Ask any armchair psychologist whether men or women are more sexual, and you’ll likely get an absolute proclamation that men are more visual, think about sex more often, and have more partners. These “facts” play into cultural mythology, that ties manhood to sexuality, and treats women as the fairer, less sexual sex. But research is increasingly showing that the things we all think we know about men and sex just aren’t true.

[fat_widget_right]

Thinking About Sex

Many of us have heard the claim that men think about sex every seven seconds or every 15 seconds. But this statistic may be little more than a myth. A 2011 study found that men think about sex, on average, only 18 times a day—several thousand times less frequently than popular statistics claim. In fact, men think about sex only slightly more than they think about sleep, which crosses their mind 11 times a day, and as frequently as food, which also makes an appearance in their thoughts 18 times a day. But, according to the study, men still tend to think about sex more frequently than women. The women in the study thought about sex about 10 times a day, with individual numbers ranging from zero to 140 times daily. Individual men, by contrast, thought about sex between zero and 388 times each day.

Number of Sexual Partners

Men tend to claim more sexual partners than women, but upon careful examination, statistics on the lifetime average number of partners fall apart. Unless more men than women are gay or are having sex with a few of the same very sexually active women who aren’t represented in surveys, the averages for men and women can’t differ so dramatically. Several studies have shown that men are more likely to inflate their number of partners, while women are more likely to shave a few off the top.

Desire for Adventure

One famous study asked men and women if they’d be willing to sleep with an attractive stranger. A large portion of men said yes, while few of the women did. This study is often used to support the idea that men crave multiple sexual partners or new sexual experiences. But studies that ask men their desires don’t measure actual behavior. Men may say that they’re willing to sleep with an attractive stranger simply because this is the cultural expectation. Women may be hesitant to say that they’d have sex with a stranger because they don’t want to be perceived as promiscuous.

Are Men More Visual?

We’ve all heard that men are more visual than women, and this is used as justification for everything from looking at porn to ogling strangers. While most research does show that men are more visually stimulated than women, the interpretation of this data is much more complicated than it seems. One 2008 study, for example, emphasizes that sociological factors play a strong role in men’s visual stimulation. Men are taught from an early age to emphasize physical appearance, and the same study found that men tend to be more aroused by contexts in which they can objectify another person—a tendency that is probably learned.

Sex and Masculinity

Myths about men’s sexuality tend to stick around because they make sense in light of social roles and gender ideology. Although women are becoming increasingly sexually assertive, sexuality in women is still less acceptable than men, and women are often taught to feel some shame about sex; this can affect what they report to researchers and whether they share sexual thoughts. Sex-based myths can make women feel that sexual feelings are deviant and abnormal, and can support puritanical ideas about women and sex. But men are also harmed. Men who don’t meet masculine ideals by being hypersexual or craving multiple partners can feel less manly, while men who want a healthy sexual relationship with a single partner may feel pressure to engage in promiscuous or objectifying behavior.

References:

1. Jordan-Young, R. M. (2010). Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Kolata, G. (2007, August 12). The myth, the math, the sex. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html
3. Men more willing to have sex with stranger than females: Study. (2011, September 04). Indian Express. Retrieved from http://www.indianexpress.com/news/men-more-willing-to-have-sex-with-stranger-than-females-study/841459
4. Men think about sex just 19 times a day – nearly as much as food. (2011, November 29). The Telegraph. Retrieved from www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8924988/Men-think-about-sex-just-19-times-a-day-nearly-as-much-as-food.html
5. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex Differences in Response to Visual Sexual Stimuli: A Review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(2), 206-218. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9217-9

Hypnosis has long been fodder for television shows and stand-up acts, and most people are familiar with hypnotists who claim to be able to make anyone do anything while under hypnosis. But hypnosis is no longer just a sideshow performance, and an increasing number of people are turning to hypnosis to quit smoking, get over depression and anxiety, lose weight, and forget about phobias.

Hypnosis is still controversial within mental health, partially because it’s often part of a comedy act and not real treatment and partially because some hypnotherapists have induced false memories under regression-based hypnotherapy.

What Is It?
Hypnosis isn’t a magic trick. It’s an altered state of consciousness that hypnotists induce via the power of suggestion. Hypnotists may use relaxation techniques, key words, guided imagery, or some combination of these to help clients slowly relax. Then, while under hypnosis, hypnotists make suggestions about changes in behavior.

The idea behind hypnosis is that, even when the conscious mind wants to do something, the unconscious mind might not fully accept this change. Hypnotists claim that, under the right conditions, they can subtly alter the effects the unconscious mind has on the conscious mind and help bring about behavioral changes. Some hypnotists use hypnosis to help gradually alter a client’s perceptions. A person struggling with pain, for example, might undergo hypnosis to help him or her see the pain as pressure. An increasing number of women are even using hypnosis to help cope with the pain of childbirth.

Does It Work?
You can’t be hypnotized to do something that is outside of your moral compass or that you don’t really want to do. People who try to quit gambling or spending through hypnosis will likely not see results if they’re quitting only because of family pressure. Hypnosis can’t change the way you think; it simply makes it easier to follow through with behavioral changes. Hypnosis can also bring about a state of relaxation, and some hypnotherapists teach their clients how to self-hypnotize under stressful conditions. For people with anxiety issues, severe stress, or depression, this can help ease the symptoms.

