceeding with the findings related to the differences between right and left brain dominant males and females, we must mention the role that the overall proportion of right brained (70%) and left brained (30%) males and females plays in the population with respect to our choices in selecting a mate.
Research with over 200 couples and families indicates that men and women 'find' each other attractive based on slight to significant differences in their brain dominance. That is, individuals with slightly stronger right brains tend to be attracted to those with slightly stronger left brains. It is nevertheless true that there are simply more right brain dominant males and females (70%) than left brain dominant members (30%) of the human race. As a result of mother nature's reluctance to even things out (50-50), it therefore becomes more likely than not that right hemispheric males and females will 'find' one another attractive. However, even when right brain prospective partners are attracted to each other, one inevitably has a 'stronger' right brain dominance than the other so that a neuropsychological differential remains in place for every couple.
As a peripheral note, it is interesting to note that in a study of multiple marriages among the same initial partners over a fifteen year interval, subsequent marital partners for each member of the original couple tended with each successive union to 'find' partners who were, based on neuropsychological measures, increasing more like themselves.Indeed, in some cases where there were four or more marriages, the original couple partners' last choice for a new mate was almost an exact duplicate of their own neuropsychological configuration.
Whether we are considering the intuitive powers of right brain males and females in discerning the emotional states of their fellows, or the conceptual flights and logical rigor of their left brain fellows, nature always decrees some measure of liability to complement these strengths.
The cost-benefit balance that nature builds into each of us is a natural outgrowth of the fact that we are a social species whose strength flows from a division of labor. Each of us is vested with different perspectives and abilities which can, under the best of compassionate 'team effort' circumstances accomplish more than any of us can manage individually.
Individually, each and every one of us is quite fallible when confronted with the multifaceted challenges that the mandates of the universe and our own mistakes serve up. As individuals the problem is the same for us all. Our challenge consists in the simple fact that the universe offers an infinite number of mysteries requiring more than a single perspective to fully comprehend, and more than a momentary life span to encompass. Whether admitted or denied, in reaching for the stars we all stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellows and on a foundation erected upon the blood and sweat of a long line of nameless ancestors whose line fades beyond our myopic vision into the mists of time.
Hemispheric Differences: Right Brain Dominance
Let us begin our discussion of right-left brain differences with the 70% right brained majority of humankind. Whether male or female, right brain dominant individuals tend to emphasize same sex solidarity. This means that women tend to enjoy discussing their concerns with their girlfriends and are more likely to be open about issues of a personal nature with those same sex friends. The same is true of men who are more likely to open up with their buddies than with their spouses. As one woman put it, 'Men ought to go do boy things and give me time with the girls.' In short, right brain men tend to share their concerns with other men and right brain women tend to share their secrets with their girlfriends.
For right brain dominant men and women, competition is an essential feature of their sense of bonding with their peers, or solidarity group. Often this rivalry is 'good natured', but nonetheless present. The solidarity group provides an important, if not the essential tent pole of their self-esteem. In short, my standing in my group - 'crew' defines my value as a person. My group is also integral to defining who I am, and my place in society at large. This is an essential component of the 'tribal' definition of right brain self-worth. In our brief moment of cultural and temporal existence amidst the immensity of the cosmos, this right brain bond is described in a simple, but extremely potent word, 'friend.'
The notion of 'friendship' is crucial to the right brain individual in any superficial, and more importantly, intimate relationship. This emotional inclination and indeed, genetic predisposition among right brain individuals is adequately portrayed in the old aphorism: 'Do not walk before me, as I may not follow, do not walk behind me as I may not lead, just walk beside me and be my friend.'
For right brain males and females, intimate relationships represent the most fulfilling definition of a 'perfect friendship' imaginable. In the eyes of a right brain mate, if a partner is not their 'best friend', the long term prospects for the relationship, no matter how intimate it might otherwise be, are dismal.
The core of all right brain male and female relationships resides in an exchange of feelings which most often occurs with little or no reliance on words, i.e., 'I saw it in her eyes.', 'He gave me that look.', 'Our eyes locked.', or in disagreement, 'We didn't see eye to eye.'
The right side of the brain holds the key to nonverbal understanding of human behavior, its feelings and underlying motivations. The capacities of the right side of the brain include discerning facial expression (the slight differences in the left and right sides of the face - the left side carries 80% of the most basic emotion of which the brain is capable), tone and melody of voice, posture, gesture, and a myriad of signals that we are not yet able to measure).Hence for right brain persons, emotional communication occurs simultaneously (at first sight) and at many entirely convincing levels. As a result, these individuals experience a moment by moment emotional reinforcement, or instantaneous negation of their investment in their partners. Hence, 'a look' may communicate more than 'ten thousand words' among individuals who are possessed of right brain dominance.
In addition, right brain individual tend to experience their 'sense of self' right down to their fingertips. That is, their ego boundaries are the same as those of their skin - they are, in a word, their bodies. To 'impact' this right brain ego boundary in any way, by a glance, a word, a gesture, approaching too closely, or not closely enough, or more significantly, a touch, or failure to do any of these at the moment a partner anticipates is to, at minimum offend, at worst to reject.
For the right brain majority, to violate their personal space (which extends farther beyond their skin than the 'owned' space required by left brain individuals) and thereby their ego, either by acts of omission or commission, is to infringe on their sense of self and perhaps more significantly, their dignity, and often summons retaliation.
Given that 70% of the world's population is right brain dominant, the bloody history of our species no longer qualifies as a mystery. To give offense to another represents the path of least resistance, while to diplomatically thread one's way around and through the prickly barriers that most of us maintain about us requires the compassion of a Ghandi and the sophistication of interpersonal skill that can only be a function of divine guidance.
Just as left brain dominant individuals require constant reinforcement focused on the excellence of their services and products to maintain a sense of self-worth, so right brain males and females require a feeling of being valued for the 'emotional contribution' that they make by simply 'being there.' In relationships then, right brain individuals need to be needed for who they are, not what they do!
