The question of why love fades or why people grow apart in their relationships is one of life’s great mysteries. What prevents us from maintaining the passion, attraction, admiration and closeness we once felt for our partner? What I have found in my own work and in a 30-year longitudinal study of couples and individuals is that we can contrast the patterns of behavior between couples that result in long-term romantic love with those that signify that the couple has formed a “fantasy bond.” A fantasy bond is an illusion of oneness with a relationship partner, a concept elucidated by my father Dr. Robert Firestone. When couples enter into this type of bond, they substitute a fantasy of being connected in place of real relating. They start to put form over substance, and the relationship starts to deteriorate.
The degree to which an individual in a couple enters into a fantasy bond exists on a continuum. In the beginning, people usually open up to one another and relate personally. Then, at some point, they become afraid and start to protect themselves from feeling vulnerable by shutting down and withdrawing from loving behavior. Instead, they replace real love with a fantasy of being in love, which they support by insisting on the conventional markers of a relationship. The situation can deteriorate even further until the couple no longer manifests any observable loving behavior and often expresses a lot of animosity toward each other.
The good news is if we catch on to the behaviors associated with a fantasy bond, a subject I talk more about in a free, upcoming Webinar “Real Love Vs. Fantasy: How to Keep Romantic Love Alive,” we can begin to challenge this defense and create a more satisfying relationship. In order to truly change our relationships for the better, it’s valuable to look closely at these harmful behaviors and compare them to the more favorable ways of relating that characterize an ideal relationship. When we interrupt these patterns and actively engage in healthier ways of interacting with our partner, we’re able to feel more closeness and contentment. We can keep the spark alive in our relationships.
So, what are the behaviors to look out for?
1. Angry reactions to feedback vs. Non-defensiveness and openness
Communication is key to a close relationship. However, when we establish a fantasy bond, we tend to become increasingly closed off to real dialogue, that is, a kind and compassionate way of exchanging impressions and ideas. Instead, we tend to be defensive and have angry or intimidating overreactions to feedback that shut our partner down. Whether we punish our partner by breaking down emotionally, by giving them the silent treatment or by screaming at them, we’re telling them that we don’t want to hear what they have to say. We may provoke additional emotional distance by reacting critically, saying the things that we know will sting our partner the most.
In order to change this pattern, we can try to look for a kernel of truth in what our partner is saying rather than picking apart any flaws in the feedback. If he or she says, “I feel bad when you just watch TV all night. You seem distracted. I feel disregarded and like you aren’t interested in me,” we could consider what parts of that could resonate with us instead of wasting time on everything that doesn’t. We may feel like snapping back by saying, “Don’t be ridiculous and dramatic. I’m just tired!” While there may be some truth to that, we may instead pause to consider, “I have been tired lately, but is more going on with me than that? Have I been distracted to the point of disregarding my relationship?” Our attuned response would then be, “I’m sorry for you to feel bad. I’ve felt distracted lately by work and tired when I come home. I feel bad to just tune out like that. I can see how that hurts you, even though I didn’t mean to hurt you.”
We can always make it our goal to hear everything. This doesn’t mean we have to agree with what someone else is saying. However, we can strive to be open and seek feedback from people we care about and trust, so that they feel comfortable to talk to us about the more difficult subjects.
2. Closed to new experiences vs. Open to trying new things
In every relationship, it’s important to maintain a sense of ourselves as a unique person. When we get involved with someone new, it should expand our world, not shrink it. When we first fall in love, we tend to be open to new things. However, when we start to engage in a fantasy bond, we tend to adopt roles and routines that limit us and close us down to new experiences. We may become more rigid and automatic in our responses. “You know I don’t like that restaurant.” “We always see a movie on Saturday night.” It actually hurts the relationship when we stop being free and open to developing new shared interests. It can foster real resentment between partners. While no one should force themselves to do things they really don’t want to do, shutting down the part of ourselves that seeks new experiences and responds to a spark in our partner can drain us of our aliveness and spontaneity.
We should always be open to exploring things that expand our world and be careful not to limit our or our partner’s experience. We can try activities each of us likes and see if they add to our arsenal of things we can do together and share in a lively way. This doesn’t mean that we have to share all of our interests or meet every one of each other’s needs. In fact, it’s essential to maintain our independence and individuality. We don’t need one person for fulfillment, but we do need some shared activities. A relationship doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Being open to new experiences keeps it alive.
3. Deception and duplicity vs. Honesty and integrity
Most of us know from experience that we can drive each other crazy when our words and actions fail to match. Unfortunately, deception and duplicity are pretty common in relationships. There are a lot of mixed messages based on saying one thing and doing another. Examples include:
Saying “I really love you,” but acting like I don’t have any time to spend with you.
Saying “I want to be close to you,” then constantly criticizing you when you’re around.
Saying “I’m not interested in other people,” but flirting with everyone else at the bar.
The actions that contradict these words do not look like love. They represent a fantasy of being close but without real relating, essentially putting form over substance. Double messages like these mess with another person’s reality, which can actually be considered a basic human rights violation, not to mention a huge threat to lasting, loving relationships.
Admittedly, honesty in a relationship can be tricky, because it doesn’t mean saying every little critical thing to our partner that pops into our head. We have to know our real intentions and what our real truth is. This means we have to know ourselves. We have to consistently ask ourselves, “Am I being honest? What’s my motivation? Do my words and actions really match?” If we say we really love someone, there should be actual actions we take toward them that, to an outside observer, would be viewed as loving. Are we affectionate to them? Do we talk to them? Do we light up when they come around? When our actions are honest, we can create genuine closeness.
4. Overstepping boundaries vs. Respect for the other’s boundaries, priorities and goals
In a fantasy bond, couples tend to overstep each other’s boundaries and form a fusedidentity. They start to see themselves as a WE, instead of a YOU and ME. “WE like to go there.” “WE don’t want to go that party.” “WE like that kind of food.” Many of us unintentionally lose track of where we leave off and our partner begins. Without even noticing it, we may be intrusive or controlling toward our partner, acting in a manner that is disrespectful or demeaning to the other person’s sense of self. When this happens, it not only hurts our partner and his or her feelings for us, but it can undermine our own strength and our feelings for our partner. Many couples come to hold their partner responsible for their happiness, leading to demands and complaints and a sense of powerlessness.
In order to be a loving partner and maintain our own feelings of interest and attraction, we should have regard for what lights our partner up and matters to him or her. We should see our partner as a whole and separate person who matters to us, independent of our own needs and interests. We can both encourage each other to engage in pursuits that really express who each of us is individually. Whether it’s learning a language, climbing a mountain or writing a book, we can see each other for who we really are and support each other’s unique goals and capabilities. When we give another person this space, regard and respect, we actually draw that person closer to us, as we can both really feel for each other as the true people we are.
5. Lack of affection and inadequate, impersonal, or routine sexuality vs. Physical affection and personal sexuality
In a fantasy bond, there can often be a lack of personal relating and, often, a lack of affection. The sexuality can start to feel inadequate, impersonal or become hardly existent. Some couples describe their sex lives as becoming mechanical or highly routinized. This takes much of the excitement out of their attraction. Obviously, there are real outside circumstances that can affect or change one’s physical relationship. However, there’s often also a lot of negative self-talk or “critical inner voices” that discourage us from pursuing our sexuality. It’s important to filter out the negative messages and stay in touch with this vital part of ourselves and our partner. Ideally, we would strive to stay in touch with our own wanting feelings and with those of our partner. There would be a give and take, with real contact being made, that sparks intimate and loving feelings between the two of us. The more free flowing and spontaneous our expressions of love can be, the less likely we are to grow apart.