But hypnosis is not a panacea, and is most effective when it’s used in conjunction with therapy and lifestyle changes. Particularly for long-term, chronic problems, it may take several hypnosis sessions to see results. Some people don’t see any results at all; because hypnosis thrives on suggestibility, if you’re not particularly suggestible it probably won’t work.

Choosing a Hypnotist
If you’re thinking about trying hypnotherapy, get a recommendation from your therapist. The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis also maintains a directory of qualified hypnotists with a clinical background. Make sure you know how long your hypnotist has been practicing and what methods he or she uses. The messages you hear under hypnosis should not come as a surprise, and your hypnotist should discuss the specific tools he or she is going to use before hypnotizing you.

Regression-based hypnosis, which is used to recover repressed memories, can be dangerous. Because people are more suggestible under hypnosis, the hypnotist can inadvertently fabricate memories that didn’t actually occur. Particularly if these memories are traumatic, this can lead to additional mental health issues. People with a history of psychosis should not undergo hypnosis without first taking to their doctors, because hypnosis increases their risk of a psychotic episode.

References:

1. About the society. (n.d.). American Society of Clinical Hypnosis. Retrieved from http://www.asch.net/
2. Beattie-Moss, M. (n.d.). Does hypnosis work? Research Penn State. Retrieved from http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/hypnosis.html
3. Mental health and hypnosis. (n.d.). WebMD. Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/guide/mental-health-hypnotherapy
4. Portenoy, R. (2008, August 18). How does hypnosis work, can anyone be hypnotized, and when is it used? ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Health/TreatingPain/story?id=4047906

When counseling parents and their children, I often refer to the “love languages”—an idea coined by Dr. Gary Chapman, a relationship counselor most well known for the Love Languages series of books.

People express their love in a variety of ways, and what is important to one person may not be as much to another. If someone’s top languages are not being met, it can lead to negative feelings and behaviors.

The five love languages are as follows:

1. Physical touch
2. Words of affirmation
3. Quality time
4. Gift giving
5. Acts of service

While you may have heard of the love languages, you may not have applied them to the parent-child relationship. It’s telling kids “I love you” in a language they respond to. Saying the words often isn’t enough. Parents often assume their kids know they are loved, but that’s not always the case.

[fat_widget_right]

Love should be unconditional, but is often displayed conditionally (such as when kids are good). Unconditional love can prevent problems such as resentment, feelings of guilt, fear, anger, low self-esteem, and insecurity. Children need to feel loved; if they don’t, they may seek approval elsewhere.

Now let’s talk about how to incorporate these into your daily lives:

1. Some ways to incorporate physical touch include hugging, kissing, child sitting on lap, cuddling during stories, television, or movies, tossing in the air, gentle touches on legs, arms, head, shoulders, etc., back scratches, high-fives and contact sports.

As kids get older, parents may touch only when necessary, like when helping with clothes or hair. Kids will crave more contact when sick, hurt, tired, or sad. Teenagers, especially boys, will pull back from physical touch. Make sure the touch is positive and at the right time and place. Don’t embarrass!

Conversely, a negative touch coming from a place of anger can be detrimental.

2. Words of affirmation are ways to give praise and encouragement for what the child does. Since a child’s behavior is something he or she controls, there is a direct effect.

Be genuine when giving praise. Praising too frequently may have little positive effect, as it can come across as insincere. This can set up an expectation for praise, and create anxiety when it is absent. The way you word praise and your voice tone and volume make a big difference. Words of guidance will be sought elsewhere—from school, TV, peers, or other adults—if not received from parents.

Although it may seem obvious, words of negativity really hurt, and the greatest enemy of encouragement is anger.

Make sure to say “I love you” on its own, not with qualifiers such as “but …” or “will you …” attached.

3. Spend quality time with your child. Kids really seem to crave this, especially any one-on-one time. This love language is fairly self-explanatory. It can be going somewhere or just hanging out. Think of those moments when you’re sharing thoughts and feelings, having good, quality conversations. Mealtime, going for walks, story time, or bedtime can be good opportunities.

4. Giving gifts can be one that parents roll their eyes at. Of course kids like gifts! However, it is more about the thought behind it. In a child’s mind: “You were thinking of me and got it, since I’m important.” Other languages need to be combined with gift giving. It is not a paycheck or bribe, nor should it be a substitute for time spent. As with praise, excess gifts lose their meaning. You can tell gift giving is important if kids express excitement when receiving a gift or based on how it is presented, or display it proudly.

5. Acts of service is a big part of being a parent, as the list of tasks, errands, and to-do list items never seems to end. Acts of service refers to going above and beyond making sure kids’ needs are met. This could include offering to help with something before they ask, or at least not saying “in a minute” when they do. Encouraging a hobby, checking homework, hosting events for the kids at home, or doing things to make an illness more bearable are other examples.

To discover someone’s primary language, note the following:

1. Observe how they express love to you.
2. Observe how they express love to others.
3. Listen to what they request most often.
4. Notice what they complain about the most.
5. Give them choices between two options.

You need to show love in all five ways, but try to discover the person’s primary language (or top two or three). When the person is under 5 years old, try to hit all five languages.

