Month: May 2014

Funny and Wise: Senator Alan Simpson on Marriage

The retired Republican senator, 82, has been married nearly 60 years. | Getty

The retired Republican senator, 82, has been married nearly 60 years. | Getty

Long-retired Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson no longer has to guard his speech, and when WNYC’s Anna Sale interviewed him, he told some great stories about his long marriage and getting along. Politico has a story about the story, minus the actual interview:

On a partner who makes you better: “I got arrested one night, got in a fist fight, got in a fight with a cop, slugged the cop. Ended up in jail, called her. I said I need $300 bail. She said, are you kidding? I’m working my way through school, I don’t have $300 bucks bail. Maybe you oughta just stay there — and I thought Jesus, you know, it would be good if I linked up with her. She could be a helpful ally in this continuing battle for maturity.”

On being hesitant to do couples therapy with his wife, led by their minister: “I said, ‘That dipshit is here? I’m not going to come out. To hell with it, I’m not going to it.’ And Ann said, ‘I’ve done a lot of junk for you pal, so you can do one for me.’ That was a really a true statement…and so I went.”

On making it work: “It’s called sorting crap, but you have to take risks.”

Babies Have an Innate Moral Sense

JustBabiesCover

In Bad Boyfriends, I discuss how babies are born with brains hardwired to sense delicate changes in the emotional states of their mothers and others by subtle cues in facial expression, voice, and interaction. Recent experiments seem to show that even one year olds have a sense of fairness and justice, and a desire to help others, before they have been exposed to any significant training. This should not be a great surprise since much of the development of the brain in humans supports social senses — facial recognition, understanding of the internal emotional states of others, and communication. Those who were better wired to do well as tribal members had more offspring, and so these traits became the norm.

Sam Harris has an interesting interview with Dr. Paul Bloom of Yale, who wrote a book discussing these experiments and the innate moral sense of babies and how it is further developed: Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil.

More on education and child development :

Student Loan Debt: Problems in Divorce
Early Child Development: The High Cost of Abuse and Neglect
Child Welfare Ideas: Every Child Gets a Government Guardian!
Tuitions Inflated, Product Degraded, Student Debts Unsustainable
Free Range Kids vs Paranoid Child Welfare Authorities
“Crying It Out” – Parental Malpractice!
Brazilian For-Profit Universities Bring Quality With Quantity
The Affordable, Effective University: Indiana and Mitch Daniels
Real-Life “Hunger Games”: Soft Oppression Destroys the Poor
“Attachment Parenting” – Good Idea Taken Too Far?
Real Self-Esteem: Trophies for Everyone?
Public Schools in Poor Districts: For Control Not Education
YA Dystopias vs Heinlein et al: Social Justice Warriors Strike Again
Steven Pinker on Harvard and Meritocracy
Social Justice Warriors, Jihadists, and Neo-Nazis: Constructed Identities

Attachment Type Combinations in Relationships

I did nCarlAndEllie

While I discuss how the different attachment types fare in relationships with each other in my book (Bad Boyfriends: Using Attachment Theory to Avoid Mr. (or Ms.) Wrong), I didn’t go into great detail, mostly because the book is directed at those looking to get into a relationship, not those trying to deal with one they already have. But I see there is great interest in using attachment theory and types to try to guide difficult relationships to a more secure and satisfying pattern, so here’s my (sometimes speculative) take on each combination type:

Secure with Secure:

These couples may well have other problems (addiction, differences over money and spending, fairy-tale expectations), but on the whole since they are both Secure, they tend to communicate well and don’t end up in the dysfunctional communication patterns as often. Having their own internal sense of security makes them less self-centered, and allows greater empathy for their partner’s feelings. A sense of reasonableness and fairness makes every issue they face a bit easier to face together, and counting on each other is more often rewarded.

Love Songs of the Secure Attachment Type

Anxious-Preoccupied with Secure:

The Preoccupied one will test the patience of the Secure one by requiring more messages of reassurance and edging toward anxiety when the Secure one can’t respond quickly or reassuringly. This will tend to drive the Secure one toward a more Dismissive attachment style in interactions–despite possessing internal security, the excessive demands of the Preoccupied would make anyone less patient. If this problem is not too severe, the Secure partner can bring the Preoccupied partner further toward security by constant patient reassurance, even when the Preoccupied one is being unreasonable.

