According to a recent study led by Tara M. Chaplin of the Department of Psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine, boys and girls have very different emotional tendencies, but these fluctuate depending on age and context. In her study, Chaplin reviewed data from over 21,000 participants from over 160 separate studies focusing on emotional expression from birth to adolescence. Chaplin looked at internalizing and externalizing emotions as well as positive and negative expressions. The study revealed some interesting and novel results. Chaplin said, “Our findings suggest that there are small but significant gender differences in emotion expressions, with larger gender differences emerging at certain ages and in certain contexts.” She found that in infancy, the boys and girls exhibited similar emotional displays. However, as the children aged, significant differences emerged.

Specifically, Chaplin found that the girls internalized their emotions more than the boys, but they also displayed more positive emotions. For instance, the girls had higher rates of anxiety and sadness than the boys, but outwardly expressed more cheerfulness and joy. The boys, on the other hand, were more likely to exhibit anger and aggression than the girls. But these variances were only evident when the children were in the presence of strangers. When they were with their parents, the children expressed a wide range of emotions, making the gender differences virtually non-existent. Chaplin believes that children may feel more comfortable with parents and may feel free to express all of their emotions. In social settings, children may feel the need to conform and therefore may not freely express their true emotions, leading to internalizing behaviors.

Although these emotional differences were very noticeable during the toddler and elementary school ages, they were less apparent as the children matured. For instance, externalizing behaviors diminished in the boys and increased in the girls, almost to the point of being equal. Two other findings revealed concerning patterns. The adolescent girls had higher levels of shame than the boys. Because shame and guilt have been shown to be a factor in several psychological problems, including depression, self-harm, and disordered eating, this should be a key point of focus for educators and clinicians working with teen girls. Also, boys felt more joy than girls when they were provided the opportunity to taunt or tease another individual. This is disturbing too because this could increase the risk for these boys to engage in bullying and aggressive behavior. Because the trajectory of emotional expression changes as children mature, and because it is heavily influenced by family environment, social factors, and other external conditions, children will display a wide range of emotions as they develop. However, Chaplin believes it is also important to be able to identify which expressions are normal and which are signs of concern.

Reference:
Chaplin, T. M., and Aldao, A. (2012). Gender differences in emotion expression in children: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0030737

Thought distortions are common thinking “crutches,” or thinking habits, we fall into despite the lack of reality and truth in the thought. There are 10 common thought distortions we can all be victim to, according to Dr. David Burns, author of the self-help book Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy. This article will address how common thought distortions can impede our sensual and sexual selves.

It is my belief that we are sensual and sexual beings throughout our life span; however, thinking patterns develop that can impede this essential part of the human experience. Falling into a pattern of thought distortions without being aware of them can prevent us from fully embracing our health and relationships.

The aforementioned 10 common thought distortions, as outlined by Burns, are as follows:

1. All-or-nothing thinking impedes sensuality and sexuality when, for example, we believe we must have “fireworks” sex in order for a sexual encounter to be worthwhile. According to Metz and McCarthy, only 40% to 60% of “well-functioning, satisfied married couples” surveyed report good-quality sex, and sometimes for only one partner. So if you are waiting for the perfect timing—when you aren’t tired or stressed, or when your  to-do list is minimal—to engage in intimacy, start breaking this thinking habit and get reconnected.
2. Over-generalizations come in the form of “always” and “never” thinking. When this distortion is applied to sensuality and sexuality, it may create unrealistic expectations. You may think or hear phrases such as, “You always want to have sex, that’s all you want from me,” or, “You are never romantic.” Over-generalizations create undo resentment and distance between intimate figures.
3. The “mental filter” gets us stuck dwelling on the negative details and filters out the positive of a situation or experience. This thought distortion promotes selectively abstracting facts, which makes for a challenge to emotional intimacy, sensuality, and sexuality. An example of a mental filter is when a person fails to see gestures of attention and romance. Sure, shoveling the walk for you or ensuring the dog is walked isn’t what fairy tales and romance movies are made of, but if we didn’t filter these gestures, could they be acts of attention and romance or other wants and needs? Another example of a mental filter that can impede our sensual and sexual selves is not engaging in a bid for sexual engagement because the last time you wanted sex, your partner wasn’t interested. Don’t allow your mental filter the power to filter out the other times your bids for sexual engagement were responded to.
4. Disqualifying the positive is a thought distortion that converts compliments or positive gestures into “flukes” or merely an anomaly, whereas any negative feedback or gesture is proof of one’s negative attributes. This is a good example of why it is important to do our own work as individuals and ensure we are showing up in a relationship with an understanding of ourselves. If we rely only on relationships, intimate partners, or sexual experiences to fortify our positive self-image, we may be more susceptible to this thought distortion.
5. Jumping to conclusions. This thought distortion is evident when we think we know what someone is thinking—“mind reading”—and then we interpret the person’s (assumed) thoughts as what someone is feeling. Take this example: A man jumps to a conclusion about his partner’s thoughts regarding love: “I know I’m not as exciting in bed as I used to be, so you aren’t in love with me as much as you used to be.” How impactful to be operating in a relationship with such a serious false conclusion. What about this set-up allows for emotional or physical intimacy?
6. Magnification and minimization. Commonly described as the “binocular trick,” in which we exaggerate our errors, mistakes, and imperfections while we see our strengths as small, unimportant, and insignificant. The common result of this thinking habit is to feel inferior or inadequate. How much do thoughts of being “not a good enough (fill-in-the-blank)” keep us from fully embracing our sensual and sexual selves?
7. Emotional reasoning is the thought distortion we engage in when our emotions are the truth, reality, and facts of a situation. When we engage in emotional reasoning, we do not challenge our emotions and we allow them to guide us as if they are facts. Consider this: A single parent feels lonely and isolated. Emotional reasoning enters the picture when the experience of loneliness and isolation is “proof” that this person is undateable, unattractive to anyone, and certainly not a sexual and sensual god/goddess. See how the cycle feeds itself? Emotions are not always related to the facts.
8. “Should” statements are fiercely common. “Should” statements are used as motivators; the cause that pressures us to act, which often results in resentment. In addition to resentment, “should” statements can result in apathy, reduced motivation, frustration, self-loathing, shame, and guilt. When we apply “should” to others, we can be left feeling bitter, self-righteous, and perhaps let down. As a sex therapist, I am often asked, “How often should my partner and I have sex?” or, “Should do stuff I don’t really want to do to make him/her happy?” “Should” statements are pressure and energy-draining. Talking in “wants/needs/desires” is far more holistic in and outside the sensuality and sexuality realm.
9. Labeling and mislabeling is another common thought distortion that can be considered extreme over-generalization (see No. 2). “I am a (fill-in-the-blank): messy person, bad person, liar, good person, perfect person, loser, better person than her, worse person than him …” How are the labels you give yourself and others, or your relationship, impeding your sensuality and sexuality?
10. Personalization creates guilt and forces us into a role of taking responsibility for the negative. When we engage in personalization, we think what happens reflects on our own inadequacy. This is a high sense of responsibility for something we may have influence over but are not in control of. Whether we are in a relationship or not, as with all of these thought distortions, we are susceptible to personalization. Personalization is a small wound we inflict on ourselves through our own thinking. By forcing ourselves into a role of taking responsibility for the negative, we are not basking in the positivity and light of our sensuality and sexuality.