6. Misunderstanding vs. Understanding
In a fantasy bond, we tend to see our partners for who we need them to be rather than who they are. We may distort them by idealizing or putting them on a pedestal. Or, we may pick them apart, denigrating them by projecting negative qualities onto them. We may even see them as more critical, intrusive or rejecting than they are, because we grew up with people who had these qualities. When we disrespect the boundary between ourselves and our partner, we’re more likely to see them as an extension of ourselves, and we may mistreat or criticize them in ways we mistreat or criticize ourselves.
In an ideal relationship, we try to see our partner realistically, both with their strengths and their foibles, and accept them for who they are. We don’t allow ourselves to create a negative caricature, which means not focusing in on their flaws and indulging in critical thoughts. However, it also means not creating a grandiose image of them. No one can really feel loved unless they feel seen realistically. When a partner is either building us up or tearing us down, we can feel like we’re on shaky ground, not really being loved for who we are. This is why it’s so important not to distort the other person.
7. Manipulations of dominance and submission vs. Noncontrolling, nonmanipulative and nonthreatening behaviors
Because of people’s own defenses and desire to protect themselves, it can be easy for couples to play games and be indirect about their wants and needs. They may engage in manipulative maneuvers to get what they want, like trying to control a situation by crying and falling apart or blowing up and being intimidating. They may also adopt roles that hurt or limit them in their relationship. For example, couples often polarize each other, with one person becoming domineering and controlling, while the other acts passive and submissive. This may take different forms in different aspects of the relationship. One partner may be seen as the “boss” of finances; another may be the one who controls the sexuality between them. They may be drawn to assuming certain roles out of familiarity or as a way to feel secure, however this actually undermines their ability to relate as two equal individuals.
In an equal relationship, it’s important to ask directly for what we want and need from each other. This gives our partner an opportunity to respond and meet our needs. Many of us make the mistake of expecting our partner to read our minds and “know” what we want, which can only lead to disappointment. It’s important to say what we want without trying to dominate or control the situation. We usually feel vulnerable when we’re open about who we are, what we want and how we really feel. Yet, this directness is the best way to maintain an honest and authentic way of relating and get what we want in life.
By being aware of all of these behavior patterns that contribute to relationship distress, we can hold ourselves to a standard of remaining both true to who we are and sensitive to another person. We can encourage an atmosphere of love and support, while maintaining the unique, individual qualities that drew us to each other in the first place. We can avoid the traps of a fantasy bond and enjoy the raw and real adventure that is a loving relationship.
Join Dr. Lisa Firestone for a free Webinar “Real Love Vs. Fantasy: How to Keep Romantic Love Alive.”
Read more from Dr. Lisa Firestone at PsychAlive.org
Source: Psychology Today
Hi Dr. G.,
I’m not sure how to deal with my mother. A few years ago, I became an atheist, and my mother has never really accepted it. She also hates that I am vegan, and liberal, and basically the opposite of her. My parents and I used to argue every day, and they’d say horrible things (like I’m the worst person in the world, that they’re embarrassed that I’m an atheist, that I should just go to Russia if I’m an atheist, and they were also really concerned that I might be a lesbian and said horrible things about that, etc.). I used to justlaugh off her and my father’s craziness, but it’s gotten to the point where now it really stresses me out. Any kind of confrontation, or sometimes just conversation with my mom stresses me out. Just writing this stresses me out, even though I was pretty fine before I started writing it.
We went to family therapy once over a year ago, where my parents essentially just blamed everything on me, even though they explicitly said it wouldn’t be like that. I talked with the therapist one time after that alone, but nothing really came of it, and that was before I was so stressed.
Just to give you a sense of what it’s like:
We were on vacation, and we went to one of the restaurants there that was supposed to have a vegan option. I read the allergen menu to be sure, though, and I didn’t recognize like half the ingredients, so I decided not to get it. Since they complained, though, I decided that it was probably vegan and that I’d get it. I just checked the ingredient list again to see if I missed anything that was obviously non-vegan, and I noticed that it had an ingredient that I’m allergic to. I asked if that could be left out (mustard seeds), but the man told me it was prepackaged, so they couldn’t do that. I went back to my parents and told them what happened- but they were still furious! My mom actually accused me oflying about really wanting to get that dish, and said I was just looking for an excuse to not get it. They were really nasty, and I started crying (not bawling or anything, just tearing up a little, and not intentionally), and my mom got even more vicious. She was like, “Why are you crying? Do you see anybody else crying?”
And she clearly has underlying issues about my beliefs. There have been multiple instances where we’ve been talking about things, and my mom randomly finds a way to complain that I’m a vegan/atheist/liberal, even when it doesn’t have anything to do with what we’re talking about. When I’ve tried to talk to her about these underlying issues, she’s gotten really defensive and started yelling, and/or avoided the conversation. One time, she was just dismissive- “Yeah yeah, I’ll get over your beliefs.”
She screams every day at my brother about college, and has threatened to kick him out and not pay for his college. She screams at my four year old sister, and is pretty much always hostile. I’m really concerned about both of them, too. My brother has dropped subtle hints that he is not happy, and it can’t be good for a four year old to be screamed at all of the time. But whenever I confront them about this stuff, they just blow me off and dismiss what I’m saying, and say, “What else are we supposed to do?”
I really just despise my mom, honestly. If I was an adult, and could, I would’ve cut her off by now. She causes me so much stress. There have been three instances recently where I’ve been trying to study, and she just doesn’t care, and keeps screaming about whatever. One time, she randomly accused me of losing the top of a container, and I told her that I was studying and to be quiet. When she realized that my dad misplaced it, she apologized, but I basically didn’t forgive her, and told her that it bothers me that she disrupts my study sessions and then complains when I don’t get amazing grades. And then she’s like, “Oh, I see, so you don’t accept apologies.” Even after we stopped arguing, I was so upset that I couldn’t focus on my studying, and I went upstairs and cried.
I just don’t like anything about her. She’s a huge gossip too, and it just disgusts me. She supports Donald Trump, and calls me brainwashed… >.<
Anyway, after that argument with her about the container, she came upstairs later and apologized again. She said she was just cranky from work, and that she’d try to improve. She told me that she loved me a couple times, but I couldn’t bring myself to say the same to her…
I mean, she never apologized for all the attacks to me about her perception of mysexuality (they even made me meet with the principal about being in an anti-bullying club that focused mainly on LGBT+ bullying in middle school), and saying horrible things to me for being an atheist and vegan etc.. I can’t warm up to her, even though it seems like she’s been trying to be nicer recently (after the studying incident). I don’t want anything to do with her, but I’m stuck with her for a few more years until I turn eighteen.