As discussed in the overview of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), the first of the four primary DBT modules is core mindfulness. Derived largely from Eastern zen philosophies and Western contemplative practices, mindfulness forms the foundation for the other three DBT modules of interpersonal effectiveness, distress tolerance, and emotion regulation.

Mindfulness is the practice of observing one’s emotions and environment, describing feelings and experiences, and fully participating in the moment. By learning and incorporating mindfulness skills, clients become more aware of their feelings, thoughts, impulses, and behaviors. This awareness empowers the individual to better regulate his or her emotions and choose more appropriate actions.

[fat_widget_right]

Three States of Mind
A central concept of core mindfulness in DBT is that there are three states of mind: the logical mind, the emotional mind, and the wise mind. In Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder, DBT founder Dr. Marsha Linehan explains that mindfulness helps achieve the wise mind state, which is a balance between the logical (or “cool”) state of mind and the emotional (or “hot”) state of mind. In the wise mind, the individual considers things rationally while factoring in his or her feelings. This enables the person to acknowledge intense emotions in a nonjudgmental manner while making healthier behavioral choices.

“What” and “How” Mindfulness Skills
In DBT, the practice of core mindfulness is taught through “what” skills and “how” skills, i.e., what can we do to become mindful and how should we do it? The three “what” skills are observing, describing, and participating. The observing skill refers to observing the current environment and events, as well as the client’s own sensations, thoughts, and feelings—without describing or judging him or her. This process helps prevent impulsive reactions and the triggering of negative emotions and internal dialogues.

The second step is to describe what has been observed and experienced, being careful to express facts rather than interpretations. For example, the client might say, “I am feeling frustrated with the complexity of this project,” rather than, “I am too stupid to complete this project.”

The third “what” skill is participation, wherein the individual is fully engaged in the present moment. The focus is on the discussion one is engaged in, or the event he or she is attending, rather than allowing the mind to wander about past incidents or future possibilities—which generally increases feelings of agitation.

In practicing the “what” skills, it is critical to employ the “how” skills, which explain how to perform the “what” skills: nonjudgmentally, one-mindfully, and effectively. The nonjudgmental skill helps neutralize the common tendency to label experiences and feelings as “good” or “bad.” In applying this skill, the individual describes the key facts of the experience rather than his or her feelings and judgments about it.

The second “how” skill, one-mindfulness, refers to focusing 100% attention on the present situation rather than multitasking—in other words, participating mindfully as opposed to mindlessly. This skill is helpful in breaking the habit of dwelling on negative thought patterns, which tends to prolong and aggravate distressing emotions.

Finally, the effectiveness skill enhances the capability to select behaviors that are consistent with achieving goals rather than deliberating on what is fair or unfair, and how things “should be.” The idea is to take productive and goal-oriented actions instead of being caught up in a cycle of negative thinking and behaviors.

Mindfulness can be a challenging skill for some people to develop. Many of us have become accustomed to focusing on something that has already happened or may occur in the future, rather than what is happening right in front of us. With training and practice, however, core mindfulness enables clients to become more flexible in their thinking and avoid being controlled by their emotions. It can help reduce the tendency to react negatively based on internal triggers, allowing clients to be fully present in the moment and engage in more productive behaviors.

I was convinced that Joe Smith—not his real name, of course—wrote his letter V’s wrong in the second grade, and I thought it helpful to inform him of such. After all, he needed all the help he could get, and I thought, as a precocious 7-year-old girl, I had a monopoly on how to craft the most beautiful V on paper—how clueless could Joe be, after all?

Much has been written in recent times about how learning styles are different, neurologically, between girls and boys. As a mother of two boys, this subject matter has come to the forefront in my own household and, in fact, smacked me in the face on occasion (metaphorically speaking). Eons past, I recall being able to sit (with ease and no second thought), criss-cross-apple-sauce, and keep my hands to myself during circle time. What was the problem with these darned, squirrely boys who just couldn’t sit still and wiggled and squirmed, waiting with bated breath for recess?

Well, fast-forward 35 years and enter my life as a mother of two boys. What a wake-up call it’s been! What an honor, privilege, and learning process it has been, and continues to be, to nurture, guide, and educate my precious boys. I am so sorry to Joe Smith and for my judgment of his V’s! Humor me with the following, if you are reading this, dear Joe.

Our culture at large needs to do more to support boys and their unique hardwiring in educational settings. Although my sons have the advantage of great teachers and a nationally respected school district, the structure of our educational system does not favor boys’ unique learning styles. For those with financial and geographical barriers to accessing educational support services (tutoring, etc.), the circumstances are much more grim. We, as a nation, are failing our young men in the area of educational support. And we need to change that.