The Secure partner will sometimes feel alone in carrying most of the responsibility for the relationship’s emotional stability. In crisis, the Preoccupied will revert to anxiety and self-centeredness, and that will feel to the Secure like partner flakeout. If the relationship does well and the Preoccupied grow more secure in time, this problem will ease.

More on this couple type: Anxious-Preoccupied: Clingy and Insecure Relationship Example, Type: Anxious-Preoccupied, Type: Secure

Dismissive-Avoidant with Secure:

The Dismissive will tend to drive the Secure partner toward attachment anxiety by failing to respond well or at all to reasonable messages requesting reassurance. As with the Preoccupied, an extremely secure partner can gradually change the insecure partner toward more security, but at great cost in patience and effort. If the Dismissive recognizes the problem and takes some responsibility for trying to respond positively even when he doesn’t really feel like it, this can gradually reorient the Dismissive partner toward more satisfying couples communication. If this does not happen, a Secure is more likely to give up on the relationship and move on, since unlike the Preoccupied who often stick with bad relationships, the Secure partner knows someone better is out there and is not too afraid to give up on a losing relationship.

Fearful-Avoidant with Secure:

This has some similarities with the Dismissive-Secure pairing, but the lower self-esteem of the Fearful-Avoidant makes it more likely he or she will be the one to exit the relationship when it becomes intimate and routine, since the closer they get to a real person the more afraid they are of loss, and apparently rationalizing their exit as due to their partner’s flaws is less painful than they subconsciously imagine being rejected by their partner would be.

More on this pairing: Serial Monogamy: the Fearful-Avoidant Do It Faster

Dismissive-Avoidant with Anxious-Preoccupied:

This is a classic long-lasting but dysfunctional pairing. The two types (one under-valuing attachment and one over-valuing attachment) create an interlocking dependency full of stress and anxiety for both. Because the Dismissive may actually prefer having his/her view of others as needy and clingy confirmed, and by the sense of controlling the relationship by doling out just enough responsiveness to keep the Preoccupied partner off-balance but on the hook, the Dismissive may settle in for the long haul, while the Preoccupied partner is unhappy with settling for crumbs but sticks around out of fear of being alone, afraid of never finding another relationship.

This is one of the most common (second only to Secure-Secure) long-lasting relationship types. More on this couple type: Anxious-Preoccupied / Dismissive-Avoidant Couples: the Silent Treatment, Anxious-Preoccupied: Stuck on the Dismissive?

Fearful-Avoidant with Anxious-Preoccupied:

Somewhat like the Dismissive-Preoccupied pairing, but less stable; the avoidant partner will be less comfortable with the constant requests for reassurance from the Preoccupied partner and will be less likely to tolerate a long relationship spent fending off intimacy. If the avoidant partner allows real closeness to develop, that triggers his or her anxiety; if they stay at a distance, the Preoccupied partner will be unhappy and increase the level of requests.

Anxious-Preoccupied with Anxious-Preoccupied:

A match that usually ends badly and quickly as neither partner is good at anticipating the needs of the other. It’s not impossible that two mildly Preoccupied individuals will bond and learn to satisfy each other’s security needs, but it is rare.

Fearful-Avoidant with Dismissive-Avoidant:

Uncommon, since neither avoidant type is very good at positive attachment. While one might think both types would prefer to be with more distancing partners, the Fearful-Avoidant is not comfortable without intimacy and would find the Dismissive’s lack of positive messaging as anxiety-inducing as the other types. Meanwhile, the Dismissive partner doesn’t get as much ego-boosting attention as he or she would from another type, and so this combination is less likely to even get started.

Dismissive-Avoidant with Dismissive-Avoidant:

…and even more so for this very rare combination. Without a partner willing to do some of the communications work, this couple type rarely even gets started, and the “why bother?” from both of them tends to end it quickly under even minor stresses.

Fearful-Avoidant with Fearful-Avoidant:

Even more rare since the fearful-avoidant type is uncommon. These two will find it tough to reach stable orbits around each other. But since they both feel a real need for intimacy even if they are skittish when it actually happens, there’s a chance they can make it work. They are more likely to succeed if aware of each other’s insecurities.


[Note: if you arrived here looking for insight into a dismissive or fearful-avoidant spouse or lover, I’ve just published a book on the topic: Avoidant: How to Love (or Leave) a Dismissive Partner.]