Anyway, this was originally supposed to be mainly about the possibility of my mother having some mental health issues. Like I said, she’s nearly ALWAYS stressed out, and screams at my brother and sister every single day. She said that she was so nervous about my brother and college at work that she couldn’t even eat her lunch. And she also has crazy delusions, like that Obama made up a Thomas Jefferson quote that she doesn’t like. She’s also EXTREMELY over-protective. When we used to go on walks up and down the road a few months ago, she’d make sure she could always see me. At one point, I turned back to the house to go inside because I was upset with her for her over-protectiveness, and even though the house was very very close (you could see it from where we were standing), she felt the need to watch me go inside to make sure I didn’t get kidnapped.
What do you think I should do?
Thanks for reading. =)
A Distressed Teenager
Dear Teen,
I am delighted that you wrote to me. I understand why you are feeling so stressed. Your descriptions of your parents’ behavior particularly your mother’s behavior leads me to believe that yes your mother is dealing with some serious issues of her own. At the very least your mother is critical, demeaning and acts like a bully toward you. It does not sound like your father is able to help the family. That is a shame. Clearly, your mother has angercontrol issues and emotional regulation issues. What I mean here is that she is very emotional intense and volatile and seems to have difficulty tempering her level of emotional expression. I’m wondering if your mother has a problem with substance abuse. Does she drink and does that affect her mood and behavior? You also describe behavior that may be consistent with paranoid personality disorder including her suspicious behavior, odd accusations and the delusion that you describe. I do not,however, have enough information to determine if your mother has a mood disorder, a personality disorder or/and a substance abuse problem. She clearly has anxiety issues.
I am clear, however, that your environment is very stressful for you. We all hope for a mother who is supportive and the leader of our fan club. Unfortunately, many of us fail to receive that kind of mothering. It is a shame that family therapy was not gratifying or helpful. I recommend a few things for you. First, I understand why it is difficult for you to be forgiving and nice with your mother. I do think though that you should try your best to remain calm around your mother. I know that this may be very tough but any intensely expressed emotion on your part may make your mother angrier and provide her with more behavior to use against you. Second, is it possible for you to spend less time at home and get involved in positive activities outside of the home? Perhaps less time at home may reduce your stress level. Third, is it possible that helping your mother around the house a bit may reduce her stress and anxiety level and then result in a calmer household? Maybe you have already tried this and it may not even work but it sure is worth a try. Fourth, you should probably do your best to stay away from controversial topics around your parents. It is unlikely that they will change their views. And finally I would love to see you get some support outside of the home. You are shouldering a lot on your own. Perhaps you can speak to a guidance counselor at school or even to your family doctor and get a referral to a therapist who specializes in working with teens. The support and guidance of a good therapist who understands you and the situation that you are currently living in would be extremely helpful. None of us are an island and we all benefit from emotional support. Good luck and please get back to me.
Dr. G.
Source: Psychology Today
For years, I’ve taught a weekly psychology class to students ranging from 7 to 14 years-old. In this class, I encourage self-reflection, asking kids to identify and express what they think and feel and to consider the thoughts and feelings of others. The results are often surprising. Strong, self-aware statements come out of their mouths that I don’t always expect. “I feel bad about myself in class. I worry I’ll be slower than everyone else.” “I’m angry when my dad won’t take time to help me with my homework. It makes me not want to try anymore.” “I hate it when my friends don’t want to play with me. So, I yell, but that just makes it worse.”
Too often, we tend to think of our kids as less sophisticated and incapable of processing or understanding the emotional complexities of their world. We think we’re protecting them by not bringing up the trickier, less pleasant subjects. But I can tell you firsthand that kids absorb a tremendous amount. Pretty much as soon as they’re verbal, children can be taught to identify and communicate their feelings. In a trusted environment where emotions are talked about openly, most kids will speak freely about their feelings and are quick to have empathy for their peers.
With their brains growing at a rapid rate, all children are constantly noticing, reacting, adapting and developing ideas based on their emotional experiences. This leaves me to wonder why we give our child an education in so many subjects, teaching them to sound out words and brush their teeth, and yet we fail to equip them with an emotional education that can dramatically improve the quality of their lives.
When you teach kids emotional intelligence, how to recognize their feelings, understand where they come from and learn how to deal with them, you teach them the most essential skills for their success in life. Research has shown that emotional intelligence or EQ “predicts over 54% of the variation in success (relationships, effectiveness, health, quality of life).” Additional data concludes that “young people with high EQ earn higher grades, stay in school, and make healthier choices.”
At this year’s Wisdom 2.0, I felt inspired by a talk by Dr. Marc Brackett, the Director of theYale Center for Emotional Intelligence(link is external), who talked at length about the importance of teaching kids to know their emotions. The Center has developed the RULER program for schools. RULER is an acronym that stands for Recognizing emotions in self and others,Understanding the causes and consequences of emotions, Labeling emotions accurately,Expressing emotions appropriately and Regulating emotions effectively. The program has been shown to boost student’s emotional intelligence and social skills, productivity, academic performance, leadership skills and attention, while reducing anxiety, depressionand instances of bullying between students. RULER creates an all-around positive environment for both students and teachers, with less burnout on both ends.
These five RULER principles run parallel in many ways to social intelligence pioneer and author of Emotional Intelligence: Why it Can Matter More than IQ, Daniel Goleman’s five components of emotional intelligence. You can see how each of these elements would contribute to an individual’s personal success and sense of well-being.
As parents, when we don’t have a healthy way of handling emotions ourselves, we have trouble teaching our kids to handle theirs. That is why the change starts with us. Fortunately, all five components of emotional intelligence can be taught and learned at any age. There are many tools and techniques that can help us and our children start to identify and understand the emotions of ourselves and others. This process begins with recognition, because it’s only when we notice where we’re at that we’re able to shift ourselves to where we want to be.
When we acknowledge the profound influence of emotions in our lives, we inspire a new attitude toward self-awareness and mental health. We can then start to ask broader questions, like how can we create a movement to increase the emotional intelligence of future generations?
One place to start is with mindfulness(link is external). Studies(link is external) have found that a mindfulness practice can help reduce symptoms of stress, depression and anxiety in children. It can alsoincrease gray matter density(link is external) in regions of the brain involved in emotional regulation. Another study(link is external) of adolescents found that yoga, which can increase mindfulness, helped improve student’s emotional regulation capacity.
On a systemic level, we can help raise the emotional intelligence of future generations by working together to get our schools to implement programs like RULER. On a face-to-face level, as parents, teachers, friends and caretakers, we can open up a dialogue and encourage kids to express what they’re feeling. We can teach them what co-author ofParenting from the Inside Out Dr. Daniel Siegel(link is external) often refers to as “name it to tame it,” in which children learn that naming their feelings can help them get a hold on them. We can also talk more about our own feelings, being honest and direct about the times when we feel sad, angry or even afraid.
When we mess up or act out with or around our children, instead of trying to sweep it under the rug, we should acknowledge what occurred in us and repair any emotional damage we may have caused. In taking these each of these steps, we create an environment in which our children can continually make sense of their emotions and experiences. This skill set is perhaps the largest predictor of not only their success in life, but more importantly, their happiness.
Source: Psychology Today
Here’s a sobering thought for the idealists among us: Even if we someday achieve a truly fair and just society, that society will nevertheless be inhabited by the same species that produced the Holocaust. “Humans are capable of many things,” as author Noam Chomskyonce told me(link is external). “Some of them are horrible, some are wonderful.”
