The continuum of exposure to domestic violence ranges from chronic arguing and yelling to controlling behaviors, threats, and intimidation, to physical threats, threats of suicide or murder, to threats involving weapons, to serious injuries and fatal assaults. While domestic violence takes many forms, there is always a destructive undercurrent of power and control, with offenders commonly and compulsively grasping for in a surrogate what is lacking within themselves: control.

Any pattern of behaviors in intimate relationships marked by coercive control can be a signal or foreshadowing of abuses. And when children are involved, they are always significantly affected, remaining at risk not only of direct victimization but long-term effects stemming from exposure itself.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported that in homes where violence between partners occurs, there is a 45% to 60% chance of co-occurring child abuse, a rate 15 times higher than the average. Even when they are not physically attacked, children witness 68% to 80% of domestic assaults.

With April marking National Child Abuse Prevention Month, these numbers are a sobering reminder of the toll a violent environment takes on kids.

[fat_widget_right]

The circumstances of domestic violence leave caregivers, emotionally and otherwise, unavailable and unresponsive, activating a primal fear in kids beneath and between a host of other raw, complex, and unresolved emotions. The pioneering psychiatrist and researcher Daniel Siegel has written, “The mind develops as the brain responds to ongoing experience. … The pattern of firing of neurons is what gives rise to attention, emotion, and memory.” And what fires together—in a combination of overtly violent exposures and the child’s underlying neurobiological experience—wires together.

The unavoidable attention given, emotions felt, and memories imprinted onto a child’s brain in moments of stress become inextricably linked together and forever taint—or else filter—feelings, beliefs, and choices in relationships and all of life. These children are not merely innocent bystanders. They are victims.

We must better understand the psychological aftermath, which can include fear of harm or abandonment, excessive worry, sadness, or guilt, inability to experience empathy or guilt, habitual lying, low frustration tolerance, emotional distancing, poor judgment, shame about the past, and fear about the future.

The unavoidable attention given, emotions felt, and memories imprinted onto a child’s brain in moments of stress become inextricably linked together and forever taint—or else filter—feelings, beliefs, and choices in relationships and all of life. These children are not merely innocent bystanders. They are victims.

Although they may be unintended victims, living within a climate of chronic emotional volatility and near acute incidents of aggression has a way of searing a neurophysiological muddle—painful and isolating emotions existing alongside ongoing and frequently unmet needs for affection and attachment.

Parents who are themselves batterers are more irritable, less involved in child rearing, more likely to use severe and erratic physical punishment, and less able to distinguish their children’s needs from their own. Both parents, regardless of culpability, risk poor emotional attunement with their children and, consequently, a decreased capacity to recognize stress and danger, protective factors which might increase a child’s resiliency.

Compared with other kids, those who have witnessed domestic violence experience far greater incidence of insomnia, bed wetting, verbal, motor, and cognitive issues, learning difficulties, self-harm, aggressive and antisocial behaviors, depression and anxiety, as well as, most troubling, adult domestic violence, with boys often becoming offenders, victims, or both, and girls more likely to become victims (Brown and Bzostek, 2003).

A growing body of literature has revealed that children who have been exposed to domestic violence are more likely than their peers to experience a wide range of difficulties, from anger, oppositional behavior, and disobedience to fear, low self-worth, and withdrawal to poor sibling, peer, and social relationships. Studies have found evidence of much higher rates of pro-violence attitudes, rigid stereotypical gender beliefs involving male privilege, animal abuse, bullying, assault, property destruction, and substance abuse.

A study by Kilpatrick, Litt, and Williams (1997) concluded that witnessing domestic violence is an experience in and of itself sufficiently intense to precipitate posttraumatic stress in children. The ongoing Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study led by the CDC has classified exposure to domestic violence as one of several adverse childhood experiences contributing to poor quality of life, premature death, as well as risk factors for many of the most common causes of death in the United States.

In addition to the exposure itself, additional factors influence impact, including the nature of the violence, age of the child, elapsed time since exposure, the child’s gender, and presence of physical or sexual abuse.

Children who witness fewer incidents of violence and experience positive interactions between caregivers may be, for instance, less detrimentally impacted than those exposed to frequent and extreme aggression. Younger children exhibit more concerning levels of psychological distress than older, more developmentally mature, children. Children are typically highly anxious and fearful immediately after witnessing an incident of domestic violence and less observably so as time passes, but of course this should not be assumed to indicate an absence of anxiety or fear. Boys exhibit more externalizing behavior problems such as aggression and acting out, while girls exhibit more internalizing behavior problems such as withdrawal and depression.

It nearly goes without saying that children who are exposed to domestic violence and are also physically or sexually abused are at a higher risk for emotional and psychological problems than those who witness such violence and are not physically or sexually abused.

Thank goodness there are protective factors that reduce the worst impacts, including a child’s literacy and overall intelligence, the extent to which the child is outgoing and socially competent, and whether the child has safe and supportive relationships with at least one influential adult (Carlson, 2000; Edleson, 2011; Hughes, et al., 2001). Those surrounding the most difficult situations have opportunity to inject resiliency through academic, emotional, and social support. We must all grapple with whether there are ways we might more effectively intervene within our families, schools, and communities to instigate help and healing.

References:

1. Brown, B., and Bzostek, S. (2003, August). Violence in the lives of children. Crosscurrents, 1. Bethesda, MD: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2003/01/2003-15ViolenceChildren.pdf
2. Carlson, B.E. (2000). Children exposed to intimate partner violence: Research findings and implications for intervention. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 1 (4), 321-342.
3. Edleson, J. (2011). Emerging responses to children exposed to domestic violence. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved from http://www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_ChildrensExposure.pdf
4. Hughes, H. M., Graham-Bermann, S. A., and Gruber, G. (2001). Resilience in children exposed to domestic violence. In S. A. Graham-Bermann (Ed.). Domestic violence in the lives of children (pp. 67-90). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Kilpatrick, K.L., Litt, M., and Williams, L.M. (1997). Post-traumatic stress disorder in child witness to domestic violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67 (4), 639-644.
6. Siegel, D., and Hartzell, M. (2004). Parenting from the inside out: How a deeper self-understanding can help you raise children who thrive. New York, NY: Tarcher.

Of course you are concerned! Anytime we see a behavior like that in a child and she or he is unable or unwilling to explain the change, we fear the worst. Your primary responsibility is to protect your daughter. Your mother and father-in-law may get offended and angry, but that can’t be a reason to ignore your fears.

