"What's wrong with me?

When things start going wrong in life, a common question people ask themselves is “what’s wrong with me?” In relationships, it fluctuates between that and “what’s wrong with you?” We seem to bounce between two polarities - looking for fault in ourselves, or placing it on others (or circumstance). But in modern psychotherapy we pay close attention to words - like 'fault' and ‘wrong’ - and find great value in 'unpacking' them.

The idea of 'wrong' comes from many places in our culture – such as science, medicine and industrialisation - which makes perfect sense for machinery and physical bodies (when something is 'broke', work it out, 'fix' it).  However, the power, mystery and evolving complexity of the human mind, and human relationships, defy such approaches to ‘fixing’ people - or relationships. Modern research and neuroscience* are now pointing to what spiritual people have always believed - that all humans possess a 'core-good'. A natural capacity to create meaning out of chaos, adapt, grow, heal ourselves, and love. This means their is nothing 'wrong' with us, our so called 'faults' can no longer be connected to our identity – we are not the sum of our behaviours (or our thoughts for that matter - but that's another post). 

So, a person may struggle with symptoms of schizophrenia but not be a schizophrenic, or alcohol and not be a 'drunk', or a 'racist', or a 'loser' - or any other simplistic label. As Michael White puts it:

“The person is not the problem, the problem is the problem.”

Psychologically, it's explained as ‘behaviour being driven by complex psychology and meaning’. This means one’s history of anger (how it was tolerated, used, expressed or suppressed by significant others) conditions what the person does with it - good or bad. The 'bad' are seen as 'survival strategies' of the past, used to protect self or gain acceptance - a best choice in a past context, but a problem now. A problem one struggles with, but remains external to their 'true self'. Viewed this way, our problems become easier to accept and take full responsibility for (acceptance and responsibility are two separate posts, but sticking with anger as the example: when it's viewed as an acceptable and legitimate emotion - like all emotions - then how we address it in-the-moment, or what we let it become, is where responsibility kicks in). 

Anyway, what they’re saying is the ‘essence’, the 'true-self' of a person, is this miracle of complexity, creativity and adaptability – a meaning-maker with a constant and innate desire to ‘grow’ (emotionally & psychologically - remember ‘striving’). Just like the plant in the crack of the side-walk, all humans have an innate desire to flourish into something wonderful and good (and as creative individuals, your 'something wonderful' can be very unique). 

I still struggle to get my own head around this, but I’m finding that when I treat others as though it were true (that they have core-good) it seems to draw out good. It seems by looking for it I’m more likely to see it, and when they see me noticing, they reveal more of it.

So, for me, when relationships to others (or self) start to sour, I try to no longer blame myself or others (or circumstance). Instead, I try to muster faith and ‘tap-into' the core-good in others (and self) to work on the problem – not the person. 

Cheers, Alex.


* check out "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life" by Dacher Kelter and the founders and researcher of Positive Psychology 

Happiness is found in ‘striving’!? Part 2

Part 1 explored how challenge, change and ‘striving’ toward career or physical goals can be key to a fulfilled and happy life - on how the 'journey' (of constant change and growth) can mean more than the 'destination'. But what about ‘striving’ and 'journeying' in our relationships? What does that mean? If we’re already compatible, friends and ‘happy’ what’s left to do?

Possibly many things, but I first learned it meant taking on something we thought we’d never like or be good at – just like taking up a new job, sport or hobby. For relationships it can be learning to:

• Inspire and support growth in our partners – as they grow and change we can experience the joy of close relationship to this ‘becoming’ person, much like the delight and interest we have in the development of children.
• Create a vision for your relationship – more than security, caring and sex – ‘striving’ suggests continuous movement towards.. well, something more! Some people adopt a vision of spiritual growth, or greater interpersonal skills, or better parenting and role-modelling, whatever it is, it’s a vision you create together.    
• Understand our partner’s values and meaning in life, understand  their deeper side and how that came to be. Their past hurts, disappointments, achievements and joys – and what they all mean. Exploring who they are now and where they want to go.
• To develop greater intimacy and connection (see my previous posts).

