The Five Love Languages

“The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate” is a book written by Gary Chapman in 1995. It talks about how we want to give and want to receive love (not necessarily the same thing) and how those we love also want to receive and give love.

The awkward part comes in when these are not the same, or worse, not really compatible.

Below is a generic chart of some of the dos and don’ts of these languages.

Figuring out the languages of those we love means we can consciously shift our expression and expectations to match theirs.

While it is difficult to scientifically test these and there may be cultural differences, it is still a useful concept to consider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Love_Languages

5 Love Languages
5 Love Languages

Neuroplasticity

When I was growing up it was believed that the adult brain was done learning and only inevitable death from neuronal pruning would result. This was how we understood Alzheimer’s Disease worked – the decaying brain. It was thought that what you knew as you entered adulthood was all that you could know.

Clearly this is wrong. However it was the human biological model that was taught for a few hundred years – pretty much since it was recognised that the seat of consciousness was the brain and not the heart.

Research as early as 1923 by Karl Lashley was starting to buck the trend (his research was on rhesus monkeys showing changes in the brain pathways), however the momentum of assumptions took almost 60 years to shift. By the late 1980’s the idea of neuroplasticity was becoming real. With the advent of fMRI and direct brain observation via direct electrodes to the brain, the idea of the  adult brain actually changing because of experience was receiving recognition.

So what does this mean to us?

The first bit seems kind of obvious. We can continue to learn as adults. We instinctively know this because if you can remember yesterday, then you have learned things. Learning involves creating memories and using those memories to solve problems.

The next bit is a bit let obvious. Changing the brain’s software changes the brain’s hardware. That is, if we change our behaviour we change our brain pathways and chemicals. If we can change our brain pathways, then we can learn to be less anxious, learn to not be psychopathic and we can learn to recover from many brain injuries.

There are limits though. We can only go forwards, we cannot go backwards. What this means is if we have lost a memory, it is gone. We can’t go back to how we were. This may seem sad and not what we want, but really, growing means going forwards, not backwards. We grow up, not down. So go forwards to a new you.

Not all things can be learned new, some things just need to be compensated for. For example, one of the spectra for autism is not being able to pick up the social cues of others very well. Some people with autism do this quite well, some do it very poorly. An person with autism can learn to do this better with good coaching, but will generally not learn it well enough for reading social cues to be effortless.

What neuroplasticity tells us is that you can change the way your brain works. Change the software, you change the hardware. To do this well takes a good therapist, a good rehab worker or some dedicated research and effort on your own behalf.

There is no locked in stone and hopeless case. If you want to change – you can.

Neuroplasticity
Neuroplasticity is the brains ability to change itself

More can be learned at WikiPedia

Common presentations for help

As a mental health social worker, counselling people for the last 10 years, I have worked with a diverse group of people trying to recover their lives from, mostly, mental health issues. Not surprising when you look at the work I do…

However what I find fascinating in a statistical sense, is the reasons why people come to me.

The 3 most stand out reasons why people come to me for help are:

1) Someone is hurting them, but they think it is their own fault.

2) They have troubles regulating their own moods and reactions.

3) They are struggling against a real life situation – commonly unemployment/Centrelink or something like job loss / death.

The next category of things I tend to come across

1) Neuroatypical people trying to figure out what the heck is going on

2) Non-mood regulation types of mental heatlh disorder

3) Someone very concerned at another person’s struggles and trying to figure out what they can legally, resource, morally or ethically do.

Anxiety – Not something to get worked up about

Anxiety is a the fear that something is about to go wrong without a thing actually going wrong.

When we are in immediate danger – about to be hit by a truck, an attacker is aggressively moving towards you, you’ve just been caught doing something wrong – we have an internal button to get all systems on line. That includes focusing the attention to the immediate problem, suping up the body for immediate action and forcing that action into happening now. Because of the immediacy of the threat, we don’t have time to think about what to do – we act on instinct. Usually that is run, but sometimes that is attack – or in more common words, flight or fight.

When the threat is clear and present, you are not having an anxiety attack, you are having a justified fear response.

When there is no clear and present threat (such as worry about what comes next, the feeling of dread with no thing causing it, the feeling that everyone is watching you or the fear that someone is going to break into your house), and your brain presses the internal button to get all systems on line, you are having a panic attack.

Often a panic attack is mistaken for a heart attack, breathing problems or going crazy. It usually follows being very anxious – fearful – of what might be going on.

Anxiety is a feeling of powerlessness about something that is either prompting fear or anger, whether it is present or just anticipated.

Anxiety sucks.

To manage this requires retraining your brain to not be anxious. First assess – is there actually danger here? If there is, then deal with it or run. If there isn’t, then slow down – you’ve got time. If danger suddenly appears, go back to that first step. Now that you’ve slowed down, calm down. This is achieved through controlling your breath. It is the only part of “all systems on line” that we can take manual control of and mess up the automatic system that has erroneously been triggered. Grounding exercises come next. Once we are calmer, we can think more clearly. Now assess the problem – if it is a false alarm, stick around for a few minutes while continuing your calming exercise. This teaches the brain that this, here, is not a fear situation. If there is something to address but your brain over reacted to it, calmly plan a solution that addresses the actual problem rather than fighting it or fleeing from it. Do the plan. Afterwards congratulate yourself on not panicking and managing to remain in control. The rewards is very important.

If you want to know more about this, let me know.

Social Anxiety

Imagine, if you will, a time before cities, a time before agriculture, a time when it was human versus the untamed world, alone and unsupported. Imagine this is around 50,000 years ago.

 

Imagine you are alone in this part of the world. You are sitting by a river, sorting the plants you have gathered. Some of these plants are edible, some are useful for making tools, some are poisons/medicines and some are just useless to you. You have a few tools, a thumping stick, a spear and a bowl you have carved out of a slab of tree with some stones. You don’t carry the stones, because they are heavy.

