Pssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst
Before
B O A R D I N G
CHECK IN
Who Cares - What Matters
DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU’D LIKE TO BE DONE UNTO YOU. . .RIGHT
Or better,
DO UNTO OTHERS AS THEY REALLY WANT DONE UNTO THEM. . .
I mean these are really great aspirations for yourself
FOR OTHERS
. . .or are they the worst?
it’s real close to liking you to break open the
Butterfly Cocoon
before it’s ready
. . .seemingly to make it easier
But actually doing it the most harm ever. . .
THE SAVIOR COMPLEX
I’ve always had one
and thought it noble
and even sometimes wore it as a
Badge of Honor
until I saw I was actually doing more harm
than any kind of well intended
G O O D
so when an article about SAVIOR COMPLEXING comes across my attention
I SOAK IT UP
and ok, fine, here’s the truest of true Confessions:
I end up making this Complex even more
C O M P L E X I N G
and yet, I read on and invite you to do the same now with this article from a recent Psychology Today by Mark Travers, Ph.D., an American psychologist with degrees from Cornell University and the University of Colorado Boulder.
Everyone. . .
Dr. Travers shares that many people come to therapy troubled by their inability to help someone in need. They may say things like:
If you relate to any of these questions, you may have a savior complex. At first glance, your behaviors might point to your helpful nature. But, when examined more closely, your savior complex can be psychologically unhealthy as it can give you an external outlet to focus on instead of addressing your own problems.
Helpfulness is a valued and pro-social trait, but there is a difference between helping and saving. A savior complex goes beyond our ability to help people, crossing into the realm of trying to be a hero in someone else’s life for your benefit more than theirs.
Here I’ll talk about three ways you can manage your instinct to want to “save” people.
When people confide in you, they are often looking for an outlet to let out pent-up emotions instead of wanting to “be fixed.” A big problem for many “saviors” is the mistaken assumption that people are incapable of solving their own issues. If you take up the practice of listening more actively, you may learn that this person is perhaps just looking for a supportive shoulder and someone who will listen.
A study published in the Journal of Positive Psychology finds that listening carefully and attentively increases the level of humility in any conversation, resulting in a positive feedback loop of increased humility and better listening.
Here are two ways to up your listening skills, according to the researchers:
Aside from practicing active listening, resist your urge to intervene. You may find that people can often come to their own aid when helping themselves is the only real way out.
If you try to be the fixer of all their problems, you run the risk of unintentionally pushing them towards a sense of learned helplessness, where they lose the perspective to be able to diagnose and address their own issues.
When a loved one comes to you with an issue, refrain from offering assistance or suggestions right off the bat. Remind yourself that you can be present for someone without having to rescue them. Instead, you can offer validation that shows that you understand and empathize with them and are there for them whenever they need to vent.
One key aspect of the savior complex is the ingrained desire to help even when it’s not wanted or requested. Assuming that the other person is incapable of helping themselves may reflect or be perceived as a superiority complex on your end.
Instead, you can offer assistance in low-pressure ways that keeps the ball in their court. For instance, ask the other person questions like, “This situation seems quite tough. Is there any way I can help?”
Follow their guidance if they ask you to help in a certain way instead of assuming that you know what’s best.
Managing your savior instincts may seem difficult at first, but it’s a learnable skill. Even though you may believe you are doing someone a favor, saving someone who doesn’t want to be saved may backfire. Wait until this person asks for your assistance since it’s likely that someone who truly needs it will ask you for it directly.
And remember
Even as you’re Reaching Out
To REACH IN
f i r s t
IS THIS HELPING THEM
MORE THAN
APPEASING ME. . . ?
Give MORE and take less. . .
Can we. . . ?
THEY SAY:
Giving to others brings a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment that cannot be achieved through material possessions or personal gain. It can also have positive effects on our mental and physical #health. Research has shown that people who regularly engage in acts of kindness and giving are more likely to experience lower levels of stress, depression, and anxiety. . .