So what is a person to do? The first step toward any change is awareness, so I advise you to read the preceding list a number of times. Next, start observing your own thought processes and challenge yourself to alter your thinking in order to positively impact your intimacy and your relationships with others—as well as your sensual and sexual self.

To me, “vulnerable” is wonderful word. It means openness, freedom, and the opportunity to love and be loved. But for others, it is what they are trying to get away from: They feel that they are too vulnerable. In actuality, the opposite is true. They feel unsafe because they are too defended, too guarded. True vulnerability comes only with acceptance of self. And with that, fear drops away.

By becoming vulnerable to life, we discover its meaning. Not the meaning of life in an objective sense, but rather its meaning and purpose for each one of us, as individual souls. Whether that is the truth of a given moment, or an expanded sense of purpose and destiny in our professional or personal lives, we can discover it only if we learn to listen to our own hearts in an unguarded and open way.

[fat_widget_right]

Our Own Vulnerability

To be happy and content in life, we must give in and learn to listen to ourselves deeply. We must accept our vulnerabilities, open ourselves to them, and embrace them! Why? Because only then do we feel the safety net that is always there; that mysterious presence that is beauty, love, kindness, and truth. When we don’t move into the mystery of vulnerability, it is like we are clinging to a tightrope after having fallen off, peering into the dark, afraid that there is no net. We find the net by letting go, by falling into the unknown.

This surrender does not have to be, as many think, a large display of emotion, because it is at its heart something internal, something private. Our closest, longest, and most intimate relationship is the one we have with ourselves. So while we might first experience vulnerability with someone else, it is at its heart something we must do with ourselves, by ourselves. It is not enough to be accepted by someone else: We must accept ourselves.

Allowing Others to Be Vulnerable

By becoming vulnerable to yourself, you move toward being vulnerable in your relationships and, just as importantly, being able to accept the vulnerability of those you love. This can be some of the hardest work we do: allowing the people we depend on to have their own vulnerabilities, their own weaknesses, their own struggles.

When vulnerability is not allowed in a relationship, it separates people, no matter how much they love each other. A person may love someone, but he or she may also want that person to be something he or she is not, or to just plain stop having the pain or struggle that he or she does. This dynamic can create a vicious cycle of resentment and frustration in one person, and a sense of confinement, judgment, and claustrophobia in the other.

Practice

Maybe this sounds simple to you, or perhaps complicated and confusing. It all begins with whatever moment you are in. And it takes baby steps. If you are interested in exploring more, note the time and do this five-step practice for the next five minutes:

1. Take three deep breaths. In through the nose, out through the mouth. Soften your shoulders, your forehead, your eyes.
2. Become vulnerable to everything happening in this moment. All the feelings, all the thoughts. Accept and allow everything. Soften toward every part of yourself. Breathe.
3. Soften all resistance to what is here. Feel the energy of your body, emotions, and mind. Feel whatever pain you may be having. Don’t label or think about it, just sense it fully. Don’t push anything away. Breathe.
4. Allow the waterfall that is the experience of each passing moment to wash over you. Just for this moment, accept fully and forgive yourself for all the failings and faults, all the regrets and mistakes that are marching through your mind. Let go of the fight and allow yourself to be just as you are right now. Breathe.
5. Now return to the top and continue the practice. Close your eyes as you are able, repeating the steps and continuing to soften and breathe.

