![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 45. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 2014, at 3:04:23
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » sigismund, posted by SLS on January 17, 2014, at 15:22:06
> > > Posters are at a site with the moderator. The moderator leaves. How do the posters respond when the moderator returns?
> >
> > And will he be the same?
>
> lol
>
> With all due respect to the moderator, I must say that that was brilliant.I must say I agree. :-)
Bob
Posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 16:39:54
In reply to Attachment Theory?, posted by SLS on January 13, 2014, at 22:18:23
Just noticed this thread, and thought I would comment because I have been having a type of therapy based on it. The concept that relative failures in secure attachment during early childhood were responsible for anxiety and depressive disorders in later life were suggested about 50 years ago by John Bowlby in the UK. Mary Main and others in the US classified attachment into four types: Secure, Insecure (attached but anxious), Avoidant (avoiding closeness, tending to anger if approached too closely), and Disorganized ( the most severe, indicating a complete lack of ability to attach as sometimes seen in orphans).
One of the most significant therapists to base his work on attachment in recent years is Allan Schore of UCLA. He thinks that the most important function of the mothering figure in the first two years of life is to foster a secure attachment so that the infant lays down the proper neurons and connections in the right hemisphere so as to be able to regulate its own anxiety and distress. Therapy is modeled on what a "good enough" mother does with an infant - such things as allowing the client to take the lead in choosing the topic, staying with whatever feelings are there, not asking questions or changing the subject, not analyzing or interpreting ( those would be left hemisphere functions). It is based on the understanding that the mother uses her own right hemisphere as well as a variety of non-verbal communications ( gaze, intuition, body movement), to let the client's right (unconscious) hemisphere know that it is understood. The most amazing thing is that new neuronal connections can be formed throughout adult life that allow a client to become more securely attached, both to the therapist and other important people, and will also allow him to gain new brain structures which make greater emotional self-regulation possible. This kind of therapy is so new ( since about 2000) that it's hard to find a therapist who does it. If you are someone who feels they have deficits in early mothering, this kind of therapy is ideal, and can be life-transforming. I feel certain it will rapidly gain many more therapists who are trained to do it.
Posted by SLS on January 22, 2014, at 17:03:07
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 16:39:54
Posted by baseball55 on January 22, 2014, at 19:35:51
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 16:39:54
Thanks for this. Very interesting and informative. However, I would raise one issue. While therapy based on this kind of detailed analysis may be new, the idea of therapy as a kind of re-parenting is not very new at all. I don't recall the names and dates, but for at least a few decades, therapists practicing psycho-dynamic therapy rejected most Freudian ideas in favor Kohut's self-psychology whcih emphasized the idea that the therapist should act as a "good-enough" parent, providing unconditional positive regard (secure attachment), mirroring the patient's emotional state (engaging the right brain), and working through the transference until the patient could mourn their lack of a secure childhood and learn to soothe and become compassionate to themselves.
Both my 74 year old psychiatrist and my 45 year old social worker/therapist, subscribe to this view, though their language is slightly different. Glen Gabbard, who has written two textbooks on psychodynamic therapy for psychiatrists in training, subscribes to this view.
So I'm not sure how new or unique this attachment therapy is. Ultimately, I think most therapy is about forging a strong attachment with a therapist, learning to feel secure in that attachment, and, through that attachment, learning to venture out in the world safely, as a securely attached baby crawls away and looks over her shoulder to be sure the parent is still there.
Studies of therapy show over and over that the most important variable in therapeutic impact is the quality of the relationship between therapist and patient. Even Freud came to believe that the transference (attachment of patient to therapist) was the most important part of therapy.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 19:56:02
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » Twinleaf, posted by baseball55 on January 22, 2014, at 19:35:51
You make excellent points. I didn't know too much about those earlier therapists, but they were obviously very important in the development of the ideas I was discussing.
Posted by Phillipa on January 22, 2014, at 19:58:33
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 16:39:54
Melanie Klein had a pdoc that believed in her. Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on January 23, 2014, at 17:12:55
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » SLS, posted by Twinleaf on January 22, 2014, at 16:39:54
Nice post. I was hoping you would come and say something on this thread.