S T I L L
In this for real
DOG eat Dog
world
we can still see how
We Mutts can still learn
(or forever RE-LEARN)
New Tricks
without so much as
ROLLING OVER
or worse
PLAYING DEAD
IT IS A SUPER POWER
and we all possess it
but don’t always access it
P R E S E N C E
Some call it:
HOLDING SPACE
and I’ve blogged on it before
but as a striving to always be better
CARING CATALYST
I can’t learn enough about it
or dare to believe
I’ve always provided it
to my utmost ability
. . .and then this article from
TIME MAGAZINE
found me:
Behind Felt Presences
Many of us have had this uncanny feeling before: Entering a silent room, walking through a dark night, or waking from sleep—and suddenly, it’s there. A sense that someone is with us, without any sight or sound. A feeling of a presence.
It’s a sensation that occupied the forefathers of psychology for a long time, including William James. Writing in the Varieties of Religious Experience, James wrote of “a feeling of objective presence, a perception of what we may call ‘something there,’ more deep and more general than any of the special and particular ‘senses.’” It was an experience he recognized as key to many a spiritual occurrence, but also one with an often sinister and foreboding air. A friend of James’ recounted a night-time encounter of his own that he experienced as a student: “I did not recognize it by any ordinary sense and yet there was a horribly unpleasant ‘sensation’ connected with it. It stirred something more at the roots of my being than any ordinary perception.”
If you’ve had this experience and you’ve tried to explain it to someone, you may be met with a blank look, or even skepticism. It sounds like something out of a ghost story, and indeed, William James was a kind of 19th-century ghostbuster. He was a key member of the Society of Psychical Research, which was set up to examine the truth behind telepathy, spiritualism, and apparitions of the night.
But what we now know is that James’s friend was correct. This isn’t a ghost story, or even a sixth sense, but something at the roots of our being. Contemporary neurology, cognitive neuroscience, and psychiatry shows us that such presences truly belong to us because they are linked to how our bodies and minds give us a sense of self.
The first piece of evidence comes from case studies of people affected by epilepsy, brain tumors, and other major changes to brain functioning. For instance, in a 2006 study, a 41-year-old man, whom the study called “PH,” presented to a hospital clinic complaining of fatigue, dizziness, and seizures. The one night in hospital, he awoke to feel he had split into three parts: his left side, which felt normal; his right side, which felt somehow detached; and then off to his right, another man who wasn’t him. This figure mirrored his body position, and when he tried to look at him, he looked away; PH felt as if “they shared the same soul.” Beyond the man stood a woman, again mirroring PH, and beyond that, some girls; he called them his “family.” After a few days the image of these figures receded, but the feeling of their presence remained.
PH’s experiences were the product of an aggressive tumor in the left hemisphere of his brain, which affected two areas in particular: the posterior insula and the temporoparietal junction. The former is a key brain area for processing internal information about our bodies (like heart rate or gut feelings), while the latter is involved in integrating our senses to make a map of where we are in space. Damage to those areas would have changed PH’s internal model for where he felt his body was. So when he was visited by this presence, in a way it did share his soul. It was where he should have been (or his brain thought he was).
The next piece of evidence comes from cognitive neuroscience, and a team led by neurologist Olaf Blanke in Geneva. Since 2014, they have used a robot to induce feelings of presence in healthy individuals and clinical disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease. The robot works to disrupt your sensory expectations: Whenever we make a movement, our brains are thought to make a set of predictions about what will happen to our senses. Go to clap your hands, and your brain is ready for a new sight and sound, all at the right time. But if you mess with that, strange things start to happen; things don’t feel like “us” and instead start to feel like they belong to someone else. With the presence robot, you make random pressing movements into the air in front of you, while the robot presses you in the back at exactly the same time. In sync, it almost feels like it’s you pressing your own back—you brain takes the cues from your own movements, and the sensations on your back, and comes to the conclusion that the only person in this process is you. But when the touches start to then go out of sync—slowing and dragging, not quite hitting where they should—participants suddenly feel like a person, not just a robot, is controlling the touches from behind. Lots of people with Parkinson’s have feelings of presence as part of the condition, and this makes them particularly susceptible to the phantom touches of the robot.