“Owning up to the ‘good-bye’ that is built into our finite human existing makes possible the saying of an authentic ‘Hello!’ ” —Robert D. Stolorow

For most people, death is something that will happen to us someday. Not today. Not tomorrow. But sometime in the future, distant enough that we need not concern ourselves at the moment. In other words, we ignore it and forget about it. Yet in doing so, we forget who we are. Death is not just something that happens at the end of life. It is a part of us throughout, whether we confront it or not. In facing death, traumatic as it may be, we cannot help but change, grow, and clarify what it is that we love and care about most. The preciousness of time comes to the fore.

It’s true that people understand death in different ways. Does the soul continue on or does it die with the body? Is there life after death, or does it end with this one? Whatever one’s beliefs about the hereafter, death is the end of life as we know it. When a loved one dies, he or she departs from us in a way that is undeniable. We are forced to notice their importance to us, as well as everything we value. In romantic relationships, as often depicted in romantic comedies, each partner’s love becomes inestimable often only after it has been tested with the threat of loss.

Confronting death as an ever-present reality means mourning the loss of all we hold dear. It is no mystery that death is not a favored topic for cocktail conversation. It’s often depressing and lacks a joy and levity that is so much a part of life. When a loved one dies, we often say that he or she “passed on,” avoiding the harsh word of death, attempting to soften the painful reality for the sake of our loved ones. Few people choose to spend their lives isolating themselves with thoughts of death. It is isolating because it forces us to depart from ordinary social values.

David Fincher’s film Fight Club (1999) is a dark and violent satire that exposes the superficialities of commercial life and hints at the meaninglessness of life altogether. And yet the film holds great potential to discover meaning. The antihero Tyler Durden recruits a large number of young men into his “fight club,” and insists they shun the values associated with ordinary social life, particularly advertising. “You’re not your job,” he preaches. “You’re not how much money you have in the bank. You’re not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet.” Durden pulls these young men away from their ordinary day-to-day living into a profound confrontation with themselves. He prescribes to his followers that they let “what truly doesn’t matter slide.” Fincher’s film hints at the sort of existential confrontation I’m trying to describe. Durden insists to his pupils, “You have to know, not fear, that someday you are going to die.”

It would be a mistake, however, to conflate the commentary on death in Fincher’s fight club with my own. Fincher’s Durden develops a following, a cult of sorts. He removes people from the social conformity of ordinary life only to foster a new conformity to the cult of fight club. Confrontation with death, whether through the loss of a loved one, escaping the threat of physical harm, or simply philosophical contemplation, is always traumatic. It leaves one disoriented, forcing us to abandon the thoughts and beliefs that root us in everyday life. Fincher’s fight club finds its way toward destruction and a certain kind of meaninglessness, where there’s little, if any, light at the end of a dark tunnel. The commentary on death in Fight Club treats life recklessly, not carefully. In coming to terms with death, life needs to be respected in order to preserve the opportunity for growth. It is then that from darkness may come great illumination.

We all know the feeling, but few of us want to talk about it. Shame often runs our lives and undermines our relationships, but we often keep it hidden. We’re ashamed of being ashamed. I felt it today when my wife reminded me of something I had said to her that was unkind. I pride myself on being a sensitive, caring man, and when she pointed out this shortcoming, I could feel the shame rise up in me. I felt myself getting warm. My first thought was, “I didn’t do it.” My first words were, “I never said it.” I felt confused and off balance. I wanted to run away and hide. I wanted to disappear.

I was awash in my shame, but I tried to cover my discomfort. Shame is such a wretched feeling, most of us try and deny we are feeling it, hoping that if we don’t look at it, shame will magically disappear. But shame is stubborn. The more we deny it, the more it sticks to us like glue.

Recent research shows that shame is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, manifesting in various physical and emotional ways. Shame manifests physically in a wide variety of forms. “The person may hide their eyes; lower their gaze; blush; bite their lips or tongue; present a forced smile; or fidget,” psychotherapist Marc Miller said. Other responses may include irritability, annoyance, defensiveness, exaggeration, or denial. Research indicates that the strongest correlates of shame across studies include individual differences in nonacceptance of negative emotions and expressive suppression. Because the effect of shame often interferes with our ability to think clearly, we may experience confusion, being at a loss for words, or a blank mind.

“Man is the only animal that blushes,” Mark Twain once said. “Or needs to.” He reminds us how central shame is to the human experience.

Find a Therapist

When couples come to me for counseling, they rarely mention shame as a cause for their difficulty. Yet I’ve found that shame is a major factor of relationship problems. Research shows that shame can have a severe negative impact on intimate relationships, leading to negative shame loops between partners. We know that couples often fight about money and sex. He gets angry when she spends money on things he thinks are not important. Underneath his anger we often find feelings of inadequacy. Beneath her spending patterns may be feelings of loneliness and unworthiness.

Key Insight: Nathanael Schlect, Licensed Associate Counselor “Shame often operates alongside other vulnerabilities such as fear, grief, or insecurity rather than existing in isolation.”

One partner wants more sex, and the other feels tired or withdrawn. One gets angry. The other feels hurt. Shame is rarely discussed, but is always present. One may feel like a lousy lover. The other may feel unattractive.

Recent umbrella reviews show that a relative majority of studies conceptualize shame as a multidimensional construct, representing what Helen B. Lewis, a pioneer in recognizing the importance of shame to psychotherapy, argued was an entire family of emotions. This family includes humiliation, embarrassment, feelings of low self-esteem, belittlement, and stigmatization. Shame is often experienced as a critical inner voice that judges us as “damaged goods,” inadequate, inferior, or worthless.

