Afar and Anxious

Contrary to popular belief, distance likely does not make the heart grow fonder.  In fact, studies have recently been completed that reveal that geographical distance between adult romantic partners likely stresses the heart.  And, not in a good way – not like the stress of a good workout. 

After much anecdotal evidence showed that long-term separation from a romantic partner can lead to increased anxiety and depression as well as sleep disturbances, a physiological study on male prairie voles was carried out.  All it took was a four-day separation before the voles exhibited signs of anxiety and depression.  They also showed increased levels of corticosterone (like the human stress hormone, cortisol).  Separation from siblings did not have the same effect.  It appears that the effects of mate separation resemble the physiological effects of drug withdrawal:  irritability, sleep disturbances, increased cortisol levels.   

Some adults suffer acutely when separated from spouses or romantic partners and don’t require a four-day separation to start feeling depressed, anxious, or both.  Adult Separation Anxiety Disorder is very real and estimates are that it affects about 15 to 20 percent of the population.  It usually onsets during the early years of adulthood and normally arises from unresolved separation anxiety or trauma-induced separation anxiety during the very early years of childhood.  For most young sufferers, this anxiety disappears during the middle to later childhood and the teenage years, never to return.  For some though, it can rear its ugly head again in the twenties or thirties as overwhelming feelings of dread and panic overtake when separation – even for a relatively short time – occurs.  Without treatment, it can become a life-long condition. 

D.

To Trust or Not to Trust

Perhaps the hair on the back of your neck stands straight up, perhaps a chill runs down your spine, or a knot forms in the pit of your stomach when someone says to you:  “Trust me!”

There is a subtle, yet powerful difference between the phrases, “Trust me” and “You can trust me”.  Can you perceive the difference?  The key is the intuitive feeling invoked when this statement is spoken to you.  When someone says to you, “trust me”, they are actually implicating, or calling into question, your character as they place the onus directly on you. YOU MUST trust and if you don’t then YOU are lacking, or there is something wrong with YOU.  It is akin to them ‘guilting’ you into trusting them, and if you choose not to trust them, the implication is that it reflects poorly on you rather than on them.  Having the onus placed squarely upon you, however, can make you feel uncomfortable rather than trusting.

On the other hand, if a person says, “You can trust me”, the onus shifts from you to them.  The person is saying to you, not that YOU must show good character and trust THEM, but that they, themselves, are trustworthy.   

See the difference?  It is subtle yet very real.  “You can trust me”, speaks to THEIR character rather than to yours.  It implies that they are trustworthy and you are reassured rather than made to feel uncomfortable, perhaps even defensive.  You are not put on the spot.  It doesn’t make you squirm.  “You can trust me” is all about the person making the statement rather than about the person receiving the statement.  It calms and reassures in advertisements and it does the same in our day to day interactions with other people.

Now, having written all that, if a person has a bad track record in the trust department, it may very well be that, no matter what he or she says to you, your gut reaction may be quite the opposite of a trusting one.

D.

Another Crime - Another Psychopath?

Maybe you’ve heard the notion that Wall Street is full of psychopaths, or that a large number of positions of great power, prestige and financial gain are held by psychopaths, or that they are over-represented in business and politics.  Well, that has not been definitively proven, but each day psychopaths walk among us.  Sounds a bit like a trailer for a horror movie...  All kidding aside, exactly what a psychopath is has been distorted through popular media.  Many of you likely think you know, as labels like ‘violent psychopath’ and ‘psychopathic serial killer’ abound in news and other reporting. Psychopathy, though, is generally misunderstood.

A specific set of personality traits and behaviours lead to the diagnosis of psychopathy.  Psychopaths tend to appear very charming, making a good first impression on others.  They appear normal.  Under that veneer of normalcy, however, is a self-centered, dishonest, undependable, irresponsible person largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love.  We all know people who act dishonestly, or self-centered, or irresponsible, but the real clincher in the psychopathic personality is the lack of guilt, empathy and love.  In addition, casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships are the norm where blame for irresponsible or reckless actions is placed on others.  And, according to Robert Hare, a psychologist with the University of British Columbia, psychopaths show interpersonal deficits like grandiosity, arrogance and deceitfulness, affective deficits like lack of guilt and empathy, and impulsive and criminal behaviours like sexual promiscuity and stealing.  Some would even go so far as to say psychopaths have no soul, but that is a debate for another time and place.

Psychopaths are usually male.  We don’t really know why this is the case – at least not yet.  They are present in most, perhaps all, cultures – even Inuit societies have talked of persons within their ranks who fit the description of what it means to be a psychopath. 

A popular notion is that most serial killers are psychopaths.  Most serial killers, it turns out, aren’t.  They may possess one or more of the traits which define psychopathy, but most psychopaths aren’t even violent.  The other side of the coin is true, too:  most violent people are not psychopaths.  In fact, some notorious serial killers like Charles Manson and David Berkowitz displayed features of psychosis (e.g. schizophrenia is a psychosis: a lapse from reality) rather than psychopathic behaviour.  Psychopaths are usually quite rational whereas Berkowitz believed he was receiving commands from a dog. 

We may never successfully infuse the core personality traits into psychopaths which would enable them to feel things like love, empathy and guilt.  Psychotherapy may prove useful, however, to change behaviour.

D.

ID vs. EGO

I'm sure that everyone reading this blog has heard of Freud - Sigmund Freud - the so-called 'father' of psychoanalysis.  (If you want more info on Freud, "google" him!)

Anyhow, Freud took the view that people's personalities are formed through experiences at the conscious, preconscious and unconscious levels of awareness.  His theory of personality incorporates three primary concepts:  the id, ego and superego.  We've all been with someone, at one time or another, who we think has a large ego, a very large ego, one the size of New York city perhaps.  We are usually reacting to some bragging, cockiness, or self-absorption on their part.  What we really should be thinking, though, is "wow, that person's id is sure working overtime!" 

You see, the id, in the Freudian sense of the word, is what is overactive when someone is conveying with words, or otherwise: "look at me, look at me - can't you see how great I am!"  The ego isn't what is on display here;  in fact, the ego hasn't surfaced at all in order to moderate the influence of the id.  We might think, "what a big ego" when in fact, it is the id (the child in each of us) that does the boasting and playing up.  The ego is the rational (adult) side of our personalities, but in today's world, it seems, it gets blamed for the id's 'misbehaviour'.  All emotions, moods, drives, playfulness and misbehaving are id or child features.

Our maturity depends, according to Freud's theory, on our ability to strengthen our Adult (ego) whose role is to resolve the conflict between our inner Child (id) and our inner Parent (superego).  The Parent is the moralizing, criticizing, bossing, blaming and punishing aspect.  The Adult - the moderator - is all logic, planning, problem-solving, peace-keeping and mediating.   If you are like most people I know, including myself, we tend to alternate between all three inner 'beings'.  Which one becomes dominant in any given situation depends on the situation, how we are feeling in the situation, and other factors.

The next time you're at a cocktail party, however, and you're at the receiving end of a person talking AT you, you might just find yourself thinking "wow, what an "id---".

D.