 

There are dangers around you. A crocodile in the water, if you get too close, a venomous snake in the tree, and over there on the horizon is a thylacoleo, a nightmare cross of a tiger and marsupial, like a thylacine (Tasmanian Tiger) on steroids. These things could all kill humans and would frequently do so given half a chance. However if you keep on your toes and are ready go hoof it if one gets too interested, you stand a chance.

 

Sooner or later you need to sleep. Different predators come out at different times of the day and night. The average person can stay awake for about 72 hours if necessary, however functional effectiveness usually begins to decline around hour 19. Basically, sleep at your own risk.

 

Time to get an ally. Someone who will watch over you while you sleep in exchange for you watching over them. This won’t work if you don’t actually honour your bargain. If you steal their stuff and leave, or kill them, then you’ve got no one. If they do the same, they have the same problem. Trust is very important. However what choice do you have? You need them and they need you.

 

Having an ally is great. When the Thylacoleo comes a stalking, you can work together to overcome it. Two are more likely to defeat this beast than one is. However if one of you gets seriously hurt during the combat, you are back to being alone. You need a spare.

 

Forming a trusted group of allies is even better than having just one ally. With one ally, someone has to be awake while someone sleeps. The average human needs 8 hours of sleep per 24 hours. This means that 16 hours in the day is spent sleeping for the two of you to remain optimal. With three people this drops down to 12 hours wasted on sleep, which is around the same number of hours as night time. With 5 of you, some people don’t need to interrupt their sleep – that is, every few days everyone gets a full nights un-interrupted sleep.

 

Other benefits of having a group is that you can exchange knowledge. “When I stick my spear in the fire and let it get slightly crispy, the end is harder and penetrates my prey easier”, “oh – that is how you start a fire, that seems really efficient” and so on. Another great advantage is keeping each other awake during wake shifts, collaborating in hunts, working together to build things and so on.

 

There is risk that comes with having a group. I like you, you like Jo, Jo likes Sasha, Sasha likes Alex, Alex likes Lee. But I hate Lee. If I have too much conflict with Lee then the rest of you might think you are better off without me. If a divide happens, and I am split off from the group, I am on my own while there are four of you to watch each others backs. I need the group more than the group needs me. When there were just two of us I had to put up with the irritating things about you and vice versa because we needed each other and we had a lack of choice. As the group expands, the need to put up with someone decreases. They either comply to the group rules or they suffer for it by being kicked out.

 

Often group rules are not explicitly stated. There are a few of them that are – we don’t kill each other, falling asleep during your wake shift is bad, don’t steal and so on. The ones that are really dangerous are less well stated rules, the unspoken rules, the implicit rules, the rules everyone else assumes but no one has told you about. The things you thought were fun but they think are taboo. Each group has them, and no one talks about them. Most people unconsciously adopt these rules and don’t really think about them until one is transgressed. At this point people look to the group to see if they all, or enough of them, agree with you. With support, you will look at the transgressor with disgust and they will either conform or get out. If I think an action should be taboo but no one else agrees, then I will either change my stance, or more likely begin a campaign to get everyone else to agree with me.

 

There are people that don’t pick up on social rules very well, and or miss social cues to say “you crossed a line” or “enough”. When the group recognises this, but sees value in the individual despite the difficulty they have with conformity, allowances can be made for that person. Some transgressions are frownable offenses (they get frowned upon, but tolerated) and some are zero tolerance, leading that person to be exited from the group. It is a sliding scale and not all group members will agree on what that scale is – either specific order or what behaviour crosses this part of the scale from acceptable to not acceptable.

 

Once you are fairly secure in your group, one tends to boundary test a bit. What can I get away with? Sometimes this is a power game – I wonder if I can get away with this… Sometimes it is a side effect of relaxing and being lazy – it’s a lot of effort to conform to that rule, so I’ll let it slide a bit. A consequence to this is risking being kicked out.

 

Once you are out, you need to quickly find another group to join. Humans don’t do well on their own. Once you find a group, you now need to learn their rules, because each group is different, has different goals and grows organically in different ways. Organic growth can look similar, but each is unique. When I hang out with the mercenaries, a certain kind of humour is not only tolerated but is welcomed. When I hang around religious people, that kind of humour is taboo. However there is no list of social rules, I am just supposed to know what these rules are.

 

Often it is easier for me to conform to the group than it is to get the group to conform to me. This works well when the new group is, for the most part, right. Or at least not blatantly wrong. They are a compatible level of right. 6 + 3 = 9 for my old group. This group prefers 3 + 6 = 9. Meh, close enough. However if they insist that 5 + 5 = 9, well that is just wrong. Now I need to work out – do I try to correct the group, put up with the wrong thing, or leave the group? If I try to correct the group, I may get kicked out of the group. If I put up with the wrong, I may become complicit with the wrong. If I leave the group, I’m on my own again – will the next group be equally wrong?

 

Conformity is a big thing in humans. We are biologically driven to conform or leave. Often, though, we aren’t conforming to the group per se. We are conforming to the leader of the group, who through strength of charisma, defines the explicit and implicit rules of the group. If they are good enough, they stay the leader. If they underperform, either the group suffers or the leader is replaced. If you cross the leader, you place yourself in quite a bit of danger. Non-conforming behaviour automatically brings you into conflict with that leader.

 

In this modern time, I live in a city with millions of people. Most of them are strangers. I have a few small groups that work with me, or perhaps, allow me to work with them, to survive. I have my family group, most of whom are allies, and some are Lee. I have my work, most of whom are friends of Lee – that is, associated and acquaintances – not friends, but not enemies either. I have social groups, the people I prefer to hang around with, but it is with a purpose.

