A Daily Dose

Feel free to add the questions that you are stumped by or wrestling with to this post. Maybe others in the class have suggestions about how to answer or think about the issue you've raised. Beware though, most of the concepts have specific definitions, but the way that we recognize those concepts in our lives can vary dramatically. So, be aware of that tension (between easily defined concepts and difficult to define integration) in your responses.

I might chime in, too.

Posted by Gregg Schacher at 4:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

What are some "key" concepts that you plan to include in your paper?

This is somewhat subjective since there are so many concepts covered in this course and we can't dictate to you what is most relevant to your life and your experience of forming & maintaining intimate relationships. However, you can probably bet that I will be looking for the following concepts in everyone's paper:
** Attachment (eitheror both of [A] the 3 main styles which formed in childhood and/or [B] the 4 adult styles that involve belief about self AND others)
** Anxiety (Self / Relationship / Spillover...at the very least Self & Relationship Anxiety).
** The Relational Dances (even if you're not in one, you need to talk about what tendencies you have based on whether you'd be more likely to have fears about boundaries (pursuer-withdrawer) control (over/underfunctioning) or autonomy / mutuality (submissive-dominant). Be sure to attempt some kind of exploration about what your rejected self and projected self are (since relational dances are about two people getting locked into a process of mutual projection).
** Boundaries
** Something that wrestles with either Prager (so a developmental view of some concept(s)) or Lewis, et al. (so something about the influence of brain functioning on some concept(s)).

What would you add??

Posted by Gregg Schacher at 4:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

How would you confront or approach a power imbalance in a relationship or friendship without either of these two reactive extremes (1) allowing yourself to continue to be easily influenced or (2) attempting to seize or squash power or influence in your partner? This question can be approached by those who perceive that they have more influence in a relationship or those who do not. Interestingly enough, the partner who cares less often seems to carry more power, although it's hard for them to see that.

Posted by Gregg Schacher at 9:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (0)

What would you say to someone who argues that the 'dating game' doesn't exist and that people always have plenty of choices in relationships? Can you frame your response to them in the form of a question, preferably a curious question which is one way of not judging another person's perspective, but still encourages them to begin processing their own viewpoint.

Posted by Gregg Schacher at 9:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBacks (0)

What is a drawback or challenge of trying to reverse / change a family relational pattern experienced while growing up? For example, if you grew up with family members who frequently drank alcohol and you declare that you will never drink as an adult, what might be one complication with that approach to change?

Especially if we consider that change made out of anxiety (reactivity to one's family as Lerner would put it) often replicates somehow that very thing it hopes to change! An example of this is a shy person who berates themselves for being shy and declares that they will REFUSE to be shy anymore and then the next conversation where they're talking to someone attractive they are now anxious that they'll be shy as they have been in the past in spite of their recent declaration and so they become distracted from the conversation and then stammer and say something awkward and then begin to act in such a way that their anxiety eventually drives the other person away. The result? They become more intensely shy than before, only now there is a lot of shame around efforts to change.

So, again, what's the challenge of changing some family relational pattern as an adult?

Posted by Gregg Schacher at 9:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (0)

What would it take for you to be convinced that you act in some ways that are inconsistent with who you think that you are versus who you present to others? This is for everyone who claims that see no disparities between who they present as in various roles / situations compared to who they are outside those roles/ situations. What would this kind of self-discovery look like for you?

Posted by Gregg Schacher at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Okay, if you're really daring, then you're willing to brave the Prager Challenge, a mountain of reflection.
Prager cites research that suggests that young adults are still developing their identity. Specifically, she says:
"Becoming part of a couple and being recognized as such by others can also shape young adult identity (Troll, 1985)...young adults may identify vicariously with their partners' attributes or accomplishments (Beach, Mendolia & Tesser, 1992) or with one another's affiliations...Becoming a couple also carries with it the risk of losing certain parts of one's identity, however [e.g. the process of 'dwindling' for some women]" (Prager, 1995, p. 132).

So, this question involves some synthesis of concepts already discussed and your own gut's wisdom gleaned from observing others and your own relationships. Why is becoming "fused" with another person (or adopting some aspects of their personality / interests / feelings) more challenging in young adulthood than it might be in middle or late adulthood? In other words, what is the attraction of losing part of your personality even if that personality is still evolving and emerging? Give it your best guess.

Posted by Gregg Schacher at 9:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Lerner talks about the challenge about maintaining intimacy over the life span. She points out in the story of Adrienne that anxiety gets in the way of feeling intimate, especially when job stress or family legacies (of becoming distant when under stress) make direct confrontation of sensitive issues very difficult and limits the ability to think of different choices. Lerner says: "Wouldn't it be nice if 'insight' automatically led to change? Typically it does not. Understanding the roots of a problem is not the same as knowing HOW to solve it."

Either using Adrienne's story or some other relevant experiences answer these 2 Q's:
Why can't we change (typically) if we make some important discoveries about why we act/feel a certain way in relationships?
If focusing on self for change does NOT involve becoming self-centered on one's own accomplishments or enhancement (p. 68), what DOES it involve and how does that promote intimacy between two people??

Posted by Gregg Schacher at 9:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Many of us claim that we are our own person and some of us concede that, yeah, sometimes we find ourselves influenced by gender norms about how to act or how to think. So, let's think of this without judging these norms as good or bad. Instead, develop an argument that finds at least one positive or functional purpose behind following a gender norm and find at least one positive / functional purpose behind identifying and changing a behavior of yours based on a gender norm.

You might think of other gender norms, but here are some discussed in class.
Think of the Rachel (from Friends) and Alphonso (the Man-Child from Brawny Academy) as representatives of two type of gender norms. Rachel represents the female norm that encourages a preoccupation with figuring out what works/ doesn't work in relationships and then entering relationships with a partner who is less interested in commitment which creates crisis and eventually a concession that maybe the next relationship will work out. Alphonso repesents the male norm in which the world revolves around you, your interests, your ideas, your part of the conversation (i.e. your amount of influence) and is marked by reluctance to take responsibility of how a relationship works. In sum, a male self-centered norm and a female others-centered norm.

Posted by Gregg Schacher at 9:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Nothing wrong with saying this, right? But this statement implies that you know who you are and most of us would agree that life is a process of discovering who we are, especially in relationship to other people, settings, family members, jobs, educational pursuits, recreation interests, or even developmental milestones such as capacity to think more abstractly or ability to regulate one's own emotions (thanks Prager!).

So, answer this. How can you BOTH validate AND confront yourself as you grow as a person? In other words, how can you BOTH affirm your whole person (pos. & neg. qualities) about yourself AND how can you develop enough humility to consider that there are things about you that could change or heal or develop in such a way that you actually become more sensitive to those around you and their concerns / interests or you make posiitve changes that allows you to feel good about yourself?

Posted by Gregg Schacher at 9:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

Lerner talks a lot about managing how close or distant we are to others in Chapter 5. The dailies reflect that some of you don't want to seem "too clingy" and so find yourself pulling back from others, at times. So, let's look at how you might moderate how vulnerable to be in the following 3 different types of relationships/friendships:
1. You have trouble 'hooking up,' but now there's a girl/guy (acquaintance) who has recently caught your eye. How to proceed and how vulnerable to be?
2. You have a "friend" who you find yourself beginning to feel a romantic attraction towards. How to proceed / how vulnerable to be?
3. You and your partner used to feel passionate about your physical / sexual intimacy, but now things have become quite routine and lack the passion you used to have. How to proceed and how vulnerable to be?
Don't forget about noting drawbacks to be too vulnerable or not vulnerable enough.

Posted by Gregg Schacher at 8:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)