Confident that if his own ire were sufficiently aroused, he could demolish a grape with a single blow of his fist, Ryan counseled war. Nice talking to you. But the idea that listening is something one person gives to the other is only partly true. Another vital aspect of listening is mutuality. Listening Bridges the Space Between Us Mutuality is a sense not merely of being understood but of sharing—of being-with another person. Our experience is made fuller by sharing it with another person.
It is I who wants to be validated. But if I see an especially funny cartoon in The New Yorker, I immediately think of someone to share it with. As psychologist Ruthellen Josselson says in The Space Between Us,11 mutuality is a powerful but neglected aspect of human experience. We find or invent a special someone with whom we can share light moments and deep thoughts.
Mutuality is the stuff of everyday human exchange. Nothing important is happening, just life and shared humanity. All these many modes of relatedness are ways of reaching through the space that separates us. Underlying all our agendas, however, is the fact that speech is the primary mode of relating, and being listened to is the primary means of being understood and appreciated. We want to be known. They see what The rest is private, mystery.
In the process, we feel understood, acknowledged, and accepted. Empathy—the human echo—is the indispensable stuff of emotional well-being. What is adequately mirrored becomes, in time, part of the true and lived self. The child who is heard and appreciated has a better chance to grow up whole. The adult who is heard and appreciated is more likely to continue to feel that way. Unshared Thoughts Diminish Us Some people are good at getting appreciated, but they work too hard at it.
Why, then, do some people say so little about themselves? The answer is, life teaches them to hold back. The innocent eagerness for appreciation we bring to our earliest relationships exposes us to consequences.
Triangle - Anger Control & Steering through Emotions eBook: Chandrahasan Johnson: wamadawipu.cf: Kindle Store. Results 1 - 16 of 22 [READ ONLINE] Triangle - Anger Control & Steering through Emotions by Chandrahasan Johnson. Book file PDF easily for everyone and.
Some people are lucky. They get the attention they need and thereafter approach life with confidence. What might appear to be modesty in some such cases may have more to do with the reluctance to expose old wounds. Many people learn instead to channel their need for appreciation into personal ambition or doing things for other people.
Not being listened to is hard on the heart, and so to varying degrees we cover our need for understanding with mechanisms of defense. Some people become experts at avoidance and cultivate the capacity to be alone. The charm of solitude, celebrated by British psychiatrist Anthony Storr,13 is that it provides space for repose and reflection, time for looking within the self, time for creative endeavor.
Solitude offers respite from the noisy claims of everyday social living. But some of the penchant for being alone is defensive—an accommodation to being hurt by not being heard. While other people at the office always seemed to be complaining or arguing, Don went about his business with quiet assurance. He never seemed to get into arguments with anyone. She never really considered his ideas, he said in an increasingly shrill voice, she was just being disagreeable.
At that point Ellen walked out. Repression is not like putting something away on the closet shelf and forgetting about it; repression takes a constant expenditure of energy that slowly wears us down. In this electronic age, some solitary people retreat to online chat rooms to practice speaking to a safe audience.
The feeling of not being understood is one of the most painful in human experience. Not being appreciated and responded to depletes our vitality and makes us feel less alive. Being listened to is as vital to our enthusiasm for life as love and work. So is being a good listener. Understanding the dynamics of listening enables us to deepen and enrich our relationships. It involves learning how to suspend our own emotional agenda and then realizing the rewards of genuine empathy.
When our own listening becomes blocked by the emotions that others arouse in us, we conspire to produce our own isolation. Is there someone who would love to have you listen more attentively? What gets in the way? If you were to listen more closely to that person, how would it affect your relationship?
How would your listening affect how the person feels about you? Make a list of things that might be worth not listening to. Think of someone you avoid telling certain things because of the way that person typically responds to you. Plan in advance to make a gentle comment about that tendency the next time he or she does it. Be prepared to respond without emotionalism if the other person takes umbrage at your comment.
The purpose of this exercise is to get you to practice calling people on their annoying listening habits without turning it into a big confrontation. In commenting on their response to you, focus not on what they are doing wrong but on how you prefer to be responded to. She had planned to go back to work after the children were born but decided that it was more important to be at home with them until they started school. What she missed most about working was having people to talk with. Listening to who wanted a cookie and who had to go to the potty got pretty tedious by the end of the day.
