Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Thoughts and Musings’ Category

My patient looked me in the eye.  Tears poured down her cheeks.

“It hurts so bad.  Why does it have to hurt so bad?”

I often sit in a room with another person in emotional agony.  It’s part of my job.  I sit.  I listen.  I don’t interrupt.  I tolerate the feelings, and do my best to understand.

“Why won’t he call me?  Why doesn’t he love me?”

I told her what I knew to be true.

“This guy isn’t worth your time.  He isn’t worth these tears.  This isn’t about him.  It’s about you.  And these are old tears – the tears of a heartbroken child.  Your heart was broken long before you met this guy.”

A child’s first love affair is with a parent – and a little girl’s is typically with her father.  She instinctively adores this powerful man who controls the world.  She would do anything to win his attention, his delight, his love.

Sometimes things go wrong.

The father might be distracted by other things – his career, his marriage, something.  His baby daughter adores him.  But his attention turns elsewhere.

For that child, his rejection is akin to abandonment – which is akin, for her, to death.  The resulting pain is cellular, and unendurable.  It is a child’s heartbreak.  She thinks she is going to die.

That’s what my patient was feeling now.

We talked about how it felt, attempting to physicalize the symptoms to make them more conscious.

A cold steel ball in the gut.  A choke in the throat – like a cry rising up and getting stuck.  An ache at her core.  She cried all the time, and couldn’t sleep.

This was heartbreak.

We returned to her childhood, to see where this hurt began.

Her father sounded awful – a swaggering bully, who verbally and physically abused his wife.

Still, when my patient was little, he became the positive focus of her life.  She recalled afternoons spent sitting on his lap, being fussed over.

That ended abruptly when she was 10.  Her father left with a mistress, then moved back in a year later – with the mistress in tow.  After that, her childhood was a blur of drunken rages.  Her father fought endlessly with both wife and mistress.  The little girl got lost amid the drama.  She spent most of her time alone, wounded by his rejection.

Now she was repeating the pattern.  She’d found a guy like her father – a swaggering, charismatic bully who paid attention to her for a few weeks, then lost interest.

An adult doesn’t waste time on someone who doesn’t return her care.  But a child loves differently – without question.  The child seeks to please.  If the child’s love is rejected, she locates the fault within.  She must be to blame for refusing to please.

This is the formula for heartbreak – the pain of a rejected child.

My patient was pining for a someone who never existed, any more than the father who made gestures at parenting before he disappeared into his own self-fascination.  Both men constituted a promise, not a reality  Both appeared when they felt like it, then left.  Neither deserved her love.

The first step in recovery from heartbreak is to recognize that this is a child’s pain – and address it as such.  This is a cry of need that you have to answer yourself, by bringing your child the parenting she craves.

Instead of assigning importance to someone for whom you are unimportant, start treating your child as important.  If you are there for yourself, you will not experience solitude as a child experiences it – as abandonment.  You will feel secure in your own care.

The message for your child goes something like this:

You are good and unique and important.  I love you.  You deserve my love.   I’m never going to put anyone else’s needs before yours, because you are mine – you belong to me – of me, and with me, and rely on me for care. You are my special love, always first in my heart.

Those are words a parent should tell a child, each and every day.

No one should ever break a child’s heart.  Or let a child’s heart stay broken.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

A young woman I worked with last week told me three thoughts that kept playing in her head like a tape:

I’m not special.

I’m not good at anything.

It would be better if I were just dead.

Listening to those voices took her down a familiar path to depression and self-destructive behavior.  She admitted the suicidal thoughts were mostly directed at attracting the attention of a guy she’d been dating who now ignored her.  Maybe if she didn’t exist, he’d finally notice.  And that would somehow mean she’d gotten him back – so she could feel like she was worth something again.

I proposed another path.

I asked if she could formulate counter-voices to answer those tapes.

She said it was hard.

The best she could come up with was:

I’m a nice person.

and

I’m a good friend.

It didn’t seem like much.  But it was a start.

In fact, those two observations represent some sort of universal human bedrock.  The beginning of everything else.

You can’t achieve anything in life – anything meaningful – unless you like yourself.  That means believing in yourself, and considering yourself someone worth being.

It begins with sitting down with yourself – just as you would with anyone else – and deciding you’re someone worth having as a friend.

A person worth having as a friend is someone who tells you the truth, and holds a connection with you.  Someone who is real.

This young woman told me she is a nice person, and a good friend.  And she likes people who are nice people, and good friends.  We all do.  That’s the basic bedrock – when everything else, all the clutter, is cleared away – it’s why you like another person.

Where do you go from there?  Anywhere.

This young woman’s favorite performer happens to be Lady Gaga.

If you look at Lady Gaga’s biography, one prominent fact jumps out at you:  it didn’t have to happen.

There was never any guarantee that Stefani Germanotta was going to become a humongous pop sensation.  Actually, it seemed next-to-impossible.  Somehow or other she found the strength to ignore all the nay-sayers – and the odds – to drop out of college, and work night and day at her song-writing and performing.  She also followed her heart to create an outrageous persona, locate the wildest conceivable costumes and pull off something new.

Obviously, we can’t all become Lady Gaga.  She’s a talented musician, dancer and performer, and most of us are not.

But you can take a page from her playbook – and believe in yourself.

My young patient reminds me a bit of her hero.  She is delightfully unconventional, with pink hair and tattoos and a stunning eye for outre fashion.

If she can learn to take another path, away from self-attack and towards self-acceptance, there’s no knowing where she’ll end up and what she’ll accomplish – the possibilities are endless.

You can’t create talents and aptitudes – you’re born with those.

But you can learn to believe in yourself, and nurture and support the talents and aptitudes you have.

Like every single person on this Earth, you are an original work of art.

Your life can be a work of art, too.

It starts with giving yourself a chance.

So go ahead – stop beating yourself up.

If it worked for Stefani Germanotta, it might work for you.

Get in touch with your inner Gaga.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

Maynard Solomon’s biography of Mozart quotes a delightful letter of 1778 from Mozart to his friend Gottfried von Jacquin:

We all invented names for ourselves on the journey [to Prague].  Here they are.  I am Punkitititi.  My wife is Schable Pumfa. Hofer is Rozka-Pumpa.  Stadler is Natchibinitschibi.  My servant Joseph is Sagadarata.  My dog Gauckerl is Schamanuzky.  Madam Quallenberg is Runzifunzi.  Mlle Crux is Ramlo Schurimuri.  Freistaedtler is Gaulimauli.

This is Mozart at his most relaxed, giggling with old chums in a stage coach and reinforcing bonds of friendship by inventing silly nicknames for one another while playing with a little dog named Gauckerl, whom Punkitititi liked to call Schamanuzky.

It got me thinking about names – the names you assign yourself, and the names others assign to you.

Naming yourself can be empowering.  With this act, you claim a right to define your own identity, whether you choose to be referred to as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Gottlieb (Mozart’s official name) – or just plain Punkitititi.   Naming takes on a special significance when a group of people select names for themselves.  It is a sign of respect – and good manners – to call someone by the name they’ve chosen.  That’s why a person who asks to be called “African-American” or “Latina” or “Cantonese” – or just “Randolph” instead of “Randy” – should be called the name he has selected for himself.  It’s a sign of respect – and simple manners.

Assigning names to other people is where things get tricky, and potentially hazardous – especially in the field of mental health.

The DSM, or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is a book containing names for every possible sort of mental disorder the mental health powers-that-be have managed to devise.  A psychiatrist or other mental health professional uses the DSM to guide him when he diagnoses you.

But what does that really mean?  The problem with mental illnesses is that they are largely invisible, at least with contemporary technology.  I can’t peer down your throat or listen to your chest and diagnose you with acute depression.  I have to observe your behavior.  So this book, the DSM, is really a catalog of behaviors that our society has decided are indicative of a pathology.

I am not a knee-jerk critic of the DSM.  It has its uses.  For one thing, it standardizes symptoms and assigns names to them, and to groups of symptoms that form syndromes.  That way a therapist discussing a patient with another therapist can rely upon a common vocabulary of clearly defined terms.  This can be especially useful with rare, or very serious diagnoses.  Theoretically, at least, everyone is on the same page.

The biggest problem with the DSM is that the definitions are rarely all that clear.  DSM diagnoses also have a disturbing tendency to become popularized and expand to cover vast swathes of the population.  Right now, ADHD, Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, seems to affect more people each year, and one can’t help but wonder if the pharmaceutical companies, which make enormous profits on the drugs used to treat ADHD, aren’t somewhere behind that trend.  Another syndrome, Bipolar Disorder, has been applied to a growing population, and is now being diagnosed in very young children, which seems disturbing, especially since the pharmaceutical companies have a hot market developing for bipolar drugs, too.  “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” and plain old mild depression – in its various DSM guises – also seem to apply to more and more people with each passing year.