 

For each of these I am expected to behave in a certain way to conform to their explicit and implicit rules. Behind these behaviours I need to hold on to who I am – me. If that “me” conflicts with a group, or where a group is going, I need to either decide to correct that group, correct me, or leave the group.

 

The thing I fear is discovering that I have transgressed a groups rules too late to correct and stay. That isn’t me choosing to leave a group, that is me being kicked out of a group. That lack of choice is a real kicker. Often I will feel like an imposter in the group while I try to figure out what enough of the rules are to survive.

 

Once I seem a bit more comfortable with the group, I can start to express my true nature a bit more. This has risk, but it also helps me to become a unique part of that group, where the good that I bring outweighs the odd that I bring, where odd is pushing that rule boundary a bit in non-conformity. After all, if there are multiple wood carvers and food is scarce, get rid of a surplus carver. However if I am the only one that makes high quality spears, then they don’t dare get rid of me. I need to find my niche in the group and make my “me” needed, yet at the same time, don’t cross enough rules that it is cheaper for the group to lose that niche than to keep me.

 

Social is complex. Social anxiety is the fear that we will be judged as not worthy of the group and we will be kicked out and end up on our own. We would often rather take on the isolated role through our own choice than risk being excommunicated by the group for transgressing some rule we didn’t know about, or some rule that doesn’t make sense. The danger of being rejected is real and the consequences can be devastating to the ego. Each rejection indicates that you failed to find a niche that was valued, and by simple logic it seems that there is nothing about you that is valued, that is, you think you are worthless. It is very hard to balance that role of being a conformed part of the group and being unique enough to be a niche filler. After all, if you are yet another woodcarver, what value are you? If your niche is rejected, again, what value are you?

 

The person working through social anxiety is hypervigilant to any signs of transgression – one’s own or that of others. Suggestions of rejection by group members will be klaxxon clarion bells warning you to comply, comply, comply, or run, run, run. Other people’s transgressions are used to try to understand the implicit rules better, or to work out which explicit rules are not as rigid as one was led to believe. It becomes baffling when Lee can transgress a rule and you get punished, and that is because part of the implicit rules is a scale of acceptance based on your perceived value to the group – a placement in hierarchy.

 

Hierarchy is often mistaken as a linear scale from least important to most important, when really it is more like a branching tree. The leader may be at the top of the hierarchy, but often they are actually the second top and the true power lies in the person behind the scenes. Or there isn’t so much a second in charge as there are several second in charges. Or George provides unique X so we allow them to get away with various Y, and since you don’t, you can’t.

 

I’ve covered here the basic biological establishment of groups and built up to some of the complexity of group engagement. This is just an introduction to some of the issues faced by people with social anxiety – the fear of people in groups and your place in them. It is distinct in many aspect to agoraphobia, which is the fear of being in a crowd [of strangers] and/or open space. I might cover that one in the future at some point.

Schizophrenia

All people have behavioural and psychological traits, such as being happy, being sad, being angry, having belief in a thing, being talkative, flinching from danger, being self centred and so on. The list is very long and changes subtly from culture to culture. When one of these becomes dominant they can progress into a disorder and then into a mental illness.

 

Frequently these disorders and mental illnesses can be managed by treatment, which can  include therapy, lifestyle changes and possibly medication. Most of these disorders are where there is an over expression or under expression of a normal human trait, possibly due to a chemical/hormone imbalance or a behavioural trait that is learned and can be unlearned.

 

Then there is schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is defined by positive and negative traits. Positive traits are behaviours and experiences that most people don’t have while negative traits are an absence of traits most people do have. An example of a positive trait is the soft drink dispenser asking you about your day where no one else hears it or experiences it (this excludes pranks or “smart dispensers” that talk to everyone), while an example of a negative trait is an absence of joy.

 

Along with positive and negative traits there is frequently a cognitive dysfunction. To a mainstream person, a person with schizophrenia will use chains of logic that almost make sense, but don’t. Dysfunction can also be lost memories, lost skill sets (I use to be able to do this, but now I can’t) and strange beliefs.

 

As with all conditions, schizophrenia presents on a spectrum. Simplistically we can look at a simple linear functionality spectrum, from managing fine in the community without medication, managing with medication and treatment, to not managing. However the reality is that the spectrum is multi-axial. That is based on how much of each of the above signs and symptoms are present and how capable is the person experiencing this is able to compensate and manage.

 

Schizoaffective disorder is a combination of Schizophrenia and Affective (mood) Disorder, where both symptoms of schizophrenia and mood disorder are present, but not quite enough of either to diagnose the person in either category. Often people will receive this diagnosis before being upgrade, if necessary, to the schizophrenia diagnosis later.

 

Please note that this is all a simplified version of what schizophrenia is and is not a diagnostic guideline.

 

Often people diagnosed with schizophrenia will be referred to, or refer to themselves, as schizophrenic. This is very common in mental illnesses and some other illnesses – to mistake oneself for the diagnosis. I am schizophrenic, I am autistic, I am diabetic, I am broken armian, I am chronic pain, I am momentary headache. The fact is, you are a person first, diagnosed with one or more of these issues as a description – not an identity.

 

Highly creative people are able to look at disparate information and make sense out of it. Examples of some of these creative people are artists and scientists. This ability is all about making unusual links and then testing to see if it is feasible and doable. Uncreative people are not able to make these links and follow more traditional means of connecting information together. People diagnosed with schizophrenia are thought to lack the second part of this ability – testing. That is, reality testing to check if it is feasible and doable. The hypothesis is that people with schizophrenia lack the important reality testing part that rejects ideas, thoughts and visions that shouldn’t work and/or exist and instead assume that these ideas are real and accurate.