She was hurt, and she was angry. But I work hard too. All I want is a few minutes of adult conversation. Most focus on the listener. Husbands are notoriously unsympathetic listeners. His lack of listening was his doing. According to Greg, it was frustrating to talk with Ellen about the kids.
But she encourages it! And the thing that really bothers me is the way she always sides with the younger one. Everything Terri does is cute; everything Cody does is wrong. And yet Greg manages neither to listen nor to get his point of view across. If he could separate listening from advising, perhaps Ellen would get some sympathy for her feelings, and then he might be able to communicate his perspective more effectively.
The truth is, listening is a complex process. Several years ago a young couple came to me complaining of difficulties in communicating. Restraining my urge to react to this nasty crack, I asked him to explain. The man was a lawyer, working as a campaign advisor in a guber-. His days were filled with strategy sessions, speechwriting conferences, meetings with the candidate, television interviews, arranging appearances across the state, defending attacks from the opposition, and planning counterattacks. When he came home at night, his head spinning from the excitement and frustration of the crusade, he mumbled a greeting to his wife and collapsed onto the couch with a drink and the newspaper.
She was a graphic design artist and not at all, he contended, concerned about politics. She protested that although she might not know a lot about politics, she was interested in him and what he was doing. I asked him to think of someone who he knew was interested in the campaign, someone with whom he could talk enthusiastically. Imagine, I told him, how different you are with that person.
He allowed as that might be true. Then I asked him—just for an experiment—to come home for one week and pretend that his wife was that interested person, the person he found it so exciting to talk to. He agreed to try it. The next week they returned beaming. Are men emotionally illiterate? Such stereotyping ignores the interactive nature of communication and the powerful role of expectations. But it was his approaching her with enthusiasm, taking interest in talking to her, that broke the pattern of avoidance.
The truth is that we become more interesting when we assume interest on the part of our listeners. They may be preoccupied with the angry things someone said or with all the extra. Usually, both parties to misunderstanding feel that way. But it may be helpful to realize that between speaker and listener are two filters to meaning.
Good communication means having the impact you meant to have— that is, intent equals impact. Some of the reasons for misunderstanding are simple and can be improved, like learning a skill. For example, by giving feedback, listeners tell speakers about the impact of their messages and give them a chance to clarify their intentions. But many reasons for misunderstanding are less straightforward and not amenable to simple formulas for improvement. Chris grew up with a jealous and competitive older sister who was always proving him wrong.
She challenged almost everything he said. According to Julia, Walter was overly sensitive. While he admitted that there might be some truth to that, he insisted that she was a critical and controlling person. The burden of being cast in the role of a controlling mother is familiar to many women. What to do? This is a tough one. Having waited so long made it hard to keep the annoyance out of her voice. Another solution is to borrow a technique from Harry Stack Sullivan, founder of the interpersonal school of psychoanalysis.
Sullivan was famous for being able to work with severely disturbed patients, many of whom had paranoid delusions perhaps the most extreme form of projection. But maybe it also has to do with what the speaker needs from the listener at that moment. Thus, for example, a woman chatting about a program she saw on TV may not impose any particular needs on the person listening to her. On the other hand, if the same woman has just been in an auto accident, she may project onto the listener her need for an empathic selfobject experience.
The woman who expects men to talk only about themselves may inquire more than she discloses, thereby confirming her expectations. Dorothy suggested to her brother that they should ask their mother what kind of funeral arrangements she wanted for their father. I have things to do here and people are counting on me. This play of ideas in the guise of a political thriller takes place in a country that might be Chile in the immediate aftermath of a corrupt dictatorship.
The setting is a beach house on the night that the lawyer, Gerardo Richard Dreyfuss , is asked to investigate political crimes of the recent past, including the rape of his wife, Paulina Glenn Close.
When Roberto Miranda Gene Hackman gives her husband a lift home after his tire blows out, she recognizes his voice as that of the doctor who raped her. Paulina gets a gun and ties the doctor to a chair. How could she recognize the man who raped her from just his voice? She assures him that she could never forget that voice. The ending is ambiguous. She knew how the woman felt. When I finally got around to reading the play, I responded the same way my patient did. Oh, I heard what she said all right, but I was too eager to teach her a lesson about listening to really understand what she was saying—that the play was upsetting and reminded her of her own situation.
Failures of listening often take that form. Remember Roger, whose friend Derek grew distant after he got married? She was always unhappy about something, and he always felt that she expected him to do something about it. Therefore, because he felt threatened by her.
