Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Friday, May 31, 2013
Sunday, May 26, 2013
The Dependency Paradox
Those who know me best understand that I am a deeply philosophical person. One of my favorite topics in the science of relationships is an existential paradox, or what Dr. Brooke Feeney calls “The Dependency Paradox.”1
As I described in a previous post, humans have a fundamental need for connection to others, or “relatedness.” But we also need “autonomy” (a sense of independence and the feeling that we have personal control over our behavior).2 Intuition tells us that these needs are distinct, and possibly conflicting. But the “paradox hypothesis” suggests the opposite—people who are more dependent on their partners for support actually experience more independence and autonomy, not less. Logically this is a contradiction, but only to the untrained eye.
In a laboratory study, experimenters asked one member of a couple to report how much he/she accepted the other’s dependency (e.g., “I am responsive to my partner’s needs”); higher scores indicated more dependency. The other member of the couple was put in a separate room and given some challenging puzzles to complete. The couples were also given computers to communicate via instant messaging (IM), but this was a ruse. Participants completing the puzzles thought their partners were on the other end of the computer, but really it was an experimenter delivering IMs with direct assistance (hints, advice, or in some cases, solutions to the puzzles).
One might think that the participants with more dependency in their relationships would freely accept this assistance, but instead, the opposite pattern emerged. Those with more dependency actually completed more of the puzzles on their own, independently, and were more likely to reject IMs that contained hints or solutions. Paradoxically, dependence and independence went hand in hand.
In a second study conducted outside the lab, participants listed a personal goal that they would like to achieve on their own in the near future. After 6 months, the experimenters asked participants if they accomplished their goals. Those participants who independently achieved their personal goals (without their partner’s direct assistance) were the ones with more dependency in the relationship.
How can we explain this paradox? One perspective stems from attachment theory, and it works like this: when you are an infant, you are helpless and you have no choice but to depend on others. You need your parents (and sometimes others in your immediate/extended family) to help you learn, grow, and develop into a fully functioning person.3 The same process continues across the lifespan. Babies and children who are confident that their parents are available to support them grow up to function at a higher level emotionally, socially, and academically later in life. That is also why developmental psychologists label “secure” attachment as “autonomous.”4
John Bowlby himself said it best: "Paradoxically, the healthy personality when viewed in this light proves by no means as independent as cultural stereotypes suppose. Essential ingredients are a capacity to rely trustingly on others when occasion demands and to know on whom it is appropriate to rely."5
When I teach relationships research to my students, I especially emphasize this point: if you feel comfortable depending on others (and having others depend on you) that goes hand in hand with independence, motivation, curiosity, achievement, and general mental health.
For more on this topic (and some pop culture references), see this ar
As I described in a previous post, humans have a fundamental need for connection to others, or “relatedness.” But we also need “autonomy” (a sense of independence and the feeling that we have personal control over our behavior).2 Intuition tells us that these needs are distinct, and possibly conflicting. But the “paradox hypothesis” suggests the opposite—people who are more dependent on their partners for support actually experience more independence and autonomy, not less. Logically this is a contradiction, but only to the untrained eye.
In a laboratory study, experimenters asked one member of a couple to report how much he/she accepted the other’s dependency (e.g., “I am responsive to my partner’s needs”); higher scores indicated more dependency. The other member of the couple was put in a separate room and given some challenging puzzles to complete. The couples were also given computers to communicate via instant messaging (IM), but this was a ruse. Participants completing the puzzles thought their partners were on the other end of the computer, but really it was an experimenter delivering IMs with direct assistance (hints, advice, or in some cases, solutions to the puzzles).
One might think that the participants with more dependency in their relationships would freely accept this assistance, but instead, the opposite pattern emerged. Those with more dependency actually completed more of the puzzles on their own, independently, and were more likely to reject IMs that contained hints or solutions. Paradoxically, dependence and independence went hand in hand.
