Stop Chasing Love 

People often talk to me about relationships.  Lately, I have been hearing a theme of people either chasing or feeling chased by others.  This dynamic, often called the “pursuer-distancer dynamic,” happens in both friendships and romantic relationships, although it is more commonly discussed in the latter.  What I find frustrating about this dynamic is that (1) there is often a subtle power play involved and (2) it blocks intimacy between partners.

I imagine that the label “pursuer-distancer” makes you recall certain relationships of your own. You probably know what I am talking about…it refers to a pattern where one person is pulled into chasing another person, who remains withdrawn. You may even know which role you typically play–do you tend to pursue, or withdraw?  Do you crave connection, or space?  Of course, even though we may lean toward one role over the other, we can change roles depending on the particular relationship and what it stirs in us. Of course, this is a complex dance, since it takes both people to create the dynamic. A pursuer cannot chase unless their partner flees. A distancer can’t flee when their partner doesn’t chase.

PursuerDistancer

 

One thing about this dynamic that is hard to bear, in my opinion, is that it has an inherent power dynamic. The distancer is usually the one in the more comfortable, more powerful position, since they are not caught up in wanting anything from the other person.  The tend to feel ok on their own, and may even feel relief at the idea of personal space.  On the other hand, the less-powerful pursuer is often filled with anxiety, akin to separation anxiety, about being left or rejected.  They crave connection with their partner.  The pursuer may feel desperate to catch and hold onto the distancer, while the distancer may feel annoyed or trapped by the pursuer.

Although I’m certain that this dynamic is not entirely new, I imagine that today’s methods of communicating make the feelings it engenders more intense. (Check out my earlier post on perspective flipping for some more thoughts about how this happens.)  For example, when a person feels eager to remain connected to a love interest, they will likely text them. If the love interest does not reply quickly, this may stir anxiety in the person, causing them to try again. The lack of responding on the part of the love interest puts the person in the one-down position of “pursuer.”  On the other end, the love interest may wonder why the other person is “blowing up their phone.”  They don’t always understand that their slow reply felt like a possible rejection to the other person.  Their lack of responding, innocent as it may have been, puts them in the more powerful “distancer” position.  Because today’s technologies allow for quick communucation, and we are used to being able to reach someone instantaneously, I think these dynamics are more common and more stressful than ever.

So, when we are caught in this dynamic, how can we get out of it?  The answer is simple: it takes communication, sensitivity, and mindfulness.  If two people want to be together, they can each describe their experience. The pursuer can let their partner know they fear they are being rejected or abandoned. The distancer can describe feeling suffocated. If each person can understand the other with sensitivity, they can mindfully change their behavior. The pursuer can back off, and the distancer can become more responsive. If each partner makes a conscious effort to behave differently, then the power in the relationship can become more evenly distributed.  When this happens, both people can stand together (without chasing or being chased), and an intimate connection can form between them.

However, if the dynamic can’t shift because either communicating, empathizing, or capacity to mindfully change are not possible, then the relationship becomes toxic. In my opinion, it’s best to let these relationships go. That way, you can each move on to find a more comfortable match.

If you find yourself consistently in the same position in your relationships (always the pursuer or always the distancer), the spending a little time working on it in therapy can make a big difference. My personal observations tell me that people who frequently pursue can benefit from building their self-esteem and becoming more independent.  Distancers, on the other hand, can often benefit from being less avoidant and becoming more open to connection with others.  If this describes you, then working through whatever history or feelings lead you to continually pursue or distance will greatly expand your capacity to have a healthy, gratifying relationship.

© 2016 Stephanie A. Heck, Ph.D.

Advertisements

Minding Your Mind, Perspective Flipping, and Three Things You Don’t Get to Know

In my psychology practice, I have been seeing an increase in people struggling to figure out what others think of them. Sometimes they want to know if a person is romantically interested in them. Sometimes they want to know why their friend did not respond to a text. Sometimes they want to decipher what another person’s ambiguous message or Facebook post meant. In all of these cases, the person is trying to get into the other person’s mind.