The left brain individuals do and therefore have value, right brain persons have value because they are. As one of my right brain patients put it, "You have to accept me and like me, warts and all, and if you don't, you're not my friend.' Another patient added the tribal piece to this right brain puzzle with her statement, 'If I do the wrong thing and my friends don't stop me, its their fault.'
For the right brain individual, timing and spacing of word and action (visual-spatial strength) is crucial in relationships. Hence, the right action is only effective if performed at the right time. The perfect confession of affection is worthless if it is made at the wrong time, 'You should have said that years ago.', is a phrase I have heard in the consulting room all too often.
Right brain individuals are crafted by nature to most quickly and easily grasp what they see and what others do, not what their partners say, even if what is said is consistent with their partner's actions. It is almost as if a left brain partner's words gut their own well intentioned actions in the eyes of their right brain dominant mate simply by the act of verbalizing intent. That is, actions that stand by themselves without the intervention of words have greater value for the right brain dominant partner than any 'superfluous' or 'distracting' verbalization offered by a left brain dominant partner. This phenomenon may, in fact, be the result of weaker auditory-verbal processing capacity in right brain males and females.
When right brain individuals are mated to those with greater left brain strength it is inevitable that the right brain partner will raise the 'psychic' argument and direct their discontent in this form against the left brain dominant partner. The argument goes something like this, 'If you were any kind of man or woman, you would have known what a man or a woman wants and needs and when!'
This right - left brain dominant conflict among partners stems from the superior visual-emotional perceptual ability of the right brain dominant individual who accurately perceives the emotion, motivation and intent written on their left brain partner's face and is dismayed at the lack of their partner's empathy.
However, there is a caveat, in an equal number of instances that same right brain dominant partner may inaccurately 'project' their own feelings onto their partner whether those feelings exist in that left brain partner or not. In short, the right brain partner may be 'seeing' their own unfulfilled needs, which may have arisen in the far distant past and gone unmet, as once again going unsatisfied in their relationship to their current mate. The left brain partner's lack of a timely, soothing and 'hoped for' response is perceive by the right brain dominant individual as an offense, namely, that the right brain dominant he or she's needs are being ignored, at best, or at worst being rejected.
Offsetting the enormous intuitive power of right brain men and women is a profound and unavoidable tendency among these individuals to 'project' (like a film projector displays images on a screen) their own feelings onto others. In short, despite the conviction that often dramatizes these individuals words and actions, they are just as likely (50-50) to be talking about and taking action on their own feelings which they have 'projected' onto others as they are to be responding accurately to the feelings and motivations they 'see' in those around them.
Projection among right brain dominant men and women is of special significance in one other important regard. The feelings, needs and emotionally traumatic memory contents that are 'projected' by right brain individuals inevitably reflect those aspects of their own history and feelings that they find unacceptable in themselves. Over time, the right brain individual must as a result of this tendency inevitably become more cautious, cynical and even suspicious of those around them as they 'see' in others their own worst characteristics and emotional tendencies enacted.
Among left brain men and women the tendency to project needs and feelings onto others is no less prominent, but is of a notably different character. Among these left brain dominant individuals projection takes the form of a tendency to expect the best from others, that is, they project their most positive feelings and needs onto others. The consequence of this projective tendency is that left brain men and women are more likely to be codependent at best, and victimized by individuals less scrupulous than themselves, at worst.
The tendency for right brain individuals to project their own personally unacceptable feelings and needs onto others is particularly evident when both partners in a relationship are predominantly right brain dominant in their perspective.
From the observer's viewpoint, conflicts between right brain partners in the consulting room represents a literal 'hall of fun house mirrors' accentuated in its distortion to a degree proportionate to the level of the conflictual stress existing between them. Each partner is actively, albeit unconsciously, engaged in 'projecting' their own unacceptable feelings onto their partner with little or no appreciation of what the other is feeling.
In such cases there is no recourse save to work with each member of the couple individually in order to discover what experiences and memories inform their own experience of themselves and others. This approach is essential as right brain dominant individuals are genetically vested with an incredible sensory memory ability. Their memories stretch back into the remote past, are compelling, and of a vividly sensory character. These include events of emotional significance in their lives that often predate the era of childhood verbal competence. Only when their own feelings can be 'disentangled' from those which they have projected onto their partner is any resolution of the couple's conflict possible.
Finally, the real time sensory, feeling based memories of right brain dominant individuals are of incredible durability. An example in point is the phenomenon of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) which is seen among many individuals subjected to overwhelming stressors of the sort that war veterans in particular experience.
This incredible emotional memory capacity informs the ability of right brain dominant individuals to 're-experience' events that transpired in the far distant past as just as 'real' in the present as those that occurred only moments ago. Perhaps of greater significance is that the emotional 'punch' of those events from the distant past hurt as much as any trauma experienced merely seconds ago.
Of significance to our discussion of loving and attached relationships, these right brain dominant mates' historical- emotional memories can be elicited by 'triggers' which their partners (right or left brain dominant) inadvertently and unintentionally precipitate, by word or deed, in a manner that accentuates the historical trauma. Such 'triggers' can set off conflicts between partners that can never be resolved by even the most studious examination of the contemporary problems that the couple is facing.
From the perspective of the partner of a right brain dominant loved one who is faced with such conflicts, the natural question is, 'Where did that come from?' It is the therapist's job to answer just that question.
In bringing the discussion of the right brain individual to closure, it would not be evenhanded to move on without noting that these men and women represent not only the majority of the human race (70%), but are also eminently suited to flights and wonders of feeling that left brain individuals can only approximate in words, music and art.
Hemispheric Differences: Left Brain Dominance
In attempting to understand this minority in the population (30%), it is important to recognize what sets left brain men and women apart from the right brain mainstream (70%) of humanity.
For the right hemispheric majority, self-esteem (ego) extends from their emotional center to the most extreme boundaries of their body.
For left brain individuals, self-esteem (ego) resides in their head and expresses itself in their ability to solve problems, provide services and produce products. For left brain men and women, their bodies are simply vehicles that serve to nourish the brain and transport its sensory apparatus from one place to another in the service of their endless curiosity.
This is not to suggest that left brain individuals ignore their physical functioning, indeed they are often very much invested in healthy eating habits, and taking vitamins and supplements. At the same moment, they often skimp on sleep, as sleeping is seen as time that might be better used in doing or learning something.