My therapist in Australia was of this sort of theoretic orientation. John Briere was one therapist he suggested to me.
I find the right brain connection... Emotional resonance... Whatever...
I find it to be almost too much to bear. Invasive? Too intimate? Something...
I'm not sure if it is because of lack of trust that I have because of past trauma... Or if it is more that I've always just been this way... But it is very hard for me.
I think mostly therapy with him was about exposure / desensitisation for me. Mostly it felt... Icky. Thats about the best I can explain it.
I think there is something to it. Especially with respect to learning how to self soothe and regulate emotions / physiological arousal. I'm not sure that that is what is needed for me anymore (perhaps because I got that from him already)... But I think it is something that a lot of people could profit from.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 24, 2014, at 9:19:32
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » Twinleaf, posted by alexandra_k on January 23, 2014, at 17:12:55
It sounds like you got a lot out of your experience with that therapist. I think you are not at all alone in finding it stressful; we all start with varying degrees of difficulty in emotional self-regulation and attachment impairments. It can be really hard just being in a therapeutic relationship!
I think it's remarkable that this type of therapy can actually allow our right hemispheres to form the neuronal connections which did not get formed in infancy because of inadequate mothering. Once you've got those connections, you are much better able to moderate your own distress without needing a therapist.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2014, at 15:06:09
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by Twinleaf on January 24, 2014, at 9:19:32
autistic kids don't like it though, yeah? they find eye contact to be... arousing. not calming. the other person attempting to do the resonance thing can be... distressing. not soothing. i do wonder if i'm wired up a little bit differently in this respect. what other people seem to seek... i have an aversion to. i thought it was because my mother was so over-stimulating / insensitive to me / dysregulated and unpredictable herself... and maybe that was part of it (withdrawing from her was the best thing i could do to become calm). but maybe... i would have been a little like this with any caregiver. i guess we'll never know. about me, anyway.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 24, 2014, at 15:48:29
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2014, at 15:06:09
Don't you think babies instinctively know whether it's best for them to withdraw or approach in a given situation? From what you have written about your mother, she was quite dysregulated herself, and secure attachment may not have been a possibility. But there's clearly nothing wrong with you, in the sense that you have all the things you need to grow and change in the right circumstances. This is just my personal opinion, but I think giving you a diagnosis on the autistic spectrum may have been the easiest way for them to provide you with the financial and housing aid you need without committing themselves to very much in the way of therapy. Even if there is a little truth to the idea of an autistic spectrum disorder, attachment-focused therapy can help a great deal with both autism and impaired emotional attachment. Here in the US, it is always a part of comprehensive treatment for children with autistic spectrum. The over-riding problem is how expensive really good treatment is.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2014, at 21:39:54
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » alexandra_k, posted by Twinleaf on January 24, 2014, at 15:48:29
Perhaps. But then... I didn't really take much pleasure in... Eye contact. And even a brief moment of emotional resonance in therapy was... Excruciating for me, somehow. Very intense. Would leave me exhausted and... Reeling... For days. Not pleasurable for me. Felt like exposure therapy more than anything else.
I suppose it is possible that it is a learned aversion, though. I certainly have become a lot more sensitive to things since I quit smoking. Smells. Tastes. And the gym... Part of learning to move... Part of my rehab... Has been about learning to feel. To take pleasure in the fast movement (and moment of weightlessness) in Olympic Weightlifting. I love spinning with weights as a counterbalance... And swinging from the pull up bars... Jumping... I wish I could back flip but I'm a bit scared... Headstand / handstand... The feeling of being upsidedown... Standing on one foot, even. And balancing about on a gym ball...
I think there was an element of the dx being... helpful... with respect to assistance for housing etc. To start with I thought that was all there was to it, really. But over time I've started to think...