Studies utilizing PET scans and MRIs show that boys learn very differently than girls. One of the pioneers studying gender learning-style differences, Michael Gurian, reports several key factors differentiating girl/boy learning:

• Boys show more areas in the brain dedicated to spatial-mechanical strengths, whereas girls generally demonstrate a focus on verbal-emotive processing.
• Girls are generally hardwired to be less impulsive, enabling them to sit still, focus, read, and write at an earlier age than boys.
• Boys are often misdiagnosed with learning disabilities and attention-deficit issues when educators are not aware of the delicate neurology of the male developing brain.
• Boys’ brains need more rest times during a day of learning. When bored, boys tend to “zone out” more than girls and require rest periods before reengaging in learning.
• Boys are hardwired to be single-task focused, whereas girls’ hardwiring demonstrates strength in multitasking. Transitions are more difficult for boys due to this lateralization of the brain versus typical female cross-communication of brain hemispheres.
• Less oxytocin in the brain of males leads to more aggression and playful rough-housing. Girls, on the other hand, are more predisposed to cooperative negotiation, have a much easier time with impulse control, and can sit “criss-cross-apple-sauce” in the reading circle with ease. Many boys have a difficult time sitting still to hear the teacher’s story, as they are movement-driven (kinesthetic) in their learning process (research and findings cited from Gurian, 2006).

It is no surprise that in one study by Gurian (2005), 75% of students in a special education classroom were boys. The vast majority of special education student populations are, in fact, boys. This finding is curious in that it highlights the following: Boys are diagnosed with learning disabilities at a much higher rate than girls due to possibly 1) educational settings that do not support boy-friendly learning environments, 2) boys’ neurochemistry is different and more vulnerable than that of girls, thus indicating the need for adequate educational support for both boys’ and girls’ learning styles, and 3) evidence of hyperactive behavior is more prevalent in boys, thus, perhaps, a bias more toward referral to special education for boys (Hallahan and Kauffman, 2003).

Taking into consideration the many variables that affect learning style, including culture, family environment, resilience, and temperament as it relates to motivation, genetics, and uterine environment during gestation, among other factors, researchers recommend the following tips for ensuring a boy-friendly educational environment:

1. Boys are energized and motivated by movement. Teaching styles that encourage the experiential/kinesthetic learning modality support boys’ natural biochemistry, helping them to stay engaged and focused. My son’s magnificent teacher sings with her class and plays guitar; she discovers earthworms and creates ice castles with her students. She is amazing. I only wish all boys could have Mrs. Overstreet as their teacher.
2. Spatial-visual tools (pictures/graphics) assist with boys’ neurological needs in achieving literacy. Storyboards depicting images a boy is imagining can assist with translating story into words.
3. “Boys do their best work when teachers establish authentic purpose and meaningful, real-life connections.” (Gurian, 2006). Topics of learning particularly interesting to boys include ideas they can directly apply to their lives (science projects involving the germination of a seed, etc.).
4. Single-gender groupings for projects can be beneficial. Girls tend to verbalize during problem solving via cooperation and interactive learning. Boys are single-task driven neurologically, and enjoy a gentle banter that may include a camaraderie of innocuous, aggressive male bonding in the form of sarcastic (but innocent) put-downs and/or rough-housing (kinesthetic bonding not unlike playing football or karate).
5. Allow boys to choose topics in reading that appeal to them (superheroes, nonfiction works, etc.).
6. Ensure the presence of positive male role models (teachers, parents, extended family, tutors, community leaders, etc.) who emphasize the importance of education.
7. Parental assistance with homework accountability. Help your son stay organized by overseeing weekly assignments and highlighting the importance of a designated homework time after allowing for kinesthetic movement and discharging of school-day stresses.

The above suggestions are by no means exhaustive but are applicable in educational settings, meriting further consideration to support boys in their journey toward self-confidence, purpose, and authentic contribution to society.

As a mother of two boys, I am both honored and obligated to ensure that my sons have the most appropriate supports to guide and engage them in their formal education. Much change is needed to help our future generations of boys to emerge from grades K-12 with confidence as they follow their dreams into adulthood.

For more on boys’ learning styles, please see:

1. Gurian, M. & Stevens, K. (2005). The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Gurian, M. (2006). The Wonder of Boys. New York: Tarcher-Putnam.
3. James, Abigail Norfleet (2007).Teaching the Male Brain: How Boys Think, Feel, and Learn in School.

The state of Washington has been working for several years to change the language in its laws to gender-neutral terms. If legislation passes as expected, no longer will there be penmanship, freshmen, and watchmen. Instead, Washington will have handwriting, first-year students, and security guards.

Several other states have followed suit, with about half making moves toward gender-neutral language. Such language is often lampooned as politically correct and excessively burdensome, but research shows that language affects perceptions. Perceptions, in turn, affect behavior, and using gender-neutral language can be a meaningful move toward gender equality.

The Pervasiveness of Gendered Language
Gendered language is so common that it’s difficult for some people to even notice it. From job postings to laws, words such as policeman, councilman, mankind, and fireman abound. This omnipresence of gendered language may be part of the problem. When people stop noticing gendered language, it’s easier to think of male as the default. People who do a double-take when they see words such as policewoman or police officer may be doing so because there’s an incongruence between what their expectation of a police officer is—a male—and the possibility of a woman filling the role. The more frequently gendered language occurs, the more likely it is that people develop male as the prototype for a particular role.

This can affect a wide range of behaviors and lead to subtle biases. A company that posts a job seeking an ombudsman, for example, may envision a male in the role because of the use of gendered language. This can give women a slight disadvantage when they seek out the job because women applicants don’t completely match the hiring manager’s vision for a future employee. The person in charge of hiring may never even be aware of this subtle bias, but this doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Effects on Women
From the time they’re children, women experience an onslaught of gendered language, and this can subtly alter their perceptions of themselves. Even women report that their prototype of police officers and firefighters is male, and this may be due in part to gendered language.