Driven by curiosity, left brain individuals seldom engage in physical activities unless they can thereby learn something new or accomplish a task they have set for themselves. In a word, they seldom engage in physical activities for the sake of the simple 'joy' of experiencing their body in motion. Neither is their interest in physical conditioning customarily driven by a need to 'look good', or even to excel at some sport, but is rather focused on the notion that if physically fit, they are better able to do their job. In order to justify physical activity, something must be produced or learned, lest the effort be expended in vain.
Left brain men and women form non-romantic relationships with individuals who share their overwhelming curiosity. Curiosity among these individuals is universal when they are dealing with others and specific when one hits upon their area of personal interest. The rabid, fast paced, and often humor laden exchanges with other left brain individuals frequently elicit jealousy from their right brain romantic partners who feel slighted by the interest evident in a left to left brain interaction.
Left brain men and women want to be esteemed for what they know, namely, they wish to be seen as 'experts' and as exemplary purveyors of outstanding products and essential services. Generally perceived as radically independent individuals, left brain men and women are, in fact, quite dependent on the praise of others in order to achieve verification of their worth which is founded on the exercise of their knowledge, production of products and provision of services.
Left brain men and women tend to be rather oblivious to the emotional content of verbal, and in particular nonverbal commuications. As noted previously, nonverbal communication carries 80% of the feeling message in interpersonal exchanges. These indigenous left brain deficits come about as a result of a curious bit of functional neuroanatomical transmission circuiting among left brain individuals.
For both right and left brain individuals, the most fundamental source of basic emotion flows from an ancient structure buried deep in the brain called the limbic system. This structure tells us when to run (flight) and when to stand and defend ourselves (fight). It is also the seat of nurturing (parent to child) and bonding feelings as well as rejection, shock, hate, revenge, panic, revulsion, and horror. Refinements of these feelings are supplied by the outer, one cell thick layer shell of the brain called the cortex. In this latest addition to the brain, the raw feelings generated by the limbic system undergo refinement and under the best of circumstances become tolerance, willingness to compromise, love, altruism, compassion, the capacity for objective self-examination and attachment.
Among right brain individuals, the circuits from the limbic system (raw, primitive emotion) travel upon a broad highway through the right side of the brain before arriving in the cortex. Inasmuch as the circuits from the limbic system to the right brain are older and more well worn than those from the limbic structure to the left brain, the right brain experiences a swifter and more intense response to 'raw emotion' than the left brain which receives the signals 'second hand' along circuits from the right brain.
However, the more left brained a particular individual happens to be, the greater the likelihood that there is a significant comparative weakness in the right side of the brain. As a result of this right brain 'weakness' the 'raw feeling' messages from the limbic system experience a difficult time traversing a pothole ridden and meadering dirt road through a comparatively less competent right side of the brain in order to reach the left hemisphere where left brain individuals 'live.' As a result of this anatomical difference, what is a tidal wave of irresistible emotion for right brain persons, becomes a mere trickle of feeling for left brain dominant men and women. In short, it is not that left brain men and women 'don't get it' emotionally, it is rather that they can't get it with anywhere near the speed and intensity that their right brain brethern experience.
This is not to suggest that left brain men and women are incapable of affection. Indeed, their experience of feelings is simply diluted as such emotions are refined by the cerebral cortex emerging into consciousness in a moderated form when compared to those experienced by their right brain partners. In contrast to the 'raw' limbic feelings that their right brain peers experience, left brain individuals are subject to feelings that make them prone to attachment rather than to more primitive forms of affection such as unexamined infatuation and love.
As a side note, it may well be that it is just this right brain 'primitive' and unexamined outpouring of feeling that is the likely 'attractant' force which drives left brain individuals toward their right brain mates. The search for self-verifying emotion which can only be satisfied via a direct line to the limbic system cannot be gratified within the left brain individual, but only through partnership with a right brain man or woman.
Given this brief list of left brain attributes, it becomes immediately apparent why right brain men and women often find their left brain partners, 'boring', 'childlike', 'nerds', 'emotionally bland', 'not team players', and 'out of touch with popular culture.'
In their defense, left brain men and women express loving attachment toward their partners through the provision of products and services which, based on their neurology, they naturally anticipate their right brain partners will 'see' as profound expressions of enduring affection. Having given the best they have to give, the left brain men and women are crestfallen when they discover that they are being rejected because they are not 'fun to be with.'
In truth, forming attachments rather than infatuated or loving relationships is the path of least resistance among left brain men and women. It is perhaps for this reason that they are considered 'sudden' or naive in their relationships with partners that they find attractive. That is, they form attachments easily and so are frequently disappointed when their tribally more 'savvy' right brain prospective partners reject them.
Although nature wants those with greater left than right brain strength to 'get together' for the benefit of their offspring, the partners in this nature directed mating protocol are not always happy with one another. The left brain individuals are emotionally destroyed if their 'love offerings' in products and services go unnoticed or are rejected, while their right brain partners feel unappreciated for their gifts of feeling and fun.
In ages past O'Henry wrote an instructive short story, "The Gift of the Magi", in which both members of a young couple give up what they valued most in order to purchase the gift which their partner most dearly desired. This simple and yet compelling story more than adequately illustrates the most enduring truth about attached relationships. For each of us, the truth of our existence resides in the recognition that what nature has molded us to 'give' may not be what our partner is engineered to gratefully 'receive.'
Nature's mandate is to mate those with greater left to those vested with greater right brain strength for the benefit of succeeding generations. The challenge for any union's partners, drawn often against their conscious will into such partnerships, is to utilize the last one million years of evolution embedded in the constantly evolving cerebral cortex to hazard the frustrations which are necessitated in any interaction with a partner possessed of what we perceive to be an 'alien' neurology.
At one moment, left brain men and women are cognitively complex and emotionally simple individuals. Driven by a need to know and do, they are fun handicapped. Perhaps in a program as yet unknown to this researcher, nature has decreed that intellectual curiosity (left brain) must be paired with the joy of living (right brain) for the offspring of that union to survive and thrive.