More on Attachment and Personality Types:

What Attachment Type Are You?
Type: Secure
Type: Anxious-Preoccupied
Type: Dismissive-Avoidant
Type: Fearful-Avoidant (aka Anxious-Avoidant)
Avoidant: Emotions Repressed Beneath Conscious Level
Serial Monogamy: the Fearful-Avoidant Do It Faster
Anxious-Preoccupied: Stuck on the Dismissive?
Anxious-Preoccupied / Dismissive-Avoidant Couples: the Silent Treatment
nxious-Preoccupied: Clingy and Insecure Relationship Example
Domestic Violence: Ray and Janay Rice
Malignant Narcissists
Teaching Narcissists to Activate Empathy
Histrionic Personality: Seductive, Dramatic, Theatrical
Life Is Unfair! The Great Chain of Dysfunction Ends With You.
Love Songs of the Secure Attachment Type
On Addiction and the Urge to Rescue
Sale! Sale! Sale! – “Bad Boyfriends” for Kindle, $2.99
Controlling Your Inner Critic: Subpersonalities
“Big Bang Theory” — Aspergers and Emotional/Social Intelligence
Porn Addiction and NoFAP
Introverts in Management

Game of Thrones and the Problem of Power

game-of-thrones-season-4

[HT to friend Frank Yellin for pointing this out.]

Rolling Stone has a long interview with George R. R. Martin, writer of the Game of Thrones series. I saw him signing books at the World Science Fiction Convention some years back, and he was already a star before HBO turned his series into a mass market hit.

One of the reasons why the series (a riff on the kind of clashes seen between family dynasties in the Middle Ages, set in a kind of fantasy Europe) is popular is its realistic portrayal of both responsible and irresponsible lusts for power, unintended consequences, and the difficulties of governing even for those of noble intentions. Everyone acts out of what they think are their interests, and in keeping with their character, and yet the results are often completely unexpected and tragic.

As Martin comments:

Q: A major concern in A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones is power. Almost everybody – except maybe Daenerys, across the waters with her dragons – wields power badly.

A: Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

In real life, real-life kings had real-life problems to deal with. Just being a good guy was not the answer. You had to make hard, hard decisions. Sometimes what seemed to be a good decision turned around and bit you in the ass; it was the law of unintended consequences. I’ve tried to get at some of these in my books. My people who are trying to rule don’t have an easy time of it. Just having good intentions doesn’t make you a wise king.


Death by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples OrganizationsDeath by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples Organizations

[From Death by HR: How Affirmative Action Cripples Organizations,  available now in Kindle and trade paperback.]

The first review is in: by Elmer T. Jones, author of The Employment Game. Here’s the condensed version; view the entire review here.

Corporate HR Scrambles to Halt Publication of “Death by HR”

Nobody gets a job through HR. The purpose of HR is to protect their parent organization against lawsuits for running afoul of the government’s diversity extortion bureaus. HR kills companies by blanketing industry with onerous gender and race labor compliance rules and forcing companies to hire useless HR staff to process the associated paperwork… a tour de force… carefully explains to CEOs how HR poisons their companies and what steps they may take to marginalize this threat… It is time to turn the tide against this madness, and Death by HR is an important research tool… All CEOs should read this book. If you are a mere worker drone but care about your company, you should forward an anonymous copy to him.

 


For more on pop culture:

The Lessons of Walter White
“Blue Valentine”
“Mad Men”
The Morality of Glamour
“Mockingjay” Propaganda Posters
“Big Bang Theory” — Aspergers and Emotional/Social Intelligence
Real-Life “Hunger Games”: Soft Oppression Destroys the Poor
Reading “50 Shades of Grey” Gives You Anorexia and an Abusive Partner!
YA Dystopias vs Heinlein et al: Social Justice Warriors Strike Again
“Raising Arizona” — Dream of a Family

For more on politics and unintended consequences:

Life Is Unfair! The Militant Red Pill Movement
Madmen, Red Pill, and Social Justice Wars
Unrealistic Expectations: Liberal Arts Woman and Amazon Men
Stable is Boring? “Psychology Today” Article on Bad Boyfriends
Mate-Seeking: The Science of Finding Your Best Partner
The “Fairy Tale” Myth: Both False and Destructive
Why We Are Attracted to Bad Partners (Who Resemble a Parent)
Culture Wars: Peace Through Limited Government
Social Justice Warriors, Jihadists, and Neo-Nazis: Constructed Identities Disregarding Facts