It is now 10 years later, and I was severly depressed for many years. We ordinarily accommodate our talking and listening to the context without thinking about it. John Kotter , Harvard professor, author and consultant:. Respond by making the best choices you can in the present. In addition, look for opportunities to improve through more training and consider taking on responsibilities that stretch you. I used to train actors. Allow people to complain without arguing with them?
In fact, when Janice really did want Wayne to do something she would make that perfectly clear. He could sense her vulnerability and he felt good about being able to listen and comfort her. Too bad it took a crisis to make clear what had always been the case. We open ourselves selectively and, like any creature with a soft underbelly, retreat from unfriendly encounters. When the pressure of emotion makes us open ourselves to someone we think we can trust, failed understanding can be as bruising as a mugging.
When his son told him he was dropping out of college, Seth did his best to hide his disappointment. Still, he was upset and needed someone to talk to. Hoping that his brother would understand, Seth gave him a call. After a few minutes Seth told his brother that Justin had dropped out of school and that he was very discouraged about it. There was a pause, and then his brother went on to talk about something else. Seth was stunned. How could his brother be so unsympathetic?
With great. The expectations with which we approach others are, as we shall see, just one of many ways we create the listening we get. Conversation can, of course, be reduced to a behavioral analysis, but only by trivializing the feelings of the people involved. Dialogue takes place between two people with not just ears and tongues but hearts and minds—and all the famous complications therein. It means being open to listening and discovering.
Emotional Reactivity As I mentioned in the Introduction, we all have certain ways of reacting emotionally within particular relationships. Then there are those touchy subjects that can almost be counted on to set off an explosion. To have a constructive discussion about any of these, where both people really listen, requires special effort. You might have to watch not only what you say and how you say it but also where, when, and why. This is not to imply that we need to spend our lives tiptoeing around each other. What it does mean is that we may need to step back and calm down, being aware of what sets us off and what sets off those we want to communicate with, if we are to get through to each other.
The problem is linear thinking. We reduce human interactions to a matter of personalities. You change patterns of relating by changing yourself in relation to them. Personality is dynamic, not fixed. The dynamic personality position posits that it is possible for people to change; all we have to do is change our responses to each other. We are not victims—we are participants, in a real way, and the consequences of our participation are profound. To participate effectively, you have to know something about the rules of the game. I remember how confused I was the first time I saw a lacrosse game.
From where I sat it looked as if some kids were standing around while the rest raced up and down the field, using their sticks to pass the ball back and forth, club each other, or both. I got the gist of it—it was like soccer played by Road Warriors—but a lot of it was hard to follow. Why, for instance, did the team that lost the ball out of bounds sometimes get it back and sometimes not?
And why sometimes when one kid whacked another with his stick did everybody cheer, while at other times the referee called a foul? The same disadvantages—not seeing the whole field and not knowing the rules of the game—keep us from understanding our successes and failures at communicating with one another. Even a brief consideration of these elements in the listening process reveals more reasons for misunderstanding than simply bad faith on the part of the listener. If they offered you something, you politely declined.
Only if they insisted was it okay to accept. A really good boy waited until a glass of water was offered at least twice before accepting. But somehow he minded. Maybe he wanted his daughter to remain more a part of the family and less an independent person with friends of her own. Because indirectness leads to so much misunderstanding, it does more harm than good. When his wife argues with what he says instead of what he means, he feels rejected.
Like every listener, he measured the intentions of other speakers by what they said—or what he heard—and asked that they measure him by what he meant to say. Similar impasses occur when we insist we said one thing and our listener heard another. Knowing the other person can make it easier to decode implicit messages; speculating about his or her motives can make it harder. According to Gregory Bateson, one of the founders of family therapy, all communications have two levels of meaning: report and command.
There are times, however, when the most effective statement of what you want is less than completely candid. The second or command level which Bateson called metacommunication conveys information about how the report is to be taken and a statement of the nature of the relationship. She means the message. In attempting to define the nature of our relationships we qualify our messages by posture, facial expression, and tone of voice. The whole impact of a statement may change depending on which words are emphasized.
Although we may not need the ponderous term metacommunication, misunderstandings about how messages should be taken is a major reason for problems in listening. One winter when I was working hard and feeling sorry for myself, I wrote to a sympathetic friend and said jokingly that I was running away to spend two weeks on the white beaches of a deserted Caribbean island.