Gender conditioning can affect the choices men and women make, and when women grow up learning that they’re not the ideal image of a particular role, their options are limited.

Male as Default
The use of terms such as mankind is particularly problematic because it treats men as the default. When “man” is used to refer to “all of us,” women are completely excluded, even if the term is intended to be gender-neutral. Thus, men are established as the norm against which everything is judged, and women are treated as deviant from this norm.

Real-life examples of this can be found in the long-time medical practice of using only male research subjects—a practice that has changed over the past few years.

Setting an Example
While gender-neutral language can seem frustrating and cumbersome at first, this is primarily because it’s new, not because there’s anything particularly onerous about its use. When states establish gender-neutral language, they help this language become part of the common lexicon and set an example demonstrating that gender-neutral language is just as easy to use as gendered language.

References:

1. Carmon, I. (n.d.). The effects of gendered language in job ads. Jezebel. Retrieved from http://jezebel.com/5803238/the-effects-of-gendered-language-in-job-ads
2. Lacorte, R. (2013, February 3). State moves toward gender-neutral language. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020282616_genderneutralxml.html
3. Leaper, C., & Bigler, R. S. (2004). Gendered Language and Sexist Thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 69(1), 128-142. doi: 10.1111/j.0037-976X.2004.00283.x

It is not unusual for someone who experiences a loss to romanticize the person, identity, or object they are grieving. This can occur even when what is lost was not just imperfect, but harmful. This tendency occurs more often and can be more harmful with folks who experienced depression, anxiety, or other mental health issues prior to the loss.

Myths can be helpful in meeting the obligation of respect and mourning we may feel toward the person. They can push us to broaden our memory of the person who died or the relationship we had beyond just the negative event to more positive or helpful content. They can influence the “story” of what was lost in a way that makes thoughts and emotions associated with the loss more tolerable to access and communicate individually and within our support systems.

It is natural to go back in time and reevaluate our perceptions of events and the decisions made during that time. Those who struggle with depression or anxiety already have a distorted view of reality that usually presents a world that’s unsafe or themselves as incapable. Both of these factors can set the stage for harmful myths.

Beliefs that drive guilt, regret, and failure are usually present and, when applied to the loss of a relationship, can set the stage for a rewrite on reality. These factors can result in a person deriving a meaning or value from what was lost that is heightened and, in his or her mind, exposes an inability and unworthiness in obtaining and holding onto the things people deserve to pursue. Even if the person holds some, or the majority of, responsibility in the loss, what was lost was probably imperfect and the behaviors that led to the loss are changeable. We’re human, and life is usually a trial-and-error thing.

Myths can also amplify the lack of purpose one feels after losing a job, becoming hospitalized, or losing a relationship. This is particularly true if the loss involved something the person felt defined them: “This is who I was, and now that it’s gone, where does that leave me?” Myths can hold us to the belief that purpose is unchangeable and who we were before the loss was the best we could have been.

In reality, there may have been significant problems and costs to the identity that we were not attentive to; these costs may have been a factor in causing the loss. Myths hold us back from an honest analysis of what led us to “the problem,” which in turn, prevents us from changing our behaviors or priorities in a way that works for us now. Myths can make us risk-averse, because if it can’t be the same, what’s the point? The answer is that “it” being different may be what we need, and the loss could be used as a wake-up call. In holding onto myths, we may reenact patterns and behaviors that are maladaptive.

When the loss involves a person who was both a family member and a perpetrator, myths can act as an obstacle to accessing traumatic content. Survivors of childhood abuse utilize several strategies to survive their environments and maintain a positive view of those they love because of the meaning that relationship may have in their minds (“she is my mother; I’m supposed to love her”). From their perspective, pushing for change may have a greater cost than living with it. This capacity or inclination can prevent survivors from feeling as if they have permission to think about the person they lost in a negative light. These are common issues for any trauma survivor, but holding on to the myth after a loss may make the work in acknowledging and processing the trauma that much harder.

Within a familial context, myths can create a perceived demand for adherence to a “story” that may feel objectionable to some within the family. Trauma survivors can feel uncomfortable in processing the loss authentically with those they may feel closest to for fear of making waves or hurting them.

Grounding ourselves in fact can go a long way in helping us cope with a loss. Being factual means focusing on what we know, not what we believe, so that we can derive a reasonable meaning from the loss experience. It allows us to acknowledge and mourn the good while identifying what was harmful so that the work of adaptive grieving and behavior change can move forward.

One important aspect of remaining factual is communicating the emotional and cognitive content we hold to another person we trust. This allows us to expose any distorted beliefs or thinking to another person’s logic and perception. This is important because it creates an external brace against unreasonable thinking. By not allowing exposure, the only thing left to challenge the distorted narrative is the source of it.

Family, friends, and other natural supports (priests, rabbis, the lady who does your nails) are usually the best options if safety is not an issue because they represent long-term, sustainable resources you can access anytime. If safety is an issue or you are experiencing symptoms that go beyond a normal grief reaction, seeking professional help (therapists, psychiatrists, medical doctor) can provide more intensive support and a greater assurance of confidentiality.