Lastly, we’re now beginning to recognize that feelings of presence are a missing piece in the story of psychosis. Not long after William James was writing, figures like Karl Jaspers were describing examples of presence in some of the first textbooks of psychiatry. But the trail ran cold for a number of years—until very recently. There’s now evidence that people who hear voices (or have auditory hallucinations) also describe high rates of felt presence—literally voices than can be there without speaking. And grassroots work such as Rethink Psychosis, led by people with experience of psychosis themselves, are calling for more recognition and understanding of the phenomenon through projects like “Psychosis Outside the Box,” a collection of the more neglected and unusual aspects of psychosis.
The strangeness of presences makes them all too easy to miss in a time-pressured doctor’s appointment, but for many people, it may be the figure behind voices or visions that matters the most. If you’ve ever had your own personal space violated, or dreaded to go into certain places because of who might be there, you will know how much the presence of another can affect you, even without a word being uttered. Thinking about presences, and not just voices, poses a whole new set of challenges for our scientific models of psychosis and how we deliver psychotherapy. It’s even part of some of the newer psychotherapeutic approaches to psychosis, such as AVATAR therapy.
The through-line in all these examples is the self. In Western societies, we are used to the idea of a unitary, consistent self—the core of us that never changes. But psychologists and neuroscientists know that the self is something that can be disrupted in multiple ways; it’s less of a one-man band, and more of an ensemble piece. In clinical disorders, case reports, or through ingenious experiments, we can observed how radically the self can altered to produce a presence.
It goes beyond that, too. Given the right conditions, all of us could have this is experience, whether as a result of grief, exhaustion, trauma, or even sleep problems. In this way, the new science of presence isn’t about a mysterious “other,” after all. It’s a way of learning about ourselves.
W H O A, Right
And yet the not-so-big-surprise
WE ARE LIKE OCEANS. . .
THERE IS SO MUCH WE KNOW ABOUT EACH OTHER
AND SO VERY, VERY MUCH MORE THAT WE DON’T. . .
with the biggest question of
JUST HOW WILLING ARE YOU TO FIND OUT?
Psssssssssssssssssssssssssssst:
FIND OUT
TRUTH. . .
I’m not all that crazy this Jason Mraz song
but the lyrics
. . .well now. . .
AND THEIR MEANING. . .
Now if I could only
APPLY THEM
(l i b e r a l l y)
Feels like I’m surfing on a sound wave Zooming through the universe Feels like we’re bouncing off of light waves I bounce so hard sometimes it hurts
Every time I think I’m stuck The sun moves along and my shadow gets up
If you’re lost; relax; and be where your feet are
Every time I try to follow someone’s way My end result is not the same But then I do that thing – that thing I do that’s just for me And amazing things start happening And again, and again,
Every time I think I’m stuck The sun moves along and my shadow gets up
If you’re lost; relax; and be where your feet are
Outer space is where I’m spacing out Still looking up when I’m feeling down I try to walk the talk I talk but the tale is tall and when I look up It’s still too easy to feel small – still I’ve found…
If you’re lost; just relax; and be where your feet are If you ever get lost; relax; and be where your feet are If you ever get lost; kick back; and be where your feet are If you ever get lost; relax; and be where your feet are Be where your feet are (I’m gonna be right here)
Pssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst:
Don’t look ahead
. . .Just be
WHERE YOUR FEET ARE
and be shocked at the amazing places
not so much that you will go
But Discover
RIGHT WHERE YOU ARE. . .
Gillian is a seven-year-old girl who cannot sit in school. She continually gets up, gets distracted, flies with thoughts, and doesn’t follow lessons. Her teachers worry about her, punish her, scold her, reward the few times that she is attentive, but nothing. Gillian does not know how to sit and cannot be attentive.
When she comes home, her mother punishes her too. So not only does she Gillian have bad grades and punishment at school, but she also suffers from them at home.
One day, Gillian’s mother is called to school. The lady, sad as someone waiting for bad news, takes her hand and goes to the interview room. The teachers speak of illness, of an obvious disorder. Maybe it’s hyperactivity or maybe she needs a medication.
During the interview an old teacher arrives who knows the little girl. He asks all the adults, mother and colleagues, to follow him into an adjoining room from where she can still be seen. As he leaves, he tells Gillian that they will be back soon and turns on an old radio with music.