They do seem genuinely interested in me in some respects... As a case of a female on the spectrum -- because current thought is that females are being under-diagnosed because they present differently. And also... I think one of the things they are giving me / trying to give me... Is access to a strong, capable, ... I don't quite know what to say... Support system. Consumer advocacy. Because the thing is... A lot of people are campaigning for 'different' rather than 'deficient' or 'broken' or whatever. The idea that... Perhaps there really isn't anything wrong with me. It is just that I'm a really bad fit for certain environments (e.g., ones containing gregarious, loud, jostly, people who are mostly focused on people connection). I... Simply can't function in that kind of environment. But then... They simply couldn't function in the kind of environment that is ideal for me.
Not better.. Not worse.. Just... Different. Different ways of being. Diversity. It's a good thing. We don't know how the environment will shift or...
This is...
It is some kind of peace for me. Resolution. Actually. This was... This was where my thesis was going, actually. But this just sort of happened to me... I don't actually feel that I have anything to contribute to hte field at present. But... Well... Wittgenstein said that philospophy was a form of therapy... And I think... It has helped me come to peace.
So... The resonance thing... I think the resonance is a form of intimacy / connection. And a sensitive parent / therapist is sensitive to when connection is needed and when distance is needed. Sometimes connection is soothing... Sometimes connection is arousing... How is it different? What is different about a soothing vs arousing connnection? Calming vs startling? Exciting vs calming? Some people love the exhiliration of roller coasters... Other people feel very sick... Others are very frightened...
In the gym... When things feel hard... Some people back away from it. Some are actively frightened of it. Other people grit their teeth resolve their faces and throw themselves in full force.
I think you can learn to be a bit different... How our parents react to things affects how we react as children... Whether we are bold to take risks or whether we huddle in the corner fussing... Whether we like the roller coaster or feel scared... But then certain other things just don't feel right... Like someone touching us some place when we'd really rather they didn't... No matter how much they say we like it... I... Feel a bit like that about eye contact sometimes. When people search into my eyes... I feel like they are physically groping me.
People feel differently about this... Some people say that it is just looking with eyes... But It is so much more to me than that...
Some things are a bit plastic... Some cultures kiss strangers on the cheeks as greeting -- ain't nothing to it... Some people feel very uncomfortable hugging uncle so and so... Maaori greet by touching noses and -- inhaling each others breath. their life force. Most non-maaori don't do it properly - so it isn't expected... I get it... But I won't. I... Can't. For me... That is extremely intimate / personal. I think it is because I'm hyper-sensitive to things... Very easily overwhelmed.
I don't know.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 0:36:53
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 24, 2014, at 21:39:54
and then i watch film footage of behaviourist therapy or 'treatment' with autistic kids... teaching them to look in the eyes for food reward. you can see that they really don't want to. they don't like it. they'd really rather not do it. but they train them to do it, anyway... train them to be more 'normal'. why? not for the kids benefit... i really don't think...
and so my last therapist had this thing about emotional attunement or resonance or whatever it was... and therapy (for him... for me... whatever...) was about his trying to make that connnection with me.
and i felt a lot like those kids.
but i'm sure he knows whats best.
for me.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 8:12:35
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 0:36:53
According to Schore, the whole reason for attachment is to enable the right hemisphere of infants to grow the structures so that it can regulate itself emotionally. Whether it's a "good-enough" mother or a "good-enough" therapist, that can mean not just trying to engage, but looking away and allowing disengagement also - basically following the infant/ patient's lead and letting her determine whst happens at a given moment. I don't think taking the lead away and continually forcing engagement is helpful at all. No baby or adult likes that!
Posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 18:37:52
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » alexandra_k, posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 8:12:35
Yes, I think you are right.
Do you know if Shore or anyone else working on attachment theory has anything much to say about Autism?
I'm familiar with the stuff on Austism as lack of theory of mind... Depends a bit on what you mean by theory of mind... But it is looking like that perhaps isn't the most helpful characterization... I'm interested in other conceptions... That might be... Illuminating.
I guess there is a notion of Autism as failure of attachment... Attachment system is... Broken. Or otherwise f*ck*d up.