 

Another angle on this hypothesis is that the brain misfires certain inputs (stimuli from outside the body, such as sight, touch, smell etc) or the processing of internal inputs (memories, thoughts) and ends up with a bizarre result. This bizarre result is then accepted as accurate rather than rejected before the conscious mind is aware of it. All brains misfire and come up with unusual result, but generally these ideas are rejected before much attention is given to them. A hypothesis about schizophrenia is that either this rejection isn’t very good, or that there are so many misfires that the brain assumes it must be true. Any lie told often enough takes on a hint of truth, so enough repeats of the wrong idea will start to seem right.

 

Schizophrenia seems to have a genetic component. If you have a family member with schizophrenia traits, then it is more likely that you will inherit it. This isn’t much of an increase though. Instead of it being about 1 in 200 people, you are now 1 in 100 people – which is not much of a shift. It can also be spontaneous, with no family history of schizophrenia. Most often it is developed during the early to mid teens. Some mind altering substances are thought to cause schizophrenia in some people, but the evidence for this is weak. Did the drug cause schizophrenia, or was the person already experiencing some symptoms that they were trying to treat with illicit drugs? Which was first? Or even if there were no preceding symptoms of schizophrenia, was the person going to develop them anyway, and drugs were a correlation rather than a causation? What has been evidenced is that some illicit drugs have a higher correlation with schizophrenia diagnosis than others.

 

Not all people with schizophrenia need treatment. It is estimated that roughly 1 in 3 people who experience these symptoms manage themselves without input from mental health teams and or medication. They experience full and generally happy lives. Another 1 in 3 of these people respond well to treatment, where they find the skills learned through therapy and or antipsychotic medication mean they can lead a fairly high quality community life. Unfortunately it is estimated that roughly 1 in 3 people don’t respond well to medication or therapeutic input, struggling to find meaning and quality in their life. The exact statistics are difficult to get as not all people who experience symptoms are diagnosed or have any interaction with mental health.

 

If you are in the last of these 3 subcategories, take heart. Many people who didn’t respond well to the medical model of treatment found good support from peers (those with similar experiences) via the Hearing Voices Network – a worldwide organisation. Even those in the first two categories have frequently found positive value in connecting to others. It isn’t for everyone, but it does exist and can help.

 

Another thing to look into is the recovery model. The idea here is that you have a thing, and it is big and somewhat disruptive. How can you manage that big and disruptive thing, minimising its impact? And wherever that big thing doesn’t disrupt your life, how much comfort and meaning can you get? Recovery is about recognising that this diagnosis is about a thing you have, it isn’t defining you. I have an arm – does that make me an arm? No. I am a person who is more than my arm. You have schizophrenia, that doesn’t make you schizophrenia.

Little Dog Syndrome

This is an analogy that I have thought up – it isn’t a clinical disorder. However it is an interesting perspective that can be useful.

Cats are gods. They know they are gods. They know that other cats are also gods. When they meet each other, sometimes they have a fight, but mostly they nod their head and basically say “sup”, as in “what’s up?” Cats don’t growl at humans or creatures passing by the fence, flying in the trees and so on. They know they are gods. They don’t have to prove it. If you can’t see their godhood, that is your loss.

Chihuahuas, on the other hand, wish they were rottweilers. They like to prance about, bark loudly and growl at everything to prove that they are rottweilers, despite their physical appearance. If you look at them, you see their posturing and say to yourself “wow – a powerful dog”. Really, though, despite their bluster, they only harm they can give you is a small nip, unless they trip you up and manage to get you in the jugular or something.

Generally they are all noise and no really threat.

They hate it when you know that. They must prove to you, impress upon you, that they are big and powerful and worthy of respect, which they only see in the form of fear.

Rottweilers fear that you look at them and think they are a chihuahua. So they have to defend their territory and be the biggest, scariest dog on the block. Go past their designated space? Barking ensues. Meet another dog, they must prove they are the dominant beast. Because when two dogs meet, only one can be the rottweiler, so the others must be the chihuahua.

When dogs look in the mirror, they see a chihuahua, regardless of what others see, regardless of their breed. “I could be bigger, more ferocious, more feared” they think, “that little dog – it is pathetic. That is nothing to be feared. That’s what others see. I have to be more ferocious”.

For a dog, there is nothing more terrifying than someone else seeing that you are weak. Even with the best of intentions, any reassurance that they are not weak, small and insignificant highlights that you can see that they think they are, and you will be seen as the enemy. Trying to help these people is a good way of getting your fingers nipped. Praising them for how big and fearful they are is a way to appeal to their delusion. It can keep you safe for a while, but it is time limited.

Mostly little dogs don’t get help with their fear, because first they have to acknowledge that they are, indeed, little dogs. And that is terrifying for them.

Domestic cats mass about the same as a little dog. Big cats, like tigers and lions, massively outweigh the biggest dogs. Yet domestic cats know they are gods, so don’t care, while little dogs only see themselves as inadequate big dogs.

So when you see one of these dog people yapping at you, realise that their yapping is telling you what they see in the mirror – a little dog wishing they were big and ferocious. Do what cats do. Get out of the way, see them for the dog they are and mostly ignore it. Be a god.

== please note, I have met some really nice chihuahuas, rottweilers and some very insecure cats. This is a thought idea rather than a statement that all chihuahuas have issues.

 

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Narcissus was a mythical character from ancient Greek times who was the son of the river god Cephissus and nymph Liriope. He was physically beautiful, but disdained those who loved him. The goddess Nemesis learned of him and drew him to a pool of water, where Narcissus saw his own reflection, fell in love with his own image and starved to death rather than leave the picture of perfection.