This I-wish-I-knew-what-you-think-of-me phenomenon is not new. I am sure that people have been curious about each other’s minds and emotions for all of history. And I am sure that they have always been especially curious about someone when that person is vague or elusive. What I think is different now, though, is that people are operating under the illusion that, with enough internet searching and message deciphering, it is possible to figure another person out. And when this doesn’t work (which it rarely does), people can become preoccupied with the other person, as though that person’s mind is a puzzle that can be solved (which it often can’t, not without direct communication). I blame many aspects of technology for propagating this illusion. Texting and social media give us all small snippets of another person’s world, but we obviously can’t get the complete story. We get a little tease of information that we elaborate for ourselves. Think of what it is like to have a live encounter with someone vs. seeing their posts on Facebook or texting with them. When you are physically together, you can feel the person’s vibe, ask for elaboration, and relate in real time. You use your empathy and attunement and social sensibilities to know what is happening within them and between you. You can feel how they are responding to you. When you see a post on Facebook, however, you are left to make meaning of it for yourself. You can project your own wish or belief onto the post. For example, if someone who is on your radar posts a drawing or a quote, you may personalize it when, in fact, it may not have been posted with you in mind at all. (But you can’t know that for sure without asking.) Or if you see a photo of that person out with friends, you may assume they purposefully left you out. (But you can’t know that for sure without asking.) Similarly, you can infer a snarky tone in a text message because of your own sensitivity in the moment, when the other person may not have felt snarky at all. (But you can’t know that for sure without asking.) When the information we get is ambiguous, we start to fill in the gaps with what we think the other person might mean. In my opinion, this draws us much more deeply into the mind of the other.

I talk to my patients a lot about the downside of trying to get into someone else’s mind, a phenomenon that I call “perspective-flipping.” When you flip into someone else’s perspective, to try to figure out what they mean or what they think of you, you abandon your self. You no longer occupy your own perspective. In your effort to know what he thinks about you, you quickly lose sight of what you think about him. I can’t tell you how many people I have seen become totally preoccupied by being liked by Mr. Someone, when, on closer examination, it turns out that they don’t even like Mr. Someone themselves!

The way for us to really know each other is to communicate. If you want to know what someone means or thinks, you must ask.  Only they can tell you.  I know this is totally obvious, but from what I can see, direct communication happens less often these days. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard this scenario: rather than tell you that they are not interested in continuing a relationship with you, many people simply quit texting or unfriend you on Facebook. No explanation. No conversation. No goodbye. Just *poof* they are gone…leaving you guessing what went wrong, and in many instances blaming yourself.  Sound familiar?

Plus, when it comes to connecting with each other, our current popular modes of communication miss the mark. They leave out elements that are critical to successful relating (such as voice intonation, inflection, facial expressions, physical gestures, and touch).  This makes me nervous.  I feel some concern for how relationships will evolve when people aren’t really reaching each other.  Miscommunication feels inevitable when we start to think we know what the other person means, without getting the word from them directly.

With that said, if you invite someone to communicate openly with you, and they opt not to communicate, then you absolutely must let it go. It is tempting to be drawn into a guessing game, and to try to piece together and make meaning of the bits of information you have. But, from what I see, this is a trap. You will end up trying to be in someone else’s mind (which is IMPOSSIBLE and feels AFWUL), while you neglect your own.

When I see my patients start to flip their perspective, I have started to tell them that there are three things that they do not have a right to know. The list is simple:

(1) You do not have a right to know what someone else thinks about you.

(2) You do not have a right to know how someone else feels about you.

(3) You do not have a right to know what you mean to another person.

This information is the strict property of the person who holds it.  It belongs in their mental space.  You can know what another person thinks and feels only if that person decides they want to share their inner world with you.  And that is not up to you.  And their choice to share or to not share has nothing to do with you.  So, if the person is not sharing, then stop wondering.  As tempting as it may be, don’t flip into their perspective.  To do so is a voluntary surrender of your own mind, and relinquishing your mind never, ever feels good.

So, if you really want to know what is in another person’s mind, quit guessing, quit deciphering, quit internet stalking…and start asking.  And if that person opts out of sharing, then move on.  Let it go, and remain the center of your own world.  That way, the rest of us can feel your awesome presence!