Shame in Men and Women

I’ve found the things that trigger shame differ in men and women. Research confirms that gender stereotypes maintain that women experience more guilt and shame than men, with meta-analyses showing small but significant gender differences (d = -0.29 for shame). Women often feel shame when they are unable to do all the things they think they should do. They must be a good mother, a sexy wife, a successful breadwinner, a caring friend, a good sister, and more. Studies show that women avoid the shame they may have if others observe that they overestimated themselves, while men do not seem to be similarly shame averse, possibly due to different societal expectations where men are expected to be overconfident.

The list is smaller for men. Shame usually manifests when we don’t feel strong. Dr. Brené Brown, an expert on shame, says, “While women are faced with a web of many layered, competing, and conflicting expectations, there seems to be one major expectation for men—do NOT appear weak.”

I’ve also found that men and women often react to shame differently. Research indicates larger gender gaps in shame with trait versus state scales, and gender differences in shame about domains such as the body, sex, and food tend to be larger than other domains. While individual responses to shame vary widely and are not strictly gender-bound, often women often blame themselves when they feel ashamed. They look embarrassed. They turn inward. Men often blame others when they feel ashamed. They often look angry. They may explode outward.

Key Insight: Nathanael Schlect, Licensed Associate Counselor “While patterns can differ across socialization, people of any gender may turn shame inward or outward depending on personality, history, and context.”

In fact, male violence is often an attempt to ward off shame. Recent research shows masculinity threats lead to emotions including shame, guilt, and a reduction in empathy, and these masculinity threats predict harmful behaviors such as men’s aggression, sexual violence, anxiety, shame, self-harm, and homophobic attitudes. Dr. James Gilligan has spent more than 30 years researching anger and violence in men. His research traces the role that shame plays in the etiology of murder and shows how feelings of shame cause violent and vengeful behavior. He says, “I have yet to see a serious act of violence that was not provoked by the experience of feeling shamed and humiliated, disrespected and ridiculed, and that did not represent the attempt to prevent or undo this ‘loss of face.’ ” Respect is important to all of us, but for men it is essential. Recent research on masculinity and violence shows that when men were targets of partner violence, many described feelings of weakness and shame, reflecting assumptions that men should be dominant and not victimized. Feeling disrespected or “dissed” can cause a man to strike out in rage.

Self-Disclosure and Empathy

The most difficult thing in the world to do when we are feeling down on ourselves is to admit how we feel. Yet self-disclosure is what we need to do to stop the cycle of shame and blame that so many of us get caught up with. Recent research on intimacy shows that self-disclosure, a fundamental component of intimacy, occurs only when vulnerability is met with acceptance rather than rejection. However, shame disrupts this process by inhibiting vulnerability and promoting defensive strategies. It’s harder than hell to say to my wife, “You’re right, what I said was unkind. I’m sorry.” But that’s the key to washing the shame away.

Attachment research shows that shame loops within couple relationships may not only be triggered by negative cues, such as criticism from a partner, but can also innocently be triggered by a partner seeking connection or even offering comfort. It feels counterintuitive. We’re afraid that if we admit our faults, we’ll feel even more ashamed. But the opposite is true. The more we’re able to say, “Yes, I messed up,” or, “Yes, I made a mistake,” or, “Yes, I’m sorry for what I said,” the better we feel about ourselves.

We all know the good feeling we get when we can own our mistakes and be forgiven. But that takes empathy on the part of our partner. Our partner has to be able to feel with us, not blame us or put us down. Recent clinical trials of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy show significant improvements in intimacy and reductions in shame when couples learn to address these dynamics. For men, it often means admitting our weakness. And for women, it means accepting that we can still be strong, adequate men, even when we are weak.

Men need also to practice empathy with the women in our lives. We have to understand the things we do that shame them, the subtle ways we may put them down. And we all need to be more empathic with ourselves. We don’t have to be successful at everything, all the time. We don’t have to be strong all the time and hide our weakness. We can learn to love and accept the wonderful, flawed, human beings we all are.

References:

1. Mirzazade, Z., Molazade, J., & Hadianfard, H. (2025). The effect of emotionally focused couple therapy (EFCT) on shame and intimacy in couples: a randomized controlled trial (RCT). BMC Psychology, 13, 1111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03415-3
2. Frediani, M. J., et al. (2024). Seeking connection can trigger shame loops in couples: An attachment-based understanding. Family Process, 63(1), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12888
3. Vescio, T. K., et al. (2025). Masculinity threats sequentially arouse public discomfort, anger, and positive attitudes toward sexual violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 51(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231179431
4. Stanaland, A., Gaither, S., & Gassman-Pines, A. (2023). When is masculinity “fragile”? An expectancy-discrepancy-threat model of masculine identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(4), 285-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221141176
5. Swerdlow, B. A., Sandel, D. B., & Johnson, S. L. (2023). Shame on me for needing you. Emotion, 23(3), 737-752. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001109
6. O’Donnell, S., et al. (2024). Masculinity and violence interconnectedness: Defining and reconciling the gender paradox among men with cumulative lifetime violence histories. SAGE Open, 14(3), 21582440241266998. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241266998
7. Else-Quest, N. M., Higgins, A., Allison, C., & Morton, L. C. (2012). Gender differences in self-conscious emotional experience: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 947-981. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027930
8. DeSantis, A. J., Eshelman, L. R., & Messman, T. L. (2025). Emotional dysregulation, anger, and masculinity in men who have experienced lifetime sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40(21-22), 5199-5222. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241301790
9. Deshmukh, A., Mehta, R., & Acar, Z. (2024). Perceived criticism and intimacy avoidance in couples: The mediating role of shame. Research and Practice in Couple Therapy, 2(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.61838/rpct.2.1.1
10. Bardi, L., et al. (2024). Conceptualization and assessment of shame experience and regulation: An umbrella review of synthesis studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 113, 102436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102436