Terms for mental illnesses can “drift” over time, as well.  I remember being shocked years ago when I read that the great leader of the Modern Psychoanalytic movement, Hyman Spotnitz, claimed to have successfully treated schizophrenic patients with talk therapy. Later, it was explained to me that the definition of who was “schizophrenic” had changed over the years.  The patients Spotnitz was treating were far less severely ill than the patients I thought of as suffering from schizophrenia as it is defined nowadays.  This issue of “drift” has also cropped up with regard to the little-understood term “autistic,” which has recently been expanded to encompass such a broad spectrum of symptoms and degrees of severity that – even with the DSM – it’s disintegrated into a confusing definitional muddle.

These names in the DSM – mental illness diagnoses – can also be used, even inadvertently, in ways that can be demeaning and dismissive of the complexities of the human soul.  For example, I sometimes refer to a patient as having a “borderline pattern” or displaying a “borderline tendency.”  I simply mean that this person swings rapidly  from extremes of vulnerability to anger.  It is a common pattern, and, as I’ve said elsewhere, I think everyone is probably a little bit borderline.  It’s part of human nature.  What I object to is referring to someone as “a borderline” – as though he were no longer a person, but the objectification, the embodiment of this one emotional pattern.  That’s unfair, not least because most of my patients who display a borderline tendency recover – they are able to become conscious of that tendency and effectively address it.  People change – they are capable of enormous change.  They are moving targets.  They are not walking diagnoses.

Mozart and his friends made up silly names for themselves and had a grand time.  But when other people make up silly names and impose them on you, it’s time to speak up and demand the right to self-definition.  A diagnosis from your doctor should help both of you – you and him – to understand something about you.

Never forget that you are unique, and diagnoses are generalizations.  They can never capture the essence of who and what you are inside.

One of the greatest nicknamers of all time – and another musical genius – is George Clinton, of Parliament/Funkadelic fame.  He has appeared in his on-stage funk extravaganzas under various guises and monikers, including Dr. Funkenstein, Mr. Wiggles, The Undisco Kid, Starchild, Sir Nose D’ Voidofsense, Lollipop man and Bumpnoxious Rumpofsteelskin.

I can’t seem to locate the exact quote, but I recall seeing a documentary somewhere in which Clinton discussed his unique status in the music industry.  He said something like “Yeah, now I’m considered a visionary genius…but back when I got started I was just ‘that crazy mother-f-er.'”

Perhaps in naming himself, George Clinton assisted the process of changing perceptions of who he is – and bringing across his unique musical-dramatic vision.

We would all do well to follow Dr. Funkenstein’s – and  Punkitititi’s – examples.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

A reader wrote recently to ask about the effect of multiple moves on a child.

It got me thinking about the concept of “home.”

There’s no more powerful trope in human society.  “Home” as a concept relates to the child you once were. It triggers a universal longing.

The word resonates so strongly that real estate listings often use “home” instead of “house” to describe a property for sale.  They’d rather market a concept – something we all long for – than the thing itself, a heap of wood and brick, cinder block and glass.

The word “home” is ubiquitous in our common language, as well – embedded in everyday phrases:  welcome home, home base, home run, homing in, heading home, home sweet home, writing home, home-making, come home.

You need a home.  You may search for it all your life.

As a child, you long for stability – a regular schedule, predictable places and events.  A child savors routines that would bore an adult to tears: watching the same dvd over and over again, having the same book read to him over and over again, eating the same meal (chicken nuggets or pizza) over and over again.  A child wants to stay put and feel safe. Familiarity is like food – he gobbles it up.

The effect of multiple moves on a young child is that he will feel destabilized and anxious, and turn for succor to the one place whence he believes all stability derives – his parent.  That usually means mom, literally his first home, where he first found food and warmth, love and care.  Mama equals home.  She is the original safe place.

For an adult, that’s no longer the case.  The illusion of mom as an omnipotent, omnipresent figure fades as you mature.  In its place, a real woman emerges.  She was once a child herself, and she has her own struggles to wage.

So you turn vagabond – and search for a new home, elsewhere.

You might seek it in a big house.  Or maybe a bank account or a heap of possessions represents your vision of stability and safety.

Ultimately, home must be a person, just as it was when you were a child.  Money and things cannot offer you a true home.

But seeking your home in a partner doesn’t work either.  A relationship must be a meeting of equals – two whole people, not two half people.  It cannot be a rescue.

You cannot build a home with someone else until you feel secure in yourself.  No other person can make you feel secure in your life, and partners cannot run to one another for something they both lack.

You have to build your own place of safety.

Home must exist within you.

Luckily, it already does.  Home, for an adult, is nothing more than acceptance of yourself – the person you truly are when you are your best – your most conscious and most authentic – self.

You are already home.

You always have been.  You always will be.

Always there, always ready to offer love, security and safety.  For yourself.

What a house symbolically offers.  What mama used to offer.  What the word “home” promises.

You can provide that for yourself.

Welcome home.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

My patient was upset.  Another girl had dumped him when everything seemed to be going well.

“What is it about me?  They always disappear like that.  I try to be a nice person, but something I’m doing chases them away.”

This patient was making a fundamental scientific error – he was imposing a narrative onto his data.

If Albert Einstein had done that, he never would have come up with E= mc squared.

When Einstein began pondering what would become his Special Theory of Relativity, physics was grounded in basic assumptions from everyday existence.  Scientists looked at the world around them and tried to translate what they saw into mathematics.  For people like Galileo and Newton, that led to breakthroughs.  They saw something drop – and discovered gravity.  They saw something speed up and hit something else – and discovered acceleration and force.

Einstein’s breakthrough was different.  To come to it, he had to stop imposing the narrative of the quotidian, human world onto the behavior of tiny particles and waves of energy.

On Earth, as a human, you can always go faster.  Just press the pedal and accelerate.  Or jump in an airplane.  Speed is a variable.

Einstein’s breakthrough with Special Relativity was to stop imposing that narrative onto physics.  The speed of light, he theorized, might be a constant.  That would mean you couldn’t go any faster than the speed of light.  It’s simply as fast as you can move.

That makes sense, if you think about it, because if you’re moving at the speed of light, you are going so fast that you can no longer exist as matter – you become pure energy – in other words, light.  That’s why it’s called ‘the speed of light.’

And that’s what E=mc squared means.  Matter at the speed of light becomes pure energy.  (Apologies to my  physicist older brother, Dr. David D. Meyerhofer, if this isn’t exactly, precisely absolutely correct – but I think he’ll agree it’s pretty close.)

If you make speed a constant in a physics equation, then measurements we think of as constants in everyday life – like how big something is, or how fast time goes by – suddenly become variables.  Everything gets very strange, new and interesting.  Here on Earth, living at a human scale, we have always expected a foot to measure a foot and a minute to last a minute, but a speeding photon doesn’t care how big it is, or how fast time is moving.  Fundamental assumptions about our world cannot be imposed upon the reality experienced by a wave or a particle.  It would give you the wrong answer.

Enough physics.  Back to my patient.

He assumed every girl he met liked him at first, then rejected him after perceiving some fatal flaw.

This reality could be traced back to his early years.

This man was a “change of life” baby, born when his parents were older and his siblings already in their late teens.  Initially, the entire family doted upon the new baby.

But as my patient grew up, he challenged his parents’ view of the world.  His older siblings had been born in Africa, and shared with their parents a fundamentally African, immigrant viewpoint.  They put schoolwork above all other priorities, married traditional African spouses and – like their parents – pursued medicine as a career.

My client, on the other hand, had an artistic bent, and grew up like an American teenager.  He loved pop music, spent most of his time making pottery, displayed no talent for medicine – and still hadn’t decided what he wanted to be when he grew up.

Sensing that something was wrong, his parents expressed disapproval by withdrawing attention.  They weren’t sure what to make of this final child, so they frowned and walked away, leaving him with a lingering sense of rejection and failure.

Now, with the girls he was dating, he imposed that same familiar narrative.  Each woman was cast in the role of his parents – initially adoring him, then spotting some flaw, some change in him they couldn’t handle, and turning away without an explanation.

I suggested to my patient that he think more like Einstein.  Maybe he was a constant in this equation – not a variable.

Maybe he was a perfectly nice guy – kind, considerate and perhaps a bit shy, but thoughtful and respectful with everyone he dated.

Maybe the girls he was dating were the variables.  Maybe each one of them had her own issues – and her own reasons for rejecting him, which had nothing to do with him, or with the other women.

I asked a few key questions:

“That first woman – wasn’t she the one who had just broken up a long-term relationship and talked about her ex ad nauseam?”

He admitted that might be the case.

“And the other one.  Wasn’t she fighting a cocaine addiction?”

He nodded.

“And then there was the one you never really seemed to like, at least until she disappeared.  Isn’t it possible she was picking up on your hesitancy, and walking away to spare herself the grief of being rejected?”

He had to admit that might be true as well.

I made my closing argument:  “Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep looking for a woman who is actually right for you, instead of wasting time getting upset and blaming yourself each time it doesn’t work out with someone?”

From the way he looked at me, I knew I’d made my point.

Instead of imposing the narrative of his parents’ rejection on every single relationship in his life, he was beginning to grasp that alternative – and more convincing – narratives might exist.