Temple Grandin wrote about how hugs were too much for her to bear... But she used to like getting under the couch cushions and having her sister sit on them. She found the deep pressure soothing. Or the squeeze machine... Cattle find pressure / the closeness to be calming... I guess some people do find straight jackets and seclusion cells to be calming... At least some of the time... I think that is why I love my foam roller so much... It... Desensitises me (or something) in a way I find helpful. Like how some kids that are really sensitive to tactile stimulation (e.g., crying because of scratchy clothes or tags or whatever) can benefit from being firmly brushed... There are films of little kids... It is curious to watch... They sort of like it... Just like watching a puppy or something that isn't quite sure whether they like it and then you get them in just the right place and they think it's great.
They are cases where people claim that they find other peoples presence / closeness to be... Arousing / stimulating rather than calming. So in terms of emotion regulation... What ones wants (in terms of soothing regulation, anyway) is to be... Left alone.
There is a 'solitary foraging' hypothesis. I don't know the specifics of the hypothesis, but I quite like the idea of a difference (a viably different behavioural strategy / way of being) rather than an across the board deficit. People are fun insofar as they are arousing or stimulating. They are a supersalient feature of the environment, indeed. One gets depressed or under-stimulated to the point of stupor without some imput from them (over a prolongued period), for sure. But... How can one relax around their unpredictability and their tendency to be our greatest threat?? I mean... That isn't a traumatic or unrealistic way to view people... We are in fact our own worst enemies. The worst things that have happened to people have been things that were deliberately inflicted by people.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 20:22:10
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 18:37:52
I don't know. I am reading Schore's latest book now; if there's anything about autism, I'll let you know.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 21:11:50
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » alexandra_k, posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 20:22:10
there is probably an index.
i found this:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15289168.2013.822741
'de-evolve'
'dysfunction'uh huh.
Posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 21:53:05
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 21:11:50
No listing in the index.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 22:29:54
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » alexandra_k, posted by Twinleaf on January 25, 2014, at 21:53:05
some people think that autistic spectrum disproves attachment theory.
i'm not sure that that is quite it, exactly...
attachment theory has an ideal or an idea of what 'normal' or 'optimal' are. while it might well allow that everyone falls short in this or that respect - it provides an ideal.
but who says humans *should be* that way? or that it is *better* to be that way. why can't there be other ways of being that aren't better or worse (across the board) so much as different?
so one ideal might be an infant who seeks attention from a caregiver when distressed who utilises that gaze and emotional resonance from them in order to comfort / regulate itself.
and another ideal might be an infant who takes comfort in something like how their hand sounds when it flaps, or the feeling of spinning, or the couch cushions being smushed into them, or what color the number three seems to them to be, or whatever. autistic kids do seem to use these things to comfort / regulate themself.
they get distressed when those things are taken from them just like other infants get distressed when they are separated from their caregiver.
why think the second infants are dysfunctional or deevolved or worse than the first infants? why think the second lot need to be changed to be more like the first?
it is the first lot who is more likely to seek therapy (for themself) that is true...
Posted by Twinleaf on January 26, 2014, at 16:06:43
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 25, 2014, at 22:29:54
Don't you think that everyone is slightly different in how much or little engagement they want to have at a given moment, and that there are major differences in how much is right for each person over the long-term as well?
I think engagement is especially stressful for people on the autistic spectrum because of their relative lack of mirror neurons, making it harder for them to know what is going on in the other person's mind -I guess harder for the two right hemispheres to engage. I think it would be very difficult to distinguish that from an avoidant style of attachment caused by early misattuned, stressful encounters with a dysregulated mother.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 17:09:44
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » alexandra_k, posted by Twinleaf on January 26, 2014, at 16:06:43
so...
people like me are all f*ck*d up and need to work with a very expensive psychotherapist (like Schore).
surprise, surprise.
i guess it comes back to... some people thinking that the presence of individuals on the autistic spectrum goes a fairly long way in... undermining the legitimacy of attachment theory. or, perhaps in significantly reducing the class of individuals whom it applies to (i haven't heard anybody particularly advocate for the latter, but that is the way i'd go on that).