[fat_widget_right]

Since you are working from intuition, it may be worth looking into having an evaluation done with a good, reputable child therapist to explore if anything has happened with your daughter. It is true that you don’t want to plant ideas in her head, but you also want to find out if something scary or inappropriate has happened and help her process it. A good therapist can do that without planting ideas. It may be that your father-in-law has been inappropriate with her. If so, you will want to connect her with professional supports as soon as possible.

Your mother and father-in-law may get offended and angry, but that can’t be a reason to ignore your fears.

It also might be that she had a bad dream about him and is now scared of him. It may be that he was stern with her and she got upset and doesn’t want to engage with him. Without knowing more, it is hard to know how to proceed. I don’t want to diminish your concerns—until you know for certain that he is a safe person for her, absolutely continue to make sure that you supervise their interactions.

How receptive do you think your mother and father-in-law would be to a conversation that explored whether they had noticed a change in the way your daughter is reacting to him? If you approach it from a place of curiosity rather than accusation, you may be able to learn more. If nothing untoward has happened, they may be concerned and confused as well.

That said, if you want to wait to address any of this with them until you have more information, you can certainly do so. You know your family dynamics and should proceed in the safest way possible for everyone, particularly your daughter.

Best of luck,
Erika

The absence of fathers in the lives of their children is not uncommon. David Blankenhorn (1995), author of Fatherless America, wrote, “The United States is becoming an increasingly fatherless society. A generation ago, an American child could reasonably expect to grow up with his father. Today, an American child can reasonably expect not to.”

As this phenomenon continued to spiral, the 1990s was a time ripe for hundreds of studies of this trend, which has continued. According to a 2011 U.S. Census Bureau study, 24 million children—about one out of every three—do not live with their biological fathers.

The question as to whether absent can be equated with uninvolved has been posed repeatedly over decades by researchers such as Vicky Phares at the University of South Florida and Valarie King and Paul Amato at Pennsylvania State University. It cannot. And yet a number of studies have indicated that nonresident fathers overwhelmingly tend not to engage in frequent contact with their children.

[fat_widget_right]

A preponderance of studies identify at least nine factors influencing a child’s well-being when they do not live with their father—frequency of contact, age and gender of the child, the father’s economic contribution to the child’s life, the quality of the father’s relationship with the child’s mother, socioeconomic variables, education, the quality of the father’s relationship with the child, and the father’s parenting style. Five additional factors I find to be widely neglected are the presence of an alternative, or surrogate, father figure such as a stepfather, variables related to family history, length of time the father has been absent from the child’s home, and the number and presence of siblings.

Back in the ’90s, Phares found signs of increased self-worth in younger children and boys of any age when visits with fathers were frequent and regular, whereas older children and girls of any age showed signs of lower self-worth when visits were more frequent. In her studies, King (1994a) found little support for the hypothesis that father visitation in and of itself has beneficial effects for child well-being, regardless of age or gender, and expressed concern that in circumstances where there exists abuses in the father-child relationship, visitation may do more harm than good.

Rather, King (1994b) pointed to numerous studies that provided evidence that the payment of child support has beneficial effects on educational achievement as well as behavioral adjustment. Several studies have found a stronger influence from economic contributions than any other factor.

Some have studied the quality of the parental relationship in moderating child behavior. One study hypothesized that a child’s contact with his or her nonresident father would decrease the child’s behavior problems when conflict between the father and mother was low, but increase behavior problems when the interparental conflict was high. Fascinatingly, although the hypothesis was supported among boys from divorced families, no support was found among girls (Amato and Rezac, 1994).

Other studies, however, resulted in positive associations of the quality of the parental relationship and child well-being with both boys and girls. For instance, Amato and Gilbreth (1999) noted “several studies have shown that contact with nonresident fathers following divorce is associated with positive outcomes among children when parents have a cooperative relationship but is associated with negative outcomes when parents have a conflicted relationship.”

Upon examining 63 studies of nonresident fathers and their children’s well-being, Amato and Gilbreth (1999) offered this critique: “Without knowing about the behaviors that transpire between fathers and children during visits, how children feel about these visits, or the context in which these visits occur, it is difficult to make predictions about the effects of contact on specific child outcomes.”

They asserted that healthy father-child relationships enhance resilience: “When children feel loved and cared for by parents, their sense of emotional security is strengthened. Emotional security, in turn, helps children cope with stress and makes them less vulnerable to anxiety and depression.”

Many researchers hypothesized that not only the quality of the relationship but the father’s parenting style held significant influence. Amato and Gilbreth (1999) suggested, “The combination of a high level of support with a moderately high level of noncoercive control reflects authoritative parenting—the parenting style most consistently associated with children’s positive development.”

The extent to which authoritative parenting may positively influence child well-being was illustrated in a study by Young, Miller, Norton, and Hill (1995), who found that “fathers’ intrinsic support—reflected in trust, encouragement, and discussing problems—was positively correlated with children’s life satisfaction, but fathers’ extrinsic support—reflected in going out to dinner, buying things, and seeing movies together—was not related to children’s life satisfaction.”

A substantial body of empirical research has examined implications of a father’s absence on a child’s well-being, indicating evidence to support the following conclusions: (1) contact with a child does not necessarily have positive benefits; (2) economic contributions to a child have positive benefits; (3) interparental cooperation has positive benefits; (4) positive emotional involvement with a child has positive benefits; and (5) an authoritative parenting style has positive benefits.

At the culminating of significant research back in the ’90s, a wonderful national organization took shape, committed to raising awareness of this issue and increasing the number of involved, responsible, and committed fathers in our country. That organization is the National Fatherhood Initiative, which has a host of wonderful resources available on its website.

References:

1. Amato, P.R., and Gilbreth, J.G. (1999, August). Nonresident Fathers and Children’s Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, pp. 557-573.
2. Amato, P.R., and Rezac, S. (1994). Contact with nonresident parents, interparental conflict, and children’s behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 15, pp. 191-207.
3. Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America: Confronting our most urgent societal problem. New York: Basic Books.
4. King, V. (1994a, March). Nonresident Father Involvement and Child Well-Being: Can Dad’s Make A Difference? Journal of Family Issues, 15 (1), pp. 78-96.
5. King, V. (1994b, November). Variation in the Consequences of Nonresident Father Involvement for Children’s Well-Being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, pp. 963-972.
6. Phares, V. (1993, December). Father Absence, Mother Love, and Other Family Issues That Need to Be Questioned: Comment on Silverstein (1993). Journal of Family Psychology, 7 (3), pp. 293-300.
7. S. Census Bureau (March 2011). Children’s living arrangements and characteristics. Washington D.C.
8. Young, M.H., Miller, B.C., Norton, M.C., and Hill. E.J. (1995). The effect of parental supportive behaviors on life satisfaction of adolescent offspring. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, pp. 813-822.