Maybe the speed of light is as fast as you can go.  Maybe a ruler can stretch or shrink and time can run faster and slower, depending on how fast you’re moving.

Maybe each and every rejection isn’t about your issues – it’s about other people, and what might be going on in their heads.

Try thinking like Einstein – outside the box, where everything might not be a reflection of you, or the world you grew up in.

It will give you a more interesting – and more accurate – picture of the world.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

Sometimes I feel like I might be the greatest therapist in the world.

Like when I help a gay person out of the closet.

The results are amazing.  If I could put what happens to a gay person when he comes out of the closet into a bottle and sell it, I’d be a multimillionaire.

Depression lifts.  Anxiety disappears.  Authenticity is restored.  Self-esteem soars.  It’s like a super mental health tonic – it never fails.

How to account for this miracle?

A person in the closet is a liar.  He’s being forced to lie to everyone around him, and he is being forced to lie about who he is, which implies there is something wrong with him.

That’s incorrect because there is nothing – NOTHING – wrong with being gay.  In fact, it has many advantages – including admission into the gay community, a diverse collection of people with a proud history.

The lie of the closet isolates the closeted person.  No one knows him, so he doesn’t know himself – or them.  He’s living outside of the world, alone.

That isolation is devastating.  It is a terrible waste of a human life.

Coming out fixes everything in one easy step.  The results are astounding.

It isn’t easy to overcome the fear and take that leap.  Certain elements in our society are committed to keeping gay people from telling their truth, and to achieve that end they do their best to scold, frighten and intimidate LGBT people into hiding the beauty of their authentic souls.

Over the years I’ve heard every reason in the book for why it isn’t quite time yet – or why this particular patient is the exception and can’t come out like everyone else.

It’s all nonsense.  Everyone must come out.

Here’s Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on the topic:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

I’ve helped people of all ages, all religions, all ethnicities and from all over the world to come out.

To my knowledge not one single mother has clutched her chest and dropped dead of a heart attack (although a patient recently – and seriously – predicted to me that this would occur.)  Not one father has committed suicide upon hearing the news either (another patient’s grim prediction.)

At very worse, they might freak out, and it might take them a while to overcome their ignorance and become educated about the nature of sexual orientation.

But that’s their job.  They have a gay person in their lives, and they need to learn more about gay people.

One of the best things about coming out is that you stop apologizing.  You learn to look people in the eyes without shame. Suddenly you are truly present, authentically present.  It’s the real you.

For a gay person, when you come out is when your life truly begins.

A few weeks ago, President Obama promised he would dismantle Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – the military’s current policy towards its gay soldiers, pilots, marines and sailors.

The military has been functioning for nearly two decades under this rule, under which gay people are permitted to serve, so long as they live in the closet.

As a psychotherapist, I know that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell does more than endanger the careers of brave, hard-working American service members – it endangers their psyches as well.  Overturning this policy is not merely a matter of social justice – it is a matter of psychological well-being.

Many of these service members are young and impressionable, and grew up in a climate that was especially repressive around issues of sexual orientation.  In psychological terms, the military is in the position of a parent to these young soldiers.  By telling these young people to hide who they truly are, the commanding officers are telling them there is something wrong with their authentic selves.  If they believe this nonsense, they will become prime candidates to develop depression by bottling up their anger at the military – anger which they feel is forbidden – and turning that anger in on themselves, assaulting their self-esteem.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is an insult to soldiers who put their lives on the line to protect our country.  It is also a real and present danger to their psyches.

It is an obscenity.  It must end now.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

Towards the end of a session a while back, one of my patients, who was African-American, laughed out loud, like he was sharing a personal joke.

“What’s so funny?” I asked.

“Oh, I don’t know.  I still can’t get over the fact that my therapist is a white guy.”

I shrugged and smiled – there wasn’t much else I could do.

But I was pleased.  I admit it.  I liked being his therapist.  And that patient has referred a bunch of people to me since, mostly African-Americans.  That felt good, too.

I wish I had a simple, clear answer to the question posed by the title of this posting.  But like so much else in psychotherapy and human life in general – it’s complicated.

On the one hand, a strong case could be made that a person’s background, and his experiences, should shape who he is, and his ability to connect with someone who has had a similar or different background or experiences.  By that logic, an African-American should be better off with an African-American therapist.

But it doesn’t always work out that way.  For one thing, the patient I was working with was gay – so did he have to find a gay African-American therapist, or was a gay white therapist okay, or a heterosexual African-American therapist?  And what about the fact that I’m Jewish?

I think one of the reasons I worked so well with that patient was that I studied African-American history and literature in college, and am a connoisseur of jazz and other African-American music.  It might also have helped that, as the Program Coordinator for a counseling program at a large urban hospital for a few years, I assigned myself lots of African-American patients, partly because I was interested in learning more about their culture and experiences, and partly from necessity.  We had a small, mostly-white staff, and the other full-time counselor spoke Spanish and Portuguese, so he was occupied with immigrant patients.  I became a sort of resident African-American expert.

Maybe that’s why I did so well with this patient.  Or maybe we just clicked.  He was an elegant, educated man, and a jazz fan, and, well, we liked each other.

Choosing a therapist is a bit like choosing a Supreme Court justice.  You collect all the information you can – and then you take your best guess.  An African-American jurist ought to have a better understanding of the issues affecting African-Americans – right?  But then, sometimes you get Thurgood Marshall – and sometimes you get Clarence Thomas.

Many therapist list their “specialties” on their websites, or even their business cards.  I don’t, because I find it limiting.  I don’t see why, if a patient with a new issue comes into my office – whether it’s bulimia or childhood sexual abuse or crystal meth addiction – I shouldn’t be able to get some books, talk to colleagues, and do whatever it takes to get myself up to speed. That goes with human diversity as well.  I’ve treated Kazakhs, Navahos, Cameroonians, Indonesians, Peruvians and Dubaians, among others.  They all taught me something about who they were and where they came from.  That’s part of my job – a fun and necessary part.

I once commented to a transsexual psychotherapist that it must be great to help others within her community.  She let out a rueful sigh.  Sure, she admitted.  But the real issue was that she worked within a ghetto.  She wanted to treat all sorts of people, not just transgendered patients.  Being seen as someone who worked only with other transsexuals limited her practice, and her ability to grow as a clinician.  I realized I was losing something, too, when transsexuals went to see her instead of bringing their unique diversity to my practice.

Seeking out the “logical” therapist for you can have drawbacks for the patient as well.  I once did a session with a deaf woman who was dealing with a domestic violence situation.  We worked with a sign-language translator, but afterward I discovered the hospital had a limited budget for translation services.  An administrator recommended I refer this patient to an American Sign Language-fluent psychotherapist.  I found two names, and gave them to the patient.  She only rolled her eyes.  She didn’t want to see a psychotherapist who worked with the deaf – those two therapists were already seeing all her friends in the deaf community, and she didn’t feel comfortable opening up to them.  She said she would much rather work with me, through a translator.  I was surprised – but I got her point.  I wanted to work with her, too – but I couldn’t find an ASL-translator, so we didn’t have that option, which was heart-breaking.

I ran into a similar situation with a Japanese patient.  His English wasn’t very good, but he could communicate.  I suggested he might be more comfortable working in Japanese instead of English, and proposed two Japanese-speaking therapists.  The problem, he confessed, was that he was gay, and working on coming out to his friends and family.  Of the two Japanese therapists, one was straight, and the other knew all the other gay Japanese people living in New York City.  He wanted a gay therapist to work on gay issues, which are sensitive in Japanese society – but he didn’t want someone who knew his friends.  He decided to stay with me.  Yes, he sometimes had to repeat things two or three times so I could understand him, but we did okay.  He’d come to America, he said, to live like an American – and he liked having an American therapist.

It’s worth pointing out that therapists spend most of their time listening, not talking.  When I do talk, I’m usually asking questions or taking a guess at interpreting something I’ve heard.  My job is to listen, and try to understand.  Theoretically, I should be able to listen to anyone – anyone – and understand him, whether he’s black, white or purple.

I take pride in showing off my bits of cultural competence.  I enjoyed greeting a Chinese patient from Hong Kong the other day with “Please come in!” in Cantonese.  Last month I shared a laugh with a Dominican patient when we realized we both have little half-Dominican nieces who call us “Tio.”

These touches might help make a patient feel more at ease.  But in the big picture, they’re minor details.

What really matters isn’t whether your therapist looks like you, or acts like you – it’s whether he understands you.  Just like a Supreme Court Justice – his competency depends not only on his background or experience, but how well he does his job.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

The first researchers to observe chimpanzees in the wild were left with an idyllic impression of our close ape cousins.  They appeared to be a peaceful tribe of vegetarians, who cuddled and groomed and cared for one another in extended family units, sharing fruit and showering their young with affection.

Only later, when in-depth studies were attempted, did it become clear that this was merely part of the picture.  These serene vegetarians were also capable of shocking violence towards members of their own species, including murder.

Chimpanzees are gentle, loving and family-oriented within their own territorial mating group.  But with chimps from outside that circle, they can turn vicious.