In a second study conducted outside the lab, participants listed a personal goal that they would like to achieve on their own in the near future. After 6 months, the experimenters asked participants if they accomplished their goals. Those participants who independently achieved their personal goals (without their partner’s direct assistance) were the ones with more dependency in the relationship.
How can we explain this paradox? One perspective stems from attachment theory, and it works like this: when you are an infant, you are helpless and you have no choice but to depend on others. You need your parents (and sometimes others in your immediate/extended family) to help you learn, grow, and develop into a fully functioning person.3 The same process continues across the lifespan. Babies and children who are confident that their parents are available to support them grow up to function at a higher level emotionally, socially, and academically later in life. That is also why developmental psychologists label “secure” attachment as “autonomous.”4
John Bowlby himself said it best: "Paradoxically, the healthy personality when viewed in this light proves by no means as independent as cultural stereotypes suppose. Essential ingredients are a capacity to rely trustingly on others when occasion demands and to know on whom it is appropriate to rely."5
When I teach relationships research to my students, I especially emphasize this point: if you feel comfortable depending on others (and having others depend on you) that goes hand in hand with independence, motivation, curiosity, achievement, and general mental health.
For more on this topic (and some pop culture references), see this ar
Friday, July 20, 2012
The Highly Sensitive Person In Love
The Highly Sensitive Person In Love
by Elaine N. Aron, Ph.D.
Why did I turn to this topic? First, a corny sounding reason, but so true: The world needs love. And I believe HSPs are meant to bring much of that love to light. But we need help with intimacy, I have found. Maybe we are afraid, have been hurt, and can't forget it. Or we have trouble being known and appreciated for who we really are. Or we have trouble in relationships because of our different needs, so that we always feel "too much" or "overly sensitive."
The Truth About The "Divorce Gene"
Most of us assume that the success of a relationship between friends or lovers depends on having good communication skills or sharing similar interests. But consider this: A 1995 study found that 50 percent of the risk of divorce is genetically determined. Does this mean success and fulfillment in social life are inherited? What can we do about that?
The single largest reason for this genetic effect is not a "divorce gene," I'm certain. (To say something is genetically determined doesn't clarify much--wearing skirts or owning a rifle is almost totally "genetically determined," thanks to the genes for gender plus a lot of cultural moderators.) Genetics enter into marriage because of the way that certain inherited temperaments cause trouble in relationships. They cause trouble only because most of us are totally ignorant about the reality of the drastic differences that can exist among nervous systems. But with the right guidance, the many "mismatches" in this world can have the most fulfilling relationships of all.
HSPs in Love
Let's start with the temperament we know, sensitivity. About 20% of us are highly sensitive persons (HSPs); at least 34% of love relationships involve an HSP. And everyone has at least one HSP friend. I have found that when HSPs aren't understood by themselves and others, that spells trouble. That's surely part of why my data show that, on the average HSPs, are a bit happier paired with each other. They understand each other.
My data also show that on the average HSPs' relationships in general are less happy--implying that relationships HSPs are in are less happy, at least for the HSP. Why? HSPs have nervous systems that pick up more on subtleties in the world and reflect on them deeply. That means, for starters, that they will tend to demand more depth in their relationships in order to be satisfied; see more threatening consequences in their partners' flaws or behaviors; reflect more and, if the signs indicate it, worry about how things are going.
Because HSPs are picking up on so much, they are also more prone to overstimulation, quicker to feel stress--including the stimulation and stress that can arise in any intense, intimate interactions. They need more down time, which can cause a partner to feel left out. They find different things enjoyable compared to others.
Sensation Seekers In Love
The Highly Sensitive Person in Love also explores, to a lesser degree, the other basic, well researched inherited trait-sensation seeking. Sensation seekers (SSs) are born with a deep curiosity and need to explore. Although this sounds like the opposite of being sensitive, nature planned it otherwise. Different genes and brain systems seem to govern the two traits, so that HSPs can also be SSs. But it certainly complicates their lives.