We know what we mean; problems arise when we expect others to. How is our communication to be taken? Is it chat? A confession? An outpouring of emotion? A woman told her husband that something her boss said made her afraid she might be in for trouble at work. He was hurt because he was listening. Maybe a friend would have realized that she needed to have her feelings acknowledged, not disagreed with. He later sends another message with a specific question, and she replies with an answer to the question.
Usually, however, the most important implicit message in what people say is the feeling behind the content. Much misunder-. We ordinarily accommodate our talking and listening to the context without thinking about it. By contrast, even though her husband usually retreats behind the paper at the end of the day, a wife may succeed in getting his attention by signaling her need for it.
He likes to talk when he comes home at the end of the day. Fishing for understanding at the wrong time is like trying to catch a trout in the noonday sun. When to talk: not when your partner needs some space or time to be alone. That timing affects the listening we get may be painfully obvious; unfortunately, when needs collide, the resulting failures of understanding are obviously painful.
The end of the day can be especially difficult. Partners may be frazzled. The unhappy irony is that the domestic conversation people are too tired to engage in might provide just the emotional refueling they need. Talking and listening reinvigorate us. If we take listening for granted, we may assume that the people we care about will listen to us whenever we feel like talking. You have to find the right time to approach people. Setting has an obvious effect on listening—in terms of privacy and noise level, for example—and an equally powerful effect in terms of conditioned cues.
Other familiar settings, like your own kitchen or bedroom, may be anything but conducive to conversation. Memories of misunderstanding and distraction cling to some places like the smell of wet dog. Conversation in various settings is governed by unwritten rules, some of which are obvious to most people. At cocktail parties, for example, where conversational subgroups constantly shift, conversations may be warm, candid, even intimate, but they are also brief which may explain the warmth and candor.
Thus, talking loudly in a cathedral, on a train, or at the movies is frowned on. Some people like to talk on the telephone, for example.
Why, I have no idea. Some people like to talk when they go for a ride in the car; others prefer to read or look out the window. And, of course, we may be in the mood for conversation in a particular setting at one time and not another. People who get annoyed at those who talk in the movies forget that the advent of DVD rentals has blurred the distinction between movie theater and living room. They also fail to consider situational priorities that might make theater conversation understandable.
Yes, even people who talk in the movies deserve consideration, and so they should be shot as painlessly as possible. Many of these preferences are sufficiently obvious that we adjust to them automatically. We know not to call certain people at home in the evening, and we learn the most promising times and places to get the listening we need.
We blame others for not hearing us, or we feel put upon by their lack of consideration in imposing on us at the wrong time. Whenever conversation takes place in the presence of others, some aspects of listening are accentuated while others are suppressed. If a couple goes out to dinner and the man talks about problems at work, the woman will probably listen more intently than she does at home because the setting suggests intimacy.
Togetherness is a hedge against intimacy as well as loneliness. Most of us have had the disconcerting experience of talking to someone who seems to be interested until someone else appears. Sometimes this is unavoidable. Third parties are to intimate conversation what rain is to picnics. Sometimes the effect of third parties works the other way. I remember once when I was being interviewed on a morning television show how the host, an attractive woman in her early forties, was.
She sat very close, kept her eyes on mine, and asked all the right questions. Here was this radiant woman, totally engrossed in what I had to say. It was very flattering. Then a commercial break came up, and the light in her face went out like the light on the camera.
I ceased to exist.
Her pretense, in the face of a whole audience of third parties and my susceptibility , was disconcerting; but after all, it was her job to show interest. You ask about their vacation and they tell you about packing the car, getting lost on the way, and all the various wrong turns. They tell you about the weather and who said what and where they ate lunch and what they had for dinner, and they keep telling you until something other than tact stops them. Others may not talk at all about themselves but instead go on at great windy length about everyone else, all those inconsiderate others who are such problems in their lives.
Some people who talk too much are like that with everybody, but often, whether we appreciate it or not, some of them talk at such length with us because they talk so little with anyone else. Who other than his wife does the man with no friends talk to? Who other than the friend who seems to have her life together does the overburdened wife talk to? Some people need our attention, but if the conversation is consistently one-sided, maybe part of the reason is that we respond too passively. My father has a way of packing what feels like a whole lot of belittling into one little innocent statement that drives me crazy.
An argument, you can argue with. One consequence of these interchanges is that I have become stubborn in my opinions. Like the fact that Lake Champlain is one of the five Great Lakes. Listening is codetermined. Some people are hard to listen to because they say so little, or at least little of a personal nature. If the urge to voice true feelings to sympathetic ears is such a basic human motive, why are so many people numb and silent? These things are hard on the heart. We come to relationships wounded. Expecting to be taken seriously, we get argued with or ignored.