In this respect, chimps resemble humans.

You, for example, would never display intentional cruelty towards another human being.

That is – unless you knew that other human being wasn’t like you.  Then you might be surprised at what you could do.

Welcome to in-group/out-group psychology.

Consider the guards at Auschwitz.  They thought of themselves as nice people.

An album of photos was made public in 2008 containing photographs taken by members of the SS who worked at Auschwitz. These pictures are not what you would expect.  Dating from 1944, they show laughing, singing, smiling people reveling at Solahütte, an SS recreation home located just outside the death camp.

There’s even a shot of an SS officer lighting the Auschwitz Christmas tree only a few miles from the place where millions were being starved, beaten and gassed.

The question becomes how you convince yourself that other human beings are not like you – that they are outsiders.

One common method is to place them outside of your religious system.  Religion is often credited with teaching morals and enforcing good behavior among human beings.  More often, it is used to justify the abuse of out-groups by defining the parameters of an in-group.  As Freud put it:  “a religion, even when it calls itself the religion of love, must be hard and loveless against those who do not belong to it.”

Freud watched Hitler march into Austria during the Anschluss in 1938, as the powerful Roman Catholic church stood by offering no resistance whatsoever.  As Peter Gay describes it:

“The Austrian prelates, keepers of the Roman Catholic conscience, did nothing to mobilize whatever forces of sanity and decency still remained;  with Theodor Cardinal Innitzer setting the tone, priests celebrated Hitler’s accomplishments from the pulpit, promised to cooperate joyfully with the new dispensation, and ordered the swastika flag to be hoisted over church steeples on suitable occasions.”

Freud managed to escape to England with his immediate family.  Four of his sisters, each of them over 70 years old, were not so lucky.  These helpless elderly women were murdered in concentration camps.

In-group/out-group psychology, coupled with religion, explains a lot about wars, inquisitions, crusades, burnings at stakes, pogroms, terrorism and the ugly history of mankind in general.

Another way to ostracize a group is to link them to disease.  When Glenn Beck calls Progressivism a “cancer” in America, he implies that Progressives, those people like myself who believe in Progressive causes, are the embodiment of that cancer.  He is borrowing a page from Adolf Hitler’s playbook.  One of the Fuehrer’s favorite tropes was to compare Jews to tuberculosis bacilli infecting the German nation.

If people are tuberculosis bacilli – or cancer cells – it becomes much easier to abuse them.

Still another way to justify dehumanizing a group of people is to isolate them because they have a different ethnic background, or physical appearance. This country began as a slave colony, based on the firm notion that people with dark skin could be beaten, abused, tortured, murdered, and bought and sold as chattel because they weren’t really “human” at all – they were more like animals.  This is another example of in-group/out-group psychology at work.

The Tea Party movement lends itself to in-group/out-group psychology because it is a homogenous population – an excellent candidate for an in-group.  According to a CNN poll, active supporters of the Tea Party, those who have attended a rally or donated money, are much more likely to be wealthy, male, have graduated from college and reside in rural areas that are already GOP and conservative strongholds.  According to a Quinnipiac University poll, 88% of the Tea Partiers are white.  They are also almost entirely Republican.  It’s a fair guess that most of them are Christian, too, and probably fundamentalist.

This might explain their obsession with attempting to prove that Barack Obama, the President of the United States, was somehow not born here or is somehow not American.

He’s different from them.  That makes him a member of an out-group.

Mr. Obama’s out-group status, in turn, permits the Tea Party people to justify treating him in ways they would never treat one of their own.  That explains shouting “You lie” at him in the middle of a joint session of the US Congress, or flaunting firearms at events where the President is speaking.  Since he is an out-group member, they can justify treating Mr. Obama with a level of disrespect that might otherwise be difficult to fathom, especially from people who claim to respect the office he fills.

More disturbing, perhaps, is the way the Republicans treat their fellow Americans who happen to lack healthcare.

If another human person were injured or ill, and needing to be taken to a hospital, it is hard to imagine anyone, whatever their political or religious beliefs, refusing to come to that person’s aid.

But the Republicans have managed to convince themselves that denying healthcare to their fellow Americans is morally defensible.  Perhaps it’s a Christian doctrine that an atheist outsider, like myself or Sigmund Freud, could never comprehend.

More likely, for the Republicans, it’s simply that any American living without healthcare must be a member of an out-group.  Perhaps they are all Socialists, African-Americans or Progressives, or even part of the “cancer” that Glenn Beck battles on tv.

The latest example of in-group/out-group psychology at work has appeared in the form of threats of violence by radical Right-wingers against Democratic politicians who supported the healthcare bill and voted it into law last week.  Black and gay politicians have had nasty names shouted at them.  One Democratic congressman was called “baby killer” by his Republican colleague on the floor of the US House of Representatives.  There have been death threats and acts of vandalism.

You wouldn’t do these things to someone whom you considered an equal.

The truth seems to be that, for the Republicans, anyone who disagrees with their political agenda is an outsider.  The code word for “outsider” is that you are not a “real American.”  Sarah Palin warned you about those people, the “fake Americans” – the outsiders.  You can place gun targets over their faces.  You can threaten their lives.

As I’ve said time and time again, this column is strictly without political bias.

But perhaps it is time for the Republicans and their Tea Party minions to rise above the level of chimpanzees and Nazis, and to recognize the humanity of their fellow citizens.  For decades, tens of millions of us have been denied access to decent healthcare.  As a result, each year tens of thousands of us have died.

The issue of healthcare is finally being addressed with a mainstream political solution, thanks to President Obama and the Democrats.

But the Republicans still need to learn a basic lesson in citizenship.

They are not the in-group, and everyone else is not the out-group.

There is no out-group.

There is one America, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

I write a lot about unconscious regression – mostly how to prevent it.

That’s because you want to learn to parent yourself – to live your life as an adult, not a child, to be awake and embrace awareness so you can take charge of the life you lead.

On the other hand, sometimes being an adult can be exhausting.

At the end of each day, you go to sleep – a regressed, unconscious state.  You cannot survive without this nightly departure from reality.  Sleep deprivation is harmful, even fatal in extreme cases.   It is necessary for your physical and mental health to disappear into your unconscious to rest and recover.

You also need to play.  Perhaps that’s what dreams are – the play of the unconscious mind.

Conscious play – what the psychoanalyst Ernst Kris termed “regression in the service of the ego” – is also critical to staying healthy in mind and body.

It’s interesting that children play at being adults.  They bang away at a little workbench, or play “house” or pretend to care for a doll.  They are practicing for the time when they will leave the regressed, dreamy state of childhood, and assume adult responsibilities.

Adults do just the opposite.  When you play as an adult, you regress back to childhood activities.  You might occupy yourself with sports, vegetate with a video game or disappear into a novel or a movie.  You might sit on the beach, look at a palm tree and think about the world.

A change of physical scenery can be restful.  It’s nice to escape from your familiar adult world and take yourself someplace new, where no reminders exist of adult responsibilities.

You might find it useful to go somewhere without walls – and with long horizons.  There’s something about seeing a great distance that sets the mind to turning over new possibilities.

The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, wrote that a man who transcends the conventional thinking of his time “must be accustomed to living on mountain tops.”

It is healthy to gaze into the distance – from a mountain top, or out over the ocean – and consider what might be.  You can best re-evaluate where you are when you can see a long way ahead.

The People’s Therapist is going on a vacation.

I’ll be back in a week’s time – rested and ready to continue in interesting new directions.

But for a few days I’ll let my child take over.

He wants to build a sand castle and splash in the waves and maybe read a good book.  A little sea air and a sun tan – and possibly a margarita – might be nice.  Maybe some good food and a little dancing.

I’ll see you when I get back.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

Remember when you were a kid, and you got caught doing something you shouldn’t, and a big cloud formed over your head?

You were “in trouble.”

The other kids sort of inched out of your path and exchanged looks. They didn’t want any piece of what you had coming. Mom was going to talk to you later. Or dad. You’d done something wrong.

It feels that way sometimes at a big law firm – in fact, a lot of the time.

Maybe you forget to ask a crucial question during a deposition. Or you wrote a memo that didn’t have the answer your partner wanted. Maybe – and this happened to me once – you ended up getting berated for being “too friendly” to the other side at a drafting conference. Maybe you’re still not sure exactly what you did wrong, but it must have been something. It’s always something.

The cloud hangs over you in the office and follows you home. When you were a kid, it eventually dissipated, but now it lingers indefinitely. What’s really going on?

A little dose of anxiety is being injected into you, in the form of a thought.

Anxiety is triggered by cognition – predictive thoughts. You predict something bad is going to happen, so you clutch up in preparation – tense up and prepare for attack.

At a law firm, the standard predictive cognition – the expectation – is that you are going to be criticized. They do that a lot at law firms. It is a fair guess that if something goes wrong, you are going to be blamed – and things go wrong all the time.

It got to the point for me, at Sullivan & Cromwell, that I felt my entire body clench in preparation for attack just walking through the doors of 125 Broad Street and stepping into that elevator.