As the girl is alone in the room, she immediately gets up and begins to move up and down chasing the music in the air with her feet and her heart. The teacher smiles as the colleagues and the mother look at him between confusion and compassion, as is often done with the old. So he says:
“See? Gillian is not sick, Gillian is a dancer!”
He recommends that her mother take her to a dance class and that her colleagues make her dance from time to time. She attends her first lesson and when she gets home she tells her mother:
“Everyone is like me, no one can sit there!”
In 1981, after a career as a dancer, opening her own dance academy and receiving international recognition for her art, Gillian Lynne became the choreographer of the musical “Cats.”
Hopefully all “different” children find adults capable of welcoming them for who they are and not for what they lack.Long live the differences, the little black sheep and the misunderstood. They are the ones who create beauty in this world.
THE MORAL OF THE STORY:
THE NEXT TIME YOU ARE TOLD TO Shhhhhhhhhhhhh AND SIT STILL. . .
D
O
N
‘
T
YOU BLEW IT
YOU KNEW IT
DON’T CHEW IT
JUST DO IT. . .
SAY
“I AM SORRY”
. . but how. . .
(when just one way doesn’t feel enough)
Apologies are how we smooth over conflicts and repair relationships, prove our character to others, and coexist as imperfect beings. Yet few of us know how to do it well—or have the bravery to do so.
“A good apology builds bridges. It heals wounds,” says Marjorie Ingall, coauthor of the new book Sorry, Sorry, Sorry: The Case for Good Apologies. “It’s also really hard. Apologizing is a courageous act, because we’re overcoming all of our own animal instincts and all of our own self-protectiveness when we do it.”
Sincere apologies can be difficult to nail. Everyone wants to feel like a good person, which can lead to defensiveness—we talk ourselves out of the idea that we did something wrong in order to safeguard our sense of self. “We immediately turn to excuses, justifications, reasons why the victim provoked us,” says Karina Schumann, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Pittsburgh who’s researched the barriers to apologizing. “And if we’re able to convince ourselves of that, then that can—in our minds—preclude the need for an apology.” Or, perhaps we don’t care enough about fixing a certain relationship to apologize, she adds. We might also overestimate how uncomfortable delivering the apology will be, or assume that it won’t work.
But sincere apologies bring a host of benefits to the person delivering the message and the one receiving it. They help solidify relationships and mend trust, both of which can lower stress and improve mental health. “It’s really unhealthy to hold onto shame and guilt and not try to work through your emotions around negative behaviors and harmful acts you’ve committed,” Schumann says. Plus, some research indicates that those receiving apologies can experience improvements in blood pressure and heart rate, as well as increased activation of empathy-related brain regions that set the stage for forgiveness and reconciliation.
If you’re ready for your mea culpa moment, here are eight keys to apologizing well.
Apologies are better late than early, says Cindy Frantz, a social psychologist at Oberlin College who has researched how timing influences apology effectiveness. “What we found is that there can be a temptation to offer an apology quickly,” she says. “It’s an effort to shut the whole incident down and move on. And that benefits the perpetrator, but it doesn’t meet the needs of the victim.”
You can’t deliver an effective apology until and unless the injured party believes that you fully understand what you did wrong, she says. “If the apology comes before that, it’s not going to be seen as sincere.”
If you’re dealing with a relatively minor offense, consider apologizing over text message or in person, Ingall suggests. Emails often work well for more serious situations. “And if you really screwed up, there’s something very powerful about a stamp and nice stationery and a pen,” she says. Just don’t issue your apology via social media, which can be humiliating for everyone involved.
Another rule of thumb: “When you’re apologizing to someone, you have to give them an out,” Ingall says. “You don’t want somebody to feel trapped by you—they need an escape route.” Don’t block the pathway out of someone’s work cubicle, for instance, or lean into their car window so they’re unable to pull away.
Use the words “I’m sorry” or “I apologize.” Opting instead for phrases like “I regret” or “I feel bad about what happened” often results in non-apologies, which “have the vague contours of an apology, but don’t actually get there,” Ingall says. (See: The classic “sorry if you were offended” or “sorry, but…” approaches.) Plus, saying you regret something puts the focus on you and your emotions, when it needs to center squarely on the wronged person’s feelings.