Knowing that the human animal’s behavioral capacities cover a spectrum from the horrific to the kindhearted, it seems obvious that our challenge going forward is to create social structures that lead to the more desirable outcomes. There’s plenty of room for debate over details, but the basic framework of where we want to go shouldn’t be very controversial: general prosperity, a healthy and educated population, a government free of corruption and responsive to human needs, a sustainable natural environment, and a safe and free social environment.
Most would agree that the political realm is an important component in achieving such a society, but if that’s so we should be concerned about the state of affairs in America today. That is, the country’s political dynamics—the interactions between candidates, the policy proposals being considered, and even the conduct of ordinary citizens—increasingly reflect a complete lack of human empathy, a view toward others that is willfully insensitive, if not outright contemptuous. The objective observer is left wondering whether the United States, politically and as a society, is sliding toward ominous realms on that aforementioned spectrum of potential behaviors.
Donald Trump’s now-famous Mexican wall proposal is perhaps the most obvious example of America’s conscious detachment from the rest of humanity, but it’s not the worst. That distinction would probably go to Ted Cruz, who declared that he would carpet bomb(link is external) the Middle East, bragging that he would find out “if sand can glow in the dark,” apparently with little concern about the loss of innocent life.
Blame the candidates for this devolved level of discourse, but bear in mind that they make such statements with confidence that voter support will follow. And it has, for Trump and Cruz are among the few still standing from what was once a large field. As the candidates on the GOP debate stage last week chose to insult one another(link is external) rather than debate serious policy, voters are getting the political discourse that reflects their own mindset: angry, fearful, incapable of complex analysis, and hostile toward others.
Little wonder, then, that Trump’s demagoguery has such appeal. Feeding the frustration of a working class that has been decimated, Trump disparages one group after another—Mexicans, Muslims, African-Americans, Asians, women, and of course his competitors—and he rises in the polls. Adversaries are quickly branded “losers”(link is external) or “flunkies”(link is external) or“dopes”(link is external) or “lowlifes.”(link is external)
Empathy, and its close cousin compassion, can be reflected in public policy that shows concern for fellow humans. In response to the economic crisis of the 1930s, for example, America embraced the New Deal, with public works projects(link is external) that benefited everyone and other programs(link is external) that promoted a sense that, as a society, we are all in this together. Even though politics was still contentious and the nation grappled with numerous social problems, a sense of a shared humanity was seen in public policy and political rhetoric.
Contrast this to the mood in America today, where almost all discourse is uncivil, whether online, on cable television or on the debate stage, and the utter lack of empathy becomes apparent. Nobody cares to calm down, to consider what it’s like to walk in the other person’s shoes, to entertain the notion that others may feel the way they do for reasons that are understandable and valid. Instead today’s America, from our presidential candidates to our blogosphere and major media, more often thrives on outrage, emotion, and personal attacks.
It’s noteworthy, and undeniable, that two antonyms of empathy—disdain and indifference—have become cornerstones of American politics. When outsiders are routinely reviled, targeted for blame by an impulsive population that isn’t capable of rational thought, bad things can happen. Add doses of anti-intellectualism, nationalism(link is external), and militarism(link is external) to the mix, and you have a formula for disaster. Just ask Germany(link is external).
Empathetic and compassionate policy does not require that a society sacrifice its well being for the betterment of strangers, but it does require an intelligent assessment of what is happening internally and around the world, a minimal level of humane values, and rational attempts to apply those values. Nobody would ever claim that America has been a model for empathy—our history of slavery and racism negates that possibility immediately, as do many of our military escapades and foreign policy priorities. But nevertheless, the affirmative disavowal of empathy in America today is in many ways unique.
Consider, for example, the way Trump not only endorsed the use of torture, but did so in a way that doesn’t even portray the decision as regrettable, as a necessary evil. Instead, heboldly insisted(link is external) that “even if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway.” And the crowd erupts in cheers.
If this doesn’t worry you, it should. Bear in mind that even the Democratic frontrunner points to an alleged war criminal(link is external), Henry Kissinger, as her foreign policy mentor of sorts. Suffice it to say that empathy was not one of Kissinger’s prominent qualities.
Meanwhile, the one major-party campaign that rejects such a view of the world is labeled “too idealistic(link is external).” Though I began this piece with a sobering thought for idealists, I wouldn’t necessarily want to suggest that idealism should be dismissed. After all, nowadays it seems to be the only view that doesn’t reject empathy. And without empathy, our humanity is dead.
David Niose’s latest book is Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason(link is external).
Follow on Twitter: @ahadave(link is external)
Get David Niose’s Newsletter
Source: Psychology Today
There is a growing and disturbing trend of anti-intellectual elitism in American culture. It’s the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility.
Susan Jacoby, author of The Age of American Unreason(link is external), says in an article in theWashington Post, “Dumbness, to paraphrase the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has been steadily defined downward for several decades, by a combination of heretofore irresistible forces. These include the triumph of video culture over print culture; a disjunction between Americans’ rising level of formal education and their shaky grasp of basic geography, science and history; and the fusion of anti-rationalism with anti-intellectualism.”
There has been a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in America, unlike most other Western countries. Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book,Anti-Intellectualism In American Life, describes how the vast underlying foundations of anti-elite, anti-reason and anti-science have been infused into America’s political and social fabric. Famous science fiction writer Isaac Asimov once said: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Mark Bauerlein, in his book, The Dumbest Generation(link is external), reveals how a whole generation of youth is being dumbed down by their aversion to reading anything of substance and their addiction to digital “crap” via social media.
Journalist Charles Pierce, author of Idiot America(link is external), adds another perspective: “The rise of idiot America today represents–for profit mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage in the pursuit of power–the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they are talking about. In the new media age, everybody is an expert.”
“There’s a pervasive suspicion of rights, privileges, knowledge and specialization,” says Catherine Liu, the author of American Idyll: Academic Antielitism as Cultural Critique (link is external)and a film and media studies professor at University of California. The very mission of universities has changed, argues Liu. “We don’t educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs.”
Part of the reason for the rising anti-intellectualism can be found in the declining state of education in the U.S. compared to other advanced countries:
In American schools, the culture exalts the athlete and good-looking cheerleader. Well-educated and intellectual students are commonly referred to in public schools and the media as “nerds,” “dweebs,” “dorks,” and “geeks,” and are relentlessly harassed and even assaulted by the more popular “jocks” for openly displaying any intellect. These anti-intellectual attitudes are not reflected in students in most European or Asian countries, whose educational levels have now equaled and and will surpass that of the U.S. And most TV shows or movies such as The Big Bang Theory depict intellectuals as being geeks if not effeminate.
John W. Traphagan(link is external) ,Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Texas, argues the problem is that Asian countries have core cultural values that are more akin to a cult of intelligence and education than a cult of ignorance and anti-intellectualism. In Japan, for example, teachers are held in high esteem and normally viewed as among the most important members of a community. There is suspicion and even disdain for the work of teachers that occurs in the U.S. Teachers in Japan typically are paid significantly more than their peers in the U.S. The profession of teaching is one that is seen as being of central value in Japanese society and those who choose that profession are well compensated in terms of salary, pension, and respect for their knowledge and their efforts on behalf of children.