First, I want to tell you that you are absolutely entitled to all of your feelings—even the ones that seem to contradict each other. Relationships are very complex; there is room for many different emotions. You may be able to achieve a little bit of peace if you give yourself permission to end the war between hurt, helplessness, confusion, guilt, resentment, and fury. You don’t have to choose; you can have them all.

From what you have written about your mother, it seems like she is in considerable pain and struggling with a lot of her own issues. It is very possible that her intensely protective behavior toward you is indicative of her own deep wounds. She may be trying to protect you from sustaining the wounds that she has experienced in her own life. In other words, her behavior is not about you, but rather her own suffering. Sometimes realizing this, and constantly reminding yourself of it, can go a long way toward not taking her behavior personally.

[fat_widget_left]

Her behavior is clearly taking a toll on her, you, your relationship with her, and probably many other relationships in her life—remember, this is about her, not you, so it certainly impacts her relationships with others. It sounds like she could really benefit from being in therapy, if she isn’t already. You may wish to encourage her to pursue this. That said, at the end of the day, your mom has to make her own choice about whether to get help. While you can suggest it, encourage it, and even offer to help her find it, you can’t make her do it.

In fact, the only thing you do have control over is your behavior. It sounds like your mom is behaving in some pretty self-destructive ways and she is really hurting you. While it can be tempting to try to find ways to control her—to make her get help, to make her see that you have sacrificed so much to be there for her, to make her know that she is loved—you simply cannot. Your mom is the only person in the world who can control what she does. Likewise, you can control what you do. So, it is probably time to shift the focus to yourself. Partnering with your own therapist to work through the hurt and pain, which likely lurks beneath the fury, can help you stop personalizing your mom’s behavior and develop more productive ways of coping.

In addition to therapy, I would suggest being compassionate and patient with yourself, and doing all that you can to make yourself as comfortable as possible. It can be very painful to have a parent like this. Everyone deserves to have a consistently loving, nurturing mom who makes them feel safe. While your mom was unable to provide this for you, maybe part of your healing will be learning how to provide it for yourself. Try to take good care of yourself—eat well, exercise, and get a good amount of sleep. Seek out friends and family members who you trust and feel safe with to support you. You’ve been so focused on your mom for so long, it’s time to keep the focus on you and your needs.

Kind regards,
Sarah

I’m so sorry you find yourself in this position. I imagine you feel like you either have to be disloyal to your mom and tell your dad, or be disloyal to your dad and keep this secret from him. That is a no-win situation.

So, let’s look at it differently.

Relationships between intimate partners are complex, and your mom and dad will have to figure their own stuff out. Your mom’s choices about her relationship with your dad and the consequences of those choices really are between the two of them. I am not here to pass judgment about your mom’s apparent infidelity. I will say that her asking you to hold her secret is a betrayal of her relationship with you. It is part of the unspoken parenting contract that parents don’t put their kids in a position to have to choose which parent to betray or be loyal to. That’s not right or fair. It doesn’t matter if this was a one-time thing or a pattern of behavior—it’s not your role to weigh out the details and possible consequences.

[fat_widget_left]

I suggest you have a conversation with your mom but, for now, leave your dad and his feelings out if it. Focus instead on what her request is doing to you and to your relationship with her. Asking you to hold her secret is asking you to carry the responsibility for her choices. That is a breach of trust with you that could have long-lasting implications. It cannot be your responsibility to cover for her, nor should it be your responsibility to inform your dad. This isn’t about you loving her enough to keep her secret; it is about her loving you enough not to ask you to. You cannot force her to own her actions. If, however, when presented with your feelings she still chooses to put you on the middle, you may want to ask yourself what you are protecting.

None of this is easy, so if you find yourself struggling, I suggest finding a therapist near you to work through some of this with. No matter what happens, having some support may be beneficial in helping you move past this.

Best of luck,
Erika

Humanistic in nature and concerned with the existential qualities of human relationships, Virginia Satir was considered a founder and leading catalyst in the evolution of experiential family therapies.

Satir’s method revolved around two core elements—family life chronology, in which she sought to understand the developmental patterns of relationships in the family as a basis for change; and family reconstruction, in which she attempted to guide families through a process of engaging positive change using experiential interventions from guided fantasy, guided contemplation, hypnosis, psychodrama, family sculpting, parts parties, and role playing (Gross, 1994; Satir, 1988; Winter and Parker, 1991).

One of Satir’s chief concerns was communication within families. Satir (1988) went as far as to write, “Once a human being has arrived on this earth, communication is the largest single factor determining what kinds of relationships she or he makes with others and what happens to each in the world.”

Satir developed within her model five conceptual styles of communication: placating, blaming, computing, distracting, and congruent communication. In Satir’s conception, placaters act as pleasers and are often self-effacing, blamers act self-righteously and often accuse, computers are emotionally detached and often rigidly intellectual, distracters are unfocused and seemingly unable to relate to what is actually being communicated about or going on in the family, and congruent communicators are expressive, responsible, seem genuine, and articulate themselves clearly and in the appropriate context.

[fat_widget_right]

Satir utilized experiential techniques that allowed families to explore, acknowledge, and modify their own communication patterns in-session. Role plays, family sculpting, and guided contemplation were three prevalent forms of experiential communication therapy used by Satir in her work with families.

In observing a family, Satir centered her focus on family interconnectedness, especially triad units, the relationship emotional system between three members of a family. The mother-father-child triad frequently held the center of her attention, as she believed that it is most powerfully in the crucible of this triadic relationship that children begin to learn about and practice intimacy (Baldwin, 1991).

Satir held four assumptions: (1) All people await the potential of growth and are capable of transformation; (2) people carry all the resources they need for positive growth and development; (3) families are systems wherein everyone and everything impacts and is impacted by everyone and everything else; and (4) the beliefs of counselors are more important than their techniques (Satir and Baldwin, 1983).