This myth gave rise to the term Narcissism – an exaggerated opinion of self and self worth, which lead to Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), previously called megalomania. NPD should only be diagnosed by specialists, and while it is easy to see someone acting egotistical and self centred and label them as NPD, the odds are you are just dealing with a selfish person.

People often mix up the meanings of NPD and psychopathy (sometimes referred to as sociopathy). While they are both personality disorders, they are polar opposites. Both can be devastatingly harmful to others. Psychopaths don’t get empathetic feedback from others and so don’t really care what you think, just don’t get in their way too much. Narcissists need you to have positive feelings for them. There is far more to psychopathy, but that isn’t the scope of this entry.

Narcissists fear being exposed as frauds, being seen as weak, incapable or vulnerable. This fear requires them to create an image of perfection for everyone to admire. Narcissists need admiration of others. This fear of exposure makes it very hard for them to get help as they first have to admit to someone else that they need help and expose their vulnerabilities to a therapist to work on the core fear of exposure.

It is thought that roughly 1 in 100 people have NPD to some pathological level, although it is hard to truly gauge as people who could be given an NPD diagnosis don’t tend to come forward to be assessed. While the prevalence could be as low as 50% male vs 50% female, it is thought to be as high as 75% male vs 25% female. Mostly it is considered to be more likely a male trait, but certainly not exclusive.

The American Diagnostics and Statistics Manual version 5 (DSM V) states the following:

[TLDR – To have NPD, the condition must hinder the individual and others in specific ways and be characterised by some antagonism, grandiosity (feelings of entitlement) and attention seeking, but not be a recent or brief thing or explained by some other condition or circumstance.]

“The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose narcissistic personality disorder, the following criteria must be met:

Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:

  1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
  2. Identity: Excessive reference to others for self-definition and self-esteem regulation; exaggerated self-appraisal may be inflated or deflated, or vacillate between extremes; emotional regulation mirrors fluctuations in self-esteem.
  3. Self-direction: Goal-setting is based on gaining approval from others; personal standards are unreasonably high in order to see oneself as exceptional, or too low based on a sense of entitlement; often unaware of own motivations.

AND

Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):

  1. Empathy: Impaired ability to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others; excessively attuned to reactions of others, but only if perceived as relevant to self; over- or underestimate of own effect on others.
  2. Intimacy: Relationships largely superficial and exist to serve self-esteem regulation; mutuality  constrained by little genuine interest in others‟ experiences and predominance of a need for personal gain

Pathological personality traits in the following domain:

  1. Antagonism, characterized by:
  2. Grandiosity: Feelings of entitlement, either overt or covert;  self-centeredness; firmly holding to the belief that one is better than others; condescending toward others.
  3. Attention seeking: Excessive attempts to attract and be the focus of the attention of others; admiration seeking.
  4. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.
  5. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual’s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment.
  6. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).”

While the exact mechanism for why the disorder occurs is unclear (could be a genetic component, environmental component, developmental delay etc), the traits often begin in adolescence and get stronger. Many teens show some of the traits – being self centred and reactive is often what it means to be a teen, the traits in most teens are not overrepresented and will diminish in time. When the traits get stronger and don’t resolve the NPD diagnosis may become relevant.

It is easy to over pathologise being confident and assertive as NPD. Being sure of yourself and your capabilities is not a hallmark of NPD. What is a better tell is what happens if you are told you are wrong. If you check to see if you are, or take on board suggestions from others, then you do not have NPD. If you feel threatened and retaliate to reclaim your feeling of comfort, then perhaps you should speak to a professional therapist.

The core of the disorder appears to be the fear of the self being weak, and the need to prove that isn’t true. That very need to prove capability and brilliance proves the weakness. A person who knows they have ability just goes quietly along and does what they need to do. They don’t need others to congratulate them, admire them or reassure them. They just do it. The occasional thanks is nice, but not required.

It is tempting to pathologise the human need to be recognised as worthwhile, and have your actions validated. The difference between this human need and NPD is in two parts: the first is that when most people are validated, it assures them they are on track – it is a confirmation rather than a requirement; the second is how the person seeks that validation and what they do if the person is told they are doing the thing wrong – NPD people will attack if they are not validated and will seek the validation using negative manipulation or cajoling, while other people will check to see if they need to change what they are doing to better match reasonable societal expectations.

If you have read this and think … oh dear, perhaps I have NPD, then by all means go and talk to a therapist and get yourself checked out. In Australia, go to your doctor, express your concerns and get a referral to a suitable therapist. You can learn to decrease your fear and empathically connect better to others.

If you have read this and think … oh dear, my family member / close friend / boss may have NPD, then there are a few things that are a good idea to do. First of all, assess the damage that person is doing to others (including yourself). If there is no significant emotional harm, social harm or financial harm, then they probably don’t have NPD. NPD requires both the person to have a fragile ego and be causing problems with other people because of it. By all means, go see a therapist to discuss your concerns and get some specific help in working out if this person who is affecting you fits the profile – going through all the possibilities is beyond the scope of this article.

If your conclusion is that this person does fit the NPD profile, then you need to ensure you protect yourself first. These people are often incredibly charismatic and have a reality distortion field. If you see through these, they feel exposed and threatened by you and will act against you.

The charisma is the narcissists learned ability to manipulate the affection and awe of those around them to validate their need to be loved and respected despite their fear that they are inadequate. Unfortunately most people are prone to fall for these as the manipulation methods rely on hijacking normal social interactions and tuning them for their own exaggerated benefit. The reality distortion field (named after the Steve Jobs effect) is where reality seems to be different around these people. They can convince people that black is white, giraffes are short and that things that you thought happened didn’t, oh and by the way, you are responsible for that thing that went bad. This can leave you very confused about what is right and proper, wondering if you are really the one who needs help because there is clearly something wrong with you.