In addition, we do not see in Japan significant numbers of the types of religious schools that are designed to shield children from knowledge about basic tenets of science and accepted understandings of history–such as evolutionary theory or the religious views of the Founding Fathers, who were largely deists–which are essential to having a fundamental understanding of the world, Traphagan contends. The reason for this is because in general Japanese value education, value the work of intellectuals, and see a well-educated public with a basic common knowledge in areas of scientific fact, math, history, literature, etc. as being an essential foundation to a successful democracy.
We’re creating a world of dummies. Angry dummies who feel they have the right, the authority and the need not only to comment on everything, but to make sure their voice is heard above the rest, and to drag down any opposing views through personal attacks, loud repetition and confrontation.
Bill Keller, writing in the New York Times(link is external) argues that the anti-intellectual elitism is not an elitism of wisdom, education, experience or knowledge. The new elite are the angry social media posters, those who can shout loudest and more often, a clique of bullies and malcontents baying together like dogs cornering a fox. Too often it’s a combined elite of the anti-intellectuals and the conspiracy followers – not those who can voice the most cogent, most coherent response. Together they forment a rabid culture of anti-rationalism where every fact is suspect; every shadow holds a secret conspiracy. Rational thought is the enemy. Critical thinking is the devil’s tool.
Keller also notes that the herd mentality takes over online; the anti-intellectuals become the metaphorical equivalent of an angry lynch mob when anyone either challenges one of the mob beliefs or posts anything outside the mob’s self-limiting set of values.
Keller blames this in part to the online universe that “skews young, educated and attentive to fashions.” Fashion, entertainment, spectacle, voyeurism – we’re directed towards trivia, towards the inconsequential, towards unquestioning and blatant consumerism. This results in intellectual complacency. People accept without questioning, believe without weighing the choices, join the pack because in a culture where convenience rules, real individualism is too hard work. Thinking takes too much time: it gets in the way of the immediacy of the online experience.
Reality TV and pop culture presented in magazines and online sites claim to provide useful information about the importance of The Housewives of [you name the city] that can somehow enrich our lives. After all, how else can one explain the insipid and pointless stories that tout divorces, cheating and weight gain? How else can we explain how the Kardashians,or Paris Hilton are known for being famous for being famous without actually contributing anything worth discussion? The artificial events of their lives become the mainstay of populist media to distract people from the real issues and concerns facing us.
The current trend of increasing anti-intellectualism now establishing itself in politics and business leadership, and supported by a declining education system should be a cause for concern for leaders and the general population,one that needs to be addressed now.
Source Psychology Today
Successful women know only too well that in any male-dominated profession, we often find ourselves at a distinct disadvantage. We are routinely underestimated, underutilized, and even underpaid. Studies show that women need to perform at extraordinarily high levels, just to appear moderately competent compared to our male coworkers.
But in my experience, smart and talented women rarely realize that one of the toughest hurdles they’ll have to overcome to be successful lies within. We judge our own abilities not only more harshly, but fundamentally differently, than men do. Understanding why we do it is the first step to righting a terrible wrong. And to do that, we need to take a step back in time.
Chances are good that if you are a successful professional today, you were a pretty bright fifth grade girl. My graduate advisor, psychologist Carol Dweck (author of Mindset) conducted a series of studies in the 1980s, looking at how bright girls and boys in the fifth grade handled new, difficult and confusing material.
She found that bright girls, when given something to learn that was particularly foreign or complex, were quick to give up–and the higher the girls’ IQ, the more likely they were to throw in the towel. In fact, the straight-A girls showed the most helpless responses. Bright boys, on the other hand, saw the difficult material as a challenge, and found it energizing. They were more likely to redouble their efforts, rather than give up.
Why does this happen? What makes smart girls more vulnerable, and less confident, when they should be the most confident kids in the room? At the 5th grade level, girls routinely outperform boys in every subject, including math and science. So there were no differences between these boys and girls in ability, nor in past history of success. The only difference was how bright boys and girls interpreted difficulty–what it meant to them when material seemed hard to learn. Bright girls were much quicker to doubt their ability, to loseconfidence, and to become less effective learners as a result.
Researchers have uncovered the reason for this difference in how difficulty is interpreted, and it is simply this: more often than not, bright girls believe that their abilities are innate and unchangeable, while bright boys believe that they can develop ability through effort and practice.
How do girls and boys develop these different views? Most likely, it has to do with the kinds of feedback we get from parents and teachers as young children. Girls, who developself-control earlier and are better able to follow instructions, are often praised for their “goodness.” When we do well in school, we are told that we are “so smart,” “so clever, ” or ” such a good student.” This kind of praise implies that traits like smartness, cleverness, and goodness are qualities you either have or you don’t.
Boys, on the other hand, are a handful. Just trying to get boys to sit still and pay attention is a real challenge for any parent or teacher. As a result, boys are given a lot more feedback that emphasizes effort (e.g., “If you would just pay attention you could learn this,” “If you would just try a little harder you could get it right.”) The net result: When learning something new is truly difficult, girls take it as sign that they aren’t “good” and “smart”, and boys take it as a sign to pay attention and try harder.
We continue to carry these beliefs, often unconsciously, around with us throughout our lives. And because bright girls are particularly likely to see their abilities as innate and unchangeable, they grow up to be women who are far too hard on themselves–women who will prematurely conclude that they don’t have what it takes to succeed in a particular arena, and give up way too soon.
Even if every external disadvantage to a woman’s rising to the top of an organization is removed–every inequality of opportunity, every chauvinistic stereotype, all the challenges we face balancing work and family–we would still have to deal with the fact that through our mistaken beliefs about our abilities, we may be our own worst enemy.
How often have you found yourself avoiding challenges and playing it safe, sticking togoals you knew would be easy for you to reach? Are there things you decided long ago that you could never be good at? Skills you believed you would never possess? If the list is a long one, you were probably one of the Bright Girls–and your belief that you are “stuck” being exactly as you are has done more to determine the course of your life than you probably ever imagined. Which would be fine, if your abilities were innate and unchangeable. Only they’re not.
No matter the ability–whether it’s intelligence, creativity, self-control, charm, or athleticism–studies show them to be profoundly malleable. When it comes to mastering any skill, your experience, effort, and persistence matter a lot. So if you were a Bright Girl, it’s time to toss out your (mistaken) belief about how ability works, embrace the fact that you canalways improve, and reclaim the confidence to tackle any challenge that you lost so long ago.
Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals(link is external) is available wherever books are sold. Please follow me on Twitter @hghalvorson
Source: Psychology Today
Have you ever wondered whether someone you know, perhaps a friend, a colleague, or even a close family member, is a narcissist? How would you find out? You could try to get the person of interest evaluated by a licensed clinical psychologist, for probably, a steep fee. Alternatively, you might try to administer the most widely used measure of narcissism in personality research yourself; the 40-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI).
Yet, I have a distinct feeling that neither of these options seem plausible to most people.
At Indiana University, Sara Konrath and her colleagues recently sought to address some of the challenges associated with administering such long questionnaires, and in response, developed the so-called Single-Item Narcissism Scale (SINS).
At first, my colleague Seth Rosenthal (Yale) and I were skeptical about the idea that one simple question—Are you a “narcissist”?—could accurately identify narcissists given that narcissism is such a complex and multidimensional personality trait (for a discussion, see my previous post “Everything You’ve Always Wanted to Know about Narcissism“).