The average age of sexual initiation is roughly between 16 and 19. Although some teens wait until much later, many begin engaging in sexual behavior before the age of 15. Numerous studies have looked at the negative consequences associated with early sexual initiation, such as emotional problems, HIV/AIDS, pregnancy, and intimate partner violence. But recently, researchers at the University of Texas looked at how sexual-initiation age could benefit people later in life. In a study led by Paige Harden, 1,659 sibling pairs were evaluated from middle adolescence through young adulthood. They were asked when they began having sexual intercourse, how many partners they had, and, if they were in current relationships, how happy they were.

Harden found that the participants who were in satisfying, committed relationships in adulthood were those that started having sex in their late teens or early twenties. These individuals reported less relationship conflict and more respect, affection, and love for their partners than the participants who had earlier sexual-initiation ages. Harden tested this outcome further by including factors such as physical appearance, body mass index, and education and came up with the same results. She believes that people who begin sexual activity after they have reached physical and cognitive maturity may make better partner decisions and be more discriminating in their choices. They may also have stronger communication skills that can benefit their overall relationship.

The results of this study don’t suggest that earlier sexual initiation can increase negative outcomes. Rather, these findings demonstrate that being a late bloomer can act as a protective factor. “We still don’t understand precisely why delaying sexual intercourse is correlated with more satisfied adult relationships,” Harden said. She hopes that future research will look at the flip side of her study, and in particular if early sexual activity among teens decreases their chances of having satisfying, positive relationships in adulthood.

Reference:
Ochsner, David. Does true love wait? Age of first sexual experience predicts romantic outcomes in adulthood. (n.d.): n. pag. The University of Texas at Austin. 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/10/18/does-true-love-wait-age-of-first-sexual-experience-predicts-romantic-outcomes-in-adulthood/

This is the third in a series of articles designed to explore some of the issues and concerns that arise around what is currently called Asperger’s syndrome, which will soon be incorporated into the broader spectrum of autism disorder when the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is published in 2013.

I had a client we’ll call Brian, a man in his mid-thirties with a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome who came to me to discuss what he referred to as “issues he was having with people at work.”

It is not an unusual request for a person with Asperger’s to want to work on the confusion that surrounds social interactions in general. Interactions at work often are more challenging because in the office, not only do the normal social protocols apply, but there often is an additional layer of a particular corporate culture overlaid upon this basic structure, invisibly directing everything.

Bryan was a pleasant and engaging man. He held good eye contact, spoke with precision, and demonstrated a light touch with humor. His demeanor changed, though, when I asked him about his colleagues in the office where he worked as a certified public accountant.

A quiet earnestness overcame him. He spoke clearly and without breaking to collect his thoughts or in expectation of response. He discussed one individual after another in great detail, including information about the kind of work they did, their areas of responsibility, and where they stood in the hierarchy. This was precisely the sort of information I expected to get from Brian on the topic of work relationships.

Then, however, he began to speak of his colleagues in more personal terms. He knew who was married and who was single. He knew who had children, their names and ages, and the schools they attended. Brian told me who had recently vacationed and where they had gone; who golfed and who played tennis; who had iPhones and who used Androids. He knew the makes and models of everyone’s cars. He knew the names of spouses. He knew which neighborhoods his coworkers called home. He even knew who had housekeepers and who did not.

It might appear surprising on first glance to read that I was given such detailed and personal information about others from a man with Asperger’s who came into my office with self-identified problems related to interpersonal relationships. But I have seen this before. Once you look at this apparent contradiction in another light, you may recognize it, too.

I’m talking about the illusion of friendship.

Further discussion with Brian demonstrated to me that he had gleaned all this information about his coworkers not from interactions with them over time, the way you or I might imagine getting to know the people we work with. Instead, Brian had developed his extensive knowledge of everyone around him by listening and even eavesdropping on conversations others were having around him, but in which he had not once been involved personally.

And he was having problems with his coworkers when he would make a statement revealing his knowledge about a person, info he had no apparently legitimate way of knowing. People became uncomfortable around him because of this and withdrew from him, which left him utterly confused.

Of course, this became the starting point for our work together. Brian had to learn about the ways that acquaintanceships and friendships develop over time. Importantly, he also had to learn the concept of reciprocity: It is not enough to know things about another person, but one must also share personal information about oneself as well in the give-and-take manner of casual conversation. This is how trust develops between people. This is the foundation from which we can make a statement such as, “Oh, yes, I know Brian,” with legitimacy.

Brian had to learn that knowing confidential or intimate facts about another person without that reciprocity was considered socially gauche, and that it had the potential even to be frightening to some individuals. Brian had to learn the difference between having friends and having the illusion that he had friends.

Once we began to tease this distinction apart, Brian began making progress in his social interactions. We used role-playing techniques and many “what-if” exercises, and Brian’s distress around the topic of his work environment noticeably decreased over time.

This is the second in a series of articles designed to explore some of the issues and concerns that arise around what is currently called Asperger’s syndrome, which will soon be incorporated into the broader spectrum of autism disorder when the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is published in 2013.