Although not a founded fact, this researcher suspects that both insatiable intellectual curiosity and the simple joy of living are equally necessary ingredients in the rearing of the next generation from the vantage of both nature and nurture. More simply stated, as scientists we are all students and whatever mother nature instructs we are ill advised to ignore.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Attachment: Pennsylvania Deutsch Proverb - cooking last, kissing don't.
Preface: It is important to recognize a few simple keystone facts about intimate relationship feelings before proceeding.
1) The opposite of love is not hate, but rather indifference.
2) Rejection of a partner in an intimate relationship requires that you disown some part of yourself.
3) Infatuation is a biological phenomenon that requires nothing beyond being 'captured' by the visual and scent related stimuli of the desired mate. This is accomplished by no in depth understanding of the 'love object's' characteristics.
4) Love is one step up the ladder of evolutionary maturity from infatuation and entails a more complete understanding of the individuals involved. It includes an understanding of both the strengths and weaknesses of the object of one's infatuation.However, love may not entail each partner's understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses.
5)Attachment is the final rung on the maturity ladder. In the attachment bond both parties are fully aware of their own strengths and weaknesses as well as those of their partner. They maintain an affectionate, compassionate, devotedly loyal, and passionate bond with one another in the face of both good fortune and hardship.
6) An objective (factual) sense of self-worth on the parts of both partners in a relationship, coupled with basic attraction, is the best predictor of a rewarding and attached bond.
7) Passion is crucial to attachment. The word 'passion' is derived from its oldest roots which means 'to suffer.' In truth, it suggests that my feelings and life are acted upon by the joys and pains of my significant other to the same degree as my own troubles. Without suffering, there is no real attachment.
Often in the attempt to understand a fundamental characteristic of human relationships, as with an emotional transaction such as attachment, it is best to begin by indicating what does not qualify as attachment.
Attachment is not guaranteed by nature, birthing, blood relationship. shared solidarity in hardship or lifelong solidarity. Attachment is a process that involves learning to accept, first in yourself, and then in an significant other the universal presence of both character strengths and weaknesses in the human character.
Let us begin in this exercise in contrasts between attachment and other feelings at play in intimate relationships with the phenomenon of infatuation.
Infatuation is defined as a strong and unreasoning affection for another that is marked by limited understanding of the object of one's affection, and which is often considered sentimental and transitory. This is the 'the love at first sight' event. Recent research suggests that infatuation is a kind of time limited, obsessive-compulsive state which may be instigated by a tidal wave of dopamine (neurotransmitter) in the brain. Dopamine is held to be released in response to the visual and scent stimuli of the desired other which is in turn related to neuropsychologically complementary differences (brain differences in two individuals that fit together neurologically - like puzzle pieces) in the potential mate. In short, mother nature is in charge!
This is not to suggest that there is only one mate for every person on the planet! In point of fact, there may be a large number of people of a specific neuropsychological makeup who will spur our passions. However, geography, circumstances and history will confine our choices to those who we find 'attactive', namely, to a select few who are available in our life times. In short, passion is focused on opportunity.
Love is a word loosely bandied about and applied in a variety of ways by different cultures and in endless epochs. For example, I 'love' this car does injustice to the word as the car cannot return any of my affection.
Love is one step up the evolutionary ladder from infatuation in that love suggests a more durable and long lasting affection that includes benevolence toward the object of one's affection and a desire for their well-being than infatuation. Love is, in truth, an outpouring of affection that anticipates a return on investment from the object of one's love, but does not of necessity evaporate if that investment proves unprofitable. In a very real sense, love amounts to profound affection that contains elements of a cost-benefit analysis. Put more simply, I may love a significant other, but hate a wide variety of their traits and behaviors. This love-in-whole and hate-in-particular feeling, can, over time, contribute to the ultimate deterioration of the relationship. Indeed, in many instances which are all too common, I may hate the very traits and behaviors in my partner that I refuse to accept in myself.
Attachment is therefore neither infatuation, nor love although both of these may be forerunners to attachment. Attachment is marked by tenderness, devotion, and a sense that the object of my attachment is of greater or equal value to myself - it is, in short, a bonding. For the magic of attachment to be conjured, the individuals concerned must not only be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses and those of their beloved, but must also completely accept both as part of the human condition! As this definition suggests, attachment to another cannot be accomplished over a brief period of time, or in those circumstances that bring only good fortune to the couple. Hardship is required in order to sift the feelings of infatuation and love from those more realistic and abiding commitments that mark attachment.
Attachment on the part of one partner does not evaporate if the other partner is unfaithful as intrinsic value is embedded in that partner despite their infidelity. To be certain the pain of betrayal and loss is nearly overwhelming for the 'injured' party, but rage is notably absent. Rage at betrayal is the province of infatuation and love, not attachment. Rage is an other directed emotion, but in attachment the value of the other (partner) is equivalent to one's own value and so rage must be equally directed to yourself. In psychiatric terms.self-directed rage qualifies under the definition of depression. Hence, in an attached couple the loss of a partner quite inevitably leads to depression as seen in the profound grief and early demise of the surviving partner when an attached partner dies.
In liturgical terms, 'the two shall become one' best describes the kind of relationship that merits the label 'attachment.' As with any goal of lasting value, attachment requires self-examination and continuing commitment in the face of personal disappointment with childish expectations and fantasies. Indeed, a truly committed relationship may emerge only among those partners who have each accepted their own individual human fallibilty menu entries and those of their partner as a necessary puzzle piece in the larger conundrum of the human condition.
We are all parts of a larger puzzle. If we're lucky and willing to objectively examine, and work on ourselves, we may find a complementarily configural piece into whom we can fit for our lifetime, and perhaps beyond.
1) The opposite of love is not hate, but rather indifference.
2) Rejection of a partner in an intimate relationship requires that you disown some part of yourself.
3) Infatuation is a biological phenomenon that requires nothing beyond being 'captured' by the visual and scent related stimuli of the desired mate. This is accomplished by no in depth understanding of the 'love object's' characteristics.