Given our initial skepticism paired with a dedication to replication science in social-personality research, we decided to see if we could replicate these initial positive findings with a sample of over 2,000 American adults.
The results of our new study(link is external) were recently published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences. In a nutshell, we were able to replicate most of the authors’ initial findings and we reached two main conclusions;
(1) The single-question measure does indeed correlate positively with the more complex 40-item NPI (link is external)questionnaire (i.e., they both seem to measure narcissism).
(2) Importantly, while the NPI-based measure seems to conflate narcissism with normal, or healthy self-esteem (due to questions that ask people about more normative traits like “confidence” and “assertiveness“), the single-item measure did not correlate with self-esteem at all! In other words, the measure does not appear to capture people who might have some milder “lower-order” narcissistic traits—which implies that the question actually singles out the “hard-line” narcissists pretty well.
So, by now, I am sure you are anxious to know what the magic question actually is! It is probably much simpler than you imagine.
If you want to find out whether someone is a narcissist, simply ask them:
Are you a “narcissist”?
This may seem counter-intuitive at first, and it certainly doesn’t always work to ask people directly about their personality traits, but the case of narcissism is unique. True narcissists do not appear to view their narcissism as a bad thing. In fact, they are likely to be proud of it! Indeed, a number of recent studies (link is external)have shown that narcissists often admit that they behave in explicitly narcissistic ways, that they happily describe themselves as arrogant, braggy, etc., and even strive to be more narcissistic! Narcissists also appear aware that other people view them less positively than they view themselves, yet simply don’t care.
My co-author, Seth Rosenthal, suggests that there are several interesting factors about the scale itself that may play an important role in its validity:
1) First, the scale asks respondents to identify with the trait as a noun “I am a narcissist,” rather than the adjective “I am narcissistic.” That gives narcissists the opportunity to stake their claim to a special identity that they know most people would reject—i.e., providing an affirmative response to the question gives them the opportunity to boost their ego.
2) Second, the one-item survey comes with a definition of narcissism: “Are you a ‘narcissist’? The word ‘narcissist’ means egotistical, self-focused, and vain.” If a more severe set of descriptive traits had been chosen (like entitled, exploitative, arrogant, unempathetic), it might have been too difficult for people to endorse the item.
Of course, self-reports aren’t perfect(link is external). People may say one thing, and the truth may be another. In addition, a single-question like that doesn’t tell us much about the “type” of narcissism we’re dealing with or whether particular narcissistic traits (e.g., grandiosity) are more pronounced than others (e.g., lack of empathy), which is important because we know different aspects of narcissism can influence behavior in different ways.
In conclusion, while a single-question(link is external) narcissism assessment might not give us a detailed personality profile, it seems to measure the bottom line pretty well.
In other words, if you want to find out whether someone you know is a narcissist, it might be worth simply asking them!
References
van der Linden, S., & Rosenthal, S.A. (2016). Measuring narcissism with a single question? A replication and extension of the Single-Item Narcissism Scale (SINS).Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 238-241.
Carlson, E.N. (2013). Honestly arrogant or simply misunderstood? Narcissists’ awareness of their narcissism. Self and Identity, 12(3), 259-277.
Carlson, E.N., Vazire, S., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2011). You probably think this paper’s about you: narcissists’ perceptions of their personality and reputation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 185-201.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890-902.
Konrath, S., Meier, B.P., & Bushman, B.J. (2014). Development and validation of the single item narcissism scale (SINS). PLoS ONE, 9(8): e103469.
Rosenthal, S.A., & Hooley, J.M. (2010). Narcissism assessment in social–personality research: Does the association between narcissism and psychological health result from a confound with self-esteem?. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 453-465.
Copyright (2016). Sander van der Linden, Ph.D.
Image credit: “The Detective”(link is external) by paurian(link is external) is licensed under CC BY 2.0
Source: Psychology Today
NUMÉRIQUE. Cet article est extrait du dossier “Intuition, le cerveau en roue libre” du numéro 827 du mensuel Sciences et Avenir. Pour en savoir plus, se référer à l’encadré de bas de page.
L’intuition est-elle bonne conseillère ? Oui pour John Kounios, professeur de psychologie à l’université Drexel de Philadelphie. Christopher Chabris est lui plus partagé. Professeur de psychologie à l’Union College de New York, il estime qu’il ne faut pas s’y fier si elle ne s’applique pas à un champ d’expertise bien connu.
Sciences et Avenir : L’intuition nous permet-elle de prendre des décisions ?
Pr John Kounios : Bien sûr ! Nos travaux ont montré qu’il y a deux types de fonctionnement mental pour résoudre un problème : intuitif ou analytique. Le premier procède de manière inconsciente, associative, sans effort, spontanément et hors du cadre. Le second est conscient, logique, avec effort, stratégique et cadré.
Quel est celui qui nous permet de prendre les “meilleures” options ?
Tout dépend. Si je vous donne une colonne de chiffres à additionner, vous pourrez le faire uniquement de manière analytique, étape par étape. En revanche, répondre à des interrogations du type “que faire pour être plus heureux ?” ou “est-ce que cette personne me plaît ?” nécessite le système intuitif car il n’y a pas de règles à suivre : c’est un “flash intuitif”. Nous devons de plus en plus souvent faire appel à cette capacité dans notre monde moderne toujours plus complexe.
Nous pouvons donc nous fier à notre “flash intuitif” ?
Notre intuition est fiable lorsqu’elle repère, inconsciemment, des motifs familiers et en déduit la réponse à apporter. Un radiologue expérimenté peut ainsi poser son diagnostic en observant pendant une seconde à peine vos clichés médicaux. Face à l’imprévu, elle est également fiable. Ainsi, lorsque cette habitante du Minnesota a rencontré un adolescent de 16 ans en panne de voiture, un matin d’avril 2001, elle a eu aussitôt et inexplicablement mal à l’estomac. Son malaise s’est amplifié lorsque celui-ci lui a dit : “Je ne sais pas où est ma mère”. Elle a aussitôt prévenu la police qui a retrouvé la mère assassinée dans sa baignoire par le jeune homme. Attention ! l’intuition ne fonctionne pas, en revanche, pour les marchés financiers. Une étude a montré que les “intuitions” des experts, qui conseillent tel ou tel placement, sont aussi fiables… que si vous investissiez de manière aléatoire.
Sciences et Avenir : L’intuition peut-elle avoir tort ?
Pr Christophe Chabris : Oui, parfois, alors que c’est ainsi que nous prenons la plupart de nos décisions. Elle est d’ailleurs particulièrement mauvaise conseillère lorsqu’il s’agit de s’auto-évaluer. Nous avons en efet des croyances fausses sur la manière dont notre cerveau fonctionne. Par exemple, nous avons l’intuition que nous faisons attention à tout ce qui se passe autour de nous. Or, dans notre expérience dite du gorille invisible (1999), nous montrons à des spectateurs un film dans lequel des étudiants jouent au basket en leur demandant de compter le nombre de passes. Ils s’acquittent alors de leur tâche… sans remarquer qu’un homme déguisé en gorille a traversé la scène ! Cela démontre l’illusion que l’on a de tout voir et maîtriser comme celle d’avoir une mémoire fiable. Ce sont les illusions du quotidien.