Needing to share our feelings, we run into criticism or unwanted advice. Opening up and getting no response, or worse, humiliation, is like walking into a wall in the dark. If this happens often enough, we shut down and erect our own walls. Therapists who encounter resistance to speaking freely engage in what is called defense analysis—pointing out to the patient that he is holding back, how he is holding back perhaps by talking about trivia , and speculating about what might be on his mind and why he might hesitate to bring it up.
We shape our relationships by our response. That you can tolerate disagreement? Openness is a product of interaction. Men Are from Mars? As the old complementarity gives way to a new symmetry, conflict seems to be the price for equality. Several books in recent years gained enormous popularity by telling us that men and women communicate differently and then explaining what those differences are.
But perhaps the most important thing is not so much learning how to react to these other, alien creatures, but learning not to overreact and learning instead to listen. After years of effort to break down these separate but unequal categories, a new wave of feminist scholars reasserted what they once fought: gender differences. Jean Baker Miller emphasized responsiveness and mutuality as especially important to women in relationships,5 and Carol Gilligan argued that for women the qualities of care and connection are fundamental to selfhood, organizers of identity, and moral development.
Thus far the greatest impact of the new work by feminist psychologists 5. In her book, The Reproduction of Mothering, Nancy Chodorow pointed out that because boys and girls are parented primarily by mothers, they grow up with different orientations to attachment and independence.
In the wake of Nancy Chodorow and Carol Gilligan, the idea of inherent gender differences has come to define the discourse on men and women to such an extent that many writers now take for granted that women are fundamentally different from men in ways that make them better at listening.
Men do this; women do that. End of discussion. This new wave of sexual typecasting is reflected in the popular reception of books that reduce every nuance, every polarity of conversation between men and women to one gender distinction: men seek power; women seek relationship. Sadly, a lot of people now take this for granted. Perhaps the best way to begin making a difference in the quality of listening between men and women is to unmake a difference. Or do these polarities reflect the ways our culture has—thus far—shaped the universal yearning to be appreciated?
Might caring, for example, which has been represented as a gender difference, be more adequately under7.
Perhaps some women and some men are caring because of a need to please, which stems from a lack of a sense of personal power. Thus the same woman who appeals to the need for caring in debates with her husband may emphasize rules in arguments with her children. Perhaps rather than our apologizing for or celebrating gender differences, it might be more useful for us to talk with each other, instead of about each other, and to move toward partnership, not polarization. Perhaps if we started listening to one another we could move toward greater balance, in ourselves and our relationships.
Perhaps women raised to believe that happiness is to be found in selfless service to others could learn more respect for their own strivings and capacity for independent achievement. Perhaps men who seek identity only in achievement could learn greater respect for the neglected dimensions of caring and concern. In the process of relaxing rigid definitions of what it means to be a man or a woman, perhaps fathers might learn to lower the walls they build around themselves and reduce the gulf across which they relate to others and guard their masculinity.
Similarly, we might begin to see that girls can identify with their fathers as well as their mothers and feel entitled to be independent persons with their own agendas. Maybe God invented the idea of two parents so that children could draw on the best of both of them. A fuller appreciation of the dynamics of listening makes it a little easier for us to begin hearing each other. Is it necessary to dissect every. Of course not. Quiz To help you become more aware of your own listening habits, complete the following questionnaire. Answer the questions honestly, and because we listen differently to different people, think of a specific person you have a relationship with when you answer these questions.
You might want to do this twice, once with a family member in mind and once with a coworker or friend in mind. Think about what you want to say while others are talking? Acknowledge what the speaker says before offering your own point of view? Jump in before the other person has finished speaking?
Allow people to complain without arguing with them? Concentrate on figuring out what other people are trying to say, not just respond to the words they use? Share similar experiences of your own rather than inviting the speaker to elaborate on his or her experience? Get other people to tell you a lot about themselves? Assume you know what someone is going to say before he or she is finished?
Restate messages or instructions to make sure you understood correctly? Make a concerted effort to focus on the speaker and understand what he or she is trying to say? Tune out when someone starts to ramble on, rather than trying to get involved and make the conversation more interesting? Accept criticism without getting defensive? Think of listening as instinctive, rather than as a skill that requires making an effort?