Emotional intelligence (EI) is generally understood to be a person’s ability to identify and assess his or her emotional state, as well as the emotional state of others. It is not related to the kind of intellectual capability or intelligence typically assessed by IQ tests. Rather, it corresponds to a person’s ability to relate to others, work in groups, read between the lines in conversation, and interpret behaviors and moods displayed by others. It also relates to an individual’s understanding and regulation of those qualities within. High emotional intelligence provides a sort of shorthand for smooth interpersonal relations and communication.

Emotional intelligence is related to theory of mind. (See my previous blog, titled Asperger’s Syndrome: Theory of Mind.) The better able you are to imagine the world from another person’s point of view, the more likely you are to score high on a measurement of emotional intelligence. Persons with high EI are able to anticipate what someone might do in reaction to certain circumstances or statements. They are able to empathize with unspoken sadness because they are able to interpret an event in ways another person is likely to interpret it, given what they know about that person. They are able to avoid certain topics of conversation because they can predict which subjects might be problematic for another person. They understand the concept of conversational finesse. High EI is at the very heart of diplomacy.

A person with Asperger’s syndrome experiences the world in a very different way. With a tendency to take conversations and events literally, the emotional subtext often is unseen. This can lead to behavior that appears inappropriate at best, heartless or cruel at worst.

Imagine, for example, not being able to understand why the death of a beloved pet is still a sensitive issue for your friend even several years after the pet has passed away. Imagine saying something such as, “But that cat has been dead for two years!” And then imagine the reaction of your friend, who in that moment is feeling sad about the loss, feeling it as strongly as if he or she had lost the pet yesterday. Your friend is not likely to react well. Your words might sound intentionally cold, uncaring, and thoughtless. But when your friend does not respond favorably, you are confused. What do you do now? You made a simple statement of fact, and now your friend is upset with you.

This is the experience of challenged emotional intelligence. This is commonly the experience of a person with Asperger’s. Anxiety soars as the person wonders what he or she did wrong, what he or she failed to understand, or what was missed.

With therapy, a person with Asperger’s can learn to decode some of what seems mysterious in the realm of emotional intelligence. It is possible to discern intellectually what may not come naturally emotionally. For example, to use the above scenario as a basis of conversation in a therapy session might help a person with Asperger’s see that there are different ways of responding to the death of a pet, and that the person’s own, seemingly logical way may not be the way others respond to something as essentially emotional as the loss of a pet.

Learning that there is such variability helps a person with Asperger’s navigate the complex emotional undertones of daily life. It also helps relieve the free-floating anxiety that can accompany conversations and events, both familiar and unfamiliar, because it broadens the range of expectations and softens the likelihood of inadvertent blunders.

Emotional intelligence is a challenge for individuals with Asperger’s, but it is also a fruitful topic for exploration in therapy because it is so central to most interactions with others, both in social and in intimate contexts.

It is normal for adolescents to conflict with family members, especially parents. In fact, this transition from obedient, caring, and emotionally attached child to sometimes distant, moody, and rebellious teenager is often seen as a normal stage of development. Adolescents begin to find their own identities, their own sets of friends, and their own interests during the teen years. During this exploratory period, they begin to pull away from the safety of family and assert their own independence as they start their foray into adulthood. But even though moderate conflict is viewed as relatively normal, researchers have raised questions about the effects of conflict on social functioning. In a recent study, Katherine B. Ehrlich of the Department of Psychology at the University of Maryland took this question one step further. Using a sample of 189 adolescents, Ehrlich assessed how parental conflict and peer conflict affected social functioning independently and collectively.

The participants and their two parents, mothers and fathers, were observed as they engaged in conversations about topics that caused conflict. The adolescents were then asked to detail any conflicts in their closest peer relationships. Finally, the participants’ friends were interviewed about the level of social acceptance and general behavior of the participants while in social environments. Ehrlich discovered that although conflict with parents was linked to more aggression and risk taking, this effect was significantly amplified when peer conflicts were occurring simultaneously.

It has been suggested that conflict is a catalyst for social development and that adolescents need to experience disagreements in order to learn how to engage in problem solving and adaptive stress coping strategies. However, Ehrlich believes that when there is too much conflict present in teens’ lives, their resources may become quickly depleted, thus impairing their ability to function socially. It should be noted that the results gathered in this study were only obtained from married, heterosexual parents and were not examined independently. Future work should isolate mother-child conflict and father-child conflict to capture a more in-depth look at the individual influence of each. Additionally, single-parent environments should be examined in relation to parent-child conflict and its effect on social functioning. Ehrlich added, “We encourage researchers to continue using a multimethod approach to explore the ways in which conflict across family and friend relationship contexts influences adolescent development.”

Reference:
Ehrlich, K. B., Dykas, M. J., Cassidy, J. (2012). Tipping points in adolescent adjustment: Predicting social functioning from adolescents’ conflict with parents and friends. Journal of Family Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029868

My last piece on focusing ended with a definition of felt sensing as a “temporary wave, from the sea of being” (Madison, G.). What is meant by a temporary wave from the sea of being?

It is time to introduce Gendlin’s conception of human being. Note that I said “human being,” not “a human being.” For Gendlin, human being is “interbeing”—what we think of as an individual being is a “livings in the world, and living with” (Gendlin, 1978-79). He calls this principle Interaction First.

