Aug 22
Love0
Approach Orienting

Origins of Emotional Programming.

By Uncategorized

The previous post discussed the calming cycle theory by Welch and Ludwig. Welch’s study demonstrated that an adaptive emotional connection could be regained in premature infants and mothers. They could measure this based on an automatic calming effect on both. But how does this happen naturally?

Effect of person: emotional programming?

An insight into how individuals learn came from prior research on dog behaviour. Pavlov and Gantt studied animal behaviour using dogs, and part of this work involved making dogs anxious. However, they noticed that if the dog’s handler petted it, its heart rate would slow. After repeated petting sessions, a dog would become conditioned to have a lower heart rate in the handler’s presence. This calming effect was so distinct that they called it the “effect of person.” This was not a top-down cognitive process, so what was going on? Is this a type of emotional programming?

Autonomic nervous system – the non-conscious self.

We have two major parts of our nervous system – the “central” and “autonomic” nervous systems. The central includes our brain and spinal cord, which includes our “thinking” cognitive parts. The autonomic is more “autonomous”; it includes the sympathetic, fight-or-flight system and the parasympathetic, rest-and-repair nervous systems. The effect-of-person behaviour is an example of autonomic nervous system learning based on conditioning. It’s a “when that happens, automatically do this” non-conscious kind of learning.

Dual track perception

We operate with a two-track stimulus-response system. One track is at the autonomic level. It’s the fast track, allowing us to react quickly without conscious or thinking. A good example of this is our orienting response. You automatically turn your head toward a noise you weren’t expecting. THEN, you will think about it. This thinking part is the second, slower track. This is where you would recognize the noise or not and decide whether to ignore it. But even this orienting response can be “conditioned.” Once you learn that a noise is safe to ignore, you will not orient to it; you won’t even register it. It will be a stimulus, but you have learned to ignore it and have a different orienting response. Researchers understood the importance of this. Humans could “learn” behaviours at this level. Is this part of our emotional programming?

Pregnancy: the start of emotional programming?

Infant development is a highly interactive process. The fetus is in a reciprocal process with the mother, not just passively growing. The researchers believe that mothers and infants condition each other during pregnancy to co-regulate and co-calm. The infant becomes conditioned to the sound and smell of the mother. Importantly, it sets up an automatic “approach” orienting response to the smell, sound, and touch (warmth) of the mother. The mother and infant have both learned to approach each other automatically, which is the best way to ensure the survival of the newborn.

The premature experiment

With all the advances in medicine, we have been in a period where premature babies survive. What Dr. Welch noticed, however, is that some premies and moms do well, and others don’t. She wanted to understand what was happening, as not doing well had negative consequences for both mother and child. What could explain this difference in neonatal intensive care units where all infants and moms had access to tremendous care? As it turns out, it was the quality of the mother-infant emotional connection.

Disrupting the normal attachment process

Mothers and infants naturally “attach” to each other during a normal healthy, full-term pregnancy and post-natal mothering period. This is a natural process seen in other animals. This comes from the mother and infant’s adaptive “approach-orienting” behaviour. Disrupting this process can cause an “avoidance” maladaptive pattern. This can cause a “difficult” infant and a stressed, upset mother. The “attachment” becomes “non-attachment.” Welch developed the Family Nurture Intervention program to re-condition the mother’s and infant’s autonomic nervous systems. (It works – see the previous post.) This intervention conditions an approach-type attachment, restoring the adaptive approach-orienting learning. This is what the Calming Cycle Theory is about.

Autonomic socioemotional reflex ASR – emotional programming?

The researchers propose that a specific type of conditioning occurs in this situation. They have named this the Autonomic Socioemotional Reflex (ASR). It is conditional co-learning and co-regulation that take place at the level of the autonomic nervous system. It’s “socio” because it’s social; it involves relationships, starting with the mother and infant. It is emotional because it involves behavioural responses. (Emotion in nature is about behaviours, not feelings.) It’s a reflex as the response happens automatically, without conscious intervention.

The developmental process leads to greater autonomy.

The ASR leaves little room for autonomous behaviour. It starts in the womb and continues after birth. I believe it is an aspect of our emotional programming: the programming that influences how we behave in relationships. Over time, it supports the infant to be more self-regulating and more autonomous at a physiological level. As the child grows up, this foundation helps them control their emotions and behaviour more. The calming “effect of person” is one of the first things we learn; it is always with us. The challenge is learning not to be dependent on others but to be able to calm ourselves. Enjoying the calming “effect of person” is a good thing. Being governed by it is not.

The development path of humans goes from fused and dependent to autonomous and interdependent. We see this on the physical level first. Our emotional and psychological levels follow. We become more separate but, ideally, connected. It’s good that we can calm each other. But we need to also be able to calm ourselves. We can enjoy our contact with others, but without being governed by it. This is the process of becoming more differentiated.

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

You can find out more about the Family Nurture Intervention here.

You can learn more about the autonomic socioemotional reflex here

Learn more about Bowen family systems theory here.

Aug 15
Love0

Calming Cycle Theory

By Uncategorized

Calming Cycle Theory and Emotional Programming

New research has found important linkages between mothers at the autonomic nervous system level. This is part of our nervous system that is outside of our awareness. The linkage process starts in the womb and continues after birth. This process affects the mother’s well-being and the infant’s development. It’s also systems theory in action.
The medical process has had increasing success in helping premature infants survive and develop. This has also created a natural experiment to study what happens when the normal gestation period is interrupted. Some mothers and infants do well, and others do not. Dr. Welch and others have wanted to understand what leads to different outcomes. Welch and Ludwig propose two ideas to explain the difference in outcomes. These are a) the Calming Cycle Theory and b) the Autonomic Socioenotional Reflex (ASR). I’ll discuss the ASR in the next blog post.

Calming Cycle as Co-Regulation

The authors believe that a process of co-regulation begins in the womb, which forms an emotional connection between mother and infant. It is a co-regulation connection that promotes behaviours that have been thought to be innate mothering and infant behaviours. If the normal process occurs, as with full-term births, the mother and infant have learned to orient and approach each other automatically. This “innate” behaviour fosters caring, feeding, and a calming response in both the mother and infant.
Over the years, Welch has observed that premature birth can disrupt this approach-orienting behaviour. This can create an avoidance non-orienting behaviour, leading to distress in both the mother and infant. It then becomes a negative cycle for both the mother and child. However, Welch observed the approach-orienting behaviours of mothers and infants and developed an intervention to help correct avoidance-orienting situations. This is based on what she calls the Calming Cycle Theory and Family Nurture Intervention.