Why should you apologize if you’re both at fault? That’s exactly the question many people struggle with, Schumann says—and certainly, there often is dual-responsibility. “But I like to encourage people to really focus on taking responsibility for the parts of the conflict that they’re responsible for,” she says. Avoid the urge to phrase it as, “I’m sorry I did this, but you also did that.” The inclination to do so is “normal, because we want to contextualize our behavior and call attention to the fact that we’re also hurt,” she says. But save it for later on in the conversation.
Always choose your words carefully when apologizing, advises Lisa Leopold, an associate professor of English language studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey who has analyzed the language of public apologies. Avoid conditional phrases, like “if” or “may”—as in, “I’m sorry if anyone was offended,” which suggests that perhaps there were no victims. “But” is another misstep. It undercuts your message, she notes.
It’s crucial to use “I” or “my” while apologizing, Leopold adds. For example, say “I’m sorry for my outburst,” rather than “I’m sorry for the interaction this morning.” And always use the active voice. “If you say something like, ‘I apologize for what happened,’ well, ‘what happened’ is something you have no control over,” she says.
It can also be helpful to utilize intensifiers such as “very,” “truly,” “sincerely,” “deeply,” and “extremely.” These can “enhance the language of an apology,” Leopold notes.
One of the core elements of an apology is making reparations. Sometimes, Schumann says, that will be possible in a direct way: You broke their favorite wine glass? Buy them a new one. Spilled coffee on their dress? Pay for the dry-cleaning.
If that’s not feasible, consider more symbolic forms of repair. For example, if you hurt someone’s feelings with a critical comment, make it clear that you misspoke. “Sometimes you can’t repair what’s happened, but you can think about the relationship moving forward,” she says. “How can you communicate a promise to behave better?” It’s important for the other person “to hear that this is not going to continue…and they can trust you to improve your behavior in the future.”
A variety of things can help make it clear your words are coming from the heart, Schumann says. First, the apology should match the severity of the offense. If you’re apologizing for infidelity and say, “Sorry about that, love,” you won’t come across as very genuine, she notes; however, those words might be adequate if you’re 10 minutes late for dinner.
You should also aim to put yourself in the other person’s shoes and convey that you understand what you did was hurtful to them, and the consequences they dealt with as a result. It can be helpful to listen first and ask them questions about their vantage point, Schumann advises. “That might allow you to really understand what they’re going through, and therefore be able to offer a more authentic, victim-focused apology.”
An apology is a starting point. Particularly with severe offenses, the person wronged will often need time and space to heal, and it’s important not to pressure them. It can be tempting to follow up with something like, “What’s wrong? I apologized—how long are you going to hold onto this?” Instead, Schumann suggests checking in like this: “I understand this isn’t going to fix everything, and I want to continue to do whatever I can to make this right by you. I hope that, even if you’re not ready to forgive me, you’re open to working with me to get us to a point where we can move forward.”
Now, just remember
WHEN THE SHOE’S ON THE OTHER FOOT
Without a doubt
The Worst Critic
you will ever encounter is the one
that stares back at you
from the mirror. . .
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
the things this mirror image will yell at you,
YOU’RE UGLY
YOU’RE STUPID
YOU’RE SO DUMB
YOU’RE AN IDIOT
YOU’RE NO GOOD
YOU’RE WORTHLESS
YOU ARE_________________________
and it’s always the
_________________________________
that shouts the loudest
B U T
IT IS NOT TRUE
is what you need to yell
back
L O U D E R
(every time )
I’m very ugly
So don’t try to convince me that
I am a very beautiful person
Because at the end of the day
I hate myself in every single way
And I’m not going to lie to myself by saying
There is beauty inside of me that matters
So rest assured I will remind myself
That I am a worthless, terrible person
And nothing you say will make me believe
I still deserve love
Because no matter what
I am not good enough to be loved
And I am in no position to believe that
Beauty does exist within me
Because whenever I look in the mirror I always think
Am I as ugly as people say?
(Now read bottom up)
by Abdullah Shoaib
It’s really east to spell:
L O V E
but do you really speak its
L A N G U A G E (S). . .