Gendlin conceives of human beings experientially not as separate “things” in interaction with each other. More radically, he sees our environments and us as a continuous co-creative process. We are not “inside our skins, but are our living-in the world, and living-with others” (Gendlin, 1978-79). Even our physical being is a continuous process with its inner and outer environments. Hence, in his view, it is impossible to conceive of human being as a separate entity. We are interbeing.

What is a living body such that it has the intricacy of our situations? … With the old concepts, people might say that Focusing is “subjective.” But clearly, if the situation is carried in the body, then a felt sense is not subjective. Objective then? No, also not, since “objective” means the units and patterns to which science limits anything it studies. We could fashion a new sentence that is neither subjective, nor objective, nor both: The body IS an interaction process with the environment, and therefore the body IS its situations. The body isn’t just a sealed thing here, with an external situation over there, which it merely interprets. Rather, even before we think and speak, the living body is already one interaction process with its situation. The situation is not out there, nor inside. The external “things” and the subjective “entities” are derived from one single life-interaction process (which they always bring along with them). (Gendlin 2004)

This is a radical view and paradigm shift that is difficult to absorb. We are used to thinking about ourselves and the environment “around us” through the lens and language of a Cartesian world. We are imbued with philosophical assumptions idealizing objectivity and neutrality and a mechanistic relationship of mind over body. For example, we may have heard of such concepts as the “observer effect,” yet we go about living in a way that leaves context out of the equation.

For Gendlin, the making of meaning is a pluralistic, contextual, constructed process; it is changing and dynamic, not static and eternal (Mitchell, 1993). Our lived bodily sense of things is a function of our interbeing, and our capacity for felt sensing extends us beyond the confines of our delimited physical body.

Recall that I started my first piece by saying that you have within you—“beneath” your everyday practical use of language—another dimension, an inner language that is an imagistic dialogue between you and your immediate experiencing. It is you speaking to yourself (and listening to yourself) in your own code. Gendlin calls it the zigzag between the everyday use of language and the way we may actually hold our experiencing in a bodily felt way.

Gendlin says that this kind of processing exists preconceptually, beneath our everyday use of language and concepts and the assumptions we have about how the world works. In focusing, we find our own language and meaning that is in fact much more specific and precise than our usual use of language. We find language from the sea of our being.

A client with a traumatic history sits quietly, with eyes lowered, pausing to find a way to articulate why his time in boarding school (60 years ago!) is still so meaningful to him. His life before boarding school was consumed by his father’s collapse into psychosis. He is sensing into the situation regarding boarding school—without any explicit reference to his catastrophic childhood history. After a full few minutes of silence, he finds one word that fits: Life at boarding school was “manageable.” At the point that he says “manageable,” tears come to his eyes. He doesn’t know why, but his felt sense tells him, preconceptually, that “manageable” feels right.

The therapist, attuning to her client, takes in “manageable” and acknowledges it. As it resonates within her, she realizes how much is contained in this word “manageable” for her client. Then she drifts into her own felt sense of his childhood and finds ‘unmanageable’ experientially embedded in the world of her client’s meaning making, the therapist quietly offers the newly emerging word “unmanageable” without any reference to his history, and the client considers it.

A few moments later, the client’s full catastrophe of life with his father’s illness impacts him, but in a different way. His therapist has offered a word that touches into his world precisely and with great specificity. What is captured here in two words—manageable and unmanageable—is much more than the common meaning of these words. The client is referring to the experiential world of living-with and living-in his father’s psychosis, as well as to the emergent significance of what boarding school provided for him. The unmanageable and the manageable.

 Notice that the felt sensing came first. With “manageable,” he has begun to capture the world of his experiencing—the profound relief of finding himself for the first time in a world that he could handle (boarding school). Then “unmanageable” is intoned, and he resonates with the years of struggling with the catastrophe of his father’s psychosis. “Manageable” arose as a temporary wave from the sea of being. “Unmanageable” emerged from their shared sea of being.

And this shared moment deepens their therapeutic journey.

References

1. Gendlin. E. T. (1978-79). Befindlichkeit: Heidegger and the philosophy of psychology. Review of Existential Psychology & Psychiatry 16, 43-71.
2. Gendlin, E.T. (2004). Five philosophical talking points to communicate with colleagues who don’t yet know focusing. Staying in Focus. The Focusing Institute Newsletter, 4 (1), 5-8. From http://www.focusing.org/gendlin/docs/gol_2187.html
3. Madison, G., www.gregmadison.net.focusing_way_being.
4. Mitchell, Stephen A. (1993). Hope and dread in psychoanalysis. New York: Basic Books, pp. 285.

Destructive parentification is a behavior in which a parent transfers the emotional or physical responsibility of parenting to their child. Some parents turn to their children for emotional support and expect their children to fill emotional voids. Other parents who engage in destructive parentification may expect their children to fulfill physical obligations such as caretaking. These behaviors diminish the appropriate boundaries between a parent and child that are necessary for a child to develop his or her own identity. Additionally, boundaries that are blurred can expose children to events and circumstances that they are emotionally and physically unprepared to handle. This type of parentification can have significantly negative outcomes for children. Research has shown that children who are the victims of parentification, which is considered a form of abuse, have higher rates of externalizing and internalizing problems in childhood and adolescence than those who do not experience parentification.