When you spend long periods of time tensed up, on alert for attack, it takes a toll on your nervous system. In fact, it can produce lasting damage.

In World War I, soldiers spent weeks in trenches under fire, crouched in terror, waiting for that next bomb or bullet with their name on it. Those were some of the first documented cases of what was called “shell shock” then and PTSD now – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

It might seem a stretch to suggest that lawyers at big law firms suffer from PTSD symptoms.

But that’s exactly what I’m doing.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

I wrote a column a few weeks back on Prince William and Kate Middleton.

I possess no expertise in the British royal family.  I merely stumbled upon an article in a gossip mag comparing the Prince’s girlfriend to his mother, and it provided an excuse to discuss why you might choose a spouse who resembles your parent.

The column became a best-seller.  I still get hundreds of hits each week from a stream of readers fascinated with the British royal family.  I’ve been posted on royal chat sites, Prince William discussion forums, Kate Middleton fan blogs – the works.

It was so popular that now I’m writing another column on the British royal family (or, as I’ve come to know them, Elizabeth, Philip and the kids) to explain why the first one did so well.

You – or a great many of you – are fascinated by these people.  It doesn’t take a genius to see why:  you want to be them.

Everyone does.

That’s because the British royal family are treated like children.  And you want to be treated like a child, too.

How are Elizabeth, Philip, Charles, Andrew, Edward and the others infantilized by their role as royals?

They live the life of a pampered young child.

They do not work – and they do not have to work.

They have everything they could ever want, let alone need, provided for them.

And most importantly:  they have your attention focused on them like a laser beam.

Someone’s eyes are on a small child perpetually – or they should be – making sure he doesn’t get into trouble, and celebrating his every achievement.  A child’s first pair of shoes are bronzed, and his first lock of hair preserved.  His first steps are photographed and met with applause.  Like Louis XIV at Versailles, even his bowel movements are cause for furious activity.  And a young child never has to apologize for demanding so much attention – it is simply taken for granted that it is his due.

William and Kate exist in a similar world.  They can’t go swimming without a paparazzo recording each stroke through a telephoto lens.

That must be just awful (you say to yourself, tut-tutting sympathetically.)  They can’t get a moment’s peace.

And they rebel sometimes, too, don’t they?  Spitting fury when an annoying scandal breaks, an embarrassing revelation about a legitimately personal aspect of their lives which none of us has the least right to know anything about.

At this point they become like teenagers, rebelling against adoring parents – insisting that when they lock their bedroom door they bloody well want mum and dad to stay out and leave them alone.

Poor things.

And yet…you never had that problem…because…it’s a good problem to have, isn’t it?

You never basked in one ten-thousandth the attention – or the adoration – to which William and Kate are subjected on a daily basis.

It must feel like heroin, directly into a vein.  A major rush.  All that attention – directly on YOU.  And you don’t even have to ask for it – let alone apologize for taking up everyone else’s time.

So you fixate on them.  And identify with them.  And dream about winning the lottery of life and actually BEING them.

It would be heavenly, wouldn’t it?

Let’s not kid ourselves, either.  You cannot love people intensely without also being angry at them.  It’s Newton’s Third Law of Motion translated to emotions:  for each and every emotion there is an equal and opposite emotion.

You adore William and Kate.  And you are angry at them, too – because they are receiving what you never received.

You deserve that attention, too.  You always have.  You are just as good as William or Kate, and you know it.

Your anger is expressed as an aggressive sense of entitlement.  You are entitled to photos of them swimming.  You are entitled to juicy bits of gossip about their personal lives.  Fair’s fair – isn’t it?

It all works out in the end.

The royals seem to be doing just fine – and your celebration of them is a way of celebrating yourself.  Lavishing attention on William and Kate (and dreaming of being them) amounts to lavishing attention on yourself because you are dreaming of being them all the while.

That’s why it feels so good.  It’s nothing more than play.

It’s perfectly natural for adults to unwind and relax through healthy regression – playing at being children – just as children prepare for the challenges of life in the opposite way, by playing at being adults.

No harm in fantasizing about being the royals – the most pampered children of all – so long as it doesn’t become an obsession that occupies your every waking moment.  (For most of us that isn’t an issue – it’s just a hobby.)

So go ahead and have your fun.

Imagine what it feels like to step out of that Rolls Royce and into the bursting flash bulbs.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

One of the hard parts of psychotherapy  – and the unavoidable realities –  is remorse.  Inevitably, once you become more aware of who you are, and how you’re living your life…you wish you’d done so sooner.

Patients are always telling me they’re kicking themselves for not getting to my office (or at least someone’s office) years before.

One patient this week wept as he reviewed all the relationships he’d wrecked over the years by behaving exactly like his father, suspicious and controlling, exhausting the women he dated until they finally left in frustration.

“All those wasted years,” he sighed.  “All those wasted opportunities for happiness.”

There isn’t much I can say to that, except that’s how awareness works – when it arrives, you always wish it made the trip a little quicker.

Then I remember what Gerald Lucas, a psychotherapist and institute director, used to say at times like that:

“What a fool I was at 80, said the 90 year old man.”

There’s no such thing as perfect wisdom.  Lena Fugeri, another psychotherapist I used to work with, used to say you never finish with psychotherapy because as soon as awareness arrives, life throws you new challenges.

Lena was right.  My patients in their teens are struggling with their first relationships and finding meaningful careers. My patients in their 40’s and 50’s might be dealing with raising children, navigating a marriage with a partner, learning to manage others on the job, or the death of their parents.  And my patients in their 60’s and 70’s and 80’s and 90’s are handling growing older and the entirely new set of issues triggered by that process.

You are like a lotus flower – the more you peel the petals away, the more petals you find within.  There is no center – only more layers to peel away, new hidden wonders.

Instead of beating yourself up for not achieving awareness sooner, it makes sense to emulate one of my favorite figures from Buddhism – the Bodhisattva of Compassion.

The Bodhisattvas, in Buddhism, are followers of the Buddha who achieve sufficient wisdom to attain enlightenment, the state of nirvana.

The Bodhisattva of Compassion, alone, chooses to remain behind in the world, to assist mankind on its journey to awareness.

In one famous story, three monks wander the parched desert until they reach a walled garden. They hear the tantalizing splash of water within.

The first monk climbs on the shoulders of the others, and leaps into the garden, disappearing.

The second monk laboriously scales the wall and is also soon hidden amid the plants and trees.

The third monk clambers up all alone and perches himself atop the wall, studying the lush garden and cool, clear spring.

Then he slides back down, and returns to wander the arid waste.

This monk’s job is to search for other lost souls. He shows them how to locate the garden.

This is the Bodhisattva of Compassion.

You might be wiser now than you used to be.  I hope psychotherapy helped you acquire some of that insight.

But please don’t forget – part of wisdom is passing on what you’ve learned to others.

Don’t sit in a walled garden, thinking you’ve got it all figured out.  You don’t.

Share what you’ve learned.

You’ll acquire more wisdom showing others the path to enlightenment than sitting in a garden surrounded by walls.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

A New York Times article from a few weeks ago holds enormous potential ramifications for lawyers bent over their desks at big law firms. The tentative conclusion of the piece was simple: if you are dealing with minor depression, or in fact, with anything other than massive, serious depression, popping anti-depressant pills is probably a waste of time. In fact, a placebo might do you more good.

How many lawyers are currently taking anti-depressants? According to the admittedly anecdotal evidence from the lawyers I’ve seen over the years in my private practice, quite a few.

It’s such a lawyerly thing to do. You figure out you’re depressed, so you do something about it – march over to your doctor, or maybe a high-powered shrink with a top reputation, get diagnosed, and get your pills. The whole thing takes a few minutes, and you’re back on the job. No wasting billable hours, no whining and complaining on a therapist’s couch – you take care of the problem and move on. Take a pill and knock it off with the martyr routine.

However, there are a few problems with anti-depressants…

First, like I said, they might not work. Don’t believe me? Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Some widely prescribed drugs for depression provide relief in extreme cases but are no more effective than placebo pills for most patients, according to a new analysis released Tuesday.

The findings could help settle a longstanding debate about antidepressants. While the study does not imply that the drugs are worthless for anyone with moderate to serious depression — many such people do seem to benefit — it does provide one likely explanation for the sharp disagreement among experts about the drugs’ overall effectiveness.

Second, the side-effects. This includes the “sexual side-effects” – which might mean, if you’re a guy, erectile dysfunction, and whichever gender you are, inability to reach orgasm. And there are “regular” side effects, too – like weight gain.

Third, anti-depressants only work while you’re on them. I’ve heard of people staying on anti-depressants for decades, but I have no idea what the long-term effects are because no one knows. If you’d like to experiment on yourself, I’m sure the pharmaceutical industry would be fascinated to find out.

Fourth, to the extent they do work, it’s by erasing feelings. Anti-depressants tend to narrow the bandwidth of what you feel, chopping off the top and the bottom – no more highs, no more lows. That can bring relief, but at a cost.