4) Love is one step up the ladder of evolutionary maturity from infatuation and entails a more complete understanding of the individuals involved. It includes an understanding of both the strengths and weaknesses of the object of one's infatuation.However, love may not entail each partner's understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses.
5)Attachment is the final rung on the maturity ladder. In the attachment bond both parties are fully aware of their own strengths and weaknesses as well as those of their partner. They maintain an affectionate, compassionate, devotedly loyal, and passionate bond with one another in the face of both good fortune and hardship.
6) An objective (factual) sense of self-worth on the parts of both partners in a relationship, coupled with basic attraction, is the best predictor of a rewarding and attached bond.
7) Passion is crucial to attachment. The word 'passion' is derived from its oldest roots which means 'to suffer.' In truth, it suggests that my feelings and life are acted upon by the joys and pains of my significant other to the same degree as my own troubles. Without suffering, there is no real attachment.
Often in the attempt to understand a fundamental characteristic of human relationships, as with an emotional transaction such as attachment, it is best to begin by indicating what does not qualify as attachment.
Attachment is not guaranteed by nature, birthing, blood relationship. shared solidarity in hardship or lifelong solidarity. Attachment is a process that involves learning to accept, first in yourself, and then in an significant other the universal presence of both character strengths and weaknesses in the human character.
Let us begin in this exercise in contrasts between attachment and other feelings at play in intimate relationships with the phenomenon of infatuation.
Infatuation is defined as a strong and unreasoning affection for another that is marked by limited understanding of the object of one's affection, and which is often considered sentimental and transitory. This is the 'the love at first sight' event. Recent research suggests that infatuation is a kind of time limited, obsessive-compulsive state which may be instigated by a tidal wave of dopamine (neurotransmitter) in the brain. Dopamine is held to be released in response to the visual and scent stimuli of the desired other which is in turn related to neuropsychologically complementary differences (brain differences in two individuals that fit together neurologically - like puzzle pieces) in the potential mate. In short, mother nature is in charge!
This is not to suggest that there is only one mate for every person on the planet! In point of fact, there may be a large number of people of a specific neuropsychological makeup who will spur our passions. However, geography, circumstances and history will confine our choices to those who we find 'attactive', namely, to a select few who are available in our life times. In short, passion is focused on opportunity.
Love is a word loosely bandied about and applied in a variety of ways by different cultures and in endless epochs. For example, I 'love' this car does injustice to the word as the car cannot return any of my affection.
Love is one step up the evolutionary ladder from infatuation in that love suggests a more durable and long lasting affection that includes benevolence toward the object of one's affection and a desire for their well-being than infatuation. Love is, in truth, an outpouring of affection that anticipates a return on investment from the object of one's love, but does not of necessity evaporate if that investment proves unprofitable. In a very real sense, love amounts to profound affection that contains elements of a cost-benefit analysis. Put more simply, I may love a significant other, but hate a wide variety of their traits and behaviors. This love-in-whole and hate-in-particular feeling, can, over time, contribute to the ultimate deterioration of the relationship. Indeed, in many instances which are all too common, I may hate the very traits and behaviors in my partner that I refuse to accept in myself.
Attachment is therefore neither infatuation, nor love although both of these may be forerunners to attachment. Attachment is marked by tenderness, devotion, and a sense that the object of my attachment is of greater or equal value to myself - it is, in short, a bonding. For the magic of attachment to be conjured, the individuals concerned must not only be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses and those of their beloved, but must also completely accept both as part of the human condition! As this definition suggests, attachment to another cannot be accomplished over a brief period of time, or in those circumstances that bring only good fortune to the couple. Hardship is required in order to sift the feelings of infatuation and love from those more realistic and abiding commitments that mark attachment.
Attachment on the part of one partner does not evaporate if the other partner is unfaithful as intrinsic value is embedded in that partner despite their infidelity. To be certain the pain of betrayal and loss is nearly overwhelming for the 'injured' party, but rage is notably absent. Rage at betrayal is the province of infatuation and love, not attachment. Rage is an other directed emotion, but in attachment the value of the other (partner) is equivalent to one's own value and so rage must be equally directed to yourself. In psychiatric terms.self-directed rage qualifies under the definition of depression. Hence, in an attached couple the loss of a partner quite inevitably leads to depression as seen in the profound grief and early demise of the surviving partner when an attached partner dies.
In liturgical terms, 'the two shall become one' best describes the kind of relationship that merits the label 'attachment.' As with any goal of lasting value, attachment requires self-examination and continuing commitment in the face of personal disappointment with childish expectations and fantasies. Indeed, a truly committed relationship may emerge only among those partners who have each accepted their own individual human fallibilty menu entries and those of their partner as a necessary puzzle piece in the larger conundrum of the human condition.
We are all parts of a larger puzzle. If we're lucky and willing to objectively examine, and work on ourselves, we may find a complementarily configural piece into whom we can fit for our lifetime, and perhaps beyond.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Attraction: First Love - The Imprint
Attraction: First Love - The Imprint
Mother nature has for eons decreed that adolescence provides the first and most significant window for determining the shape and character of all subsequent romantic attachments. Indeed, in many cultures, taking advantage of this simple observation, promise children to one another for life when they are between the ages of 13-14 years. Although in our epoch we attempt to protract the onset of these childbearing unions for a decade or more, it is unlikely that mother nature pays any attention to our passing cultural fancies.
Just as there are sensitive periods for the acquisition of fundamental skills, i.e., language between the ages of birth and five years of age, so there are sensitive periods that determine the parameters of all subsequent romantic relationships, or a 'first love sensitizing experience.' We refer to such events as 'imprints',that is, stamps on our experience of life that forever direct and determine our sense of what an intimate relationship should feel like and how it should work.
Imprinting refers to the tendency among many life forms to attach to the first individual of their species that they interact with when they are in the midst of a 'sensitive' period of biological development. For romantic relationships among humankind this is adolescence.