When victims of parentification become parents themselves, the risk of the cycle continuing is extremely high. However, few studies have examined how maternal behavior in adult victims of childhood parentification affects future generations. To explore the relationship between maternal behavior and childhood psychological development, Amy K. Nuttal of the Department of Psychology at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana assessed 374 pairs of mother-child participants through the first 3 years of the children’s lives. The mothers were evaluated for childhood parentification in their own families of origin and and for mixed histories of emotional abuse, sexual abuse, or physical abuse.

Nuttal found that the women with destructive parentification were less responsive to their children at 18 months than those with no history of parentification. The unresponsiveness was predictive of externalizing behaviors in the children at 36 months. When Nuttal examined the effect of the father’s presence, she discovered that the participants who maintained a relationship with the father of the child had significantly lower levels of prior parentification than those who had no relationship with the fathers. Nuttal also found that previous parentification directly predicted low levels of maternal warmth in the participants, which indirectly predicted negative developmental outcomes for the children. She added, “This finding suggests that facilitating the development of maternal contingent responsiveness among mothers with a history of destructive parentification may promote more adaptive child development in the next generation.”

Reference:
Nuttall, A. K., Valentino, K., Borkowski, J. G. (2012). Maternal history of parentification, maternal warm responsiveness, and children’s externalizing behavior. Journal of Family Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029470

Related articles:
Welcome to Your Child’s Brain: Interview With Sandra Aamodt
Importance of Coping Skills, Part 2: Building Resilience
How to Teach Children Emotional Intelligence

How many relationships do you see around you that you would actually want to be in? For most of us, we can count the number on one hand. An even better question might be, “Am I in the kind of relationship I would want my own child to be in someday?” If you want to top that and move into the area of upping your chances to have an exceptional relationship, you will ask yourself, “Am I being the kind of partner I would want my child to have someday?”

As a therapist who has worked with couples for more than a decade now, I see a disturbing trend on the rise. We are settling for mediocrity in ourselves as partners while expecting our partners to be exceptional, asking more of them than we do from ourselves. If you are thinking to yourself, “Could this be me? Am I being an exceptional or mediocre partner?,” please keep reading. because there are three simple traits that genuinely happy and fulfilled couples seem to have in common. If you are looking to take your relationship to the next level, consider raising your personal standards in any of the following ways, remembering that if you want a better relationship, it begins with looking at one’s own self first and foremost.

1. Exceptional partners have a good idea about what makes it difficult to have themselves for a partner, and they feel a sense of appreciation and respect for the challenges their own personality presents for their partner. They work hard to keep these attributes in check and not let them get out of control. Mediocre partners are rather hazy about their own shortcomings as a partner but can easily enough rattle off a long list of their partner’s flaws.

It is easy enough for most people to list off a handful of traits that make it difficult to have their significant other for a partner, but when the question is turned back on oneself—”What makes it difficult to have MYSELF for a partner?”—the exceptional partner demonstrates a rare willingness to identify his or her own shortcomings and backs this up with a steady commitment to managing and keeping his or her own difficult traits and imperfections in check so that they don’t impact the partner in unfair ways.

Whenever I work with a new couple, I always eventually get to that question because it helps me understand how to best help them. The old saying, “We can see everyone but ourselves when we enter a room,” applies to relationships, too. It’s normal to not know the answer to this question, but the willingness to be open and want to know the answer is everything. As the research from the world-renowned Gottman Institute has found in Seattle, Washington, female partners in particular need to know that their opinions and feedback truly matter to their partners. This is actively demonstrated by listening with the sincere intent to understand the other’s feelings and positions and find common ground and areas for compromise and by validating your partner’s stance without necessarily agreeing with it.

2. Exceptional partners understand that while they are not responsible for their partner’s happiness, contributing to their partner’s happiness is nonetheless a top priority. Mediocre partners, in contrast, are primarily focused on their own gratification first, and while they too can be thoughtful, thoughtfulness is not a daily habit.

Years ago, I placed a beautiful canopy bed up for sale. A couple arrived to purchase it. As they dismantled the bed piece by piece, there was an attitude of playfulness and a sense of mutual joy they took in one another that was striking in its rarity. “What’s your secret?” I asked them. They shared that the secret of their successful marriage was that every morning they ask themselves, “What might I do today to let my partner feel loved?” Exceptional partners make it a habit to be exceptionally thoughtful. They seem to recognize that life is short and seek out ways on a regular basis to express their love. For these couples, love is indeed not just a feeling but an active verb.

3. Exceptional partners ask a lot of themselves and not more nor less of their partners. Mediocre partners, on the other hand, have the balance tipped in the opposite direction. They either are asking more of their partner than they are of themselves or sacrificing their needs regularly in order to serve everyone else, leading to chronic feelings of depletion and often bitterness and not feeling appreciated.

It is often said that we should ask more from ourselves than others because this is the one thing that is in our control. However, this advice has its limits when it comes to the person we spend our lifetime beside day in and day out. Exceptional partners consider themselves a work in progress and make a habit of expressing their needs and desires in a direct yet respectful way. They insist on both treating their partner well while also being treated well in return. In other words, they invest heavily in the success of the relationship and expect their partner to bring this same level of consideration and commitment.

Mediocrity in our relationships may be our conditioned norm, but we can move into the exceptional this very moment by expanding our commitment to ask more of ourselves, appreciating our partner in ever deepening ways, and becoming voluntary stewards of one another’s joy.

Related articles:
Creating the Foundation for a Healthy Relationship
9 Secrets for a Lifetime of Like, Love, and Lust
If Only My Partner Would Change, Then Everything Would Be OK