When a person with NPD fails to charm you, or you fail to admire them, or you seem immune to their reality distortion field, they will feel threatened by you. The fear they have is that you can see through to their true self, whom they feel is pathetic and worthless. While it is tempting to try to convince them that you can see their true self and want to nurture it, to help them grow to not be what they fear, the majority of people diagnosed with NPD will see you as a threat and will take steps to protect themselves from the perceived threat. This will take the form of crass social manipulation, threats, erratic mood swings, childish tantrums and possibly direct attack. In effect, they will try to bully you into submission, demonise you, and try to convince others that you are some kind of evil. The charismatic nature of the condition means that people will begin to believe the person with NPD, or keep giving them the benefit of the doubt. In short, you can’t nurture them back to a healthy balance.

Sometimes it is best to walk away. Only if the person with NPD recognises themselves for what they are and seek help on their own (by all means encourage, but don’t push), will they have a chance to work through the diagnosis and recover their sense of inherent self worth rather than fabricating a facade of competence.

The Illusion of Normal

The Illusion of Normal

 

I just want to be normal.

 

It is a very nice statement and most people will know exactly what you mean. Except they don’t. I want to be a dragon. It has mostly the same concept and foundation. This is because normal doesn’t exist. Sorry, neither does the dragon. Average might, but average is a purely local phenomena. The error in this way of thinking is that we are looking at ourselves in the negative rather than the positive.

 

Let us explore normal for a few moments. Normal is defined as an adjective giving the attribute as “conforming to a standard, usual, typical, or as expected”, or a noun naming something as “the usual, average, or typical state or condition.” I can talk about a normal 6 mm nut with a 10 mm hex outer using the fine thread pitch made of mild steel that is zinc coated… at this point I haven’t really defined normal anymore. I have defined a specific something, and this nut in my hand is normal to that specific definition.

 

Let us switch that to apples and go backwards. I am holding a normal apple in my hand. We know it is mostly spherical and has two divots that are opposite to each other. If I put the stem divot at the top, then the flower divot is at the bottom, because this is a normal apple. We know it has seeds in the middle and that if we were to cut the apple in half horizontally to the current orientation it would have 5 cavities for the seeds.  Sounds pretty normal so far. What colour is the apple? What colour is the pulp inside it? What species is it? How big is it? What does it taste like? If I specify the type and breed of apple we can now narrow some of these answers down, but some others we can’t. Normal is useless without being very specific.

 

Abnormal is easier. The nut in my hand has seven sides. That isn’t normal- usually a nut has is 4, 6 or 8 sides, 7 is just crazy. The apple I hold in my hand isn’t spherical, it is more banana shaped, has indigo skin and tastes like an olive. That isn’t normal either.

 

When we say we want to be normal, we mean to say we want to not seem abnormal. We want to be missed or overlooked. We don’t want to be noticed. Yet we have this idea of what we are supposed to be, and we aren’t it. This notion shifts from person to person. I talk more about that with hair later.

 

What is a normal human? About half the population of humans are female, another almost half are male and a few percent in the middle are “it’s complicated”. Most people identify as straight. Most people are wrong. Over 70% of people who identified as “straight” upon closer examination admitted that they were technically bisexual, but defaulted to or leaned more towards straight. There was also a percentage that ignored the evidence of their activities and contorted their definition to make them conform to this idea of “straight”. Similarly when we look at male/female/it’s complicated, each one of these is in a minority of some sort, and that “sort” is modified to suit the argument that target group is making at the time. More often than not, it’s complicated have more right to identify as a minority, but what does that really mean?

 

What colour is the normal human’s skin? The average skin colour is brown, but even then, what shade of brown? And how many humans have that skin colour? Suddenly this gets much harder to answer. We could take every skin pigmentation of every human on Earth (and nearby satellites *nods head to the current humans in space*) and determine what is the mean skin tone. Then we compare that average to the human population and count up how many humans actually have that same skin tone and discover that it is only a small handful. If we increase the tolerance of “same” we might increase it to 1% of the population. That means that 99% of the population has abnormal skin tone. If we increase the tolerance again to 10% of the population, that still means that 90% of the population is abnormal. If we increase the tolerance higher than 10%, how big is the range of skin tones accepted to be “average” and “normal” now?

 

A friend of mine visited a remote part of Thailand about 30 years ago. She was blond, pale and short. Here in Perth Australia that is. When she went to this village in Thailand, she was freakishly tall, incredible pale and was informed by the local authorities that she needed to have a guard to ensure she wasn’t attacked for her long blond hair. What happened to normal? In Perth she always wished to be “normal sized”, that is, taller. When she was in the village in Thailand, she was considered too tall and her colouration was weird.

 

Between 150,000 and 80,000 years ago humans as we know them nearly went extinct. A few times. The population of current humans around the world can be traced back to a bottleneck of almost 2,000 humans at some point in this time space and that the human population didn’t really get much bigger than this for quite a while (possibly 100,000 years). All humans on Earth trace their ancestry back to these 2,000 people. This is more complicated than it sounds though, as there might be lines that have died out from humans that were alive at this time, but now ignored because their descendants didn’t make it. The point, though, is that right there we have a small number of original humans to average rather than 7 billion mutated humans. This population of humans lived in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

The average skin colour of these people would be quite dark brown, the average hair would likely to have been curley and black, and the average eye colour was dark brown. If you don’t have these stats, you are an abnormal freak. A mutant. Abnormal.

 

Is that fair? I look around my office and dark skin is rare, I consider my friends and again dark skin is rare. So what is normal?