© 2015 Stephanie A. Heck, Ph.D.

love-you-mind

When Texting Violates the Moral Third

There are no rules for texting.  To my knowledge, there is no established Emily-Post-style socially-accepted etiquette for how to text.  As a result, people (several of my patients and myself among them) often feel frustrated, confused, and even hurt by the erratic rhythms of texting.  You must know what I mean.  There are times when texting is satisfying:  it goes back-and-forth in a predictable manner, and stops with a sense of closure, a clear goodbye, maybe even a little waving-hand emoticon.  Yet there are other times when texts are simply not responded to/get ignored.  And then there are times when your text-partner disappears from the exchange, dropping you.  It is these latter patterns, text-ignoring and text-dropping, that I want to discuss here.

I am not interested so much in the ignorers and droppers themselves (who may have good reason for not responding), but I am interested more so in the felt experience of being ignored or dropped in a text exchange.  I know from my own and my patients’ experiences that when texts are ignored or dropped, it can feel terrible.  And it can feel especially terrible if you are already in a one-down position (e.g., you are already feeling worried or depressed, or you are in a vulnerable or one-down position relative to the person you are texting.)  What I have wondered is this:  What is it about being text-ignored or text-dropped that feels so awful for some people?  Why can it be so painful to be left abruptly or not acknowledged at all?

Jessica Benjamin, a pioneer of relational psychoanalytic theory, describes a concept she calls the “moral third.”  The moral third refers to patterns of relating that we come to expect and rely upon in relationships:  the give-and-take of mutual communication.  Think about the natural back-and-forth way a mother relates to her baby; that is an example of complying with the moral third–there is room for each partner in the exchange.  Just to be clear, Benjamin calls it the “third” because it belongs to neither person in the interaction, but exists as a phenomenon they create together, a third-entity of sorts.  What makes it “moral” is that it necessary, an unspoken law of relating.

Here’s how she describes it:  “The idea of the moral third relates not to morality as commonly understood but the idea that patterns of engagement are necessary to human interaction, and when things go well create the sense of a lawful world in which intentions are recognized and ruptures in expectation are acknowledged. Acknowledgment means that even when individuals fail somewhat in satisfying or recognizing the other, the lawful quality of experience is upheld. This makes attachment positive rather than a source of terrible pain and anxiety.”  (Benjamin, 2009)

She also writes “The moral third refers to those values, rules, and principles of interaction that we rely upon in our efforts to create and restore the space for each partner in the dyad to engage in thinking, feeling, acting or responding rather than merely reacting.” (Benjamin, 2009)

I would argue that texting lends itself especially well to violations of the moral third.  It is easy for someone to feel hurt or rejected when their text partner does not comply with a back-and-forth text rhythm.  Even though texting is by nature sporadic (someone may not be in a position to text you back, or something in their living experience, which you can’t see or hear on text, may have interrupted them), we can easily feel rejected, lost, or invalidated when a text exchange stops unexpectedly or a text goes unanswered.

Of course, people are endlessly complex, and a person’s reasons for feeling wounded by texting can, like everything else, be determined by a whole host of factors.  But I think that there is something about the nature of the text message that in-and-of-itself contributes to bad feelings, especially when the text exchange violates the moral third.  (Of course, there is also the issue of projection, but I’ll save that for another blog.)

So the next time that you receive a text or are in the middle of a text exchange, remember the moral third.  Think about how it might feel to the other person if you abruptly leave or don’t respond.  Even if you have good reason in the moment, be sure to get back to the person later so that they are not left hanging, so that they know you held them in mind.  If Emily Post were writing about text etiquette, I am certain she would agree!

©2014 Stephanie A. Heck, Ph.D.

texting_1455781c

 

Relieving Relational Poverty


              “It is our nature to nurture and to be nurtured.” -Bruce Perry, MD, PhD


In his book “Born for Love”, Dr. Bruce Perry describes a form of poverty that impacts us all, regardless of race, gender, age, or socioeconomic status: relational poverty.

Perry’s “relational poverty” is just what it sounds like; it is a deep lack of the connectedness with others that we all need to survive and to be well. Perry describes how modern American society, with its technologies, impaired values, financial obsessiveness, broken social structures, and self-centeredness has created a massive, massive problem for people’s ability to relate to each other.  And, according to Perry, relational poverty is “a form of poverty far more destructive than economic poverty.”