So for me, it’s doing all this (and more) – however, I’ve also learnt that before ‘striving’ to do anything with my partner, I need to look at my intentions for doing so first. Am I trying to ‘fix’ or ‘help’ based on a personal agenda? Even the idea of ‘fixing’ or ‘helping’ is based in some kind of judging or comparing that may not be helpful to either of us – better to simply focus on acceptance, understanding and connection. 

But back to personal agendas, understanding these turned out to be far from a simple process.  I used to think I ‘knew’ myself pretty well, however (with frustrating slowness) I’m learning that my judgements, assumptions and predispositions stop me seeing my judgements, assumptions and predispositions! Apparently, it’s true that “the biggest block to understanding yourself is your ‘self’”. 

My hardest (and continuous) lesson is realising I cannot connect to and understand others without being able to connect to and understand myself. Digging into and understanding who I really am (with acceptance) and what I want to become, is now a part of my personal ‘striving’.

Plato said: “The unexamined life is not worth living”. I see the value in this now, but in this world of constant evaluation and comparison, it’s important we treat our ‘self-discoveries’ here with acceptance and compassion - just as we do with those we love. This becomes a kind of ‘self-work’ that builds a healthy view of yourself and enhances all your relationships. Someone else’s quote I like for this is:

“The greatest gift you can give another is to work on yourself”

Like anything worth pursuing, this is not easy, nor is there a real 'end', but it's ultimately very rewarding – which means this kind of 'self-work' fits neatly with the concept of ‘striving’.

Cheers, Alex.

Happiness is found in ‘striving’!? - Part 1

While I’ve researched much about happiness (interpret that as you may:) it’s from two books in particular that I’ve learnt the most: “The Happiness Hypothesis” (Jonathan Haidt) and “Authentic Happiness” (Martin Seligman). These authors both point to scientific, philosophical and spiritual sources who all suggest true happiness is not found in achieved goals (material, personal or relational) but in constant ‘striving’. That is, in continuous growth, change and challenge… in keeping life moving forward.

They go as far as to say our sadness, personal struggles and dissatisfactions are there to ensure we do keep moving forward. For examples of this, just look at the bios of your inspiring leaders, artists, musicians, authors or sporting role models – nearly all will refer to challenging or prolonged troubles being key to their development.  And they usually continue to seek out challenge or change. While we certainly need times of rest and consolidation, it is becoming apparent that to sit still is to go backwards.

"Sitting still in life explains many peoples unhappiness."

If life is a journey (which, while a very tired cliché, seems to be true) then we will ‘arrive’ at new ‘places’ and explore and learn from them, but as ‘travellers’ we will at some point get restless and start looking toward our next ‘destination’ – to ‘strive’ forward. This does not necessarily mean radical change, but can simply mean taking on new things we never thought we were capable of, or would enjoy. Such as: new sports, recreational activities or hobbies; new careers, jobs, tasks or goals; or new relationships (particularly with those outside our normal groups). 

For me, it means taking risks and stepping out of comfort zones in some way. It means seeking out challenge and change instead of avoiding or hoping they pass us by. Which they may - but at what cost to real happiness and growth?

My experience is this is not easy, but is undeniably rewarding.

While I relate to change, challenge and growth in various physical and career endeavours - applying this to my relationships is a relatively new concept, but I'll leave exploring that until my next post. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts.

Cheers, Alex

Intentions & Intimacy

John Gottman, a renowned author and researcher, can apparently predict whether couples remain together with over 90% accuracy. His ‘Love lab’ does this primarily through prolonged observation and questioning. One of the key indicators they look for is evidence of real ‘connectedness’ – genuine bonding through emotional and physical intimacy.

They are essentially looking at the intentions behind all kinds of couple interactions.

A simplified example: Kim often surprises Jane with spontaneous gifts, regularly expresses love, and always makes room for ‘quality time’. Jane reciprocates by cooking most meals, being physically attentive and a good listener. They also play touch football together, are intellectually compatible and share similar values and beliefs. Like many couples, they felt such actions and shared values were ‘normal’ and would build or maintain an intimate relationship. This however, can be putting the cart before the horse. It seems using behaviours to build intimacy, is quite different to intimacy shaping behaviours. For Gottman (and many others) it’s about getting the foundation of intimacy in place first - and keeping it there as our primary focus.

“Connection and intimacy are a basic human need. If not met they colour every other aspect of relationship.”

It’s not surprising the above couple default to the behavioural focus. For all of us, the behavioural emphasis has been modelled/taught by education, religion, the media, Hollywood and well-meaning people. So it’s no surprise that when we observe real connectedness in others, it’s the behaviour we focus on.

It seems a human condition to focus on behaviours and forget the driving source.

So how do we shift the focus back to the source? For Gottman it boils down to establishing genuine connection and intimacy. On his website he indicates how this may be achieved. 

"Research shows that a powerful predictor of relationship stability is whether couples allocate “mental room” for their partner’s world. This means having a mental map of the relationship and its history, and knowing each partner’s past and present concerns, preferences, experiences and reality." The Gottman Institute

This requires work – genuine perspective-taking, various forms of listening (responsive, active), awareness of yourself (harder than it sounds), parking of your assumptions and ‘right’ beliefs (also hard), and more. While not easy, this is the work of love that is a reward in itself. It can place deeper meaning behind behaviours (and maybe less importance), see you and your partner grow, and transform all your relationships.

Gottman’s books and website are well worth a look if you’re seeking greater fulfilment in your relationships.

Cheers, Alex

Intimate relationships

What is an 'intimate' relationship?

When I dig into this question I find many people go straight to 'tasks' and behaviours to evaluate their intimate relationships (the 'whats' and 'hows'). E.g. reciprocated phone calls, shared household chores or 'compatibility' in recreational activities. Others point to shared 'love languages', good communication skills or shared values and beliefs. Regardless of which, we still tend to look at these through a 'transactional' or reciprocal lens - doing and sharing to have some kind of doing and sharing returned. Is this real love and intimacy?

While reciprocity seems inevitable, paying closer attention to the underlying reasons (the 'whys') can paint 'tasks' and expectations in a different light.  


Below is a table I used to explore the distinction between common expectations and the essence of relational connectedness. The 'hows' and 'whats' versus the 'whys' - and what happens when we prioritise one over the other. 

Common ‘tasks’ and expectations of relationships reciprocal/equal transactions – like shared phone calls, chores & favours good negotiation & communication skills – like diplomacy? planning meals or household chores planning weekends and holidays choosing furniture and household items financial planning shared recreational activities watching movies/TV together – anyone can do that discussing your day or problems – like workmates & counsellors? discussing deep and meaningful issues – philosophers? shared values/priorities/compatibilities fun, ‘good times’, shared humour

Essence, purpose of intimate/connected relationships being heard – thru ‘active listening’: involving focus, imagination, questioning and clarifying comments - aimed at empathy and perspective-taking. Without comparison, judgement or fixing.  being deeply understood- understanding meaning, values and beliefs behind personal history and conditioned responses, choices, behaviours, likes and dislikes etc. Being aware of and can empathetically connect to past and current emotions and deeper hurts, joys, fears and sorrows. This supports... being noticed/seen - seeing the depth and worth in another. Understanding non-verbals and other cues - noticing what’s happening in the other before being told (e.g. sad, fearful, hurt). being able to express full range of emotions – having emotions validated without an evaluative/fixing emphasis – without comparison to others or social standards being accepted – non-judgement reflected in speech, actions and non-verbals. Promoting self-worth, self-compassion and   self-acceptance. being vulnerable, transparent and open in a safe setting and of course touch – appropriate, 'natural' and relevant (hugs, arm touches, back pats: for couples - include sexual play and intercourse)

With less of the RH column (relationships in distress) people tend to focus more on the LH to validate reactions and assess relationship (assessing both self and others by task performance).
However, if the RH is the primary focus, if it underpins the intentions for the LH, then there is less concern about reciprocity in LH ‘tasks’. This is because connectedness, intimacy and genuine care (love) are fundamental to human need and flourishing. Without this need being met, the LH can be seen as disingenuous and meaningless.

Imbalanced relations – one individual may focus more on one column than the other individual; or one may ‘use’ either column to fulfil own agenda/needs.

Principles here are also appropriate to all kinds of 'close' relationships. 

Cheers, Alex