 

I have conversations with women. I know, it’s odd. But anyway, I recall many a conversation where a lass has stated she is dissatisfied with her hair and wishes for a different amount of curl – more or less – or a different shade/colour, or a longer/shorter style and so on. Basically, whatever she doesn’t have. This is almost always followed by another lass in the conversation stating they love that hair that has so recently been impugned, and wish they had it because it isn’t what they have. I listen to the tails of straighteners, hair dyes and endless hair cuts and stylings.

 

I don’t really get it.

 

Anyway,  what I do get from this is that each of them is comparing themselves to some model of hair that makes their own hair less than satisfactory. Each of these models is vastly different from one person to the next. Imagine the hair you want, find a person who has that hair and ask them what their ideal hair would be and I estimate a high percentage of respondents will state a different hair type to what they have. They’ve got your ideal, but they think it is wrong.

 

Women are not the only ones that fall for this trope. I just picked on hair and a couple of conversations I sat around as a bridge to hang a concept off.

 

The result of this is that each of these people are looking at themselves as wrong when compared to this ideal of hair or other aspect, an ideal that shifts from person to person. My solution is to look at my hair and be satisfied with it. Sure, I’d like a little  more hair on my increasing bald spot, but meh. Not enough to do something about it. I look at it as a graceful way to age… *cries in the corner*. No, seriously. It’s good enough and it suits me. Because it is me. If you want to dye your hair, go for it. I hope you enjoy the colour.

 

When we start to look at ourselves and see the amazing and awesome aspects about ourselves, we begin to define ourselves in the positive. My skin is me coloured, my hair is my hair, my intelligence is at my level, my compassion is me, my means of communication is mine. I like who I am.

 

About 20 years ago I didn’t like who I was. I recognised that I was doing things that I detested. I treated people badly and I blamed everyone else for so many things. Sometimes I was right, but mostly I wasn’t. Even then, in my self-despair and loathing, I found things to like about myself. I was fit, I was young and full of potential. From this pit of despair, I had three directions to go – up, down or sideways. Up meant improving me, sideways meant eventual meaningless death, down meant more of the same. I put the resources I had (not much at the time) into changing the things I didn’t like about me, and into developing and encouraging the things that I did like.

 

The point of the above paragraph is that change can be defined as positive. I was growing and becoming. There was a huge temptation to define myself as faulty, as bad, as wrong. Define myself in the negative. I indulged in that for a bit and just dug my pit of despair deeper. On reflection at the time, I realised this just wasn’t helping. Thus I switched strategies to define myself positively.

 

Do I want to be like everyone else? No. Partly because I can’t work out which everyone else I want to be like, and partly because I don’t want to not be me. What I really wanted was to be a better me, but that started out with acknowledging what was good about me, even the bits I thought were bad at the time. And acknowledging that these aspects can grow and improve. And recognising that that growth doesn’t make the old me faulty and defective. Just young and learning.

 

Consider your birth. Perhaps for the sake of less awkward, a few days after your birth. The odds are you didn’t talk in any recognisable human language, didn’t ride a bicycle, didn’t walk, didn’t do math and a host of other things that you do now. That you isn’t defective, it is young. It isn’t someone else, it is you, a young and unlearned you. You then learned all (most?) of these things later. If there is an aspect about yourself that you identify now as needing improvement, or having the potential of improvement, that doesn’t make that aspect right now faulty or wrong, just like newly born you wasn’t faulty or wrong. It is just an aspect in potential.

 

Defining ourselves in the negative, against a fictitious “normal” or an ever changing “average” does defines us as wrong. This leads to despair and never being good enough. Defining ourselves in the positive, as growing people, gives us the ability to love ourselves as we are now while at the same time recognising that we can grow and still be us. I recommend this defining ourselves in the positive strategy. It is more useful.

Contributing factors to Mental Illness

Factors that lead to mental illness are biological factors, environmental factors and circumstantial factors. No single one of these is the be all and end all of mental illness and generally people have two or even three of these present.

 

Biological factors are looking at genetics, which includes both DNA and epigenetics. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the chain of G, T, A, and C rungs that are the blueprint for making a human. Your DNA defines how to make you, while my DNA defines how to make me. Not each rung is an on switch, nor an off switch – it is far more complicated than that. The rungs bunch together and are called genes. They define how certain groups of things work, and some of these things seems quite unconnected. One of these genes in canines, for example, connect the aggressive response to the rigidity of the ear and a few other factors. When you breed aggression out of foxes, you get domestic dog looking foxes. Epigenetics is a faster environmental response system that is built into your body for how to interpret different parts of the DNA. Eating bitter plants (such as broccoli and brussel sprouts) turns more of your anti-cancer epigenes on. This isn’t changing our DNA, it is changing how our body interprets the DNA. As we get older we don’t mind bitter plants as much, as that is when we need the cancer fighting foods, while when we are younger and can be more easily poisoned by eating the wrong bitter plants, we don’t like bitter much at all. Some epigenetic switches have been found to last as little as 6 months.

 

What we consume and what we experience affects us. It can also affect our children. The Dutch Winter Hunger is a fascinating discovery of how epigenetics not only switch the genes on and off for one generation, but last several generations down the line. When looking at biological sources of mental illness we look at your genogram, that is your children, your siblings, your parents, your parents siblings and your grandparents. Do any of them have odd behaviours or diagnoses? If there is a few, then the odds are that your experience is being influenced by hereditary genetics. This can lead to a nature vs nurture debate, which I’ll cover a bit later when I talk about environment. This is the nature part.