Imagine losing someone very close to you; perhaps your partner dies. How might you feel and behave in the weeks following this death? You might feel a sense of sadness and emptiness so intense that it is difficult to hold back tears. Perhaps you would have little interest in activities that you usually enjoy. Maybe you would find it difficult to sleep after sharing a bed with your partner for so many years. You might begin eating more or less and either gain or lose a significant amount of weight. It might be difficult to concentrate on your work. You might be preoccupied with a sense of guilt, wondering whether you could have done something to prevent your partner’s death. You might even wish for the day that you and your partner are reunited in death.

[fat_widget_right]

These kinds of feelings and behaviors, while certainly difficult, probably seem like pretty normal and appropriate responses to a significant loss. They certainly don’t seem indicative of a diagnosable mental illness, right? Well, until the fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) is released in May, your hunch is correct. Currently, these feelings and behaviors aren’t considered evidence of mental illness.

In order to meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD), five out of nine specific symptoms must be exhibited, more often than not, for two weeks or longer, and they must impair your ability to function. The example above actually includes seven of the nine symptoms of MDD. These symptoms would probably be present much of the day for several weeks and would certainly impair normal functioning.

Currently, however, there is an exemption for bereavement in the diagnostic criteria that allows for such symptoms to persist for up to two months after the death of a loved one. Only after two months of persistent and pervasive depressive symptoms can a diagnosis of MDD be made in the context of bereavement. This exemption acknowledges that while grieving can look and feel virtually identical to depression, it is, quite simply, not depression. Unfortunately, the new version of the DSM will remove the bereavement exemption from the diagnostic criteria, and come May, the very appropriate reaction to the death of a loved one described above will be pathologized and diagnosed as MDD.

The world looks to the field of psychology to understand normal versus abnormal behavior, and the field of psychology uses the DSM as its guide for drawing the often fine line between what is normal and abnormal. This is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. Labeling someone as mentally ill has significant implications. In the best case, a person who receives a diagnosis is given a lens through which to better understand himself or herself. It can be deeply empowering for someone to understand that the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that have plagued him or her have a name, and that there are not only treatment options, but hope­ as well—hope for healing, hope for growth, and hope to become the person he or she has always wanted to be.

However, in cases where a perfectly healthy person is labeled as mentally ill, the implications can be devastating—just ask the gay man who was considered mentally ill in the early 1970s before homosexuality was removed from the DSM. To be labeled as sick, to be pathologized, for being who you are, or for being appropriately devastated by the loss of a loved one, serves no purpose and may be quite harmful.

Imagine being told that the anguish you are feeling over the loss of your partner means that you are mentally ill. Is there any way that this could be helpful, or would it just serve to make you feel much more lost and hopeless? What would it be like if a doctor suggested you take medication? Imagine being told to take a pill to get over the death of a loved one. Should you find yourself in a therapist’s office grieving the loss of a loved one and your therapist suggests a diagnosis of MDD, don’t be so quick to accept the label—it is entirely possible that you are simply, and appropriately, grieving.

Borderline personality (BPD) is characterized by hostile behavior, negative affect, hypersensitivity to others, anger, worry, and fear of rejection or abandonment. These traits can make life difficult for people with BPD, causing them to react in ways that may be considered socially unacceptable. Additionally, the hypersensitivity that BPD causes can result in outbursts to perceived insults and can damage personal relationships and lead to rejection and isolation. This can then set the stage for further sadness, anger, and fears of abandonment, which perpetuate the cycle of rejection and hostility. Therefore, it is imperative to get a better understanding of what mechanisms lead to this pattern of behavior in people with BPD.

To do this, Gentiana Sadikaj of the Department of Psychology at McGill University in Quebec recently conducted an experiment involving 38 people with BPD and 31 non-BPD control individuals. All of the participants reported their levels of quarrelsome and hostile behavior, perceptions of their partner’s behavior, and their own affect over a three-week period. Specifically, Sadikaj wanted to evaluate the participants’ own behavior in response to their negative affect, their behavior resulting from their perceptions of others, and their attitude resulting from those perceptions.

Sadikaj found that the BPD participants did indeed have more intense reactions than the non-BPD participants. With respect to behavior response to their own affect, all the participants responded similarly. But the BPD participants perceived others as being cold and rejecting, thus causing them to react with increased hostility and anger. This increased their level of quarrelsome behavior and prompted those they interacted with to also become more difficult. The BPD participants also reported feeling more worried, isolated, and sad than the non-BPD participants as a result of these perceptions and resulting quarrels. Sadikaj said, “Such reactions from others may, in turn, reinforce fears of rejection and disconnection, and sensitivity to others’ behavior among individuals with BPD, thus maintaining the painful cycles of disturbed interpersonal relationships.” Sadikaj hopes these results guide interventions for people with BPD toward focusing on their perceptions of others’ and their behavior in response to those perceptions.