Gery Karantzas, Ph.D., is currently a professor and director of the Science of Adult Relationships (SoAR) Laboratory in the School of Psychology at Deakin University. He is also a couples therapist and was the former national convener of the Australian Psychological Society Psychology of Relationships Interest Group. He just recently pulled back the curtain, once again, on the Language(s) of Love
Love languages—the concept coined by Baptist pastor Gary Chapman some 30 years ago—has taken the relationships world by storm. It’s often the “go-to” topic on first dates, and, for those in relationships, love languages are said to provide deep, meaningful, and reliable insights into how relationships function. Putting love languages into action is believed to increase relationship happiness.
The concept clearly has appeal. At last count, 20 million copies have been sold worldwide of Chapman’s 1992 book The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts. The book has been translated into 49 languages.
There is only one catch. There is little evidence to support the idea that love languages are “a thing,” or that love languages do much of anything to help improve relationships.
There is only one catch. There is little evidence to support the idea that love languages are “a thing,” or that love languages do much of anything to help improve relationships.
According to Chapman, there are five love languages. Each of these love languages is a way to communicate your love to your romantic partner.
In his role as a Baptist pastor, Chapman had been counselling couples for years. It was through his observations of couples that the idea of love languages was born.
He believed love languages were an intuitive and simple way to teach couples about how to tune into each other’s ways of expressing love. And so, he began running seminars for husbands and wives, and the popularity of his seminars grew.
The five love languages are:
Chapman suggests that people typically use all love languages, but that most people tend to rely on one love language most of the time. This is referred to as a person’s primary love language.
According to Chapman, people are more satisfied in their relationships when both partners match when it comes to their primary love language. However, people experience less satisfaction in their relationships when both partners do not share the same primary love language.
Another important aspect of the love languages concept is that relationships are likely to deliver the greatest satisfaction when a person can understand their partner’s love language, and act in ways that “speak to” their partner’s language. In essence, this idea is about tuning in to what a partner wants.
This is an idea that has existed across many models and theories about how relationships function well. That is, responding to a partner in a way that meets their needs and wants makes a person feel understood, validated, and cared for.
Despite the popularity of the theory of love languages, only a handful of studies have been conducted and reported over the past 30 years. Research is largely inconclusive, although the balance sways more toward refuting rather than endorsing the love languages concept.
Let’s start with how love languages are assessed. In popular culture, the Love Language QuizTM is an online questionnaire that people can complete to find out about their love languages. Despite millions of individuals having taken the quiz (according to 5lovelanguages.com), there are no published findings as to the reliability and validity of the measure.
Researchers have developed their own version of the love languages survey, but the findings did not meet the statistical thresholds to suggest the survey adequately captured the five love languages. Also, their findings did not support the idea that there are five love languages.
Furthermore, a qualitative study, in which researchers coded the written responses of undergraduate students to questions about how they express love, suggested there may be six love languages. However, the researchers reported difficulty agreeing on how some of the students’ responses neatly fitted into Chapman’s love languages, particularly in the categories of “words of affirmation” and “quality time.”
Next, let’s turn to research testing a core premise of the love language theory: that couples with matching love languages experience greater satisfaction than those who do not. Evidence for this premise is very mixed.
Three studies, including one that used Chapman’s Love Language Quiz, have found that couples with matching love languages were no more satisfied than couples who were mismatched.
However, a more recent study found that partners with matching love languages experienced greater relationship and sexual satisfaction than partners with mismatched love languages. This research also found that men who reported greater empathy and perspective taking had a love language that better matched the language of their partner.
Finally, what does the research say about whether having a better understanding of your partner’s love language is linked to higher relationship satisfaction? Only two studies have investigated this question. Both found that knowing your partner’s primary love language did predict relationship satisfaction in the present or into the future.
So, as you can see, not only is there very little research investigating love languages, but the research to date doesn’t strengthen belief in the powerful properties of love languages.
COULD IT BE
THAT THE GREATEST WAY TO SAY,
“I LOVE YOU”
is still the way you
SHOW IT
and not the way you
s p e a k
i t. . . ?