Quelles sont les conséquences ?
Elles sont nombreuses et plus ou moins graves. Parce qu’on a la — mauvaise — intuition que l’on sait faire deux choses à la fois, nous téléphonons en conduisant, ce qui peut provoquer un accident mortel. D’ailleurs, rien ne prouve que lorsque les gens disent avoir “l’intuition qu’il faut faire ci ou ça” (gut feeling), cette sensation précède la décision. La sensation est peut-être une façon de justifier après coup une décision.
Quand faut-il se méfier ?
Lorsqu’on n’a pas d’expertise sur un sujet. Nous pouvons décider d’investir dans un marché boursier sans rien y connaître, juste parce nous le “sentons” bien, et perdre ainsi de l’argent. Pour ma part, j’essaie de ne pas faire confiance aveuglément à mon intuition. Car le monde d’aujourd’hui est plus compliqué, avec de plus en plus de données à prendre en compte. Et ce que l’intuition permettait peut être hier dans un monde plus simple, ne le permet plus aujourd’hui. Réfléchissons toujours à deux fois avant d’agir !
Source: Science et Avenir
“Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go it’s one of the best.” Woody Allen
“I have never liked sex. I do not think I ever will. It seems just the opposite of love.” Marilyn Monroe
“I know nothing about sex, because I was always married.” Zsa Zsa Gabor
What is the relationship between romantic love and sexual desire? Is it true that “love ain’t nothing but sex misspelled,” as Harlan Ellison claimed, or are they two separate emotions? A plausible answer is that the two are not identical but have significant links. What are these links and are they subject to gender differences?
Is sex central to love?
Like love, sexual desire is also an emotion, and not a mere biological drive like hungerand thirst. Sexual desire is typically part of romantic love. The complex experience of romantic love involves two basic evaluative patterns referring to (a) attractiveness—that is, an attraction to external appearance, and (b) praiseworthiness—that is, a positive appraisal of personal characteristics. Although sexual desire involves both types of evaluations, the emphasis is upon attractiveness. Accordingly, the mental capacities involved in sexual desire are more primitive than those involved in romantic love.
Sexual desire is focused on short-term details of a few external parts of the person’s body that can be instantly revealed by sense perception. In love, more long-term comprehensive evaluations are involved. In love we see the forest, whereas in sexual desire we focus upon one or several trees. The limited nature of sexual desire is indicated in the notion of a “one-night stand” (Förster, et. al., 2009(link is external)).
The connection between sexual desire and romantic love has significant evolutionary advantages for mating and having more offspring. However, this connection also raises difficulties.
Romantic love has often being considered to be one of the most meaningful and sublime human expressions. At the same time, sex has often being criticized for involving vulgar, disgusting and humiliating activities and for degrading or turning the partner into a commodity. As one woman said, “I’ve always hated knowing that men wanted to have sex with me without any emotional involvement. I think I trigger sexual desire in almost every man, and it has nothing at all to do with love.”
It is therefore surprising that some people, many of whom are religious or conservative, who have voiced such fierce criticism of sex, also consider sexual exclusivity as the hallmark of romantic love and its violation as the greatest desecration of the romantic bond.
If sex is not the essence of romantic love, why do we attribute such a great weight to sexual exclusivity in romantic relationships? It can be argued that from a psychological perspective, the gravest violation of the romantic bond is a profound emotional involvement, rather than a superficial sexual activity, with another person. One reason for this may be that sexual activities often entail such profound involvement. This, however, indicates that the essence of love is not the sexual activity itself but is rather the emotional involvement, which sometimes, but not always, is associated with it. Sex may occur without love, but romantic love at its best usually includes sex.
Recent scientific evidence indicates the affinity between sexual desire and love: despite their differences, they recruit a remarkable common set of brain areas. They activate specific but related areas in the brain (Cacioppo, et al., 2012(link is external)).
Sex and marriage
Not long ago, the sexual realm was normatively limited (mainly for women) to marriage, whereas most sectors of modern society now consider it an acceptable part of casual relationships before and after marriage. The only stronghold that the sexual revolution has failed to destroy is the prohibition against married people having sex with people other than their spouses. Married people seem to be normatively allowed to do almost anything with other people—except engage in sexual activity.
Will married people be allowed to join the party sometime in the future and satisfy their sexual needs outside of their committed framework? Do the boundaries of marriage reflect profound moral or psychological boundaries, or are they rather, as George Bernard Shaw said, “the Trade Unionism of the married”? Not unlike other trade unions, that of the married couple attempts to keep its existence by postulating rigid boundaries. Do such boundaries make people happy at the end of the day? Returning again to Shaw’s ironic formulation, “If the prisoner is happy, why lock him in? If he is not, why pretend that he is?” Although there is no indication that the course of the sexual revolution has ended, the answers to the questions above are not clear, as sexual relationships are deeply associated with the very core of romantic relationships. It seems certain, however, that no simple answer can be appropriate to everyone in all circumstances (In the Name of Love(link is external)).
Caring and love
Caring, which promotes the partner’s flourishing, has more significance in romantic love than does exclusive sex, which prevents the partner from engaging in certain activities. Indeed, in the Aristotelian view, the essence of love is to act for the good of someone else for their sake alone. Caring is such an activity; sex is seldom so. Indeed, in defining love, Aristotle does not mention the pleasure and pain associated with it; this may indicate that he views these emotions as ancillaries to love. Given that a personal caring attitude is crucial for profound romantic relationships, sex is not the best choice for defining the essence of romantic love, even though caring and sex can complement each other.
It is easier to detect violations of crossing boundaries, such as the prohibition of extramarital sex, than violations of promoting principles, such as the enhancement of care. But this is not a profound reason for postulating sex as the essence of love. Caring is more significant in genuine romantic relationships than exclusive sex is. There is no love without caring, but there may be love devoid of sex. Since caring does not entail strict exclusivity in the sense attributed to sex, such exclusivity may not be so essential to romantic love.
Sex as an intrinsically or an extrinsically valuable activity
The dispute about the value of sex can be clarified by considering the Aristotelian distinction between an extrinsically valuable activity, which is a means to achieving an external goal, and an intrinsically valuable activity, whose value stems from the activity itself, not from its results (see here).
When sex is combined with profound romantic love, it is part of the ongoing intrinsically valuable experience of love. Love and sex here are essential for the agent’s flourishing.
Sex can also exist without love, and in this case it can be either an extrinsically valuable activity or a superficial intrinsically valuable activity. In the case of commercial sex and other purposive sexual relationships, sex is an extrinsically valuable activity in which the other is used as a means to satisfy one’s sexual desire or to gain wealth, status, or attention.
Sex without love can also have an intrinsic value, but this is typically more superficial—similar to the value of watching television. Such superficial pleasure is an immediately rewarding, relatively short-lived experience requiring few or no profound human capacities. This pleasure does not sustain the individual’s flourishing in the long term. This is the difference between a fleeting pleasure and a lasting treasure.
The combination of sex and love can be the greatest expression of human happiness. However, it is not a necessity or the essence of love. There are women who have never experienced an orgasm for many years even though they love their partner. Some men experience intense sexual pleasure by having casual sex with prostitutes or other women and not with the woman they love and respect. Love can also limit sexual pleasure and not merely intensity it.