 

Some drug use can change some of these switches. We all have some genetic switches that when flipped will promote ill health. Paracelsus points out that all drugs are poisons, what matters is the dose. That is, if the does is right, the drug is useful, if the does is wrong, it creates harm. Illicit drugs are hard to control the dose and often we take far more of them than we should or need, thus we run the risk of taking doses high enough that we promote mental illness. Getting drunk on alcohol will make most people act oddly while the alcohol is in their system, but once they sober up the expectation is that the temporary insanity will go away. Drink too much for too long and your behaviour may last longer than the alcohol in your system. Illicit drugs are more likely to create persistent effects because you’ve flipped a genetic switch (or at least, that is the current thinking on how this works). Sometimes we are poisoned by toxins in our environment and sometimes by what we choose to consume. Sometimes we pass on these altered epigenetics to our children.

 

The Dutch Winter Hunger, mentioned above, was directly involved with a generation of children born during an induced famine. These children were born underweight and never grew to the full height of the rest of their family. This is not too unexpected. They also had a higher incidence of illness and disease when compared to their brothers and sisters born outside of the famine. What was unexpected was that the children born to these now adult’s, who were born in relative prosperity, were also seemed to have an increase in disease (the previously thought decline in weight appears to just be a statistical anomaly that was cancelled out later), as were their children. We are waiting to find out what the next generation does. The effects of drugs and toxins that lead to poor mental health on the next generation is still being explored… watch this space. But slowly, because it takes a lot of time to breed humans. It will be interesting to see what more examination of this specific famine have. Lab tests done with animals and plants have also corroborated inter-generational epigenetic inheritance.

 

Environmental factors are more about society, culture, subculture and parenting. This is the nurture side of the “debate”. The debate is a bit silly. It is trying to create a false dichotomy. Is who I am a result of my nature or my nurture? The answer is both. Sometimes more one than the other, but both nonetheless.

 

Society is the land you are in, culture is the assumptions of your family (often based on heritage), subculture is the values of your friends and peers, and parenting is the parental environment aside from all of these. Each of these creates a set of values and problem solving strategies and assumptions within us. When they work well with our personal view of the world and interaction with events, life is generally pleasant and easy. When there is conflict between our society, culture, subculture and/or parental environment, then often we find conflict within ourselves. Sometimes one or more of these environments can be harmful to us, in which case we again find conflict within ourselves. This conflict can become behavioural or emotional (feeling) regulation issues, commonly regarded as mental illness.

 

Coinsider being raised in a culture that defines blue eyed people as probably possessed by demons while brown eyed people are naturally resistant to such possession. A child will not be able to inherently know that this is cultural belief is considered strange by wider society. Children often assume the beliefs of their parents and local community are true. When that grown child is arrested by blue eyed police officers for doing something that the family believes is okay, such as burning down heretical places of worship, the assumption is going to be that the blue eyed police officers are possessed by demons. If the person ever works out that the values and life assumptions given to them by their parents and community are in error, that person is going to have a tough time adjusting to society. Society is going to seem shallow and full of errors. And it is. Mostly that majority of people who grow up in mainstream society have excellent ways to excuse all of the little errors, mistakes and outrages that surround us. People who come into this society see these errors for what they are – foolish and wrong.

 

When our environment harms us in subtle or overt ways, we learn ways to minimise the harm and make it seem alright. We humans survive. When we find ourselves no longer in a harmful situation, we don’t adapt well to peace and safety. Many mood disorders stem from this environmental harm. Mood disorders such as anxiety, depression, post traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality disorder and so on frequently stem from surviving hostile situations and not adjusting to non-hostility.

 

Sometimes the environmental factor is quite short lived. At this point we steer a bit away from thinking of it as nurture and define it more as circumstantial. That is, the circumstances in which you have found yourself is very stressful. A natural consequence of high and/or ongoing stress is changed behaviour.

 

Each of us has a certain amount of buffer space where we can be faced with adversity and adapt and overcome it without significant effect on ourselves. Buffer space is the concept behind stress tolerance and resilience. Stress tolerance is how much stress (unbalanced pressure) we can endure before it causes us problems. Resilience is how quickly does that stress tolerance come back. Each person has a different amount of both of these – some have little, some have lots. At some point, every person’s buffer can be overwhelmed. I posted a few weeks ago about torture. The point of torture is to overwhelm a person’s buffer space. Go read that if you want to know more.

 

Humans break, and upon breaking they change. When this change hinders us, it promotes mental ill health.

 

Often we want to personalise disaster – “why is this happening to me?”, “everything comes in threes”, “it’s like the universe is out to get me”. In the vast majority of times the disasters are not personal, they just happen randomly. Human perception of random is poor. We tend to think of random as an even distribution of events rather than recognising that events clump. Consider crossing the road away from traffic lights. The drivers are not in communication with each other and they don’t care about you. They are just driving. Yet they tend to clump up together at some times and spread out at other times. This is great for us at the side of the road, we just wait for the spread out bits to cross the road, rather than cross when the cars clump together. Unless the cars clump so much that they stop, that is. Events do that too. We think the spread out bits of bad luck (that is events that we don’t like) are lucky for us while the clumped up bits feel personal, because then we have some measure of control over it… right?

 

When enough local events go wrong for us we use up our buffer to deal with the first few events and then fail to have the resources to manage the next few events. This is when we humans tend to fall down and fail a bit. This risks mental illness, that is behavioural change and/or perception of the world change, of either a short term or long term nature.

 

Each of these causes can create different behaviours and management methods of the world. When we continue to interface with the world in a mostly successful way, we call them behavioural traits and no one really cares. When we move to the next level of management, where it is going okay, but wider society thinks it is odd, we frequently call the behaviour eccentric, different, annoying and/or special. When we fail to manage okay and our life becomes disordered or intolerable for various reasons, we call that mental illness.
For some, only one of these factors contributed to their mental illness. For others a combination of factors contributed. The mental illness is not defined by the contributing factor(s), it is defined by the effect it has on you now.