As we all know from the scanty recall of our own teenage years, or when viewed through the lens of greater objectivity provided by watching our children pass through this sensitive period of biological transition, a great deal of the daily life of adolescents is best described by the German phrase, 'sturm und drang' - storm and stress. Brain research has verified these observations. We now know that the frontal lobes, the seat of considered decision making and perhaps more importantly, the brake pedal for our impulses, which is located in the one-third of the brain that lies in front of our ears is not yet fully functional. This area of cortex, once in the far distant past devoted entirely to the fine discrimination of odors, does not fully provide its input until we are between the ages of 15-18 years, and may not do all of which it is capable until we are nearly thirty years of age. Hence, 'imprints' of an adolescent romantic ideal are formed with one-third of our brain, proverbially, 'tied behind our backs.'
Indeed, recent reports of individuals in the 30-40 year age range who are attempting to recoup the romance associated with an infatuation focused on a high school, or college sweetheart suggest that 60-70% of the time such attempts at romantic reunion result in marked disappointment on the part of both parties. This outcome is hardly surprising as beyond the age of thirty years the individuals concerned are now perceiving the world and monitoring their own experience out of 'whole brain.' In short, both the accelerator (impulses) and the 'brake pedal' (frontal lobes) are now fully functional and supply the individual with a more complete and considered view of reality.
In 30 years of psychotherapy practice, a great deal of which was devoted to couples and families, I have observed that couples often seem to experience conflicts that appear to have little or nothing to do with their current feelings and circumstances. Indeed, each of the partners appears to be measuring the other against an unseen standard (an adolescent era 'imprint' of romance) that exists only within their own personal past. In these conflicts, each partner, 'sees' only the deficiencies in their partner, that is, departures from his or her own personal 'imprint' of adolescent romantic love. Occasionally these conflicts can be resolved in the course of short term counseling, however, they are likely to reemerge in the same or slightly different form years later, thus becoming a source of continuing dissatisfaction for both parties.
This 'imprint' model of romance and conflict does not set aside the real difficulties associated with substance abuse, medical and psychiatric difficulties, or the deficits in self-esteem that manifest themselves in the form of affairs in a spouse. It merely suggests that many day to day recurrent conflicts are, in fact, related to the unconscious comparisons each partner makes between the 'imprint' of their adolescent ideal of a romantic lover and the person sitting across from them at the kitchen table.
In practical therapeutic terms addressing this issue is fairly simple, but as with many significant matters within the manifold complexities that constitute human relationships, not always easy to resolve.
As my approach to counseling follows a neuropsychological model, I first complete an individual examination of the brain-behavior strengths of each member of the couple (60 minutes for each). This brief and non-threatening assessment involves analyzing the in-built left and right brain biases of each partner, which differences are, in point of fact, the neuropsychological complements that drew them together.
Next, I embark upon an in depth interview with each partner focused on the most complete description of their 'first love' that they can with prompting muster. This interview focuses on the description of the 'imprinted first love' that includes everything from eye and hair color, height, weight, good form of face and body, and level of activity including both physical and social components. Among males the strongest, fastest and most daring win fair maiden, while among females those whose face and form suggests good health and successful child bearing potential win the next generation right to pass along their genes.
The next step is also completed with each member of the couple individually and focuses on both the similarities and differences that they see between their 'imprinted first love' and their current partner. Of course, this exercise is greatly facilitated if both partners are at least 28 years of age and therefore can fully access the considerable resources that the frontal lobe has to offer.
The next step amounts to a 'frontal lobe test.' this is the penetrating question portion of the interview and consists in asking each partner, individually, to apply hard nosed reality testing and their life experience to their lists of both the similarities and differences between their 'imprinted adolescent first love ideal' and their current partner. This is a most rigorous exercise and certainly requires that the couple be assisted in focusing solely on the descriptors they enumerated on the lists of similarities and differences between their 'adolescent imprinted ideal' and their current partner.
There are several pivotal questions which must be addressed in the form of challenges to the patient's initial entries on his or her lists of similarities and differences between the 'adolescent imprint' and their current partner: First, do you believe that your 'first love ideal' is now, in appearance and demeanor, exactly as you remember him or her (fantasies informed by an 'imprinting emotion preserve that which supports the historical feeling and dismisses all else)? Second, do you see yourself now as you were, in appearance and demeanor when you experienced the 'first love imprint'? Third, do you believe that you fully understand and appreciate the individual who exists in your memory as your 'first love adolescent imprint' as well as you know your current partner? Finally, do you recognize that adolescence represents the developmental era of either/or perfectionism (as a result of little if any frontal lobe input)? This perfectionistic era of development sorts all experience into black or white categories dismissing all shades of gray and accepts only whole hearted infatuation, completely dismissing all ideas and feelings other than those which you find emotionally convincing. This adolescent feeling fueled perceptual state is a result of minimal frontal lobe input coupled with unopposed old brain - limbic and quite primitive emotional flooding.
Pursuing this line of questioning, we attempt to address beliefs and feelings that were generated before the frontal lobes were fully functional and could voice their input. Examples of questions that none us can effectively raise before the frontal lobes are wholly active include: But suppose I'm not right?, What if I'm missing some important information? Suppose what I feel is not the whole answer? Do I really know what the other person is feeling? Have I ever been wrong by just following what I felt at the moment?, and What if I don't know it all? Inasmuch as the frontal lobes were not fully operational at the time that the 'first love adolescent imprint' was formed, these questions could not be raised. It is precisely these questions that must be addressed as each partner is helped to examine the discrepancy between the 'first love adolescent ideal imprint' and their current partner.
To put it quite simply the experiences of our childhood and adolescence are ever with us.Although these patterns of feeling and thought do not shout their realizations in plain language as do our everyday ideas, they nevertheless impact every moment of our daily lives. Despite the nearly muted volume of the still small voice of 'first love' imprints, this subliminal mode of messaging has greater power over our feelings, motivations and judgments than those decisions we believe that we consciously make in every romantic relationship.
Mother nature has for eons decreed that adolescence provides the first and most significant window for determining the shape and character of all subsequent romantic attachments. Indeed, in many cultures, taking advantage of this simple observation, promise children to one another for life when they are between the ages of 13-14 years. Although in our epoch we attempt to protract the onset of these childbearing unions for a decade or more, it is unlikely that mother nature pays any attention to our passing cultural fancies.