Fifth, other than the vague explanation that they “affect neurotransmitter levels,” no one really understands how they work. Anti-depressant medications, especially the new generation of drugs, are a relatively recent development, and the exact mechanism that produces the results isn’t fully understood.

Is there another option?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Watching the most recent Oscars ceremony was a healthy reminder of the most fundamental instinct in human nature – the desire to please.

You want everyone to like you.

Admitting that is a big step towards authenticity.  Because it’s true.

It is also true that everyone will not like you.  Not even such masters of public relations as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama can make everyone like them.  Some people have their own issues – they might dislike you simply for being liked by so many other people.

Why do you want to be liked so much?  It relates back to the evolutionary necessity to please your parents.  A young animal must please his parents in order to survive.  Often, in the wild, where food and care can be in short supply, only the young animal who pleases survives to adulthood.

You crave delighting others because it regresses you into a happy child, secure in having pleased his parents and thus surviving and flourishing.

Even as an adult, you have a place in the back of your mind where everything you do is still directed at pleasing your parents.  That promotion at work, the book you published, the shiny diploma on your wall – there’s some part of you that’s hoping mom and dad will notice, just like those folks up on the stage at the Oscars, thanking their mom and dad.  And you’re watching those people because you enjoy identifying with them – pretending to be them for a few moments of rapturous pleasure in receiving approval.

Some part of you also wants to experience that cliched but endlessly replayed scene from every “feel-good” movie ever made.  It’s the scene where, after a lifetime of commitment and hard work, the unsung hero is finally recognized by…everyone.  Think “Mr. Holland’s Opus” or any of thousands of other cheesy Hollywood films.  Finally, after quietly doing your part to improve the world, you get your standing ovation.  The entire auditorium (or the stadium, if it’s a sports flick) is on its feet, cheering, applauding, weeping with joy – for you.

Moi?

I’d like to begin by thanking the Academy.

The problem with this instinct to please others and seek their approval is that it displaces your source of assurance about your own value onto other people.  They become the arbiters of your value as a person.

It’s lovely to receive accolades – the little kid within you dances for joy.

But the judgment of others cannot become a referendum on your value as a human being.  An adult needs to look within himself for approval.  And you can only achieve that approval by becoming your best self.

That means staying conscious of who you are at all times, and checking in to be certain it is your most authentic identity, the person you want to be – the person you can look back on afterward and be proud of.

Your respect for yourself must be earned.

The respect of others is nice, but it can be fickle.  Back in 1985 , when Sally Field won the Oscar for Best Actress for “Places in the Heart,” after having won in 1980 for “Norma Rae,” she didn’t actually say “You like me, you really like me” – although that’s what she’s remembered as saying, and that’s what she still gets made fun of for saying.

Here’s what she actually said in 1985: “I haven’t had an orthodox career, and I’ve wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time I didn’t feel it, but this time I feel it, and I can’t deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!”

Perhaps it was her putting it so bluntly – telling the audience that they liked her – that made them flinch, and change their minds, and switch to making fun of her.

Sally Field probably realized once and for all in 1985 what will always be true – that you must look within yourself for the approval that matters. No one else – not even your parents – can satisfy your craving to be accepted as the person you truly are.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

I was working this morning with a patient I’ve been seeing for a few months.  At the end of our session I suggested he join one of my psychotherapy groups that meet once a week in the evenings.

“What?  You can do psychotherapy in a group?  How does that work?”

I was a bit surprised – most people have at least heard of group therapy, but it seemed the perfect time for The People’s Therapist to explain the basics of this mysterious and powerful psychotherapy modality.  At very least, in my limited space here, I can dispel a few of the myths:

Myth #1:  Group psychotherapy will be like a 12-step group. I think this idea comes about because the most familiar group therapy-like experience for most people is AA, or another 12-step group.  Some of my patients who have done AA or another 12-step group in the past act like they know what they’re getting into, and march in to my groups with extra confidence, only to find that this new experience is very different from what they’re used to.

There are a lot of ways to run psychotherapy groups, and most groups are far less structured than an AA group.  The dreaded “cross-talk” which is forbidden in AA is not only permitted in most groups – it’s encouraged.  There’s no opening ritual or closing prayer – it’s open and free-form.  You sit down and talk about whatever’s on your mind.  The only rule is that you keep it real, so you don’t waste time.

Most psychotherapy groups also meet weekly, and are closed – not drop-ins, like most AA groups.  If you are a member of a psychotherapy group, you are committed to the other members, possibly for years, and it is your duty to show up every week and participate, even when you don’t want to.

Myth #2.  Group is just cheap therapy for a bunch of people at once. One of the advantages of group therapy is that it is cheaper than individual sessions – with so many people, the fee is lower for each person.  But it is not cut-rate cheapo therapy.  In fact, I strongly encourage my patients to participate in “conjoint therapy” – which means going to group every week and dropping in for an individual therapy session every two or three weeks, too.  Group is very different from individual treatment, but they complement one another and the combination is more effective than either on its own.

How is group different?  It is not so much vertical, like individual, but horizontal.  You don’t dig deep into your past so much – you already did that in individual.  The focus in group is on watching how you interact with others.  I think of group as taking the work of the individual sessions out into a laboratory, where you can test what you’ve learned in a controlled setting.  There is nowhere in the world like a group room – a place where you can sit with perfect strangers and the assignment is to put your authentic thoughts and feelings into words and interact.  It is a powerful, often life-changing experience.

Myth #3. For a group to work, everyone has to share a common life experience. I think this myth arises from people’s familiarity with support groups, rather than broader psychotherapy groups.  A group focused on one issue – such as survivors of sexual abuse – is a support group.

I led a support group specifically for HIV+ gay men for many years, and it was a rewarding and useful experience, but my favorite groups have no specific focus and include the most diverse possible population.  The HIV+ group created a safe place where guys dealing with that disease, and the stigma it still carried, could loosen up and share their experiences.  But even in that group, there was plenty getting talked about besides HIV, including friendships, dating, career issues and lots of other topics.

I’ve had all sorts of people in my groups over the years.  All ethnicities have been represented, people as young as 18 and as old as 78, rich and no-so-rich, men, women and trans people, gay, lesbian, straight and bi.  Diversity only enriches the experience.

Myths #4 and 5:  If I go to group, (a) I won’t want to share my therapist’s attention, so I’ll dominate too much or (b) I’ll be too scared to open up in front of all those strangers.

If you’re having these common worries about group, then it’s already working.  These are transferences – you are transferring your expectations from prior life experiences onto a prediction about how group will play out when you get there.

The first lesson of group is that you will unconsciously relate to the group the way you related within your family.  It’s useful to understand how that mechanism plays out, because it is also the way you relate to the world as a whole.

If you grew up having to fight to get the attention you needed in your family, you might play that role out in the group room when you arrive.  If you grew up distrustful of others, expecting a negative response, you might shut down in the presence of the group.

Becoming conscious of these unconscious patterns, and practicing different ways of being, is the work of group therapy.

I could write about group forever – and I’ll probably be writing about it a lot more on this website.  Group is some of my most challenging and rewarding work, and I’ve seen people take enormous strides in a group room that might have been impossible with individual therapy alone. Humans are social animals, and co-exist with one another.  Group incorporates all those other people into the therapy experience – with powerful results.

If you’re like most people, now that you’ve learned a bit about group…you’re probably thinking about giving it a try.  It’s a commitment.  Most therapists require that you commit for at least 10 or 15 sessions, and this new way of doing psychotherapy will become a regular part of your life.

I promise, whatever happens, you’ll be changed by the experience – and you won’t forget it.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

My patient sounded bewildered.

“It was like I was watching myself going through the motions – repeating the same old pattern.”

He’d just broken up for the umpteenth time with a woman he’d been dating for over a year.

“It’s always the same thing.  I do something nice for her.  Then she tries to do something for me, but I freak out, and insist she doesn’t like me.  Then I do something mean, like flirt with someone else in front of her, just to prove she doesn’t like me,  and she gives up and we break up again.  So we’re back where we started, and I do something nice again, and off we go.  Eventually, even the women who hang on give up.  Then I find someone else and start over.”

He was caught in an endless loop – around and around and around.  The same thing had played out with every women before this one.

Freud might have called this a “repetition compulsion.”  I’ve heard other therapists refer to it as a “learned behavior.”

Whatever it is – it’s very common.  Left to your own devices – in other words, acting unconsciously – you will keep doing the same thing over and over again.

What you’re doing is replaying a pattern you learned as a child – clinging to it because no one has woken you up and made you ask yourself what on earth you’re doing.

My patient’s father was a frustrated scientist, trapped in a humiliating job, deeply insecure, very unstable.  My patient tried to please him by doing well in school, winning science prizes, trying to be the son he wanted.

Initially, the father would seem pleased and proud.

Then, once my patient allowed himself to relax in his father’s acceptance, disaster would strike.

The father would swing back into a frustrated rage – and take it out on his son.

It probably had nothing to do with the boy – it was the father’s own anger at his work situation – but the effect was devastating.