Make an active effort to get other people to say what they think and feel about things? Respect what other people have to say? Feel that listening to other people complain is annoying? Make distracting comments when other people are talking? Think other people consider you to be a good listener? Tell people you know how they feel? If you got a high score on this questionnaire, congratulations. Just this will go a long way. During the next few days, pick out a couple of relationships that are important to you and try to identify two or three things that get in the way of your listening.
Once you identify two or three of your own bad listening habits, practice eliminating one of those impediments for a week, but only in conversations that you decide are important to you. Forty years ago I took my first course in how to be a good listener. I was in graduate school, and the course was called Elementary Clinical Methods. Maybe I expected to see an axe murderer or perhaps a scene out of The Snake Pit. In those days before the widespread use of tranquilizers, some of the back wards were snake pits.
But in the ward for new admissions, where they sent us, the patients were mostly just very unhappy people. She looked disheveled and lonely, and I felt sorry for her. She answered my questions, but the interview never really This troubling experience illustrates the most vital and difficult requirement for listening. Genuine listening demands taking an interest in the speaker and what he or she has to say.
Taking an interest can easily be sentimentalized by equating it with sincerity or caring. To take an interest in someone else, we must suspend the interests of the self. Listening is the art by which we use empathy to reach across the space between us. To listen well, you must hold back what you have to say and control the urge to interrupt or argue. Marilyn knew a lot about exercise and stretching and always seemed to have interesting things to say.
One rainy morning, Marilyn came late and said that her basement had leaked and she had had to make an appointment with a handyman. Kiana was just about to say that she, too, had problems with leaks, but she held back her urge to talk about her own concerns to make sure Marilyn had finished. Marilyn went from talking about her leaky basement to talking about problems she was having with her kids. After their workout, Marilyn asked if Kiana and her husband would like to get together for dinner.
James was talking to Harry after work about starting to feel burned out. Very early on they felt different from others, as though they were delivered to the wrong planet. Non-Resourceful State: When FOURS are under stress, they do more of the same, that is, they exaggerate their moods, feel more misunderstood and hurt, and become aristocrats in exile. They turn their anger on themselves and get more depressed. FOURS get stuck in their feelings instead of letting them energize them into constructive action.
Denying their own needs and helping others instead of dealing with their own pain, they become suffering servants. They get connected to their real feelings vs abandoning themselves then looking for fulfillment from someone else. They stay in the present and realize that right now they have all they need to be perfectly happy. They re-own their goodness. They maintain their equanimity. They believe they are already original, connected, and belong. They understand they are home and already have what they are looking for. I am and so I am both unique and universal replaces I am special therefore I am somebody.
They want to understand the world and make it a more reasonable place to live in. Having insights, learning about the nature of things, and seeing how everything fits together is what life is all about. Adaptive Cognitive Schema: The objective vision that keeps FIVES aligned with their true nature and with reality is the realization that real understanding and wisdom come from experience, participation, being involved with people and the world. And being known, seen, and revealed transparent is just as vital as knowing, seeing, and revealing.
The energy of life flows freely into and out of the self. The detached person takes in just what is needed and lets the rest go. The world is engaged and joined for the mutual enrichment of both world and self. Adaptive Behavioral Schemas : The combination of an appreciation of wisdom as involvement and interaction along with the state of non-attachment lead to the ability to both detach and be observant and synthetically get the whole picture as well as analytically getting to the heart or essence of the matter.
FIVES inner observer or fair witness is well developed allowing them dispassionately and objectively to consider situations and events. They can put together disparate pieces of information into a unified system and distill complex situations into concise insights and pithy statements. FIVES can move ideas and images around in their head facilely. They can communicate clearly and succinctly. They are comfortable with solitude. They move away from involvement and up into their heads.
FIVES are overly sensitive and may exaggerate or misperceive intrusions, demands, being engulfed and taken over. Maladaptive Emotional Schema: As a consequence of moving away from the world and attempting to live solely from their own resources, FIVES experience the passion of avarice. They are greedy for knowledge and information to keep them safe and unassailable and are stingy with their ideas, feelings, time energy, etc.
Operating from a scarcity mentality, FIVES hold on to what they have and withhold from others lest what they have be taken away from them. Maladaptive Behavioral Schema: Perceiving the world as depriving and intrusive, and feeling greedy and avaricious about this uncaring state of affairs, FIVES are inclined to move away from the world, retreating into the sanctuary and privacy of their minds. They tend to be loners who view life from the sidelines. They need to understand something completely before they make a decision and act. It is difficult for FIVES to move against people and confront them to protect their space and ask for what they want.