The superficial and limited value of sexual activities without love is expressed in the morning-after effect. In some cases, superficial intrinsically valuable activities may even have a negative functional value, since we may pursue them instead of engaging in more beneficial activities. However, sometimes sex without love can generate profound love in which the sex is part of the ongoing intrinsically value experience of love.
Gender differences
The issue of whether sex is or is not an essential part of romantic love depends on various personal and contextual circumstances such as gender, age, culture, and the intensity of the love. Here, I will discuss the gender issue.
Many people believe that there is a link between romantic love and sexual desire. In one study, conducted by Dorothy Tennov(link is external), over 90% of the subjects rejected the statement: “The best thing about love is sex.” Similarly, 53% of the females and 79% of the males agreed with the statement: “I have been sexually attracted without feeling the slightest trace of love”; and 61% of the females and 35% of the males agreed with the statement: “I have been in love without feeling any need for sex.”
Indeed, men tend to separate sex and love, whereas women tend to believe that love and sex go together. Thus, erotic pictures generate more arousal in men than in women, whereas pictures of romantic couples generate more arousal in women than in men. Similarly, women’s extramarital sexual involvements are more likely to be love-oriented and those of men tend to be pleasure-oriented. Accordingly, men are more likely to engage in extramarital sex with little or no emotional involvement, whereas women are more likely to engage in extramarital emotional involvement without sexual intercourse. The majority of people, especially women, enjoy sex best when they are in love with their partner. Thus, most people think that love and sex can be separated, but would prefer to have them combined.
When examining romantic regrets, Roese and his colleagues (2006) argue that “Men are vastly more likely than women to regret not trying harder to have sex or to regret missing an opportunity for sex.” Since casual sex tends to confer more benefits and fewer costs on men than on women, men express greater willingness for casual sex. Women tend more than men to focus on keeping matters of romance from deteriorating in their own relationships.
It appears that sexual desire in men is often a kind of limited and specific hunger; in women it is more often an aperitif which should be complemented with a full course of the meal of love.
Conclusion
No precise borderline between romantic love and sexual desire exists. The latter usually is an essential component of the former. Hence, elements that are typical of the one are often found in the other. The close relation between romantic love and sexual desire indicates that we cannot be as unromantic about sex as we are about eating, but it does not rule out cases in which sexual desire has nothing to do with romantic love. Society may need an orderly correlation between love and sex, but nature encourages disorderly mating involving both love and sex, and it allows space for various ways in which they can relate.
The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: “Darling, I desire you so much sexually, but do I have to love you as much?
Source: Psychology Today
The Art and Craft of Blogging
The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.
When you’re in a good mood, the world seems to be a better place in general. Even though you may get a tear in your pants leg, spill your coffee all over the kitchen table, or have to deal with a noisy neighbor, when you’re happy these minor daily problems don’t really bother you. Conversely, when you’re feeling dejected or disappointed after some type of loss of breakup, each of life’s minor annoyances only adds to your pain. You find it difficult to look beyond what’s right in front of you and may even find yourself staring at the computer screen, watching the blinking cursor. New research shows how happiness isn’t just an emotional experience, but an emotion that can shape the way you perceive the world.
According to Ghent University’s Naomi Vanlessen and colleagues (2016), what’s called the “broaden and build” theory proposed by University of North Carolina’s Barbara Frederickson (2001) predicts that when you’re happy, your attention zooms out, “paying attention to the globality of concepts, situations, or objects” (p. 819). When you’ve just received good news, for example, you’ll be able to look at things around you in a positive light but, more importantly, you’ll also be able to think more creatively. New ideas might pop into your head as you reconsider how to approach a familiar task. At the same time, not willing to let that good feeling go, you’ll stay away from stimuli (people, experiences, events) that would threaten your positive mood.
This description may fit well with your own recall of the last time you felt on top of the world and how being happy influenced the way you looked at that world. However, beyond describing what you already knew, how can neuroscience help you understand why being happy can affect your attentional focus? After collecting just over 1,000 published articles on mood and attention, the Belgian team narrowed the search down to 21 that met the strict criteria the authors adhered to in judging studies to be sufficiently rigorous to include in their review.
This intense scrutiny of previous findings led Vanlessen and her colleagues to conclude that happiness doesn’t always lead to you to look broadly outward in your attentional focus. In some studies, happiness led instead to a more generally diffuse style of processing information. Thus, when you’re in a good mood, you may be able to take in a wider array of stimuli, but it’s also possible that you just become less analytical in the way you approach what’s going on around you. You may become better able to think imaginatively, in other words, or you may simply be less able to think analytically. People with a diffuse cognitive style think everything’s great (or everything’s awful) without being able to come up with a reason for forming their judgments.
The alternative approach, as suggested by the Ghent team, is to regard a positive mood as affecting the way you alter and take charge over your own thought processes, what’s known as “cognitive control.” A positive mood may lead you to open your mind and your eyes to what’s going on around you; that is, to pay more attention to external stimuli, if you’re not preoccupied with a mentally challenging task. Under more taxing conditions, though (think subtracting 7 from each number, starting with 100, while performing another mental task at the time), your attentional focus will turn inward as you continue to work on the problem. People who are put into a negative frame of mind will tend, regardless of the circumstances, to focus their attention inward. This places them at a disadvantage when they would benefit by looking outwardly. Thus, when you’re in a bad mood, you’ll fail to notice how beautiful the full moon is because you’ll be so preoccupied with your own negative thoughts and feelings.
The neuroscience behind all of this involves the parts of the brain involved in connecting the cortex (the site of higher-order cognition) with the limbic system (the site involving basic emotions). Moods, according to this model, have a direct connection with perception and thought. Your mood will lead you to recruit the areas of your cortex needed to deal with a particular problem. If your mood is positive, you’ll be able to choose which parts of the brain to recruit – internal vs. external. If your mood is negative, you’ll essentially bypass the external for the internal.
To sum up, this impressive review of the literature provides a way to understand how your mood affects your processing of information from the world outside you, and the world inside your mind. Selective attention, or your choice of what to perceive, seems to be affected by whether you’re happy or sad. In some cases, you’re better off being open to the events going on around you, but in others, you’ll need to shore up your own mental resources to deal with the task at hand. Having that flexibility seems to be the key, or as the authors state, this is consistent with the notion that: “positive mood changes selective attention processes, a mechanism proposed to mediate widespread beneficial effects on mental and physical wellbeing and health” (p. 832). You can’t always change your mood, but if you allow yourself to focus on the positive instead of the negative, you may find that your actual view of the world becomes that much brighter.
Follow me on Twitter @swhitbo for daily updates on psychology, health, and aging. Feel free to join my Facebook group, “Fulfillment at Any Age,” to discuss today’s blog, or to ask further questions about this posting.
Copyright Susan Krauss Whitbourne 2016
References:
Fredrickson, B., 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 218–226, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.218
Vanlessen, N., De Raedt, R., Koster, E. W., & Pourtois, G. (2016). Happy heart, smiling eyes: A systematic review of positive mood effects on broadening of visuospatial attention. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 68816-837. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.001
Source: Psychology Today