Calming Cycle Re-Programmed – Family Nurture Intervention

The Family Nurture Intervention comprises sessions where the mother and infant ( as soon as possible ) have skin-to-skin contact, soothing talk, eye contact, and odour contact. Over a period of repeated one-hour sessions, the mother and child’s physiology calms down. Over time, the calming effect is automatic for both. This strengthens the approach-orienting behaviour and creates an adaptive emotional connection between the two. It also sets up the infant for socialization with others.
In 2016, Welch proposed that “this early introduction of repeated mother-infant sensory interactions is expected to alleviate maternal depression, anxiety, and guilt as well as lessen infant aversion to contact that stems from both separation/isolation and the many stressful medical procedures performed as life-saving interventions.”
Follow-up research based on this approach has found:
  • significantly improved FNI maternal caregiving behaviors at 36 weeks (Hane et al., 2015)
  •  decreased maternal depressive and anxiety symptoms in infants assessed at 4 months of age (Welch, Hal- perin et al., 2016).
  •  FNI infants showed highly significant increases in EEG power and decreases in EEG coherence at term age in frontal areas associated with socio-emotional outcomes that predict improved out- comes (Hane et al., 2015; Myers et al., 2015; Welch, Myers et al., 2014).
  •  FNI infants also showed significantly improved social relatedness, attention, neurodevelopment, and decreased risk for autism spectrum disorder at 18 months corrected age (Welch et al., 2015, from Welch 2017)

Emotional Connection – the start of Emotional Programming?

Welch and Ludwig propose a new construct, called emotional connection, to help explain their observations and results. Dr. Bowen used the term “emotional contact” when he wrote about relationships. He wrote that when two individuals could freely share their thoughts, hopes, fears, and dreams, they had good emotional contact. Fear of rejection and criticism often prevents people from experiencing emotional contact.  Welch wrote the following about establishing a good emotional connection:
“When the mother keeps this wide array of feelings to herself, there is an emotional barrier between her and her infant. Many mothers are reluctant to allow open expression of their emotions for fear the strong negative content will negatively impact the infant. However, when the prosody of strong emotion is conveyed by the mother in her native language (i.e. the language spoken to her by her mother as a baby), we often observe a positive response; most commonly, the infants become alert and make eye contact..”
By keeping a “wide array of feelings to” oneself, individuals, like the mothers in Welch’s interventions, prevent the experience of good emotional contact. This is an aspect of not being able to define oneself in relationships, which can lead to negative outcomes. I think a healthy development process establishes good emotional connections, which lay the foundation for good emotional contact later in life.
Calming Cycle Theory is based on the concept of co-conditioning at the level of the autonomic nervous system.  The authors propose the idea of an Autonomic Socioemotional Reflex to explain this.  This is the topic of the next post.

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

You can find out more about the Family Nurture Intervention here.

Learn more about Bowen family systems theory here.

(1) I took the above quotes from Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, Jason Aronson, Inc. Kindle Edition.

 

Jul 26
Love0

The three body problem

By Uncategorized

How does a Bowen theory perspective inform the “terror of threes?”

Three major nuclear powers instead of two. Apparently, this is a big problem. Why? According to physics, “the three-body problem” is almost impossible to solve. Thus the title of the New York Times article “The Terror of Threes.” But people aren’t planets, so could a human systems model provide some insight? I think it can.

The idea presented in the article is that if two people know they can obliterate each other, then they both know they absolutely can’t win a fight. In fact, they both know they will lose completely. So they work things out; it’s better than the obliteration option. But if a third party joins, what might happen? Could two obliterate one? Could one survive if the other two go at it? That’s what folks are worried about. Why do they think this is such a difficult problem? What does system thinking offer?

The three-body problem.

In many areas of nature, physics in particular, going from two to three creates great complexity because of the nature of systems. Predicting the final configuration when adding a third body is the “problem” because there is no formula to predict the outcome. For example, will three planets collapse into two, and the resulting two collapse into one? Will all three separate, resulting in no system? Or will the three develop into a stable configuration? The “problem” in going from two to three is that three *reciprocal* processes must be optimized simultaneously while constantly influencing each other. This three-body problem idea is being applied to nuclear powers. It concerns individuals since they can’t predict any outcomes. But that doesn’t mean one (or more) doesn’t exist.

People aren’t planets, and planets don’t have emotions.

What perspective does emotional systems thinking provide on this issue? Dr. Bowen posited that any two-person system is inherently unstable (e.g. person A and B), in that it is human nature to bring in a third person. For example, should tension arise between A and B, either could bring in C.  The third person, C, can help lower the tension, which is why A, B, or both will automatically seek C. Usually, this involves getting C to be an ally so that A or B feels less anxious. It is a natural process because the body knows it feels better. It occurs with other species as well. This A – B – C configuration is called a triangle in Bowen theory.

*One of the important concepts in this theoretical system has to do with “triangles.” I did not include it with the other concepts because it has more to do with therapy than the basic theory. The basic building block of any emotional system is the “triangle.” When emotional tension in a two-person system exceeds a certain level, it “triangles” a third person, permitting the tension to shift about within the triangle. (1)

Triangles are everywhere

In the realm of politics, triangles are going on all the time. Diplomats are experts at navigating multiple interlocking triangles. Triangles allow stress and reactivity to be managed better if the “third parties” can stay more neutral and less reactive (like a good diplomat). This can open up the lines of communication. It can help the two in disagreement to work things out.

Bowen wrote:  Any two in the original triangle can add a new triangle. An emotional system is composed of a series of interlocking triangles. The emotional tension system can shift to any of the old pre-established circuits. It is a clinical fact that the original two-person tension system will resolve itself automatically when contained within a three-person system, one of whom remains emotionally detached. This will be discussed under “detriangling the triangle.”

The NY Times article references this process as well:

‘Separately, each expert argued that keeping an uneasy peace among nuclear foes required them to talk, share concerns and take modest steps at confidence-building. “We have to keep the lines of communication open and interacting,” Dr. Deaile said.’