FIVES are afraid of and avoid their feelings and go instead to their ideas. Knowing the guidelines, the rules of the game, what is expected and allowed helps them enter the game. To avoid feeling empty or drained, FIVES isolate themselves in their heads away from the intrusions of their feelings and other people. They separate or compartmentalize their thoughts from their feelings. They also separate one time or period of their life from another. Childhood Development: FIVES may have experienced their parenting figures as being either too intrusive or too aloof and depriving.
As a result they withdrew and began to do everything alone. By distancing and dissociating themselves from what was going on around them, they felt safer. The intellectual world became more controllable and secure than the world of feelings and the interpersonal world. They feel inadequate and unable to influence the situation and so withdraw. They become contemptuous of others instead of reaching out to them. They fear pain and avoid it. They rationalize or trivialize to avoid being assertive. They get into planning instead of doing.
They distract themselves or space out instead of focusing, deciding and acting. They insert themselves in the situation, believing they can change it. They move towards and against others as well as away from them. They make contact and get engaged and learn through experience vs vicariously. They set boundaries for themselves directly rather than by withdrawing. They desire to be faithful, conscientious, responsible persons, keeping their word and honoring their commitments. They want to make the world a safer, more secure, more reliable, trustworthy place to live in.
Doing your duty and honoring your traditions is what life is all about. When SIXES believe in themselves and in their inner authority, they have the certitude that they are already on the side of Being. The Force is with them. They believe the universe is ultimately trustworthy and is out to do them well, not to do them in. Courage and commitment are naturally present.
Any organism spontaneously responds to protect itself and what it values. Adaptive Behavioral Schemas : Faith and courage lead to being semper fidelis and semper paratus, always faithful and always prepared. SIXES actively scan their surroundings for what might go wrong. They have an intuitive sense for danger and so are rarely caught off guard. SIXES respond well in emergencies because they are usually prepared for them. When crises arise, they respond spontaneously and effectively.
Since SIXES are conscientious, responsible, and value doing their duty, they make excellent stabilizers and maintainers in organizations and systems. They can be trusted to be reliable leaders and faithful followers. Because they keep their word, SIXES manifest a stick-to-it-ness and their commitments can be counted on.
To compensate for a set of maladaptive beliefs that they are not strong or faithful enough, that they may be cast out of their group, that they are likely to be harmed, they become overly suspicious and circumspect, doubting their own orthodoxy and ability to protect themselves and doubting the good intentions of others. The world is seen as a dangerous place that needs to be monitored, guarded against, and restrained. Mistrusting their own common sense and inner authority, they fear they may not be up to the task or challenge, and may let others and especially authority down.
They fear the judgments and actions of authorities. Maladaptive Behavioral Schema: Perennially perceiving the world as threatening and dangerous, and feeling fearful most of the time, SIXES adopt either a phobic or counterphobic stance. From a fearful reactionary place, they let their worries inhibit them, doubting their decisions and delaying their actions. From a counter-fearful position, they impulsively push through their fears, often recklessly pursuing, attacking, or acting out the very thing they are afraid of. SIXES avoid ambiguous ideas, positions, relationships, and situations.
They want things clear and want to know where other people really stand on issues. They can be dogmatic, fanatic, vigilantes, brave and daring to compensate for feeling phobic. SIXES may avoid making their own judgments and decisions without the confirmation of someone else. Defensive Maneuvers: SIXES ward off unacceptable impulses and behaviors by projecting them onto others, thereby keeping them away from their sense of self.
Instead of acknowledging their own anger at having their inner authority encroached or disrespected, SIXES project their anger onto others and then experience the world as hostile and threatening. They give away their authority and then either fearfully go along with what they are told or challenge any external authority in a reactionary manner. SIXES may either become defenders of the faith or conscientious objectors. They may have been abusive, authoritarian, absent, overly protective, or inconsistent. SIXES learned the world was dangerous and unreliable.
They developed a wary ambivalent attitude toward authority figures. Either they wanted to get authority on their side to protect them or they needed to oppose authority to protect themselves. They might become more dogmatic and orthodox to resolve their doubts. Or they might become more suspicious of others and be more rebellious against any form of authority. They take on more projects, get busy and run around instead of dealing with their inner fears.