Perry writes:  “Simply stated, the human brain is not designed for the modern world–despite the fact that the modern world is a ‘product’ of the human brain’s remarkable capacities for invention, communication, and adaptation.  We are now living in a world that is disconnected from the rhythms of nature (i.e., climate controlled, light-dark manipulated, overstimulating to our auditory and visual senses); we raise and educate our children in social environments at once more complex and demanding on our social neurobiology (e.g., hundreds of day-by-day interactions with acquaintances or strangers) yet oddly impoverished of complex somatosensory-rich, relational interactions (i.e., touch, holding, rocking, conversation, or intergenerational interactions).”


“You might have 100 friends on Facebook, but you might not have one single person to have dinner with.”                                       -Bruce Perry, MD, PhD


This is bad for us, he says, because we humans need relationships to “survive and thrive.”  Relationships with each other are critical not only to our own individual survival and wellbeing, but also to the survival of our species.  Perry also argues that relational poverty is wrecking our ability to empathize with each other, which further alienates us from one another.

So, what can we do about this?  I propose that we, as individuals, we can diminish relational poverty by ramping up our emotional generosity.  

By “emotional generosity” I am referring to a willingness to be kind and giving to others, even when you’re not in the mood.  You are being emotionally generous when you smile at your barista, even if it took a while for her to make your latte.  You’re emotionally generous when you give a surprise compliment to a stranger.  You’re being emotionally generous when you make time to take another person’s perspective, and feel for them.  You’re being emotionally generous when you find a way to calm your tantruming child, or offer help or sympathy to a mother whose child is tantruming.

Our society is flooded with connection-wrecking technologies, many of us live far away from or have damaged relationships with our families-of-origin, and our lives are busy and time is in short supply.  We can’t necessarily change those things, at least not easily.  But what we can do is look each other in the eye, offer a kind word or a smile, hold the door, and be understanding.  Through these small gestures, we can replenish each other.  It’s that simple.


                   “A healthy human being is a related human being.” -Bruce Perry


 
©2014 Stephanie A. Heck, Ph.D.

blogger-image--668881952

A Case for Curiosity: 14 Reasons to Know Yourself

Sorting through my mail today, I came across the most recent quarterly reviews of new psychoanalytically-oriented books. A particular review of Lew Aron and Karen Starr’s new book, “A Psychotherapy for the People:  Toward a Progressive Psychoanalysis” stood out (I’m a big fan of Lew Aron).

The book itself sounds great, but what really caught my eye was a line the reviewer, Carlo Strenger, wrote about why psychoanalytic therapy has lost its momentum in our culture.

“…I’m afraid that psychoanalysis is unlikely to turn into a ‘psychotherapy for the people,’ not only because most people have neither the time nor the means for psychoanalytic therapy, whether classical or more open and flexible; but because in a culture that is ever less connected to values of complexity and cultural depth, most potential patients do not have the interest in their own psyche needed for self-exploration.”  (italics added)

I am sad to report that this resonated with me. In my life and in my practice, I often feel shocked by people’s disinterest in self-exploration. It seems like these days, people are more interested in solving a problem than in knowing themselves. I have come up with many theories about why this is, but to list those seems beside the point. Instead, in an effort to revitalize interest in the process, I’d like to make a case for self-knowing.

Here are some reasons why you should get to know yourself:

1. When you know yourself, you make better choices.  You know what you want.

2. When you know yourself, you go easy on you.  You accept who you are, flaws and all.

3. When you know yourself, you treat others better. It’s easier to forgive people when you’re clear that you’re not perfect, either.

4.  When you know yourself, you have fewer psychological symptoms.  Knowing yourself, your feelings, and how you came to be who you are relieves all kinds of pain.  Trust me.  I see it every day.

5. When you know yourself, you are more confident and satisfied.  You have a solid sense of yourself.

6. When you are a parent and you know yourself, you have better relationships with your children. You are more patient.  You can more easily remember that you were once a child, too.

7. When you know yourself, you know your limits.  You’re less likely to be walked on, taken advantage of, or led astray.

8. When you know yourself, you’re less likely to repeat negative patterns from your past with others.

9. When you know yourself, you restore your own power. You get to make conscious choices about how you want to be…and how you don’t want to be.