Differentiated leadership makes a difference.

Besides open communication, the other systems ideas to consider are a) leaders’ level of differentiation, b) their level of stressors, and c) influential triangles.

We can think of the level of differentiation in two ways. One is how well I can stick to my principles despite pressure from others to change while not impinging on others. Non-impingement is a key factor. Impinging or forcing my will on others is a sign of lower levels of differentiation and/or higher stress levels.

The second way to think about differentiation is how well I can distinguish feelings and subjective thinking from rational, objective thinking. Facts from fiction, opinions from the truth. A leader surrounded by “yes” individuals will have difficulty getting facts and thinking objectively.

A more differentiated leader recognizes subjectivity and reactivity, has less of it, and manages it better. It is easier to speak truth to power and to provide accurate feedback to a more differentiated leader. Less differentiated leaders don’t want to hear bad news and create a team of less differentiated people that will be afraid to express bad news. This can create a harmful and dysfunctional feedback system.

It’s already an N-body problem.

All leaders are susceptible to criticism and praise from other parties. Most leaders seek allies so they aren’t going it alone, so their power is secure. Triangles are everywhere. Depending on the level of differentiation, important triangles would have a greater influence on these leaders. For example, China’s influence on North Korea.

A less differentiated leader will make decisions influenced by anxiety and reactivity rather than by thoughtful, principled conviction. They will be far more likely to impinge on others to get their own way. This behaviour is predictable.

Level of differentiation is key.

So the problem with arms proliferation is also a problem of the leaders’ level of differentiation. The least differentiated are the most impinging and reactive. People don’t change unless they have to. While this can come from wanting to change, usually, the pain of continuing has to be greater than the pain of change. This applies to leaders. It’s the basis of nuclear deterrence.

Individuals can get better at thinking systems. Engaging in open dialogue, managing reactivity, defining self in a non-impinging manner, working to think less subjectively, and recognizing our interdependence are things anyone can work on. We could even elect leaders that exhibit these qualities. Now there’s an idea!

Predicting the configuration of a three-body system of leaders is challenging; however, a higher level of differentiation in leaders improves the chances of achieving a stable configuration.

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

You can find the New York Times article here.

Learn more about Bowen family systems theory here.

(1) I took the above quotes from Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, Jason Aronson, Inc. Kindle Edition.

 

Jul 16
Love0
un-intelligence is head in the sand thinking

un-intelligence

By emotional system

How does intelligence get stupid?

How is it that politicians can get involved with affairs, misuse funds, and promote false information? Many politicians have degrees from prestigious universities, so they clearly are NOT unintelligent or uneducated. In today’s world of conspiracy theories, alternate facts, and outright lies, how can one think about this process from a systems perspective?

Level of differentiation and anxiety are two key concepts in Bowen theory. One quality of the level of differentiation is how well an individual can distinguish feelings and subjective thinking from facts and objective thinking. For example, let’s say that I get home late from work. I walk in and say, “Hi, I’m home!” and my partner says, “Well, it’s about time, your late.”

My “intelligence” will cognitively process the sounds I hear and allow me to recognize the words and the tone of voice.

My “emotion” will process the sounds as well, and I will actually pick the emotion that goes best with this situation. This is where the “stupid” can start. I can start to make up a story that my partner is mad and that this is unfair. But we’ll come back to this.

Chat GPT defines intelligence as “intelligence encompasses a wide range of cognitive abilities, including logical reasoning, critical thinking, creativity, memory, perception, and learning.”

Emotion impacts intelligence.

Intelligence is not independent of emotions. Part of processing information is evaluating whether something is a threat, an opportunity, or to be ignored. This requires value judgements related to fear and desire, bad and good, which becomes the behaviour of avoiding or approaching.  Even fruit flies will “decide” to forego reproductive opportunities for food opportunities if they are hungry enough. Otherwise, reproductive opportunities are always their first choice.

Our emotional state does impact our cognitive processing. For example, we can forget what we want to say when we get angry or scared. Or we get very frustrated and then blurt out something we later regret. Stress can degrade one’s ability to make decisions. In terms of human behavior, it makes no sense to speak about intelligence as independent from emotions. Based on observing interactions between parents and schizophrenic children, Dr. Bowen realized how much one’s thinking can be impacted by one’s emotional state. He noticed the impact of anxiety specifically.

Systems thinking: what, where, when, who.

Another aspect of thinking from a systems perspective is that it is more useful to ask what, when, where, who and how something comes about instead of asking why it came about. Asking why implies a direct cause-and-effect relationship, and systems don’t work like this.

When someone starts to believe ideas that many would define as false or incorrect, it can be useful to seek to understand the process of how this came about. Asking how, when, with what information, and with whom does this happen and be useful. How is it that a person doesn’t recognize false information? Or maybe how is it that a person doesn’t seem to care that the information is false? Perhaps there is something else going on.

Sometimes it’s just getting bad information. It appears to be factual, and it’s very hard to determine if it’s false or not. For example, reading something in a major newspaper that was misreported. How would one know?

But often, it’s just an impaired ability to process information in a neutral manner. The information is accessed as something threatening, and our fear circuits light up. In addition, we have built-in biases that can distort our information processing. Recency bias leads one (non-consciously) to favour information that is more recent in our experience. Loss aversion has us overcompensate for the risk of losing something. Frequency bias is when we start to believe something is a fact because we have heard it so often.  All of these have good evolutionary roots, which is why we evolved to have these processes. But anxiety, in particular, has a bigger impact on our thinking processes.

Anxious mind is “losing my mind”

When a person experiences anxiety, their thoughts and mental processes may be affected in the following ways:

1. Distorted thinking: Anxiety can lead to distorted thinking patterns, such as catastrophizing (exaggerating the likelihood and severity of negative outcomes), overgeneralizing (making broad negative assumptions based on limited experiences), or engaging in black-and-white thinking (seeing situations as all good or all bad). These distorted thoughts can contribute to increased worry and difficulty in problem-solving.

2. Selective attention: Anxiety can lead to a heightened focus on potential threats or negative stimuli. This selective attention may cause individuals to overlook positive or neutral information, leading to a biased perception of reality. They may have difficulty concentrating on tasks or absorbing new information due to their preoccupation with anxious thoughts.