The pattern played out over and over again.  The son would over-achieve, and believe he’d won his father’s approval – then, as he relaxed into acceptance, the old man would turn on him with vicious criticism.

My patient learned it was okay to give his father – or any person – what they wanted.  But he could never relax and let down his guard.  That’s when the inevitable turn-around came.  He expected it – and braced himself for it – so he’d never again get caught by surprise.

You’ve probably heard of “Pavlov’s dogs.”

Ivan Pavlov was a Russian psychologist who performed a series of experiments on dogs at the end of the 19th century.  One of his chief discoveries was the “conditioned response.”  When a dog – or a person – is trained through repetition to expect an outcome from a certain set of variables, it is difficult to un-train that expectation.  It becomes a reflex.

Pavlov trained his dogs to expect to be fed when he rang a bell.  Eventually, just ringing the bell would make the dogs salivate, as they came to predict food was coming when they heard it.  The bell and the food were firmly linked in their brains.

That’s what happens with people when they get stuck in a loop, like my patient.

He learned he could please his father briefly, but his father’s acceptance would soon be followed by a mood reversal and attacks.

Now, with his girlfriends, he once again sought to please, but then shut down.  He was certain the old pattern would play out, so he refused to let them get close.

The problem was obvious: my patient was not a dog – and his girlfriends were not his father.

The instinct that once protected him from the pain of his father’s rages now sabotaged his chances at a healthy relationship.  To shed this old conditioned response, he needed to become aware of it.

A psychotherapist doesn’t change you.  He creates awareness.  If I show you a pattern of behavior that’s not working for you, you’ll figure out how to change it on your own.

If I tell you that you’re standing in a pot of water over a fire, you’ll jump out of the pot.

I show you the situation – you handle the fix.

There’s something psychotherapists call “the observing ego” – it’s like a little guy who sits on your shoulder and watches you from the outside.  He represents self-awareness.

My patient was developing an observing ego.  He kept having “deja vu” moments.  He’d been down this path before, and he knew it.

Now he wanted to change the old pattern – and try going someplace new.

I’ve worked with enough patients over the years to recognize that human beings are flexible – they change.  When I meet someone I haven’t seen in a long time, I suspend expectations, because I know people are moving targets.

You can change, too.  You don’t have to walk in circles forever.

If you spot a pattern that feels like a loop, take a turn and head someplace new.  At least you’ll know it’s really you at the controls – not one of Pavlov’s dogs.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

When gay people come out of the closet, they usually run into some variation of the “but that’s unnatural” argument.  This is the apparently sensible claim that it doesn’t make sense to be gay.  Isn’t sex for procreation?  Why would two males or two females become romantically involved if they can’t have a child together?

It seems like a reasonable argument.  You can point out that some sort of gay behavior occurs in every species in the animal kingdom – which is true – or that gay sex is simply fun – also true.  But that only begs the question.  Why?  Why are there so many gay animals, and people, in the world when reproducing your own kind is the basis for a species’ success?  Having fun doesn’t seem to explain this apparent contradiction.

The answer is that gay people help nature hedge its bets.  A successful species typically keeps extra cards up its sleeve because the rules of the game can change without warning.  Gay people represent some important extra cards.  They are a natural, genetic variation that helps guarantee the successful raising of young.

Many species show wide genetic variation.  Dogs, for example.  You can breed a chihuahua that weighs 2 pounds.  Or you can breed an Old English Mastiff that weighs 300 pounds.

Why should canine genetic material be so mutable?  Because being tiny – or being huge – might come in handy.  You never know.

The ultimate disaster for a species – extinction – happens when its members fail to adapt to an altered environment.  That’s why you want to have as much flexibility as possible to respond and survive when something unexpected occurs.

It could be a meteor striking the Earth.  Or a volcano erupting.  Or a pandemic disease wiping out three-quarters of the population.  The game can change – and a species has to change too – sometimes a lot – in challenging new circumstances.

Having gay members of your species could make the difference between survival and extinction.  Gays are unique – and vitally important -because they do something no other members of that species will do.

I don’t mean have gay sex.

I mean raise other people’s children.

Gay animals are perfectly happy to pair-bond and mate with members of their own sex,  so their sexual relations are non-procreative.  They do not have children with their partner.  That means they are available to raise another animal’s children.

Say a heterosexual zebra, or otter, or muskrat or human is killed and leaves behind a helpless child.  Heterosexual animals, who can have  children of their own, will probably refuse to raise this other animal’s child, or at best do so grudgingly.  They have their own children, who are a higher priority because they will pass on their genetic material.  But a gay member of the species will happily step in and raise that helpless child.

He has no reason not to.  He is not caught up in the battle to mate and reproduce.  His preoccupation is caring and nurturing within a relationship.

If a male animal loses a female partner and is left with children who need care, he might have trouble locating another female willing to raise these children.  But a gay male would happily accept the job.

If a female animal loses her male partner and is left with young to raise, another male might reject the task of raising those children.  But a gay female would, similarly, be happy to help out.

Gays play a role in increasing the success rates for child-rearing in all species.  In the event of a large-scale disaster, resulting in many adult deaths, gays could fill an especially vital role in helping to raise the young.  They would not compete for sexual partners.  But they would help out with the kids.

It could make the difference to a species’ survival.

That’s what’s happening right now, with humans.

Many heterosexual human couples have children they are unable or unwilling to raise.  These children are put up for adoption – but there are too many of them to be cared for solely by heterosexual volunteers, who usually prefer to raise their own children.

That’s why, throughout the world, gays are the unofficial backbone of the adoption system.  Without them, many children would suffer terribly, never finding wiling, dedicated adoptive parents.

It is an open secret that in most states, the adoption system would collapse without the participation of gays and lesbians.  In 2007 it was estimated that there are 270,000 children living with same-sex couples in the USA.  Of these, one-quarter, or 65,000, have been adopted.  Gays are a small minority, perhaps as few as 4% of the general population.  But there is no question that gay people do a lot of adopting and provide loving homes for hundreds of thousands of children who desperately need them.

Unfortunately, in a few states, right-wing religious zealots have persuaded politicians to ban gay adoption.  It is not clear whether this misguided attack on children and the rights of gay people is constitutional.  A court battle is raging in Florida.

Meanwhile, these laws prevent gay people from playing a role nearly as ancient as life itself.  That is a tragedy, which could result in a calamity.

It’s also unnatural.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

Inevitably, a few times a year, a new patient refers to me as “doctor.”

I always flinch.

First of all, I’m not a doctor.  I don’t have an MD, which would make me a medical doctor – or even a PhD, which would make me a “Doctor of Philosophy” like a college professor.

Well, actually, I am sort of a doctor, kind of.  I have a JD, which makes me a Juris Doctor, or Doctor of Law – which means I’m a lawyer.  But I don’t think that’s what you mean when you call your psychotherapist “doctor.”

The fact is, people with a lot of different educations, backgrounds and degrees practice the art of psychotherapy.  Here’s the run-down of the most common professionals in my business, at least in the New York area:

1.  A psychiatrist. This is a medical doctor, who went to medical school and got an MD, and could, I suppose, probably remove your appendix.  In the mental health field, psychiatrists are the people who handle medication.  I occasionally refer one of my patients to a psychiatrist colleague when I think he might benefit from an anti-depressant or anti-anxietal or some other type of psychiatric medication.  Some of my patients get psychiatric drugs from their regular family doctor, but psychiatrists are the experts in this area.  They also work with patients who are very ill, such as those suffering from severe cases of schizophrenia, depression and bi-polar disorder.  Often these patients are seen in a hospital setting, due to the severity of their illness.

2. A Psychologist. A psychologist has a PhD, and many of them are affiliated with universities, where they may do research.  When you read an article in the newspaper on the results of a “study” – something like “people who have sex after 60 are more content with their marriages” or “teenagers who watch less television have higher reading scores” – that kind of social science study would be done by a psychologist.

Psychologists also work in Human Resources at corporations, advising on how best to manage employees, and they do psychological testing.  For example, if you want to give someone a test to see if they have Attention Deficit Disorder, you might send him to a psychologist for a set of tests.

3.  A Social Worker. This is the degree I hold.  Social workers are people who work with people in all kinds of settings.  “Clinical social workers” are social workers who, perhaps in addition to helping people navigate their way through social services, obtaining housing and so forth, also do psychotherapy with their patients.

It might seem like this is a list in order of quality.  After all, if you can get a “real” doctor – why settle for a mere PhD posing as a doctor or some measly social worker?

Freud was plagued by just such questions.  When his trusted protege, Theodor Reik, came to America and tried to practice psychoanalysis (which was more or less another word for psychotherapy), he was attacked by a group of medical doctors, who accused him of illegally practicing medicine.  Freud ended up, in 1926, writing an entire book in Reik’s defense, “The Question of Lay Analysis.”  In it, he said essentially that there’s no reason a psychotherapist needs to be a doctor, unless he’s doing something – like working with a severely mentally ill patient, or prescribing medication, which would draw on medical training.

I agree with Freud (which is convenient, I admit, since I’m a social worker.)

But there is a deeper issue here.