Just as there are sensitive periods for the acquisition of fundamental skills, i.e., language between the ages of birth and five years of age, so there are sensitive periods that determine the parameters of all subsequent romantic relationships, or a 'first love sensitizing experience.' We refer to such events as 'imprints',that is, stamps on our experience of life that forever direct and determine our sense of what an intimate relationship should feel like and how it should work.
Imprinting refers to the tendency among many life forms to attach to the first individual of their species that they interact with when they are in the midst of a 'sensitive' period of biological development. For romantic relationships among humankind this is adolescence.
As we all know from the scanty recall of our own teenage years, or when viewed through the lens of greater objectivity provided by watching our children pass through this sensitive period of biological transition, a great deal of the daily life of adolescents is best described by the German phrase, 'sturm und drang' - storm and stress. Brain research has verified these observations. We now know that the frontal lobes, the seat of considered decision making and perhaps more importantly, the brake pedal for our impulses, which is located in the one-third of the brain that lies in front of our ears is not yet fully functional. This area of cortex, once in the far distant past devoted entirely to the fine discrimination of odors, does not fully provide its input until we are between the ages of 15-18 years, and may not do all of which it is capable until we are nearly thirty years of age. Hence, 'imprints' of an adolescent romantic ideal are formed with one-third of our brain, proverbially, 'tied behind our backs.'
Indeed, recent reports of individuals in the 30-40 year age range who are attempting to recoup the romance associated with an infatuation focused on a high school, or college sweetheart suggest that 60-70% of the time such attempts at romantic reunion result in marked disappointment on the part of both parties. This outcome is hardly surprising as beyond the age of thirty years the individuals concerned are now perceiving the world and monitoring their own experience out of 'whole brain.' In short, both the accelerator (impulses) and the 'brake pedal' (frontal lobes) are now fully functional and supply the individual with a more complete and considered view of reality.
In 30 years of psychotherapy practice, a great deal of which was devoted to couples and families, I have observed that couples often seem to experience conflicts that appear to have little or nothing to do with their current feelings and circumstances. Indeed, each of the partners appears to be measuring the other against an unseen standard (an adolescent era 'imprint' of romance) that exists only within their own personal past. In these conflicts, each partner, 'sees' only the deficiencies in their partner, that is, departures from his or her own personal 'imprint' of adolescent romantic love. Occasionally these conflicts can be resolved in the course of short term counseling, however, they are likely to reemerge in the same or slightly different form years later, thus becoming a source of continuing dissatisfaction for both parties.
This 'imprint' model of romance and conflict does not set aside the real difficulties associated with substance abuse, medical and psychiatric difficulties, or the deficits in self-esteem that manifest themselves in the form of affairs in a spouse. It merely suggests that many day to day recurrent conflicts are, in fact, related to the unconscious comparisons each partner makes between the 'imprint' of their adolescent ideal of a romantic lover and the person sitting across from them at the kitchen table.
In practical therapeutic terms addressing this issue is fairly simple, but as with many significant matters within the manifold complexities that constitute human relationships, not always easy to resolve.
As my approach to counseling follows a neuropsychological model, I first complete an individual examination of the brain-behavior strengths of each member of the couple (60 minutes for each). This brief and non-threatening assessment involves analyzing the in-built left and right brain biases of each partner, which differences are, in point of fact, the neuropsychological complements that drew them together.
Next, I embark upon an in depth interview with each partner focused on the most complete description of their 'first love' that they can with prompting muster. This interview focuses on the description of the 'imprinted first love' that includes everything from eye and hair color, height, weight, good form of face and body, and level of activity including both physical and social components. Among males the strongest, fastest and most daring win fair maiden, while among females those whose face and form suggests good health and successful child bearing potential win the next generation right to pass along their genes.
The next step is also completed with each member of the couple individually and focuses on both the similarities and differences that they see between their 'imprinted first love' and their current partner. Of course, this exercise is greatly facilitated if both partners are at least 28 years of age and therefore can fully access the considerable resources that the frontal lobe has to offer.
The next step amounts to a 'frontal lobe test.' this is the penetrating question portion of the interview and consists in asking each partner, individually, to apply hard nosed reality testing and their life experience to their lists of both the similarities and differences between their 'imprinted adolescent first love ideal' and their current partner. This is a most rigorous exercise and certainly requires that the couple be assisted in focusing solely on the descriptors they enumerated on the lists of similarities and differences between their 'adolescent imprinted ideal' and their current partner.
There are several pivotal questions which must be addressed in the form of challenges to the patient's initial entries on his or her lists of similarities and differences between the 'adolescent imprint' and their current partner: First, do you believe that your 'first love ideal' is now, in appearance and demeanor, exactly as you remember him or her (fantasies informed by an 'imprinting emotion preserve that which supports the historical feeling and dismisses all else)? Second, do you see yourself now as you were, in appearance and demeanor when you experienced the 'first love imprint'? Third, do you believe that you fully understand and appreciate the individual who exists in your memory as your 'first love adolescent imprint' as well as you know your current partner? Finally, do you recognize that adolescence represents the developmental era of either/or perfectionism (as a result of little if any frontal lobe input)? This perfectionistic era of development sorts all experience into black or white categories dismissing all shades of gray and accepts only whole hearted infatuation, completely dismissing all ideas and feelings other than those which you find emotionally convincing. This adolescent feeling fueled perceptual state is a result of minimal frontal lobe input coupled with unopposed old brain - limbic and quite primitive emotional flooding.
Pursuing this line of questioning, we attempt to address beliefs and feelings that were generated before the frontal lobes were fully functional and could voice their input. Examples of questions that none us can effectively raise before the frontal lobes are wholly active include: But suppose I'm not right?, What if I'm missing some important information? Suppose what I feel is not the whole answer? Do I really know what the other person is feeling? Have I ever been wrong by just following what I felt at the moment?, and What if I don't know it all? Inasmuch as the frontal lobes were not fully operational at the time that the 'first love adolescent imprint' was formed, these questions could not be raised. It is precisely these questions that must be addressed as each partner is helped to examine the discrepancy between the 'first love adolescent ideal imprint' and their current partner.