Reference:

1. Sadikaj, G., Moskowitz, D. S., Russell, J. J., Zuroff, D. C., and Paris, J. (2012). Quarrelsome behavior in borderline personality disorder: Influence of behavioral and affective reactivity to perceptions of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0030871

“Self-abandoned, relaxed and effortless, I seemed to have laid me down in the dried-up bed of a great river; I heard a flood loosened in remote mountains, I felt the torrent come; to rise I had no will, to flee I had no strength.” ―Charlotte Brontë, Jane Eyre

A friend recently told me that convenience is the root of all evil. I knew exactly what he was talking about. Call it codependency, call it enabling. The caretaker, the hero, this person has been deemed the criminal in many cases, the one who “allows” the undesirable behavior, whatever it is, to exist.

But it takes two to tango. We caretakers—yes, that’s the role I have most often played; I have, in fact, fought to not be in the role of the helpless—often set ourselves up by rescuing those we perceive to be in need. So often, though, this is a power play to feel better about ourselves. Do we get something out of it? Oh, yes we do. For one, by being the provider or caretaker, we feel helpful, not helpless, and that is key. By being of service, we believe we are out from underneath (we’ve probably observed or experienced feeling helpless), we are above and in control, and this in many ways determines our self-worth and success. Caretaking behavior negates low self-worth that may come from being under someone’s thumb or auspice, and we feel we are free and in charge. Thus, there is a sense that we should feel better about ourselves. In control. Safe.

But what about the so-called helpless ones whom we perceive to be in need of rescue? The irony is that the ones in need, who are grown adults (since we’re referring to this position within adult relationships) and thus very capable in many cases to take care of themselves, often end up being the ones in control because we enable them to the point where learned helplessness enters the picture. Learned helplessness renders them incapable of doing things, and as much as I want to take responsibility for this and say caretakers are to blame, the truth of the matter is this is a dance created by two willing individuals who want to feel good and relinquish control because it’s easy and convenient—or take control because it also feels good and therefore is oh-so-very convenient. This is the irony of the dance and the self-talk.

We caretakers love to make things convenient for others; it’s what we do best. What we see as being a do-gooder—our need to be on top, to prove to ourselves we are not helpless by being overly helpful—actually renders others helpless and dependent on us. Although this should feel good, and perhaps it does initially, in the end it often enslaves us to our “victim,” who learns to, by no fault of his or her own, manipulate us (and probably others as well) and to settle into a role as the helpless one. Since they’re grown adults, we know they are capable in whatever way suits them, but once this pattern begins, we see the helpless one as the victim, unable to care for himself or herself, and then the caregiver becomes the martyr.

This pattern then becomes ingrained in us, and can and most likely will be repeated in other relationships. The irony is that both roles are similar, if not identical, as the martyr often also plays the victim and vice versa. It’s a two-way mirror and a two-way street, with both roles continuously going back and forth. Both people think they are being helpful and noble, but both are suffocating in their inability to take care of their own needs.

So how does one take care of his or her own needs? It’s simple once you recognize the patterns. The helpless individual starts doing things on his or her own instead of always relying on the other to “fix” problems, and of course the fixer does less fixing. This may come in a form of abstinence in the beginning. I don’t mean sharing less; I do mean expecting less. It means sharing without expectations. It means sharing the details of your horrible day without your partner giving you advice. If your partner continues to give you advice, thereby suggesting helplessness, you are likely to avoid sharing. This is where caregiving becomes harmful. So keep sharing, keep listening, take care of your own needs, and help only when someone asks for your help, give advice only when someone asks for it, and don’t expect help or advice unless you specifically say so.

Communication is key when it comes to breaking these patterns. Recognizing our role as either fixer or helpless one comes first, and then recognizing what we do in those roles. For example, a “victim” or helpless individual may manipulate by not offering to do something or by simply avoiding something, suggesting incapability. The fixer takes this cue and will do it for him or her anyway. These types of patterns become ingrained in the relationship.

Do you take control when the other person is in need? How often do you do this? Part of being in a relationship is to be there for our partners. However, doing it every single time and rendering them helpless is counterproductive to a healthy relationship. Do you expect your partner to handle many things for you? How often do you expect this? Expecting our partners to come through for us when we are in dire straits is one thing, but expecting this more often than not suggests a very unhealthy pattern for your relationship.

The symptoms of fixing and being a victim will be apparent in the bedroom, and possibly other areas of your life as well. Sexual satisfaction within a relationship is often a great indicator of these aspects within a relationship. Sexual issues often are symptomatic of much deeper issues. A fixer is like a parent, and a victim is akin to a child. Sexuality quite often will cease to exist in this sort of parent-child dynamic, as it suggests imbalance.

Sexuality thrives in autonomous situations, with autonomous people. We are well aware of the fact sex is more exciting when there is some level of mystery involved, some level of distance, some level of taboo. That taboo is often the unknown. Let’s face it: Being self-sufficient is a huge turn-on because it provides some distance. Not detachment, but distance. We can still be there for our partners, be their moral support, and be autonomous and self-sufficient when it comes to our emotional needs.

If you think you and your partner may be caught in this type of vicious cycle, just remember this: It may take two to tango, but it takes one to break the cycle.

People who have social anxiety (SAD) may find it difficult to interact with others. They may become overwhelmed with feelings of anxiety when they are in crowds or around people they do not know. But how does SAD affect interpersonal relationships, and in particular friendships? Thomas L. Rodebaugh of Washington University in Saint Louis, Missouri was curious to see how the constraints of anxiety spill over into personal relationships. Warmth, reciprocity, and genuine interest in another are at the core of all close friendships. If these elements are impaired they could significantly damage the relationship.