Anyone can do psychotherapy.  It is an art, and there are many different schools of thought regarding the details of how one works with a patient in a psychotherapeutic way.

The truth is I didn’t learn most of what I know about psychotherapy from Social Work School – I learned it from my own work with other therapists, both as a patient and as a student.  I worked with two excellent psychotherapists in psychotherapy institutes, which is where young therapists (psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers) sometimes go to train.  Both had doctorates, but (I found out later) one’s doctorate was in Theater and the other’s was in Education.

I guess my point is that it doesn’t matter all that much what education you have.  Psychotherapy is experiential – you don’t learn it in a classroom or from a book so much as from doing it yourself.

I also believe it is an innate skill, like playing the piano or being good at math.  At some level, you’re just born able to work as a therapist, or you’re not – and it doesn’t matter if you’re a dentist or a fireman – you might be a good therapist, or you might not.

Most of the degree and licensing stuff is pointless.  It would probably be better – as in the old days – to let anyone go to an institute, study with some therapists, and – if they feel the urge – hang a sign and practice psychotherapy.  If they’re good, they’ll flourish.  If they’re not, they won’t.

That might sound crazy, but that’s how Taoist fortune tellers get started.

A few years ago, visiting Hong Kong with a friend, we happened to wander into a Taoist temple, and he suggested we visit a fortune teller.  This is very common in Hong Kong – some people visit a fortune teller regularly, some just when there’s something troubling them that they want to work out.

First, you shake some bamboo sticks from a cup.  The ones that fall to the ground have numbers written on them.  Those numbers somehow guide the work of the fortune teller, who sits in the back of the temple in a special booth (there may be many fortune tellers working in a large temple.)

So, I shook my sticks, recorded my numbers and went with my friend for a consultation.  It was entirely in Cantonese, so my friend had to translate.  We paid a small fee (there’s always a small fee.)

The fortune teller turned to me first, eyed me curiously, and said “You are kind to your former lovers.”

I was staggered.  My first partner died young, many years ago.  I’ve always made it a point to reach out in affection and friendship to former partners, after having lost someone who was so precious to me.

Then he turned to my friend.  “You act confident at work, but you are not so confident inside.”  Of course, my friend had started a new job that month, with a major promotion.  He was demolished by this insight.  “How did he know?”  he kept asking for days afterward.  It was the first time he’d admitted to himself that he was feeling overwhelmed by his new responsibilities and needed support.

I had the clear sense that this “fortune teller” – an old man in a silk jacket at a Taoist temple – was a colleague.  Clearly a skillful psychotherapist, he was working in a different modality, but essentially doing what I do – observing, listening, and offering insights intended to create awareness.

He offered us longer, weekly sessions – for a slightly larger fee.  We had to decline.  I think we were both tempted, but we had to fly home the next day.

It doesn’t matter what degrees you have.  What I do – psychotherapy – is practiced in one form or another by fortune tellers, palm readers, priests, shamans and people holding every other crazy title you could imagine.

We’re all doing the same job, which is as old as humanity itself.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

Last October, a law school placement director friend of mine forwarded me an email with a juicy piece of big law gossip. A former associate at Sullivan & Cromwell had offed himself. He was 39.

The body was discovered beneath a highway bridge in Toronto. A few days earlier, it was revealed that since the mid-90’s, he and a co-conspirator made ten million dollars on an insider trading scheme. He’d stolen insider information from S&C, arriving early in the morning to dig through waste baskets, rifle partners’ desks and employ temporary word-processor codes to break into the computer system.

“You can’t make this shit up,” was my friend’s comment. “Wasn’t he from around your time?”

It took a minute to locate the face. Gil Cornblum. Jewish, a bit pudgy, with big round glasses. Gil, in that ridiculous little office two doors down from mine.

What was Gil like? Mild-mannered, pleasant, always smiling.

I should have known something was wrong.

The pieces fit together.

Gil kept weird hours. He used to chuckle that he liked to get in early so he didn’t have to stay late. It turned out he was in at 5 am, combing the firm for insider tips.

The lavish wedding, too. A mutual friend was invited up to Canada to watch Gil tie the knot, and was blown away.

As people do in these situations, I stopped for a moment to contemplate Gil’s death. His body was discovered at the bottom of a highway bridge. He was still breathing, according to the bits of news I found online.

So far as I could tell, that meant portly, lovable Gil Cornblum threw himself off a bridge on a Canadian highway in the middle of the night and lay on the bottom – of what? A rocky riverbed? – shattered and dying.

Suicide amounts to punishing whoever is supposed to take care of you because you feel their care is inadequate.

Certainly, the care we all received at S&C was inadequate, and we committed suicide a little each day just by staying there and putting ourselves through that abuse as our lives passed us by. Our slow suicide manifested in other ways as well. Most of us mistreated ourselves by neglecting our health, letting our friendships die off, ignoring our families, our hobbies, our lives.

Maybe insider trading was Gil’s grand suicidal gesture, his protest against the abuse he received. He put his entire life on the line, knowing he might well be caught, end up in jail and lose everything. He was playing Russian roulette, and maybe he knew he’d kill himself if he got caught.

And all for what? Money.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Gerald Lucas, a psychotherapist who runs an institute in New York City, used to tell his patients he regretted he couldn’t make the world a better place – he could only make them better able to handle it the way it is.

Sometimes the key to happiness is a little like the key to Weight Watchers – learning to stay away from things that are bad for you.

Luck certainly plays a role.  My relatives fled to the United States from Poland and Lithuania because the Czar and other nasties were oppressive, violent rulers.  Forty years later, Hitler rolled in and committed the worst crimes in human history.  It could have been my relatives in those Nazis death camps, but for dumb luck and the determination to leave the bad behind and seek something better.

The world can seem like an unpleasant place sometimes.  If you need evidence, open this morning’s paper and take a look.

As a psychotherapist, patients bring plenty more proof that evil exists.  It’s a good wake up to some harsh realities.  As with everything else in psychotherapy, awareness is all.

One of my patients was violently raped in her early twenties.  Working with a rape survivor taught me a lot about human dignity and the process of recovery from trauma.  It also taught me about rape.  Knowing someone who has been victimized by violence introduces you the fact that it really happens, to real people, all too often.

This woman gave me a book to read about rape, “Lucky,” by Alice Sebold, the author of “The Lovely Bones.”  It is a memoir of Sebold’s own experience of rape, and a book I shall never forget.  My patient taught me another important lesson:  if something like that happens to you, you will do everything in your power to avoid letting it happen again.  She took a self-defense class, carried a can of mace, and never again walked home alone late at night.  There are predators out there, and at very least, you can take all available precautions.

So this week, when a beautiful young female patient complained to me about what she’d been through recently, I wasn’t surprised.  In the past year she’d had a guy slip a drug into her drink, an older man – a professor, no less – approach her inappropriately for sex, countless construction workers whistle at her, and a best friend fall victim to domestic violence, then return to the boyfriend who beat her up.  It was quite a list, but I believed every word.  We talked about how she could be careful – and stay away from people who mean her no good.

Another patient I saw recently had a run in with a sociopath, a person who lacks a conscience.  A sociopath will tell you whatever you want to hear, take pleasure in lying to you and generally not give your feelings a thought as he pursues his own agenda.  “Sociopath,” or the technical term, “Anti-social Personality Disorder,” are arguably just mental health lingo for a criminal.  Many of the people who populate our prisons – the hard-core law-breakers – are socipaths.

The sort of run-in that happened to my patient could happen to anyone, and all too often it does.  It’s not a nice experience.  This guy was very charming, and appeared to have a successful career.  He moved in with her and said he wanted to marry her and have a child.  What he didn’t mention was that he already had a family – a wife and children – who knew nothing about this other relationship.  The “business trips” were spent with this family, 20 blocks away.

My patient asked what she could do now that she’d discovered the truth.  I gave her my blanket advice for dealing with sociopaths:  stay far away.  She moved somewhere else, and hasn’t seen him since.

Obviously, women aren’t the only people who are victimized by evil deeds – although they do seem to receive more than their fair share.  Children are victimized in terrible ways each and every day, and  I’ve worked with adult men who have survived domestic violence, sexual abuse and other ills.  Bad things can happen to anyone.

My point here isn’t that the world and everyone and everything in it are bad.  There is plenty of good out there, too.  It’s just that you need to keep what is bad far away – and, at the same time, pull the good nice and close.

In everyday life, that means more than just staying away from predators and sociopaths.

It also means:

Don’t date someone if he doesn’t treat you with kindness, consideration and respect.  He should be grateful and appreciative to have you in his life – or you can find someone who will be.

Don’t work in a setting that is hostile or toxic.  Your workplace should make you feel appreciated for the work you do.  You should look forward to coming in to work each day – or you should work someplace else.

Don’t consider someone a friend unless he’s got your back.  “Friend” is a powerful term – it means someone you can say anything to and who can say anything to you.  It implies loyalty, caring, trust and respect.  Anything less is an “acquaintance.”

Breathe in the good.  Breathe out the bad.

Sometimes it’s that simple.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »