Why We Need More Structure for the Young

Current studies show that many of today’s youth are in trouble. They are more distant from their parents, go out with their friends less frequently, study less, are less happy and more lonely, and are more likely to commit suicide.

Professor Jean Twenge at San Diego State has been studying generational differences for decades. One of her largest concerns about the group known as Gen Z’s (born between 1995 and 2009, which she has christened iGen’s) was expressed recently in an article in The Atlantic, “Has The Smartphone Destroyed A Generation?”

“Psychologically…they are more vulnerable than Millennials were: rates of teen depression and suicide have skyrocketed since 2011. It’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones.”

Certainly this malaise is not limited to the young. There is a wide-spread disconnect of people from themselves, from others, and from our culture in general, which seems to unraveling at the seams. This breakdown has caused many, but especially the young, to “look for love in all the wrong places.” While often playing a negative role, the phone is not the whole culprit, but a vehicle for trying to find solidity and validation as society’s normal stability mechanisms dissolve.

There are many reasons why our society is troubled, but I think a big part is the near complete lack of structure. As structure dissolves, people start looking for substitutes, such as the phone’s social media offerings. Facebook for one subjects participants to intense highs and lows---no stability at all. Some people have no substitutes and experience disorientation and even despair as they look vainly for healthy stability. They live lives of not-so-quiet desperation, usually causing them, youth and adults, to act out in ways that damage themselves and society.

Societal structure is a complex of relationships, norms, and generally shared values. Both rights and obligations to others are fairly clear. Stability and balance are maintained by various formal and informal rules, limits, responsibilities, and consequences. To the degree that these are beneficial for and generally accepted by people, you have a healthy society. They can be rigid or relaxed, but a society’s health depends on some appropriate balance. Too much of either extreme means societal challenges. We went from considerable rigidity in the 50’s, with its attendant problems, to near total relaxation today. Some of this loosening was clearly needed, but as we have ignored or dismantled many of the good structural elements, we left children and teens in particular with nothing healthy to replace them. The results are the emotional challenges Dr. Twenge has found in her research, and which has been supported by other scholars.

Perhaps our most prominent failure is at home. Among other problems, many parents want to be their child’s best friend, which keeps them from passing on healthy standards of behavior and exercising helpful and supportive discipline. Or, they may think that setting firm, reasonable limits damages the child’s creativity or self esteem, completely unaware of the difference between real and faux self esteem. Or, perhaps the parents want to do the right thing, but lack the emotional energy as both work, or are simply disinclined.

In these homes, limits are few, and erratically enforced. Even getting a child out the door to go to school is often filled with tension and anger. The more the parents flex the “established” limits, the more the child pushes. He realizes that he may well get all he wants, but at least a considerable part of that, and so pushes against everything---what and when to eat, what to watch on TV, when to go to bed, when and how to use his I-Pad, etc. The parents and he are now part of a mal-functioning system in which the child is mostly in control, and is reinforced by the parents for his pushing and creating family upset.

Melt-downs, many children’s tactic for getting what they want, are at epidemic levels, in great part the result of too much flexibility and inconsistency. Caught between a rock and a hard place of their own making, parents cede to the child yet more independence simply to keep peace, independence he is ill-equipped to handle. Further ceding has occurred with social media, where many teens hope to find something they can latch onto. Ephemeral and volatile, that something provides no structure at all. It promotes the opposite---fear, emotional dependence, and instability.

To grow emotionally healthy, a child has to test herself against standards, obligations, norms and rules which are not completely fluid nor inconsistently applied. On occasion she will, and should, experience push back from her parents, actions leading to the formation of healthy boundaries and limits. The child needs to find the limits and borders to her own growing sense of self. She gradually learns that strong inner and inter-personal boundaries are vital. She develops a healthy sense of who she is and what she owes others, a view coming mainly from parents espousing important values, consistently applying limitations, and loosening those as the child learns. (this should be provided at school as well, but is generally not) Love and support are  vital, but by themselves will not necessarily produce a confident and resilient young person.

All children test limits and strictures, and certainly accountability. Even while pushing against these, unknowingly the child seeks the structure they provide. Lacking limits, responsibility, and consequences, the child cannot determine where the boundaries of her world are, leaving her in a sea of uncertainty and a much harder task of developing a healthy self image.

In the healthy household there is greater consistency in application of those elements, and in the consequences arising from the child’s misbehavior, or good behavior. Further, values such as respect and restraint are taught and rewarded, as is the important strength of resilience, from which the child learns she can take a “hit” or serious disappointment and get right back up---one of the important elements in real self esteem. The solidity and structure provided by the family setting are critical. Just as important is the child’s gradual development of a sense of confidence and competence, characteristics providing their own enduring internal structure for the child, something she can count on no matter what. Also, in this process she gradually comes to understand the value of proper personal and interpersonal boundaries, and to not violate those of others, while also not allowing her own to be violated.

A colleague recently told me about how his son, when young, had misbehaved rather badly. He got into trouble at school, got into constant fights, had a drug problem, and even had run-ins with the police. Fortunately, the boy got though this period. Sadly, many years later he angrily told his father: “Where were you, Dad? I wanted limits and you gave me none.”

Honesty

In a recent post I provided David Whyte’s thoughts on honesty, ones strong on psychology. With a lighter, but still important note, a friend wondered what role honesty has when, say, an artist friend asks my opinion about his latest painting, one that I find poorly done. Does honesty compel me to state my opinion exactly and directly? Sure, many might say, he did ask.

When I consciously tell the artist that I think this work is great, that surely is lying. But is that acceptable to spare his feelings? Is lying ever justified by that motive? Personally, I have to say no. But perhaps I have an alternative. What if I don’t lie, but answer indirectly?

Perhaps I say to the artist that I have always enjoyed seeing his new work, or ask him about the inspiration for this particular piece. I am not lying; I have not said anything false or which does not reflect my thinking. I have simply not answered his question, deflecting the conversation slightly. If not lying, am I perhaps being at least somewhat dishonest, at least disingenuous, by withholding what I really think?

There are people who believe you should say exactly what you think and feel when asked, often regardless of the impact on others. Failing to do so would in their minds be lying directly by saying something you do not believe, or lying by omission in avoiding or deflecting the issue. This directness may cause pain, usually unintended, and just as often sincerely regretted. Nonetheless, their main goal in the interaction is to fulfill their own value of honesty. They see honesty as an all-or-nothing affair. You are honest or you are not. While valuable at some level, this view is often inflexible, failing to account for context subtleties.

Context means seeing honesty from the standpoint of compassion, having the well being of the other person in mind at all times. Compassion informs honesty, broadening its scope and depth. Honesty without compassion can be harsh and unkind.

With the importance of the other’s well being as a foundation, context includes a number of elements. The relationship’s established openness and candor level. The expectation of the listener, very different for support than for problem solving. The goal of speaker, such as to be directly honest or to avoid conflict. The urgency or seriousness of the situation. The potential outcome, good or ill, for both parties.

Imagine you ask your small daughter to draw a car, which she does with great delight. What she gives you has little resemblance to a car. Knowing a child’s sensitivity, you do not critique the drawing. Instead, you might ask her about what most interested her in making the drawing, or something similar. That is context. Of course, as the child gets older, a supportive parent may work into constructive critiques, but always sensitive to the situation. No different for adults.

Whyte’s critical observation is that we cannot be straight with another if we cannot be straight with ourselves. The latter condition makes it nearly impossible to address context. For the context factors to be usefully considered, the respondent must have a high level of mental and emotional awareness, and the discipline to implement that understanding.

Imagine you encounter a friend you have not seen in some time, and you notice that he has gained quite a bit of weight. It may be honest in one sense to comment to him that he looks heavier than the last time you met. But that honesty may come at a cost, the possible perception by the friend that you were being unkind. Honesty prevailed over compassion. What was gained by the comment? Was the relationship enhanced?

Or, perhaps your friend asks you directly how you think he looks. You think he may want you to tell him that he looks fine. Do you say what you think, or do you take another tack, as with the artist? As before, what will be gained by telling him your true opinion? Will the relationship be enhanced?

Can we improperly sacrifice honesty to compassion and context? Surely there is that danger if the respondent has little self knowledge, and is unable to make useful judgments about what to say, and how. Such a reaction can result from fear of a potentially troubling outcome, such as an unpleasant conflict scene. Or from an excessive worry about upsetting the other person, even if no overt conflict arises.

And so?

·       Honesty is rarely a matter of either/or.

·       Context is critical in responding.

·       Underlying context is compassion, a sincere concern for the well being of the other person.

·       A healthy contextual assessment is nearly impossible without self-awareness.

Control or Influence---What Shall It Be?

Our lives are often spent trying to make our desires come out exactly as we want. A futile effort, especially since it may involve attempting to control others, an interaction or relationship dead-end. Yet there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to obtain an outcome in a conversation. Like conflict itself, persuasion is normal. Both can be carried out poorly or well.

None of us likes being controlled, and we resist the manipulation. In the post titled “What’s Wrong With ‘No Borders’”? I gave examples of devious methods boundary invaders use to control others, such as anger, guilt trips and a victim posture. Boundary invaders MUST HAVE their outcome, justifying repellant and counter-productive tactics. And adding to the unique interpersonal challenges around control, societal uncertainty pushes us all the more to get what we can from others.

You can easily spot a conversation controller. He asks no questions. If he does, the questions will be attacking and inquisitional, loudly voiced and often accompanied by sarcasm and anger. Having THE answers, what is there to know? Most often, though, the controller avoids questions and deluges his opponent non-stop with anything that will aid him to win, regardless of accuracy or relevance. A controller will concede nothing. There is no point, no matter how valid, that deserves anything other than attack. Counter-punching at its worst! But even without overt hostility, an adversarial, “I-win, you-lose” style means nothing positive will come from the exchange.

Although we might deny it, most of us at least occasionally act out the controller. We continue this in spite of the lousy outcomes until we learn there’s another way.

“Influence” conversations are very different, even though they arise out of the same conditions as adversarial ones---two people disagreeing about something, and each desiring something from the other. But with influence, there is no manipulation in which one party loses while the other gains. At least one of the parties recognizes the interpersonal dangers inherent in a difference of view. She changes how she interacts with the other, who is usually primed for a knock-down, drag-out match. She manages the interaction for the positive benefit of both, ensuring that her desire for a particular outcome does not depend on the other person losing something. Critically, she gives up the needs to win, change or punish the other person, all of which will produce resistance and hostility. In Zen terms, she is not attached to an outcome. She sees that if she wants to influence the other, she cannot pose a threat. Her actions will more likely be indirect than direct, including the removal of all unhelpful non-verbal cues.

A client who owned a number of businesses once told me about a potentially volatile interaction with a staff member who stormed into his office and angrily shouted, “What is this crap about transferring me to another department without even talking to me?” Instead of following the employee’s lead and starting a screaming match, my friend used influence. Anger or fear meant only bad outcomes, so control of his emotions and actions was vital. He remained seated, consciously removing all adverse non-verbal signals and adding only beneficial ones---he relaxed his body, softened his voice, and spoke normally but a little slower than usual. He calmly asked the employee to sit and tell him what was going on. Apparently expecting a battle and not getting one, the employee was a bit taken aback, a questioning look in his eyes. He sat down, but was on the edge of the chair and still visibly upset.

My friend asked again what was going on. The employee said that another employee told him about the intended transfer. After thanking the employee, which further calmed him, my friend told him that no such transfer was in the works. The employee sat back, embarrassed, and stumbled through an apology. A potentially unpleasant interaction was avoided. Once the employee’s issue was resolved, my friend did deal with the employee’s aggressiveness and anger.

My friend recognized immediately that the first thing he needed to do was assist the employee in calming, but he knew that saying something like, “Calm down” would only make things worse. Instead, he used non-verbal cues to signal receptivity and safety. At no point did my friend interrupt or try to counter the employee’s incorrect view. Beyond the calming his goal was to understand. Only then could he properly deal with the issue, in terms of both content and behavior. My friend wisely allowed the employee to get his story out and dealt with before bringing up his issue of how the employee initially addressed him.

Although this example occurred in the workplace, the same influence technique can be used at home with family or friends. Failure to control hidden agendas or strong emotions will be readily apparent to the spouse or life partner, and those will get all the focus. What is said is no longer part of the conversation, even if it looks like it on the surface. The interaction will be all about one person’s emotions overwhelming the other’s, a nasty but common occurrence.

There are critical influence lessons for all of us from this story, even if persuasion is not involved.

·       The first person to bring up an issue has the floor, with no interruptions, denials, or counter-punching.

·       The listener has the job of gaining clarity and understanding (not necessarily agreement), and only that.

·       The listener must maintain control of emotions and behavior, and be acutely aware of  non-verbal signals that can obstruct or enhance the conversation, choosing the helpful ones.

·       Understanding is best accomplished by fully attentive, non-judgmental listening, and by the use of carefully phrased, non-inquisitional, questions.

·       The listener must assist the speaker in reaching some resolution, if only partial or temporary, before bringing up his/her concerns, if any.

·       When it is the listener’s turn to raise a concern or issue, she must maintain the same non-attached, non-emotionally driven posture as when listening.

This post can be coupled with the recent one entitled “Conversations: Restrictive and Expansive,” offering a prescription for healthy conflict interactions.

Approaching Honesty

Approaching Honesty

In his beautiful (no other word describes it) book, Consolations: The Solace, Nourishment and Underlying Meaning of Everyday Words, the poet David Whyte examines a number of common words. He interprets and invigorates those words with a freshness, insight, and value that stirs the soul. His thoughts offer a new and unique sense of understanding the universe, our place in it, and how we can develop into higher quality individuals. He does not tell us what to do or not do. He instructs us indirectly, his wisdom all the more powerful for that. One of those words is Honesty, addressing it in part by looking at dishonesty .

From Whyte:  

Honesty is reached through the doorway of grief and loss. Where we cannot go in our mind, our memory, or our body is where we cannot be straight with another, or with our self. The fear of loss, in one form or another, is the motivator behind all conscious and unconscious dishonesties: all of us are afraid of loss, in all its forms, all of us, at times, are haunted or overwhelmed by the possibility of a disappearance, and all of us therefore, are one short step away from dishonesty. Every human being dwells intimately close to a door of revelation they are afraid to pass through. Honesty lies in our understanding our close and necessary relationship with not wanting to hear the truth.

The ability to speak the truth is as much the ability to describe what it is like to stand in trepidation at this door, as it is to actually go through it and become that beautifully honest spiritual warrior, equal to all circumstances, we would like to become. Honesty is not the revealing of some foundational truth that gives us power over life or another or even the self, but a robust incarnation into the unknown unfolding vulnerability of existence, where we acknowledge how powerless we feel, how little we actually know, how afraid we are of not knowing and how astonished we are by the generous measure of loss that is conferred upon even the most average life.

Honesty is grounded in humility and indeed in humiliation, and admitting exactly where we are powerless. Honesty is not found in revealing the truth, but in understanding how deeply afraid of it we are. To become honest is in effect to become fully and robustly incarnated into powerlessness. Honesty allows us to live without knowing. We do not know the full story, we do not know where we are in the story; we do not know who is at fault or who will carry the blame in the end. Honesty is not a weapon to keep loss and heartbreak at bay, honesty is the outer diagnostic of our ability to come to ground in reality, the hardest attainable ground of all, the place where we actually dwell, the living, breathing frontier where there is no realistic choice between gain or loss.

Whyte says that the root of all our dishonesties is fear of loss, of which we are seldom conscious. Were we to experience that fear for what it really is, we might be able to address our unconscious dishonesties. But they and the fear that spawned them remain conveniently  unknown to us, suppressed as Pandora’s box casts its frightening image. Denial of the fear and of the unconscious dishonesties takes enormous psychic energy, for which we and others pay a great price.

Once we understand that we are powerless, paradoxically we gain all the power for living as Whyte’s truly honest “spiritual warrior.” Once we give up the story that we are always honest, once we face the unconscious fear, complete honesty is in our lap.

“…honesty is the outer diagnostic of our ability to come to ground in reality, the hardest attainable ground of all….”

Cognitive Complexity

Having made a pitch in the last post for the problems of psychic complexity, I will now turn the tables and argue for the healthiness of cognitive complexity. I mentioned in that note that I was taking liberty with the words psyche, emotions and mind. Now I will be more specific.

Psychic complexity is an attribute primarily of our emotional set-up, a messy mélange of over-lapping and often contradictory sensations and needs, of which we are mainly unconscious. The lack of emotional order and discipline mean poor outcomes for the person and those with whom she interacts. Thinking, decision-making and interpersonal interactions, among other things, are compromised by this condition. Cognitive complexity could hardly be more different.

“Cognitive complexity is the psychological characteristic or variable that shows how complex or simple the frame and perceptual skill of a person are. It is the extent to which a person differentiates and integrates an event. A person who measures highly on cognitive complexity tends to observe gradations and subtle differences while persons with a less complex cognitive structure for the task does not.” (reference.com)

“Differentiation is the number of distinctions or separate elements (i.e., factors, variables) into to which an event is analyzed. Integration refers to the connections or relationships among those elements.” (faculty.css.edu)

These characteristics are vital for problem solving, whether in science, government, business, or everyday life. The more separate elements and nuanced differences a person can see, the more she can bring to a challenge and the more sophisticated the outcome.

What else can we draw from these quotes? They express an expansive view of the world (and conflict conversations), rather than a disordered and restrictive view. Individuals with high cognitive complexity are more open to new information, and have more cognitive tools at their disposal. They are more likely to deal well with uncertainty, and may be more willing to actively search for contrary information. And they can be highly creative in rearranging the various elements in a complex setting to produce a unique and beneficial outcome. All of these require flexible and adaptive thinking.

People with low cognitive complexity tend to see the world in simplistic terms. Lacking subtlety and flexibility, their impoverished thinking leads to undesirable outcomes. Also, having unrefined views of the world may lead people to expect things to work out as their simplistic structure dictates. Happening rarely, such folks are generally unhappy and often disillusioned, frequently blaming their troubles on others or events.

We must recognize that cognitive complexity is not an either/or condition. In most cases people have varying degrees of it. Also, a person can have a healthy level of cognitive complexity in some areas of life and not in others. I know a lawyer who appears to have high cognitive complexity at work and very little when he is in conflict with someone outside of work. This is a classic case of a person who has selective high cognitive complexity possibly being overcome by his psychic complexity.

As we saw in the last post, when others disagree with us, our psychic disunity often surfaces, with bad results all around. A person with high cognitive complexity, seeing the world more expansively, has at least a chance to make a disagreement productive. Someone with low cognitive complexity may be unable to do that. He lives in fear of contrary information and lacks a subtle and nuanced view. Anyone who disagrees with his formulation must be severely dealt with. Counter-punchers, who see every opposition in child-like, either/or terms, reflexively and instantly defend their position and attack the other’s. There is no gray, there is no inquisitiveness, no expansiveness; there is only the need to prevail---low cognitive complexity.

Political partisans are my poster children for low (zero?) cognitive complexity, and for aggressive counter punchers. They live in an artificial world of absolute certainty, often detesting those with different views. Disagreement entails demolishing, and often demeaning, their opponent. They would sooner disembowel themselves than accept or search for contrary information. The only acceptable information confirms their existing views. And making things even worse is a rock-solid and profoundly intense emotional commitment to their belief.

Cognitive complexity is obviously beneficial to individuals and to society. But even if we have some, it can easily disappear in conflict settings. Naturally, this is deniable since the positive stories we tell ourselves about ourselves must remain inviolate. But not everyone wants to remain in this delusional and troubled state.

Becoming a person of high cognitive complexity interpersonally asks much of us since it involves our often long-conditioned adverse behavior patterns. Because the latter are often invisible to us, we need others to assist us in becoming aware. Soliciting and listening to these observations may fill us with dread. After all, who wants to hear bad news about themselves? But there is no easy way. The only way to the other side is through, not around. Fearlessness, perseverance and discipline are vital.