3. Impaired decision-making: Anxiety can interfere with decision-making processes. Anxious individuals may become overly cautious or avoidant, fearing negative outcomes or making mistakes. They may struggle to weigh the pros and cons objectively, as their anxiety can magnify potential risks and uncertainties.

4. Memory problems: Anxiety can impact memory functioning. High anxiety levels can impair working memory, which is responsible for holding and manipulating information in the short term. It can also lead to difficulty recalling information accurately or remembering details due to heightened arousal and distraction.

5. Reduced cognitive flexibility: Anxiety can limit cognitive flexibility, making it challenging to shift attention, perspectives, or strategies. Anxious individuals may become stuck in rigid thinking patterns, finding it difficult to generate alternative solutions or adapt to changing circumstances.

6. Negative self-talk: Anxiety often involves negative self-talk, self-doubt, and self-criticism. This negative internal dialogue can further exacerbate anxious thoughts and hinder confidence and problem-solving abilities.

Differentiation makes a difference.

A person with a higher level of differentiation can differentiate factual information from feelings and subjective thoughts. Dr. Bowen defined being differentiated as having this type of thinking ability. He observed how much emotions negatively impacted an individual’s rational, objective thinking. This tended to increase their reactivity while impairing their ability to think about alternative solutions and different perspectives. Non-factual things can become more believable when anxiety is increased.

If we run this process backwards, irrational thinking in society results from rational thinking impaired by emotions, usually from some perceived threat. For example, the threat can be that an individual might have to change their beliefs, perspective, and behaviour if they think more objectively about a situation. Loss of employment, the world as they see it, status, and financial opportunity can be the underlying threat. It’s easier to blame something (cause and effect thinking) than to think systems about societal issues. An individual has to choose one of two paths. One is to blame other events or people for the situation and take on a helpless position. This avoids the other path, the often unpleasant reality of having to change, work hard, and accept one’s part in an unwanted situation.

For example, suppose a student is worried a lot about their friendships and their future. They don’t prioritize school work like they should to get good markets. So they start doing poorly in school, and they blame the teacher because all teachers are out to “get” them. They never get the “breaks” other students get. This approach, in the short term, is much less work than accepting that the student may need to work hard and face up to their fears, including that of not doing as well as others, in order to get decent grades.

Emotional logic versus intelligence.

Anxious, frustrated individuals want their discomfort to go away. They want a quick fix. They want to blame something so they are not at fault. This allows them to avoid the hard work of change that one is often faced with. One’s rational logic gets overridden by emotional logic. Emotionally, if I can blame something else so I don’t have to do a lot of work and face the risk of failure, I save a lot of time and energy. Emotional logic explains this. But rationally, it doesn’t hold up most of the time. The person has no ability to move forward from this perspective.

A systems perspective would work to understand the facts of the situation and what part I might be playing in the situation. My part might be that I happen to be in a certain place at a certain time. So if “this is what is,” a systems perspective asks, “How do I want to be? How am I going to show up,” given this situation? The answer may be very challenging. Like, stop using substances forever, find a job, and face my insecurities. Or, I have cancer; how will I lean into this and do the best I can? ( Note: It’s not about fairness. There is no checkbox on my birth certificate for “Life will be fair.”)

IQ + EQ = DQ?

I believe the level of differentiation, for fun, let’s call it DQ for Differentiation Quotient, would be a better measure of overall intelligence than emotional or IQ intelligence. DQ would indicate a person’s ability to function in a rational, objective manner, even in a highly emotional situation. They would fully utilize emotions as information without having them distort their ability to think objectively. They would act according to their principles and not cave in and go along with or reactively go against the group’s desires.

The good thing is that we can all work on our level of “DQ” and get smarter at being in relationships. And whatever level of IQ we do have will hold up under emotional pressure. I think this is pretty smart!

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

Learn more about Bowen family systems theory here.

Watch this thirty-minute video on Bowen Theory on selflessness here.

 

Apr 23
Love0
perception of social threats activate social genonmic networks

Perceptions Matter

By Anxiety, emotional system

Perceptions matter – just ask your genes!

A newer field of study in biology is called social genomics. It is the study of how and when different genes are activated based on social interactions. On one level, it is very obvious that relationships affect our physiology. We can get anxious if someone is angry with us, which would show up as an increase in cortisol in our blood. But the study of social genomics goes much, much further and looks at all the genes that get activated. This provides clear evidence for a physiological mechanism of how lower levels of differentiation can negatively impact health. The same mechanism provides for how higher levels of differentiation can promote health and mitigate the effects of stress.

How does Social Genomics work?

Our DNA, our genes, are used for making proteins. We use proteins in chemical processes throughout the body. The process starts with the body making a copy of or transcribing a piece of DNA, and this copy is called RNA. When a gene is “expressed,” the body produces RNA molecules that are a copy of the section of DNA. Each bit of RNA is specific to the DNA or gene it is “expressed” from. Biologists can do analysis to determine which of these RNA molecules are around, and that tells them what genes are being transcribed. (The collection of RNA molecules is called the transcriptome).

So you take a group of individuals and expose them to a social threat, and then you measure all the bits of RNA that get produced. This tells you all the genes that just got activated, or more activated, by the social threat. The results are both amazing and important.

What has Social Genomics found?

This area of research has found two important and broad findings. They are how our inflammation and antiviral systems get turned up and down in response to social interactions, i.e. in relationships. These two systems are evolutionarily important. They are part of our natural defence against a) wounds and bacterial infections and b) viral inflections. Our inflammation system gets activated to promote healing and anti-bacterial defence. For example, when our ancestors were out hunting or fighting and got wounded. Our antiviral system, our immune system, is used to protect us from viruses, which often get transmitted from human to human. For example, in the winter, while in close quarters with our group (and not out hunting as much).

Fast forward to today, and your partner is angry with you. Your body believes this to be a physical threat – you could be wounded (not infected). So it cranks UP the inflammation response system and cranks DOWN the immune response. It turns one up and the other down to conserve bodily resources.

What’s wrong with a bit of inflammation if it helps us?

Inflammation responses and immune responses are “point in time” defence mechanisms. Like fire departments and hospitals, they are very useful when you need them, but you better not need them a lot. You definitely don’t want a fire truck parked outside your house all year! Yet repeated exposure to social threats activates the inflammation system, weakens the immune response, and keeps them chronically like this. This is not good. A house that has repeated fires is not a healthy house.