Satir was concerned with family members’ uniqueness and potentials, and she was always concerned with their spiritual development as well. Satir (1988) wrote, “I believe [spirituality] is our connection to the universe and is basic to our experience, and therefore is essential to our therapeutic context.”

She challenged behavioral and cybernetic epistemologies, criticizing that, in the effort to change behavior, people’s spirits are often crushed, “crippling the body and dulling the mind.” She saw error in equating the value of a person with the nature of his or her behavior. “Remembering that behavior is something we learn,” she wrote, “… we can simultaneously honor the spirit and foster more positive behavior.”

Satir viewed poor communication as a perpetuator of unhealthy relationships, and she championed more open and congruent communication between and within individuals as a key to increasing awareness, compassion, and connection in families and society (Satir, 1983).

Satir (1986) stated, “[People] use their past to contaminate their present, which in turn creates a future that replicates their past, a stuck place, and often a hopeless quagmire” (changed from past to present tense). She added, “It is the learnings from the past that form the approach to the present. To change the perception and the experience of the present so it can become a steppingstone to a healthier future, I need to somehow introduce ways to stimulate new learnings to take place.”

Satir, unlike her contemporary Carl Whitaker, for instance, was concerned with directly identifying and addressing symptoms. Satir held that symptoms of individuals in families express family pain and that children’s symptoms are related to marital difficulties in which they become triangulated (Luepnitz, 2002).

For Satir, the goal of therapy was essentially to increase self-worth and nurturance within families.

Deborah Luepnitz (2002), a prominent feminist voice in the field, criticized Satir’s theoretical simplicity:

Satir’s fallacy is the fallacy of believing that one can change the world by appealing to principles of therapeutic change alone, ignoring the global political changes that must be understood and grappled with. Satir said in our 1984 interview: “If tomorrow morning, every school, every family, every workplace had a transformation in the middle of the night to love and value themselves and treat others likewise, you know we would transform like that!” [snapping her fingers]. This is hardly a theory of social renewal. It cannot help us understand the extraordinarily complex problems of development in the Third World nations, nor the dismantling of weapon systems, nor the bitter mystery of AIDS. There are reasons that people do not decide in the middle of the night—or by the light of day—to love and work as well as they might … Satir, however, has no theory that will help explain violence or the evil that has broken individuals and entire peoples on the wheel of history. Low self-esteem simply cannot account for the eradication of entire nations.

Luepnitz reasoned that Satir’s concept of “self-esteem” is nothing more than a derivation from ego psychology or else just a crude and imprecise conceptual oversimplification.

Satir’s lack of theoretical clarity and precision cost her equal respect alongside other major family therapy pioneers. Alan Gurman and David Kniskern (1981) chose not to represent Satir’s work in their Handbook of Family Therapy because “no discernible school or therapeutic method has evolved from her contribution.”

Nonetheless, many important family therapy trailblazers who have followed after extol Satir’s inspirational genius. Another distinguished family therapy authority, Lynn Hoffman (1981), attested to “the power of her presence with families” and her “extraordinary and unique contribution” to the field.

References:

1. Baldwin, M. (1991). The triadic concept in the work of Virginia Satir. In B.J. Brothers (Ed.), Virginia Satir: Foundational ideas. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
2. Gross, S. J. (1994). The process of change: Variations on a theme by Virginia Satir. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 34 (3), 87-110.
3. Gurman, A., and Kniskern, D. (Eds.) (1981). Handbook of family therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
4. Hoffman, L. (1981). Foundations of family therapy. New York: Basic Books.
5. Luepnitz, D. A. (2002). The family interpreted: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and family therapy. United States: Basic Books.
6. Satir, V. (1983). Conjoint family therapy (3^rd ). Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books.
7. Satir, V. (1986). Foreword. In W. F. Nerin, Family reconstruction: Long days journey into light (pp. v-xii). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
8. Satir, V. (1988). The new peoplemaking. Mountain View: Science and Behavior Books.
9. Satir, V., and Baldwin, M. (1983). Satir step by step: A guide to creating change in families. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books.
10. Winter, J. E., and Parker, L. R. E. (1991). Enhancing the marital relationship: Virginia Satir’s parts party. In B. J. Brothers (Ed.), Virginia Satir: Foundational ideas. Binghamton, NY: Haworth.

Problems that make their way to family therapy tend to involve self-reinforcing—or circular—dynamics and, as such, are commonly called “vicious cycles” or even “vicious circles.” When people become “stuck in a rut,” so to speak, a problem has morphed into a cycle of cause, effect, and attempted solutions.

In other words, even legitimate attempts to solve a problem seem to somehow perpetuate it.

By the time a person (or couple, or family) enters therapy, they are often aware on some level of the nature of the cycle they are stuck in, and motivated to try something new.

This is therapy’s opportunity.

People thoroughly entrenched in problems have underlying resiliency. Family therapist Carl Whitaker (1989) wrote, “Psychopathology is proof of psychological health. The individual who is distorted in his thinking is essentially carrying on an open war in himself rather than capitulating …”

Effective therapy need not reinvent a person; rather, systemic therapists wrestle with people in their care to stir their own latent creative energies to free themselves from being stuck in their quagmires. It is ultimately always the people in therapy who become free and responsible over their lives, not the therapist.

[fat_widget_right]

Therapeutic experiencing invokes a kind of psychological immune response. In the best of cases, multiple interdependent systems experience simultaneous positive effect. In the course of therapeutic work, I utilize interventions that turn circular tailspin into dialectical liftoff.

I must credit these ideas, broadly, to the pioneering integrative systems theory of Gregory Bateson, to whom many of the founding mothers and fathers of our field owe their inspiration.

Isomorphism

The use of feedback to engage the parallel emotional process.

At every turn, I believe it is my responsibility to circle back around to mindful reflection of my therapeutic interaction with people. I tell them about my experience of them—what I have felt, wondered, observed, and thought, including my evolving hypotheses.

I sometimes go to great lengths to understand and cajole them to understand some of the basic relational dynamics taking place between us in therapy to stir perspective outside the therapy room.

Isomorphism as intervention is about intentionality as a therapist in cultivating emotional-relational transparency oriented toward therapeutic intimacy.

When built on openness, respect, and curiosity—and while maintaining a practice of accountability with people in therapy—engaging at this level has the potential to infuse transformative power into the therapy process.

Circumnavigation

The use of evaluative assessment to gain contextual perspective.

Recently the Rosetta space probe arrived at its destination after a 10-year journey of more than 600 million miles through our galaxy. When it arrived, it spent months carefully orbiting around comet 67P, aka Churyumov-Gerasimenko, in order to study it from afar. Rosetta first had to get a sense of the shapeliness of the mass, understand a bit of its terrain, and strategize where best to send its lander.

Philae, the landing module that Rosetta had brought along, eventually made its careful descent to the comet. Unfortunately, despite careful planning, the lander bounced at least twice after landing on the surface, and when it landed, it was in a shadow, near the bottom of a towering ridge, unable to absorb the sunlight necessary for its own battery and the continuity of the mission.

After the mishap, scientists reassessed that the unthinkable position of the lander may have a serendipitous upside—as the comet nears the sun, the lander may find itself exposed to the beams of sun necessary to charge itself yet remain shielded enough to carry on for much longer than planned.

As we survey territory, I must be skilled enough to avoid major obstacles, and we must be joined well enough together to traverse through pummeling, disorienting space dust in order, ultimately, for people in therapy to gain an awesome, sometimes catalyzing, perspective of larger processes governing their lives. And we must roll with resistance in the process, reframing stumbles as opportunities.

Oh, and just in case it crossed your mind—yes, assessment is intervention!

Abduction

Analyzing perceptual alongside communicative patterns in order to disentangle them.

Bateson (1979) described how people become stuck in their own rigidity—how, for instance, presupposed ideas are supported by a social system which conversely supports the presupposed ideas because the social system itself is a vast recursion full of individuals with presupposed ideas.

The proverbial “chicken or the egg” really cannot do justice at this level of complexity.

Bateson commonly called abduction “the double description,” and he by this referred to extrapolating patterns of mental processes alongside patterns of adaptive processes. It is fascinating to consider—all forms of communication truly are adaptive; and perception is nearly inextricably tied into it.

We must move far beyond learning as insight-comprehension to a kind of learning-while-learning, with, for instance, communicative shifts occurring simultaneously alongside perceptual shifts and each reinforcing the other—Bateson (1972) called this “deutero-learning” or “Learning II.”

As people in therapy grasp shared aspects of the perceptual and communicative processes within themselves and their families, the possibility increases that as they decode interrelationships, they will learn to disembody the problem transfixed within them. In other words, they may learn increasingly to dissociate themselves in some way from their problem and thereby become disentangled from it.

Bateson (1977) once wrote, “As you become aware that you are doing it, you become in a curious way much closer to the world around you,” and this is its therapeutic power. This, Bateson (1991) argued, is because “meaning is not internal. It is between parts.”

Recapitulation

Practicing the problem in order to demystify and rend it less powerful.

Once people in therapy have come to experience a problem differently in-session, they will come to experience it differently in life. Experience will beget experience, as it nearly always does.

And so I find it of the highest necessity that the people I work with in therapy bring their problem(s) into therapy. This may seem to be stating the obvious. What I mean, though, is that for our therapeutic relationship to affect change in the lives of the people I help, we must somehow experience the problem together in vivo.

When people are tempted to go on recursively explaining problems, I let them know they can choose between carrying on, remaining in the safe position of knowing what they know already, or experientially exploring with me aspects of presence, emotion, or communication to risk gaining what they may have never known.

Summoning the spirit of the problem may necessarily come of its own accord, as its cajoling may constitute an ethical breach for the therapist, depending on the nature of the problem. Nonetheless, nearly inevitably, and often in the midst of a presumed period of improvement, the therapy room becomes proving ground.

Evocation

The spontaneous and creative stirring of images and feelings to energize positive changes.

When the positive end of one magnet is placed against the negative end of another, an invisible force pulls them together. Likewise, when the magnet’s positive end is placed against the positive end of another, they repel one another. Two pieces of uncharged metal neither attract nor repel.

There is magnetism in the emotional systems of families and, to greater or lesser degrees, between every family member. The force between two is skewed by an intervening third, and so on.

The challenge of therapy is of how to work therapeutically with processes that bind and unbind, generating flexibility and instilling resilience. To grow, people must experience freedom within the felt pushes and pulls of powerful self-perpetuating forces in which problems—and families—maintain themselves.

Bateson (1972) himself suggested that painting, poetry, music, dance, and other metaphoric art forms serve as a bridge between the conscious and the unconscious, a way of communicating outwardly what dwells inwardly, abductively and evocatively affording us opportunities to enter into the relationships they express.

Whitaker (1989) taught us that what is therapeutic is not necessarily the experience itself but the meaning the person in therapy attaches to it. Quite so, if the person is to change, then transformative experiencing must occur. Success is quantum leap from one state—or state of meaning—to another.

And who but the therapist must invoke it?

(Incidentally, these modes of intervention spell “I CARE.” You can credit the acronym to me.)

References:

1. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Bateson, G. (1977). Afterword. In J. Brockman (Ed.). About Bateson: Essays on Gregory Bateson (pp. 235-247). New York: E. P. Dutton.
3. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam.
4. Bateson, G. (1991-published posthumously). A sacred unity: Further steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Harper/Collins.
5. Whitaker, C., and Ryan, M. (1989). Midnight musings of a family therapist. New York: Norton.

It sounds like there are two main issues for you right now: managing your feelings and hesitation about dating someone with a teenage daughter, and dealing with your fears about how your family will respond to your situation and the woman you love.

The fact is your girlfriend is a mom. Nothing is going to change that. You can wish it weren’t so, but that is a big part of who she is. It also may be that her experiences as a mom made her into the person you fell in love with.

I’m curious about where your resentment is coming from. Is it mostly coming from fears about how your family will react, or are there other issues at play? You knew she was a mother when you started dating her. You have been in a relationship with her for a year. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of moving in together, you owe it to her, yourself, and your relationship to have an honest conversation about that. Her feelings may get hurt, but avoiding the issue and letting these feelings fester in secret can do much more damage to your relationship. If you need support in how to have that kind of conversation, you may want to reach out to a therapist in your area for individual or couples work.

[fat_widget_relationships_left]

Dating someone who has kids can be complicated. Something that makes your situation potentially even more complicated is the spread of ages. You are, in fact, closer in age to the daughter than the mother. How much of that is factoring in to your unease? Would you feel the same way if her daughter were 7 instead of 17?

As for how your family reacts to your relationship, you cannot control what your family thinks or feels. They may disapprove of your relationship. They may disapprove of your girlfriend. It is up to you how much importance you give to their feelings. At 26, you are an adult who can make his own decisions. If the way your family feels about your partner is a deal-breaker, then it is important to be honest about that. Her past is not going away. If, however, you choose to be in relationship with this woman, it is not fair of you to judge or condemn her for her past. Your family can choose to disapprove. Only you can choose to let that matter.

I hope this helps shed some light on your situation. I hope you can resolve your internal conflict and highly recommend seeking the support of a therapist to help guide you through it.

Best,
Erika

When a family member is diagnosed with a chronic illness, he or she is not the only person who has to deal with the diagnosis—the entire family is affected by it. Think of a car: every part has to work properly and in conjunction with the other parts in order to run smoothly, right? Something as simple as a flat tire can cause the entire system to slow down. The family system is like that car. Each member has roles and responsibilities, and when one person has a medical diagnosis, it can throw off the entire system.

So when a child is diagnosed with a chronic illness, the entire family system is affected. Having a child with a chronic illness can be difficult for everyone. Managing schedules and doctor appointments, going to different therapies, and dealing with sudden changes of symptoms can be exhausting for the child with the illness as well as for the parents.

But what about the nondiagnosed siblings? How are they affected? Family routines and dynamics can drastically change when a child is diagnosed with a chronic illness. This change can affect the nondiagnosed siblings in different ways. Some normal emotions for nondiagnosed siblings include:

• Guilt (because they are healthy and their sibling isn’t)
• Anger (that parents spend more time with the diagnosed sibling)
• Resentment (that the diagnosis has changed the family routine)
• Worry (that their sibling will get worse or die)
• Fear (that they or another family member will contract the illness)

[fat_widget_right]

What can you do as a parent to help your nondiagnosed children cope with their sibling’s illness? Here are a few tips:

Express Feelings

Encourage your kids to talk about their feelings, even when it’s not so positive, and validate them when they do open up. Model this behavior by expressing yourself in a truthful and age-appropriate way to your children.

Maintain Rules

Keep your family rules intact. Many parents feel guilty enforcing rules when there is an illness, but structure can help children know what to expect; it helps them feel safe.

Include Siblings

Do not allow siblings to be caretakers per se, but invite them to doctor or therapy appointments when possible. This can help them understand what your diagnosed child is going through.

Stay Active

Although some extracurricular activities might have to be altered, it’s important to find doable hobbies in which everyone can participate. Being able to enjoy the fun things in life can help the family cope better and feel “normal.”

Make Time

The diagnosed child gets a lot of your undivided attention. Be sure to take time out for your nondiagnosed children, too. It will help them know that they are still important to you.

It’s not always easy to see when a nondiagnosed child is struggling because he or she doesn’t always know how to express feelings. A few things you can look for are changes in sleep, mood, or appetite. You should also be aware of regressed behaviors or changes in school functioning. If you see these changes consistently, consider seeking the assistance of a therapist to help the child cope more effectively.

[fat_widget_right]Many families seek a therapist because of a breakdown in their family system. This breakdown may be the result of poor communication, substance abuse, a major change in the family, or something else that causes tension. This may lead to verbal arguments, and sometimes a family may start fighting during a therapy session. Below, several therapists weigh in on how they handle conflicts that occur during therapy sessions, why they are completely normal, and how fighting can be used to overcome your family’s challenges:

(more…)

In many families, the belief that children must honor their parents is a given. It may be seen as a tenet of the family’s culture, religion, or may be so fundamental that it is experienced as a rule of nature. In any particular family, the meaning of honoring one’s parents can vary from total obedience to respectfully listening to the wishes, perspectives, requests, etc., that parents express. In any particular family, the consequences of dishonoring a parent can range from mild feelings of anger, hurt, and sadness to intense anger, disappointment, extreme hurt, and disownment. (I am not considering the kinds of families which go to extremes which could result in honor killings.

In families with intense and powerful beliefs that children must honor their parents by sharing their points of view and behaving accordingly, children learn that any attempt to differentiate themselves from their parents by having separate, diverse perspectives or needs is unacceptable. Growing up, they learn what consequences to expect should they express their separate, differentiated selves when they are in conflict with family values. For children who struggle with these feelings, the dilemma of how to honor one’s parents and still be “true” to oneself is not easily resolved.

[fat_widget_right]

It is hard to imagine, even in families and cultures with strict admonitions not to depart from parental ways, that children don’t have thoughts that differ from what parents want. To protect themselves and preserve the parent-child relationship, children develop ways of coping. Some unconsciously dissociate (not be consciously aware of) their conflicting wishes, needs, and thoughts. Others suffer quietly and internally with the conflicts between what they think and desire for themselves and their wishes not to hurt, anger, disappoint, or shame their parents.

In my work as a therapist, I often encounter people who seek therapy when they can no longer contain these conflicts and feel that any choice they make between what their parents wish for them and what they want for themselves is unbearable. (Here I am not considering people who dissociate.) Most of these people express loving feelings toward their parents. They are vulnerable to feelings of selfishness, self-betrayal, fear of angering or disappointing parents, and pain about hurting parents. There may be intense shame that their thoughts and feelings are not those of a good child and that their choices could dishonor and shame the parent in the family or community.

As a therapist who values self-determination, individuation, and agency, it is essential that I recognize and respect the value systems that people have internalized. There are no rights and wrongs here. Each person I work with needs to be helped to understand, as much as possible, what his or her conflicts are about, and which choices result in the most tolerable consequences. Therapy has to facilitate the process of making the intolerable feelings more tolerable.

“Lucy” is a 26-year-old Asian woman who came to my office racked with conflict. She and her 29-year-old brother were born in the United States; her parents were born in Asia, where they met and married. They came to the U.S. before the children were born. Most of Lucy’s aunts and uncles emigrated around the same time as her parents and she now has a large extended family, mostly in the Northwest. Lucy came to New York to go to graduate school for fine arts. She met Peter, who is not Asian, in one of her classes two years ago, and Peter has asked her to marry him.