The Truth About The "Divorce Gene"
No wonder genetics cause 50% of the divorce rate-- this figure represents the many divorces caused by the pairing of persons with extremely different temperaments who have no clue about how the other really experiences life.
Relationship Advice For HSPs
The initial, often extraordinary attraction dissolves fast with familiarity. Then each can feel deeply disappointed with the other, even contemptuous.
Boredom is a special problem for a pair of similars, two HSPs in particular. They may be initially excited to find their similarities, but in time tend to use each other as a sanctuary rather than as a partner in exploring new experiences.
http://www.hsperson.com/pages/love.htm
by Elaine N. Aron, Ph.D.
Why did I turn to this topic? First, a corny sounding reason, but so true: The world needs love. And I believe HSPs are meant to bring much of that love to light. But we need help with intimacy, I have found. Maybe we are afraid, have been hurt, and can't forget it. Or we have trouble being known and appreciated for who we really are. Or we have trouble in relationships because of our different needs, so that we always feel "too much" or "overly sensitive."
The Truth About The "Divorce Gene"
Most of us assume that the success of a relationship between friends or lovers depends on having good communication skills or sharing similar interests. But consider this: A 1995 study found that 50 percent of the risk of divorce is genetically determined. Does this mean success and fulfillment in social life are inherited? What can we do about that?
The single largest reason for this genetic effect is not a "divorce gene," I'm certain. (To say something is genetically determined doesn't clarify much--wearing skirts or owning a rifle is almost totally "genetically determined," thanks to the genes for gender plus a lot of cultural moderators.) Genetics enter into marriage because of the way that certain inherited temperaments cause trouble in relationships. They cause trouble only because most of us are totally ignorant about the reality of the drastic differences that can exist among nervous systems. But with the right guidance, the many "mismatches" in this world can have the most fulfilling relationships of all.
HSPs in Love
Let's start with the temperament we know, sensitivity. About 20% of us are highly sensitive persons (HSPs); at least 34% of love relationships involve an HSP. And everyone has at least one HSP friend. I have found that when HSPs aren't understood by themselves and others, that spells trouble. That's surely part of why my data show that, on the average HSPs, are a bit happier paired with each other. They understand each other.
My data also show that on the average HSPs' relationships in general are less happy--implying that relationships HSPs are in are less happy, at least for the HSP. Why? HSPs have nervous systems that pick up more on subtleties in the world and reflect on them deeply. That means, for starters, that they will tend to demand more depth in their relationships in order to be satisfied; see more threatening consequences in their partners' flaws or behaviors; reflect more and, if the signs indicate it, worry about how things are going.
Because HSPs are picking up on so much, they are also more prone to overstimulation, quicker to feel stress--including the stimulation and stress that can arise in any intense, intimate interactions. They need more down time, which can cause a partner to feel left out. They find different things enjoyable compared to others.
Sensation Seekers In Love
The Highly Sensitive Person in Love also explores, to a lesser degree, the other basic, well researched inherited trait-sensation seeking. Sensation seekers (SSs) are born with a deep curiosity and need to explore. Although this sounds like the opposite of being sensitive, nature planned it otherwise. Different genes and brain systems seem to govern the two traits, so that HSPs can also be SSs. But it certainly complicates their lives.
The Truth About The "Divorce Gene"
No wonder genetics cause 50% of the divorce rate-- this figure represents the many divorces caused by the pairing of persons with extremely different temperaments who have no clue about how the other really experiences life.
Relationship Advice For HSPs
The initial, often extraordinary attraction dissolves fast with familiarity. Then each can feel deeply disappointed with the other, even contemptuous.
Boredom is a special problem for a pair of similars, two HSPs in particular. They may be initially excited to find their similarities, but in time tend to use each other as a sanctuary rather than as a partner in exploring new experiences.
http://www.hsperson.com/pages/love.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)