Rodebaugh led a study that involved 27 participants with generalized SAD and 23 with no history of anxiety. The participants were presented with a simulated social dilemma that required they make decisions and interact with a hypothetical friend. The results revealed that the SAD participants were less giving and less willing to participate in the task than the non-SAD participants. The lower level of giving resulted in increases in coldness as well. This result provides a clue as to why SAD may erode even close friendships.

If people are unable to convey warmth and return feelings of genuine interest to others, those around them, even close friends, may perceive that behavior as distant, callous, or uncaring. “Potential or current friends may interpret lower warmth as indicating coldness or lack of interest, both of which may reduce the likelihood that they will continue such interactions,” said Rodebaugh. This explains the pathway through which anxiety can erode friendships. Rodebaugh believes that people with SAD do not intend to alienate their friends but rather are unable to convey closeness because of their heightened anxiety. Most approaches aimed at reducing anxiety do not address interpersonal interactions. Rodebaugh believes that efforts designed to teach people with SAD how to display warmth and caring may serve to strengthen those relationships that are most important to them.

Reference:
Rodebaugh, T. L., Shumaker, E. A., Levinson, C. A., Fernandez, K. C., Langer, J. K., Lim, M. H., and Yarkoni, T. (2012). Interpersonal constraint conferred by generalized social anxiety disorder is evident on a behavioral economics task. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0030975

Humans have been making music ever since they realized that tapping two sticks together could create an engaging beat. Music can foster feelings of joy, unleash our creativity, and is often a key feature of our most enjoyable social gatherings. Ever versatile, music can set the tone for romance or relaxation, and can impel us to move our bodies, whether for exercise or self-expression.

In the mid-twentieth century, music therapy emerged as a discipline, and the development of modern technologies has since shed new light on how music can change the structure and function of the brain, improve mood, and help us recover after a stroke.

[fat_widget_right]

Music and the Brain

One thing we have learned is that music is processed by a number of different areas of the brain, including ones involved in spoken language. Learning to play music changes the structure of our brains in a way that is somewhat analogous to how physical exercise tones our muscles and makes us stronger and more dexterous. A number of studies with healthy and clinical samples have shown temporary cognitive benefits associated with listening to pleasant music, including improved information processing speed, reasoning, attention and memory, and creativity.

In some studies, verbal material that was presented in a musical context was learned and recalled better than spoken verbal material. Music therapy has also helped people who have had strokes to improve their gait, mood, speech, social interactions, and to reduce visual neglect.

Music Therapy and Visual Processing

Visual neglect is the inability to recognize objects in part of the visual field due to lesions in the visual cortex. Specifically, a lesion in one hemisphere produces neglect in the opposite visual field (so a stroke in the left visual cortex would result in one being unable recognize objects in the right visual field, and vice versa). In one study of stroke patients experiencing visual neglect, listening to pleasant music resulted in both better mood and a statistically significant improvement in their ability to describe the color and shape of geometric objects presented via computer. No such effects were observed when patients sat in silence or when they were presented with music that they did not like.

Further examination with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) confirmed that listening to pleasant music activated a number of different brain areas, including those involved in visual processing.

Memory, Attention, and Mood

The same team conducted another study, this time with 60 patients who had recently suffered a stroke. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a music group, an audio book group, or a control group receiving neither intervention. All groups otherwise received standard medical treatments. Those in the two audio groups were allowed to select either the music or audio books of their choice and were asked to listen for an hour daily for two months, and then more on their own after the intervention period ended.

Listening to music was associated with greater recovery of verbal memory and focused attention in the music group versus the other two. Furthermore, the music group participants had significantly less depression and confusion than those in the control group. This benefit was seen within the first three months of listening.

The act of listening to music has been associated with a number of benefits, including on mood, cognition, and physical functioning in healthy people and in clinical samples, such as those who have suffered a stroke.

Those in the music group reported that listening helped them relax, increased their motor activity, and improved their moods. In both the music and audio book groups, participants said the experiences provided positive stimulation. Preliminary imaging results suggest that listening to music following a stroke may result in observable changes to the structure and function of the brain that enhance recovery.

The researchers speculate that the short-term cognitive benefits of music therapy post-stroke may be related to effects on the brain’s reward system and effects on the neurotransmitter dopamine, but the long-term effect is more likely due to improvements in mood somehow impacting improvements in verbal memory and attention. Music may also mitigate the negative effects of stress on the brain and body, and impact other neurotransmitters that play a role in recovery.

The act of listening to music has been associated with a number of benefits, including on mood, cognition, and physical functioning in healthy people and in clinical samples, such as those who have suffered a stroke. Although we are still learning about how and why music helps, it is worth making time for music to move your body, engage your mind, and soothe your soul.

References:

1. American Music Therapy Association: http://www.musictherapy.org
2. Thaut, M., & McIntosh, G. (2010). How Music Helps to Heal the Injured Brain. Therapeutic Use Crescendos Thanks to Advances in Brain Science. Cerebrum. http://dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=26122
3. Sarkamo, T., & Soto, D.  (2012). Music listening after stroke: Beneficial effects and potential neural mechanisms. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1252, 266–281.