Lucy told me, “I love him so much, but I think it will kill my parents. I haven’t told them about him. When I’ve gone home for vacations, they always want to fix me up with someone from my culture, but I’ve managed to get around it. I also haven’t let Peter know how much of a problem it is for me. I don’t think I can keep up this charade. I keep thinking maybe I should just marry him and never tell them. I don’t know how Peter would feel about that. I can’t imagine giving him up, and I feel so selfish. But if I tell them, I can imagine my mother sobbing hysterically and never getting over the hurt. I can see my Aunt Lynn saying something mean to my mother about how she has such a dishonorable and disrespectful daughter. My mother will die of shame. What am I going to do?”

“Wow,” I said. “You are up against a lot of powerful forces that are tearing you apart and making the possibility of coming to a decision a horrible proposition. You can’t win. But you obviously can’t continue to stay in what must feel like a terrible war going on inside you.”

“Yes, that’s it!” Lucy said. “How can I possibly make any choice and be OK with it?”

“I don’t know that you will ever be fully OK with any choice you come to, but I’d like to help you be OK enough with how to proceed with your life,” I said.

Lucy and I used our sessions to explore her understanding of her family, her culture, and their values. We clarified the powerful nature of respect and honor for the wishes of the elders in the family and the importance of tradition. Lucy acknowledged that her wanting to marry someone from another culture was especially threatening. It not only was going against what her parents wanted, but this particular act—marrying a non-Asian man—would be seen as a public announcement of going against parental wishes.

“I didn’t have the words for it before,” Lucy said. “It seems this is not a private conflict between me and my parents. It is there for all to see. I am such a bad daughter. My brother and all my cousins have married within our culture. It will bring such shame to my family. I don’t know if I could do this to them.”

I asked Lucy if she was worried about anything other than the impact on her parents and family if she were to marry Peter. She thought for a while and started to cry softly. “I love them so much,” she said. “I worry that they will never forgive me, that they will hate me. I’ll be all alone.”

Lucy began to sob. “What if they refuse to be my children’s grandparents? What kind of family will I bring my children into? How can I do this?”

It was apparent that Lucy had kept her family totally in the dark about Peter. I wondered if they were as clueless as she thought. I also began to wonder with Lucy about some theoretical possibilities (not suggestions): What would she guess would happen if she casually mentioned that she had a date with this man Peter to her mother? Her father? Brother? A cousin? Would there be different responses? Would anybody seem interested or excited for her? These questions created some thoughts that surprised both Lucy and me. She realized that there would probably be different responses. She was pretty sure her cousin Cindy would be really into it and it wouldn’t be a big deal. Then she thought her brother might be OK with it, too. She felt her father would get cold and withdrawn to express his anger, and she was certain that her mother would be inconsolable, hurt, and ashamed.

As Lucy and I continue to examine the issues and explore them from all angles, it doesn’t feel as hopeless as when we first began talking. Lucy is planning to talk to her brother. This is an opening up by including a family member in the secret of Lucy and Peter. Perhaps Lucy will find an ally in the family. She has a fantasy of introducing Peter to her brother. Another breakthrough has been that Lucy has told Peter about her conflicts and her worries. His comforting response and willingness to let her find her way through this dilemma has strengthened her resolve to find some emotionally acceptable resolution for herself.

In our explorations, it was clear that growing up, Lucy had been successful hiding differences with her parents. When she felt strongly that she wanted or thought something that they would disapprove of, she kept it a secret. She had never really disobeyed them in any serious way. She had always been able to contain her conflict and struggle internally.

Considering marrying Peter was the first time she could not keep her conflict inside. Now that her struggle is more out in the open, she is in the process of determining how and if to keep it private or if it is safe enough to make it more external. Her consideration of including her brother, for example, could lead to a conflict between the two. The fact this is a consideration for Lucy moves the conflict resolution process to a new arena.

It is hard to imagine that Lucy’s family will come to fully embrace Peter and/or that Lucy will feel totally untroubled by a choice to marry Peter. Although it seems that Lucy is trying to find a way to be OK with marrying Peter, at any time in Lucy’s struggle to decide what and who to honor, she could choose her parents. For example, Lucy has told me that she could never marry Peter and not tell. She also could never tolerate her parents disowning her. So there is still work for Lucy to do to as she focuses on resolving her conflict. Hopefully, it will result in an outcome that feels acceptable.

Note: To protect privacy, names in the preceding article have been changed and the dialogues described are a composite.

There are four types of human beings, and I believe each is designed to attend to at least one of four critical areas of need in a functioning human society.

The tasks that each temperament is designed to attend to are so disparate that significant differences in perceptions, priorities, values, and meanings are required to attend to them. These automatically triggered differences are present at birth, identifiable at an early age and, like the degree to which each newborn is left-, right-, or mixed-handed, will not change much across time.

For instance, a naturally literal parent will not be able to get their naturally possibilities-oriented child to become more literal, any more than a naturally feel-response-oriented parent will be able to get their natural thinking-response-oriented child to experience emotions more like a feeling-oriented individuals does.

The temperament that each child is born with may be the same as, or different from,

[fat_widget_right]
1. One or both parents.
2. One or more siblings.
3. One or more extended family members.
4. A teacher, coach, employer, friend, or therapist.

The nature of temperament-driven differences is such that four individuals with different temperaments can perceive, process, prioritize, and respond to the same reality in significantly different ways. Current models for making sense out of these differences treat them as matters of choice rather than of nature.

Consequently, when these differences lead to a disagreement over who is right and who is not, each assumes that the other is choosing to differ when they are not. Never-ending relationship-threatening debates can ensue driven by natural differences that neither is aware exist.

I have been providing my individual, couple, and family clients with information on natural differences in temperaments since 2000. Once most clients have realized that natural differences are at play, debilitating debates over who is right and who is not have come to an end. This allows for accommodation and compromise in areas that had not been possible before.

Taking a freeware version of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) can identify an individual’s temperament. A two-letter code within the four-letter MBTI psychological type code identifies the temperament providing the driving force for that particular type. The method for identifying temperament codes is found at the end of this article.

 The Four Temperaments

1. Sensing-Judging (SJ): Approximately 45% of the population

People with the SJ temperament provide structure for human societies. From an early age they want to know what the rules are—the societal norms for acceptable behavior. They will then live their life according to those rules and expect others to do the same.

With regards to typological wiring, choice is not an option. An SJ person’s sense of self is connected to following the rules and honoring the traditions of their society and they will automatically be bothered when others do not. Without SJs, human beings would not have a functioning foundation, a social order.