10. When you know yourself, you don’t need to lie or to blame others. You can own your shit with humor and humility.

11. When you know yourself, you are less judgmental and more accepting of individual differences.  It’s easier to see the commonalities among us when we realize that we are equally capable of all types of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

12.  When you know yourself, you often discover and unlock new talents.

13. When you know yourself, you love better.

14. Self-aware people make a better society.

If you haven’t gone through the process of self-exploration, you should give it a try.  Find an analyst and learn who you are.  Getting to know yourself is a rewarding process that benefits everyone.  For, as Socrates said, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

©2014 Stephanie A. Heck, Ph.D.

who-am-i-open

The Relationship Cure

Yesterday, I was listening to NPR podcasts while driving to and from supervision with my mentor, psychoanalyst Nancy McWilliams.

In typical NPR style, the interviews focused on problems in society and how to change them. The interviewer, Marty Moss-Coane, boiled the solution to each social problem down to one word: relationship. Relationships shape us, she repeatedly implied.

Judith Levine’s research tells us that a commonality among impoverished women, who have been consistently failed and lied to, is a global distrust of others. Prison researcher James Gilligan reports that nearly all prisoners have an early history of experiencing shame and humiliation. Psychology knows a deep and intuitive truth: how a person is treated by others predicts his global view of himself and how he expects to be viewed by others. And a person’s self-view and self-esteem is linked to all kinds of outcomes, both positive and negative.

We talk about relationship a lot in the psychoanalytic world. In my supervision group with Nancy, we all agree that therapeutic change depends on the relationship between therapist and patient. It’s the one and only necessary ingredient. In fact, if you look at the extensive literature on therapy success, you will see that the one single variable that always predicts a good therapy outcome is the therapeutic alliance (aka, the relationship).

It’s widely accepted in psychoanalytic circles that our earliest relationships give us a roadmap for our relational lives. The ways that we are related to in our early years teach us what we can expect from others. As developmental psychologist Erik Erickson observed, if you have the experience that you can rely on others to meet your most basic needs, you have a greater likelihood of experiencing trust in others. On the other hand, if you are neglected or abused, your relational default is likely to be a mistrust of others.

The Harvard Center on the Developing Child has scads of data demonstrating the impact of early relational trauma on the developing brain. There is more and more evidence, too, from epigenetic research about how social experiences shape gene expression.

So, if this is all true, then how is change possible? I strongly believe that we all have the capacity to be healed by new relational experiences, no matter what our history. (There is emerging data that a good therapy transforms and rebuilds brain structures.) What makes my work meaningful to me is this very truth: good relationships repair the damage caused by broken ones.

Of course, this is not news. This is not rocket science. But I am afraid that this basic truth of our humanity is getting lost. Which is why I love interviews on NPR that help us all to remember that relationships matter. In fact, they matter the most of all.

©2014 Stephanie A. Heck, Ph.D.

20140227-111740.jpg

Porcupines and Intimacy

One of my favorite psychology books, Shopenhauer’s Porcupines (by Deborah Luepnitz) begins with a parable about…you guessed it…porcupines.

The parable tells of a troupe of porcupines in the winter. The prickly little animals face a dilemma at night, when they must huddle together for warmth to keep from freezing to death. As you can imagine, problems arise when they get so close that they begin to prick each other with their quills. However, if they move too far apart, they lose the body warmth that keeps them from freezing. There is no optimal spacing to prevent both harming each other and freezing. So, the porcupine troupe has to develop a rhythm of moving together and apart, together and apart, in order neither to prick each other too deeply nor to freeze.

What I love about this parable (and this is the point of Dr. Luepnitz’s book) is that it correlates to ways that we humans struggle with intimacy. We long for togetherness. We yearn to feel less alone in the world. And yet, when we find relationships which can fill our longing for closeness, we begin to prick each other. However, if we move too far away, we have to face our loneliness.

Like porcupines in winter, we have to find ways within our relationships to move together and apart. We come together until it begins to hurt, and then we pull away to heal and restore ourselves. And this together-apart, together-apart rhythm is, in my view, as good as it gets in relationships. It is what relationships are all about.

We all vary in the degrees of closeness we want and can bear in relationships. So, for each of us, individually and in pairs, we must develop our own rhythm, our own timing. And the extent to which we can know what our own individual rhythm is, the better we can tend to our own needs, and the needs of our relationships (prickly as they may sometimes be).

©2013 Stephanie Heck, Ph.D.

20130930-180319.jpg

Previous Older Entries