What is a social threat? It is what you think it is.

Social threats are things like conflicts (arguments), social rejection, social isolation, and loneliness. But it also includes one’s physical environment overall and not just family. For example, if one lives in a dangerous area and is always more vigilant when going out, these systems activate. In fact, just thinking that one is threatened can activate these processes. Analyzing one’s “transcriptome” would tell you if you were “walking on eggshells.” In fact, one doesn’t even have to have the subjective feeling of walking on eggshells, yet the body will react as if it was. The body knows.

Good emotional connections matter

What these social genomic studies have found is that we can do things to minimize the effects of social threats. First, all the things that help combat stress, like sleep, mindfulness, yoga, and exercise, are helpful. But healthy relationships are critical, as these can be the original source of the impact. Any relationship that *regularly* creates tension is not a healthy relationship. No relationships are not healthy, either. Studies have shown that isolation during COVID-19 had negative effects on immune system functioning, for example.

Thus, working on having even a few good emotional connections can counteract the negative effects of social threats. So the ideal goal is to minimize difficult relationships and maximize positive relationships. A measure of a healthy relationship is how much you can discuss meaningful topics with little worry about what the other person might think.

Defining self also matters

There is another very useful antidote to the negative effects of relationships that tie directly to defining self. Researchers have shown that individuals who derive happiness and satisfaction from meaningful, purposeful activities have much healthier systems than those who just pursue fun and pleasure. The effects of eudiamonic happiness (purpose) versus hedonic happiness (pleasure) are profound. So getting clear – defining self more – about what one believes in and has a conviction for and being able to lead a purposeful, meaningful life is very important. This is also the foundation for defining self more in relationships.

We evolved to be in relationships. We evolved to have positive and meaningful social connections, as it was key to our survival. This is why even perceived threats to our social world activate these systems. These systems provide a linkage between healthy relationship systems and healthy individuals. And vice versa. How you think about your relationships makes a difference.

Maybe, in the future, your counsellor will ask about your family diagram and your transcriptome.

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

Learn more about Bowen family systems theory here.

Watch this thirty-minute video on social genomics here.

This article summarizes this excellent review of social genomics and is here.

Apr 16
Love0

Expectations and Emotional Demands

By Define self

Emotional demands and expectations go together

For most organisms, including humans, the developmental trajectory involves an individual becoming more and more capable and responsible for taking care of their own needs. Maturation is associated with the ability to function independently. As a social species, humans needed to find a partner and have children in order to survive as an extended family unit. Single families would have had a very hard time surviving on their own. This creates the need and expectation that members of the group would care for each other. A mature understanding of this recognizes the benefits and costs of interdependence so the group can survive. An immature understanding of this has unrealistic expectations of others and makes demands of others. This is pretty clear when one is talking about physical needs like food, shelter and protection that protect our physical self.

We notice what’s expected of us

Being social species, we are wired to want to be “connected” and not be alone. We are wired to seek and notice attention and approval. We also pick up the indications from others when they have expectations of us or are in distress. Remember, evolutionarily, if the group leader was expecting something, you’d better be able to notice that if you didn’t want to get into trouble. And as a species, it just makes sense that those that noticed distress in others and attended to that were more likely to survive, thrive and pass on their genes. So caring for others is part of our evolutionary interdependency.

Learning to soothe discomfort

Emotional wellbeing falls along a continuum of discomfort to comfort. We are wired to notice discomfort so we can remove the source of the discomfort. Even before birth, the fetus is learning that the mother is soothing. Co-regulation of physiology to remove discomfort develops during pregnancy and continues after birth. Infants learn how to get their needs met and their discomfort soothed by their mother, father, and others. Over time children learn how others can do things for them that allow them to feel better physically and emotionally. But at the same time, the child should be learning how to soothe or regulate themselves. The goal is to develop a responsible self that can take care of oneself.

“A reasonably differentiated person is capable of genuine concern for others without expecting something in return, but the togetherness forces treat differentiation as selfish and hostile.”  Dr. Bowen (p. 495).

The responsible self does for self even if it’s hard, thankless, unpleasant, scary, boring, or whatever creates resistance. But the less responsible individuals don’t want to face these challenges, so they want and “expect” others to handle it for them. Most of us are not finished developing our responsible selves.

A responsible emotional self

Human relationships can be very soothing. They can help you feel less anxious and more safe and secure. You can depend on others and worry less about yourself. But it is not actually someone’s responsibility to make you feel better. Unfortunately, too many family systems fail to convey this idea to their children. It’s a multi-generation process of not conveying ideas about individual responsibility. In fact, many families convey the idea that you are expected to help others, no matter what, because “they are family.” There is so much that could be written about this, but I’ll jump to the main point. We have to learn to be responsible for our “emotional self” like we do for our physical self. Just as we learn to live independently physically, we need to develop emotional independence.

It’s a fact that emotional/social pain uses the same brain circuits as physical pain. Much substance use is related to individuals just trying to feel less emotional pain. Emotional discomfort is real. Wanting emotional discomfort soothed is valid. It’s just not others’ responsibility. In fact, it’s not their ability either. The best another might do is “soothe,” but this temporary fix doesn’t resolve the underlying issue – the need to learn how to be more emotionally self-sufficient. The need to be more differentiated.

Expectations are useful. Emotional demands are not.

One good thing about expectations is that they indicate how one thinks about the world and what others “owe” them. They can indicate what an individual really needs to work on in order to mature and become more differentiated. But this takes hard work and time. It would be so much easier if one would just meet our expectations so we could avoid the work. This is where emotional demands can come in – I can either demand, of myself, to work on myself, or I can demand from you to meet my needs for attention, approval, security, self-worth, etc. I’m faced with a choice, either I convince myself to live with the discomfort and work on myself, or I get YOU to solve my problem, i.e., fulfill my expectations for attention, approval, security, etc.

Expect to be differentiated

Expectations are often an impingement on others. They can represent an area where I’m borrowing self from others instead of relying on myself. It’s perfectly fine to make agreements about sharing responsibilities. That does set up an expectation that each will fulfill their part of the agreement. But what if other doesn’t live up to the agreement? What if they don’t live up to your expectations? Then it’s time to work on differentiation.

“A reasonably differentiated person is capable of genuine concern for others without expecting something in return, but the togetherness forces treat differentiation as selfish and hostile.” Dr. Bowen (p. 495).

What’s my part in missed expectations

When I get upset because I’m expecting more than I’m getting from someone, I think it’s time to reflect on where my expectation came from. Maybe I just “expected” that my partner would be more helpful in a certain area. Perhaps early in the relationship, this didn’t come up much, and it seemed to be just fine. But over time, it has become a real issue for me. I want to “blame” my partner because they aren’t “meeting my expectations.” First of all, they are my expectations, not theirs. I should recognize this. Second, have I ever really discussed the issue and gotten an agreement on this topic? Maybe what I want in this area is quite different than what they want – whose issue is that? This is where having clear principles and conviction for those principles is important. This is where defining self can come in. Personally, I believe that I’m allowed to want whatever I want, but nobody owes it to me. I can go for whatever I want, but the consequences are my own.

I don’t expect me to choose

The real issue is this: meeting expectations often makes somebody compromise to avoid conflict. I have to choose: work on myself, just give up the expectation, or risk conflict in the relationship. Without working on oneself, giving up is often pretending and results in some level of frustration or resentment. Often we don’t want to have to choose. We want our other *to* *fulfill* our expectations so we can avoid doing the work (just like our parents did actually). The child expects the parent to make things better, to make things okay, without any risk to the relationship. In fact, the child learned that this was the case. But most of us haven’t finished maturing in this area.

Interdependence not expectations

Interdependence recognizes the need for thoughtful cooperation and being responsible *to* each other but not *for* each other. Your success is not my responsibility. My success is not your responsibility. But we *can* agree to support each other on our separate journeys to be successful. I can be all for your success without having to compromise on my success.

I think this is best summed up by Dr. Bowen:

The differentiating force places emphasis on “I” in defining the foregoing characteristics. The “I position” defines principle and action in terms of “This is what I think or believe” and “This is what I will do or will not do,” without impinging one’s own values or beliefs on others. It is the “responsible I” which assumes responsibility for one’s own happiness and comfort, and it avoids thinking that tends to blame and hold others responsible for one’s own unhappiness or failures. The “responsible I” avoids the “irresponsible I” which makes demands on others with, “I want, or I deserve, or this is my right, my privilege”(p. 495).

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

Learn more about Bowen family systems theory here.

Watch this thirty-minute video on Bowen Theory on selflessness here.

I took the above quotes from Family Therapy in Clinical Practice, Jason Aronson, Inc. Kindle Edition.

 

 

Mar 30
Love0

Humans Dogs and Emotional Systems

By emotional system

What can Parents Learn from Obedience Training?

Humans domesticated dogs around 15,000 years ago. More recently, we have trained dogs to recognize the emotional state of individuals with PTSD in order to help those individuals cope with aspects of PTSD. Researchers have also shown dogs to recognize human facial expressions, especially those involving the area around the eyes. Dogs also show signs of grieving because of the loss of their owner. They have been known to lose their appetite, get lethargic, or become more “clingy” by seeking more attention. It seems clear to me that an emotional level connection can exist between humans and dogs. Like other humans, they provide attention and acceptance, and they have a calming influence.

A recent article in the Washington Post about training dogs caught my attention. It asked an important question. What kind of owners make for better trainers? The answer to this is directly useful for thinking about training children. Yes, children go through obedience training, whether or not we want to call it that. What is also similar is that one can’t solely rely on intellectual ability in both situations.

Listen

Trainees agreed that listening to their dogs is a key skill in being a talented trainer. But of course, dogs don’t actually talk, so you have to observe and pay attention to your dog. This means you can’t be reactive. Calmness, paying attention, and observing helps one get the other’s attention and pick up on what’s going on with the other, be it a dog or a child.

Be Flexible

Suppose you want to get your dog to be comfortable moving through a tunnel. One approach would be to go first and hope they follow. You could try to pull them through, or you could try to push them through. Or you could toss a favourite toy through and have them simply chase it. Notice that you would have had to first pay attention to your dog to learn what its favourite toy was. The seeking behaviour of following the toy “actually inhibits anxiety circuits in the brain. So leading with “carrots” to engage in seeking is a good approach.

Parenting Style … for dogs

Dogs appear to respond best to what is called an authoritative parenting style. This style, adaptive from Attachment studies, is firm but warm and adaptive. What’s important is that the expectations are clear and are expected to be achieved. I think it is interesting that, like a good parent, a good owner has to define self in their relationship with their pet.

Another skill for an owner to build on is being attentive. It’s about noticing what might work better for the dog or not. Is the dog tired? Have you been training too long or too intensely? Are you pushing too hard to get a result because you want to feel better about your dog? Anxious-driven training will not be effective with dogs. And it’s not with kids, either.

Attention and Approval – a common emotional force

I think dogs (and cats even) and kids enjoy their owners’ attention and approval. Lack of this can underlie certain behavioural issues. What obedience lessons have taught us is that OWNERS have a lot to learn in order to be effective. It starts with paying calm attention and requires firmness and clear expectations. Sound a lot like “defining self.”

Perhaps we would all be better parents and partners with some obedience training.

Thank you for your interest in thinking systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsystems.ca

If you want to learn about effective parenting, check out our conference on Parent Hope.

To learn more about Bowen Theory click here.

Ideas for this post were taken from this Washington Post article: How to train dogs better.

Mar 26
Love0

Wise Selfishness: a Systems Perspective

By Define self

Can one be selfishly wise?

Dr. Kerr has a phrase that is familiar to those in the Bowen community: “How does one be for self without being selfish and be for others without being selfless? ”

Most of us do not see selfishness as good behaviour. On the contrary, for a social species, it can threaten the group’s cohesion. Cooperative behaviour was required for groups of humans to survive, so being selfish could threaten the entire group.

We can misunderstand the concept of being more differentiated as being more selfish in the negative sense of the word selfish. However, we can also understand differentiation and selfISHness as being for self without being against or impinging on others.

ChatGPT defines selfishness as:

“Selfishness is the act of putting one’s interests, needs, and desires above those of others, without regard for their feelings or well-being. It often involves a lack of consideration or empathy for others and a focus on personal gain or achievement at the expense of others. Selfish behaviour can manifest in various ways, including hoarding resources, refusing to share or cooperate, manipulating others for personal gain, and disregarding the needs and feelings of others. Ultimately, selfishness can lead to conflicts and damage relationships with others.”

Notice that selfishness is based on emotion and relationships. Therefore, it is part of our relationship processes. The above definition also describes a lot of impinging on others as a quality of selfishness.

Wise selfishness is about balance.

I like to test ideas by going from one extreme to another along a continuum. For example, at one end of the continuum, I would do everything for others and nothing for myself. If this included eating, I would not be eating or eating poorly because I would be trying to feed everyone else. I would soon be so weak that I couldn’t help anyone. I would now be a burden on others. So let’s say I eat just enough to keep going, but otherwise, I ignore my needs. Eventually, I’ll wear out from tiredness or get sick, again becoming a burden on others. On the other end of the continuum, I would be completely selfish, putting my needs before others, sharing nothing, and always asking for or demanding things from others. Hmm… I wonder how long I would last in that group. So somewhere along this continuum, there is an appropriate balance of being for others and being for self.

When selfishness is out of balance.

How do things get out of balance and become unwise? From a family systems perspective, there are several influences to consider. These would include the number and intensity of stressors in one’s life, one’s and others’ level of differentiation, the situation’s significance, and the relationship’s significance. These things combine, and one can then believe they have to make a hard choice – be for others and go along or face potential conflict, rejection, and disapproval for being selfish. The other individual(s) could be acting in a more selfish manner, which pressures you to give up “self ” and comply with their requests or demands. The brain can work overtime to resolve the internal conflict of “I don’t want to go along” versus “I don’t want the consequences of not going along.” This is the fundamental dilemma – what I want versus what others want. The tendency to go along is high for a person who wants to avoid conflict, tension, or disapproval, especially in significant relationships. This is how things get out of balance. One person(s) is not fully mature and pressures others to follow their wishes. But the person who goes along is also acting less mature by complying and going along. This is where the concept of defining self comes in.

Defining self is wise selfishness.

Differentiation is too big of a topic to discuss in this post fully. But one way to think about defining self is being able to share what one will do and not do in a situation. It’s not about what is right or wrong or fair because these are too subjective. Each person has to decide how their responsible, mature self wants to be in any situation. They can ask themself, what would my non-anxious, confident, responsible self do? There are several key elements in defining the self. First, it is about self and not about others. In one sense, it is about what I will or won’t do from a mature perspective. For example, if my partner wants to go out for dinner, I could say I’m willing as long as I can get vegetarian. Otherwise, I’m not interested. This isn’t impinging on my partner – they have a choice where we go or even if we go. When defining self, I am making a personal choice based on my convictions and principles. I am not saying I’m right or better. I’m certainly not saying that the other(s) are wrong or less than me. My choice isn’t about fairness. It is simply my choice, period. In addition, I will bear the consequences of my choice. In this example, we might go to a steak house with limited vegetarian options. If I decide to go, I’ve made my choice of my own free will.

Choosing to be selfless.

Defining self is about making a choice based on my principles and convictions. It’s not about going along based on anxiety or some perceived threat. My principles can include being helpful to my family members or my community. I could make a choice to “go along” with helping a family member because it aligns with my principles. Thus, even though I’d rather not, I’m choosing to go along with a request. The key is that it was my choice based on my principles. It was NOT driven by anxiety and fear of what others would think or say. A good test can be whether I regret my decision. Or if I have any expectation that others will return the favour. No regret means no strings attached. After all, I freely chose to go along based on my principles.

Wise selfishness requires serious thinking about how one wants to show up in the world. It requires conviction about one’s beliefs and principles in order to overcome the perceived threats of conflict or rejection. It places no expectations on others. And it requires calm humbleness that arises from knowing one isn’t right or wrong; they are just defining self for themselves and willing to bear the consequences.

It’s difficult. But at least we get lots of opportunities to practice. And it is worth the effort.

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

To learn more about Bowen Theory, click here.

To watch an interview on balancing care for self and others, click here

 

Mar 12
Love0

Hope for Parents

By Uncategorized

A Manualized Process to Give Parents Hope

(This post provides some background for the April 17th conference on the Parent Hope Project).

As a father, I know how hard it can be to raise a child. I have also seen the challenges – far greater than my own – that come up for parents. Can a systems approach provide any hope for parents? I believe it can. Jenny Brown has proven it.

Her Parent Hope program is based on Bowen Family Systems Theory, but you wouldn’t know that as a parent. She uses everyday language to help get key concepts across. For example, a systems approach doesn’t categorize “patients” with “a diagnosis.” It works with how the parents are functioning.  It views a family as a unit that functions along a continuum. All families are somewhere on the continuum, and this approach allows for improvements in functioning. Like wellness, we could all improve our level of wellness, we can all improve our level of functioning as parents. So we start from wherever we are at.

Another aspect of systems is that they adapt to circumstances and function differently depending on the situation. The family is a system, and the parents have adapted the best they can and function in a certain manner. So by focusing on the functioning of the parent – a key driver of the system – the functioning of the system will change. If the parent wants to change themselves, they can do this. The Parent Hope process is manualized and the physical manual is important – it’s a map of the process of how the family members are functioning. A map keeps one on track during the journey. If lost, they can refer to the map and get back on track. A map allows one to explore new areas with more confidence.

Hope based on research

The manual is the outcome of research and subsequent use with many parents. A core principle is that an intense child focus, which can be positive or negative, presents significant development challenges to young persons since they learn to function in reaction to others. This leaves them with little emotional breathing space to grow in thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves.

The process allows a parent, using the manual, with the help of a therapist/coach, to map out and trace what’s called the “worry cycle.” The Bowen theory has language to talk about the worry cycle, but parents don’t need this. What they find useful is the process – the self-discovery – of seeing how their worry drives a process that is not helpful. Once a parent understands this, they can change their functioning and change the patterns in their parent-child relationship.

Of course, this process can be a challenge for both parents and coaches. But the manual guides the process and keeps everyone on track. It helps keep the reactivity of the parents and the therapist lower. This is because the process involves observing and reflecting, which can reduce negative thinking. The process provided by the manual helps to give the brain focus and gets the parent off the worry cycle.

It’s called Parent Hope for a reason

The strength of this program is that it works with the most motivated individuals, the parents. Dr. Bowen and many clinicians after him have found that the parent is often the best individual to work with. The child is actually adapting parent’s functioning, hence the focus on the parents and not on the child. The hopeful part is that if the parents can observe and understand their functioning, then they can make changes that will improve the interactions. It is a process of discovery for the parent versus education about what’s right. The program provides principles so that the parents can find the approach that works for them. (And they do!) Using the principles the parents gain the ability to work on themselves without the need for an “expert” to tell them what to do. There is a shift in perspective to the parents making adjustments to their functioning versus ‘repairing’ a ‘broken’ child.

Step Back and Observe

For example, a parent starts with a more recent vivid memory of an event, and they map out the sequence in detail. This unpacking of the interaction helps one to observe the “emotional process.” The manual supports the parent in thinking about their interactions. This helps a person get more clear about what part they are playing in the interaction.

The approach focuses on the individual thinking about themselves versus their partner or child. The manual literally has “swim lanes” so that a person can “stay in their lane.” It provides a physical scaffold based on the concepts of Bowen theory. The parents don’t need to know the theory; they just use the scaffold. To support the focus on self, each person gets their own manual. (There are no “WE” swim lanes.)

The process keeps the therapist in their swim lane as well. They act to guide the recording of the sequence and facts of an interaction. There is excellent research to support the value of writing things down. And seeing it written down supports self-reflection. Everyone stays in their swim lane and thinks about their functioning.

Are you promoting Independence or Dependence?

This process supports idea of allowing the child to develop more independence vs. dependence. The parent(s), through writing down interactions, get to a) see the process of dependence vs. independence and b) how they are supporting one or the other.

The manualized process supports the parent to step back and observe how they are functioning and to think about “where is my focus” – on myself, the child, or my partner? When a parent makes a project out of themselves, they have reached a turning point.

“Parents who remained more passive in expecting expert helpers to fix their child experienced reduced hope months after finishing the program. When parents positively changed their interaction with their child they felt a more sustained hopefulness.” Jenny Brown.

 

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

To learn about the Parent Hope Conference, click here.

to listen to Jenny Brown discuss a parent’s focus on a child, click here

 

 

 

 

Feb 26
Love0

Using Triangles

By From the Archives, triangles

Triangles are mechanisms to deal with the tension or discomfort that will inevitably arise in a two-person relationship. This is because the majority of individuals are not highly differentiated. We have a level of immaturity that leads to tension in our relationships. This often shows up as the tension and discomfort that arises when people disagree. We perceive the disagreement as a threat to ourselves and or the relationship (which is also a threat to ourselves).

Triangles transfer tension

Tension arises from the disagreement between the two individuals. It’s natural to seek another person to get some “agreement” from them. But this seeking of a third is happening because the original two couldn’t openly communicate what they wanted and because one or both had expectations of the other. Two fully responsible individuals that recognize a responsible level of interdependence would end up triangling very little because there would be little tension in their relationship. (There could be tension in their lives, but not in their relationship). 

So in therapy (or at work), individuals will seek agreement for their position from the therapist or co-worker and will often want to be told what to do. This is a result of an increased sense of helplessness, another outcome of greater tension and anxiety. The process involves the less mature side of an individual taking over and looking for someone else to be responsible for them. This process of seeking other happens along a continuum from being very reactive and demanding that someone help them to being much less reactive and merely wanting a second opinion or advice.  A key principle of how a triangle works, based on how humans work, is that a calm, objective, thoughtful third person can help the other two find their OWN solution. How, do you ask?

Calmness is the antidote to tension.

One problem humans face is how much subjectivity can come into their thinking. Subjective thinking results from trying to make sense of a situation as quickly as possible. This is a good idea, especially if you live in a predictable environment and your survival depends on it. Our brains work to figure out what we are experiencing as quickly as possible based on past experience. It predicts what is going on in milliseconds, constantly updating our feelings and thoughts. This is subjective and not completely fact-based. The more tension that arises, the more subjective the thinking can (or will) get. This is generally negative because we are wired to give value to negative items, and leads to more tension, creating a negative spiral.

But an individual that doesn’t “catch” the tension, that can remain calmer, helps the other person calm down as well. And calmer people can think more objectively. Very often, just listening calmly to another person allows them to talk about the situation to where they know what they will do. They just needed to “talk it out” with someone.

Use the triangle to ask, not tell.

Questions are powerful. They force a person to use the brain’s more cognitive part, reducing the intensity of the “feeling” circuit.  When people have to think about something, they aren’t feeling it. It can e helpful to ask a person how they think about what they are feeling. The other person has far more information about the situation and how it affects them than they can convey. So they are the one that has to think about the solution! But good questions can help them think about the situation differently and more broadly. For example, asking, “do you have any sense why this made you so upset?” asks the other person to search for something in their world. Telling them, “You should try not to let this bother you.” is almost insulting. However, framing the question as “most people don’t get as upset as you are, this must be important to you – do you know what that importance is about?”

Triangles can trick you.

We are hard-wired and raised to be caring for other people. So when someone presents a problem, it’s easy to get caught up in the discussion and feelings the discussion creates. If someone comes to you with a problem, getting caught up in the feelings is not helpful. You don’t want your doctor to be upset for you – you want their best thinking! They can be kind and caring, but I want their best thinking more than anything. I want to be told what I need to be healthy, even if it’s going to be scary or hard. So the challenge of being that third person is to NOT start feeling sorry for the other person.  They need your best thinking.

Don’t go with the flow.

Dr. Bowen’s early research revealed how clever patients were at getting others involved in their relationship issues. He had to train the staff members on how to be supportive without trying to solve the patient’s issue. He knew that individuals grow in maturity by working on defining themselves in relationships and being more responsible for themselves.

So don’t go with the flow next time someone comes to you to be on their side. It’s not easy, but the more calm, thoughtful thinking you can bring, the better. Trust that the other person can think about their problem and decide what they want to do about it. They are more likely to follow through on decisions they made for themselves.  And they won’t blame you if it doesn’t work!

Oh, yeah,  and now you can think about what you have read and decide for yourself what you want to do with it.

Thank you for your interest in family systems.

Dave Galloway

dave.galloway@livingsytems.ca

Learn more about Bowen family systems theory here.

Watch this thirty-minute video on Bowen Theory in everyday life here.