They may assume a role or identify within some group to feel more secure, becoming devoted followers or loyal middle managers. They trust their instincts and have faith in themselves. They accept the responsibility for their own choices and act on them courageously. They believe they can take care of themselves in an emergency. They believe the world is on their side vs against them. They make molehills out of mountains instead of vice versa, realizing they tend to imagine the worst, blow things out of proportion, and see danger and evil intentions where there are only inconveniences and inadvertences.
They find truth in all sides of an issue vs polarizing issues into who is on their side and who is against them. They desire to be happy persons, seeking to make the world a more delightful place to live in. Having fun and being positive is what life is all about. Adaptive Cognitive Schema: The objective vision that keeps SEVENS aligned with their true nature and with reality is the realization that reality exists only in the here and now and reality unfolds through action and work in the present.
Perspiration is as important as inspiration. Sobriety means living a balanced life in the present moment. The sober person takes in only as much as is needed and expends only as much energy as is called for. Fulfillment comes from living a temperate reasonable life-style. Happiness is the result of living and working in the present. Adaptive Behavioral Schemas : Persistent work in the present and bringing projects to completion are behaviors that flow from responsible action and the virtue of sobriety.
Able to find some good in everything, they have a childlike responsiveness to the world. Optimistic, vivacious, creative, and full of interesting ideas, they have an intuition for future possibilities and are great visionaries. They have a sense for what might go right, what will be a happy outcome. To compensate for a maladaptive belief that their options are limited and they are on the verge of being bored or depressed, they overindulge the pleasure principle, seeking to maximize enjoyment and minimize pain.
They dislike having their options limited by the reality principle that says they must accommodate to what is and occasionally do what they have to do vs only doing what they want to do. They become compulsively optimistic, seeing the world through rose-colored glasses. They become addicted to highs and only want to have good experiences. Maladaptive Emotional Schema: By believing they must stay above and ahead of pain, SEVENS experience the passion of gluttony , if a little pleasure is good, more enjoyment is better. SEVENS develop a hedonistic approach to life seeking to spice up their life by having ever more interesting and exciting experiences.
They opt for a fun-filled if not a fulfilled life. They overindulge their imaginations, coming up with fantastic schemes and plans. They keep proposing new options and possibilities. They find it difficult to stay with one project or relationship for a long period of time. They may flit from one interest to another, filling their lives with fluff.
They get nervous when they only have one thing to attend to or only have one option available. They avoid getting too heavy or serious. They look for the silver lining in dark clouds and make sure everything comes up roses. Even death becomes an interesting trip. Childhood Development: SEVENS learned that a little sugar helps the medicine go down and honey gets you what you need faster than lemon can. A cheerful pleasant disposition pleased their parents and got them approval. Entertaining others and being the life of the party brought its social rewards.
SEVENS may not have experienced much pain or humiliation in their childhood, or if they did, they laughed at their hurt instead of being brought down by it. They found that people were more interested in their stories than in their pain so they became master storytellers. They get further into fantasy and farther from doing.
They may try to avoid work more, distract themselves, and attempt to lighten things up. They put their creative bursts and inspirations into a system and structure. They stay with a project or interest, going deeply into it, until they really understand and savor the experience instead of being a dilettante. Now able to be still and observant, they appreciate silence and solitude.
Practicing detachment and sobriety, they stay in the present taking in only as much as they need and expending only as much energy as the situation requires. Autism Speaks. Retrieved 15 January Simon G. Young children: Prenatal through middle childhood. Retrieved 28 April Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, tsbvi. Retrieved 3 September Birth-to-five development timeline.
Last accessed Child Development Overview. Access date: March 31, Evaluation of early walking patterns from plantar pressure distribution measurements. First year results of 42 children. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Hetherington Ed. Socialization, personality, and social development 4th ed.
Oxon: Hodder Education. Frankel, J. A practical guide to child observation and assessment. Cross, W. London: Continuum. Wishing Clover. Developmental psychobiology. Development of the human body. Development Embryo Fetus Gestational age. Minor Age of majority. Attachment theory. Affectional bond Attachment in adults Attachment in children Attachment disorder Attachment and Health Attachment measures Attachment theory Fathers as attachment figures Human bonding Maternal deprivation Object relations theory Reactive attachment disorder.
Mary Ainsworth William E. Attachment parenting Attachment therapy Candace Newmaker. Attachment-based therapy children Attachment-based psychotherapy. History of attachment theory.