• Extraverted SJs are wired to express disapproval immediately when someone is breaking a rule. That unacceptable behavior might be cutting in line, arriving late for a meeting, or making too much noise in a library.
• Introverted SJs are also automatically bothered by such behaviors, but may not be as direct in expressing their disapproval.

The four SJ-driven personality types are ESTJ, ESFJ, and ISTJ. SJs of note include George Washington, Mother Teresa, Andy Rooney, Desmond Tutu, and Barbara Walters.

2. Sensing-Perceiving (SP): Approximately 23% of the population

People with SP temperaments are designed to address the needs of immediate sensory experience. The common denominator for SPs that distinguishes them from the other three temperaments is their need for freedom to respond or create in the moment, as the moment dictates, without reference to others.

This independence of mind is innate, a derivative of nature’s design and an essential requirement for the purpose and function they are designed to attend to. SJs tend to take care of the structural needs of human societies, that which can be predicted and planned out. Meanwhile, SPs are attending to the needs of the moment, those aspects of human experience that are best served by in-the-moment innovation and ingenuity.

SPs adapt to the constantly changing variables of immediate sensory experience. This can be quite extraordinary; SPs are found among the most gifted practitioners of both the fine as well as the martial arts.

The four SP-driven personality types are ESFP, ESTP, ISTP, and ISFP. SPs of note include Barbra Streisand, Erwin “Magic” Johnson, George C. Patton, Meryl Streep (my guess here), and Michael J. Fox.

3. Intuitive-Thinking (NT): Approximately 15% of the population

Those with NT temperaments are designed to process information from a logical frame of reference. Their primary function is to make sure that what is said or done makes logical sense. NTs can often be found in leadership roles in science, business, government, sports, and the military, making sure that logic rules the decision-making process.

In order to attend to their role responsibilities in a functioning human society, NTs are designed to experience emotions within objective parameters of cause and effect. As with the other three temperaments, choice is not an option. If something said or done does not make logical sense, it is automatically rejected as invalid.

The four NT-driven personality types are ENTJ, ENTP, INTJ, and INTP. Well known NTs include Hilary Clinton, Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein, General Colin Powell, and Angela Lansbury.

4. Intuitive-Feeling (NF): Approximately 18% of the population

NFs are designed to facilitate harmony in the lives of other human beings. Nature assures that NFs attend to their role of responsibility by triggering feelings of guilt and blame disproportionate to objective reality when they upset or disappoint someone or do not help others when they know they can help but may not want to.

A rule of thumb for NFs is, “If is not said nicely, it is not nice.” No other temperament is designed with this degree of guilt and blame sensitivity in their wiring. Given this innate set of priorities for experiencing a sense of meaning and purpose in life, it is not surprising that as many as 75% of marriage and family therapists in private practice are NFs.

The four NF-driven personality types are ENFJ, ENFP, INFJ, and INFP. Well-known individuals with the NF wiring include Oprah Winfrey, Abraham Maslow, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Isabel Briggs-Myers.

Procedure for Identifying Temperament

For a free short-form questionnaire to find your own temperament, you can go to www.NaturalPersonalityInstitute.com and download the freeware questionnaire (Natural Personality Questionnaire) based on the MBTI located there. Fill it in and score it. When done, you will have a four-letter psychological type code.

The first letter of that type’s temperament code is found on the Sensing-Intuition dichotomy. That is the second column from left on the questionnaire.

• If the first letter is S for Sensing, the second letter is found on the Judging-Perceiving dichotomy (the last, or fourth, column on the right).
  • If your letter code on the Judging-Perceiving dichotomy is J for Judging, your temperament is SJ (Sensing-Judging).
  • If your letter code is P for Perceiving, your temperament is SP (Sensing-Perceiving).

• If the first letter of your two letters temperament code is N for Intuition, the second letter is found on the Thinking-Feeling dichotomy (third column from left)
  • If your letter code is T for Thinking, your temperament is NT (Intuitive-Thinking).
  • If your letter is F for Feeling, your temperament is NF (Intuitive-Feeling).

For example, my four-letter MBTI psychological type code is INFP. The first letter of my temperament code is found on the Sensing-Intuition dichotomy which, in my case, is N for Intuition. When N is the first letter of a temperament code, the second letter is found on the Thinking-Feeling dichotomy which, in my case, is F for Feeling. Therefore my two-letter temperament code is NF for Intuitive-Feeling.

Between Temperament Communication

In order to maximize your effectiveness in navigating communication problems with temperaments that differ from your own it is helpful to remember the following:

1. SJs automatically prioritize rules of conduct, if others are behaving appropriately.
2. SPs automatically prioritize the dictates of immediate sensory experience.
3. NTs automatically prioritize the logical consequences of an act or intention.
4. NFs automatically prioritize how people may or will feel about what is said and done.

Choice is not an option. Like the degree to which each newborn is left, right, or mixed handed, the temperament in each newborn’s wiring is the temperament that will provide the perceptual frame of reference throughout their lifetime.

My mother and I provide a perfect example of this phenomenon. She was an ESTJ and I am an INFP, opposites on all four dichotomies. She was a thinking-response-oriented SJ and I am an NF. She was bluntly direct (and usually right!) in letting me know how I should be behaving.

I found her manner of communicating to be hurtful, leaving me feeling guilty, bad, and resentful. I kept her at an emotional distance most of my life. She was 93 and still cognitively sharp as a tack, before I got up the courage to tell her how her manner of communicating affected me.

She was genuinely surprised, stating, “Michael, I do not understand this guilt thing. I did not want you to feel bad about yourself; I just wanted you to do it right.” This comment helped me realize that thinking-oriented and feeling-oriented people naturally experience emotions very differently.

A Note of Caution

While the information on temperaments and temperament-specific psychological types tends to be accurate, it is general in nature, addressing response dynamics known to be common for individuals with each of the type profiles. The specifics of an individual’s self, separate from others, is far too complex to be captured by a temperament specific tendencies profile.

First of all, there are a near infinite number of degrees of response orientation that an individual may have on each of the four dichotomies known to determine an individual’s temperament and temperament specific psychological type. Birth order, degrees of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic perceptual processing, spirituality, aptitudes of mind, and a wide range of environmental influences, as well as an X factor to cover the inexplicable, also factor into the equation.

The complexity involved is such that true knowing of another has some very real limitations. Because of this, type profiles should be used for the gathering of general information about an individual, but most definitely not to define the person.