To put it quite simply the experiences of our childhood and adolescence are ever with us.Although these patterns of feeling and thought do not shout their realizations in plain language as do our everyday ideas, they nevertheless impact every moment of our daily lives. Despite the nearly muted volume of the still small voice of 'first love' imprints, this subliminal mode of messaging has greater power over our feelings, motivations and judgments than those decisions we believe that we consciously make in every romantic relationship.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Attraction
Let us begin by dispensing with the principal illusion that we all share, namely, that there is only one person to whom we can be irrevocably attacted in our lifespan.
This illusion is fueled by the notion that somehow mother nature is invested in our destiny as individuals. Indeed, evolution is concerned only with the survival of the species - regardless of how brutal this realization may seem to each of us as sentient and emotionally invested persons. Mother nature concerns herself only with the survival of the species and throws in climatological challenges from time to time to test the viability of her handiwork.
Research over 30 years indicates that couples 'find' one another based on neuropsychological dissimilarities (left hemispherically strong individuals are attracted to right hemispherically strong individuals) and pheromone (scent) signals are pathfinders to this union. Interpersonal conflicts are mandatory in such unions, but are irrelevant as they do not pertain to the physical and emotional welfare of the potential offspring of such a union. In short, the emotional satisfaction of the parental union is sacrificed to the welfare of their children.
Such conflict is intrinsic to the human condition as we are a social or tribal species. We are at our best, and indeed at our worst, when we act as a unit. Although we may all bewail the travesties conducted on a large scale across the globe, yet these same misunderstandings obtain on a daily basis within our homes, but transpire without the deaths of thousands.
We are all threads within the same cloth - to imagine otherwise is narcissistic arrogance. In arguments over the habis or our partners, in disputes over the words and actions of our mates, or arguments over managing our children, we recapitulate the wars that ravage the planet. None can wash their hands of the ills of our species.
Yet within this holocaust of individual and tribal conflict are the seeds of understanding that surpasses individual interest and whispers compromise.
This illusion is fueled by the notion that somehow mother nature is invested in our destiny as individuals. Indeed, evolution is concerned only with the survival of the species - regardless of how brutal this realization may seem to each of us as sentient and emotionally invested persons. Mother nature concerns herself only with the survival of the species and throws in climatological challenges from time to time to test the viability of her handiwork.
Research over 30 years indicates that couples 'find' one another based on neuropsychological dissimilarities (left hemispherically strong individuals are attracted to right hemispherically strong individuals) and pheromone (scent) signals are pathfinders to this union. Interpersonal conflicts are mandatory in such unions, but are irrelevant as they do not pertain to the physical and emotional welfare of the potential offspring of such a union. In short, the emotional satisfaction of the parental union is sacrificed to the welfare of their children.
Such conflict is intrinsic to the human condition as we are a social or tribal species. We are at our best, and indeed at our worst, when we act as a unit. Although we may all bewail the travesties conducted on a large scale across the globe, yet these same misunderstandings obtain on a daily basis within our homes, but transpire without the deaths of thousands.
We are all threads within the same cloth - to imagine otherwise is narcissistic arrogance. In arguments over the habis or our partners, in disputes over the words and actions of our mates, or arguments over managing our children, we recapitulate the wars that ravage the planet. None can wash their hands of the ills of our species.
Yet within this holocaust of individual and tribal conflict are the seeds of understanding that surpasses individual interest and whispers compromise.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The Beginning
The brain is ageless and ever changing. That which resides in front of our ears once served only the purpose of allowing us to scent the environment around us. Now that same region of the cortex refines our perceptions, applies the brake pedal to the hoary limbic center of flight and flight, sorts decision making, appreciates Mozart and Bach, allows us to depart from tribal wisdom, for better or worse, and creates new and unseen visions of possible futures. Wasting no space or structure, evolution simply revamps the brain in order to meet the challenge of changing circumstances.
In this fairly anonymous space I will, to the best of my ability, discuss the results of thirty years of research encompassing in excess of 5000 patients with respect to the relationship between the structure of the brain (genetic) and the foundations of personality, perception, cognition and ability.
First, and foremost, all of us would like to believe that we are in control of our lives, that is, most of the time we believe that we are right and everyone else is misguided - this is perfectly normal. Without this belief, survival would not be possible! Research suggests that we control only about 30%, at best, of our destiny in life - the balance is genetic pre-loaded.
As I would inquire of my graduate students - 'If you were mother nature and wished only to ensure the survival of the species, how much control would you give each and every individual over their genetic destiny?' The responses varied, but hovered around 50%. This is insufficient as it approximates the toss of a coin probability. My research suggests that genetic loading accounts for 70-80% of who we are, however, bear in mind that allows each of us 20-30% latitude in every thought, feeling and action we experience - not bad - considering the unlikely prospect that of the infinite number of molecules in the universe, some precious few have come together to create the extraordinary miracle that is life, that is us.
More to come: Attraction, relationships, parenting, offspring, vocations, evolution...
In this fairly anonymous space I will, to the best of my ability, discuss the results of thirty years of research encompassing in excess of 5000 patients with respect to the relationship between the structure of the brain (genetic) and the foundations of personality, perception, cognition and ability.
First, and foremost, all of us would like to believe that we are in control of our lives, that is, most of the time we believe that we are right and everyone else is misguided - this is perfectly normal. Without this belief, survival would not be possible! Research suggests that we control only about 30%, at best, of our destiny in life - the balance is genetic pre-loaded.
As I would inquire of my graduate students - 'If you were mother nature and wished only to ensure the survival of the species, how much control would you give each and every individual over their genetic destiny?' The responses varied, but hovered around 50%. This is insufficient as it approximates the toss of a coin probability. My research suggests that genetic loading accounts for 70-80% of who we are, however, bear in mind that allows each of us 20-30% latitude in every thought, feeling and action we experience - not bad - considering the unlikely prospect that of the infinite number of molecules in the universe, some precious few have come together to create the extraordinary miracle that is life, that is us.
More to come: Attraction, relationships, parenting, offspring, vocations, evolution...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
.jpg)