and people who are... different... people who don't find other people making happy puppy noises at them to be particularly soothing... people who find that other people are attention grabby and fairly generally mostly upsetting *however well intentioned they may be*. are... messed up. according to attachment theory.
us other individuals... could return the favor. could wonder why there is so much under-diagnosed williams syndrome about. why it is that people are so clingy and needy and why it is that they need someone else to do this and that for them. why they can't do it themself. why they couldn't ALWAYS do it themself. why they didn't figure out that flapping or spinning or thinking very hard on things was a very effective self soothing strategy. why do they have to interfere with *other people* all the time??
or... one could just conclude that there are different ways of being.
i shouldn't even get started on this...
it surprised me to hear it coming from schore. i guess i always thought of him as... a destigmatising force. for something like borderline personality perhaps he was. to talk about trauma. to put the problem a little more in the environment than something intrinsically wrong with the individual. and if you play his little attachment game of seeking expensive psychotherapy for a therapist to play happy puppy games with you then all is well. but if you want something different... if you don't find that kind of therapy helpful... then... well... then there is something wrong with you, oh yeah.
ugh.
i wonder what is going on with the willimans syndrome kids mirror neurones... i wonder if that area is more highly developed?
i kind of think the human brain... is a bit like a rug. with creases and folds and bumps here and there. people are fond of... pointing at subsets and going 'all f*ck*d up and broken bad bad bad!' but there is lots of variation... london cabdrivers have increased hypothalmus due to their needing to internalise road maps of london... differences... what we do with it changes it...
we like to go 'people CAN'T do this and that task because of their brain'
(yeah - i can't internalise a road map of london because my hypothalmus isn't big enough - that is backwards!!!!!)we like to go 'people are broken because this area is too big / too small'
(backwards again)our search for stuff in the head... it is like looking at a hand with four fingers... and saying 'i wonder if it is a difference or if something is broken' then going 'i know! lets look and see if there is a neural difference that produces it!' then taking neural difference to prove dysfunction rather than different way of being.
we start with behaviours (that we judge to be bad or wrong). then we seek about for some difference. then we label that difference 'dysfunction'. then we say we know the behaviour is bad or wrong because we found it was caused by a dysfunction. it is circular reasonign.
i've been very influenced most recently by disability rights. the thought that a number of conditions... need to be viewed as differences.. like how people come in different genders. and people come in different races. people ARE different. not better or worse, different. people who are blind have better developed other senses. areas of the brain that are devoted to visual processing in sighted indivdiuals are devoted to processing other thigns in blind individuals. do you get the sense in which they don't simply have a lack... they have something different.
i got a book from the library that was called something like 'the history of mental disorder: when the diagnosis was social. something something to 1980'. they thought it was social primarily. up until about then. that it is starting to be different now. not so mcuh because of advances in biology... but because of advances in disability rights.
there was a mental illness conference at oxford that ended up being... cancelled. there was protest that it was a bunch of white men and there wasn't any representation / there weren't any voices from those who had experience of mental illness.
at the time i was fairly appalled... and thought perhaps i wanted out of the field after all because it had gone too political. and because... it seemed to me to legitimate my not wanting people to know i had experience of mental illness because i never wanted to be in the position of being token person with experience or being taken as representative of people with experience or... wondering if i only got to be where i was because of my experience...
but i'm starting to come around.
simon baron cohen... saying what he does... say it to their faces. meet with temple grandin and explain to her how she lacks empathy. feels different saying it to PERSONS, doesn't it?? or actually... film footage of him saying it to a person who was part of an autism online support network FOR THE NETWORK. honestly... simon baron cohen was the one who came across as lacking in empathy...
and this is why it is important to have those with experience at these conferences and workshops... theorists are less likely to talk themselves up into a pretty little model of how people with autism don't have empathy (and empathy is what makes us human, didn't you know???) when there are people with autism there in the audience. saying 'i hear what you are saying about people like me having no empathy, however...'
the greatest stigmatisation comes from within. comes from viewing 'them' as 'other'.
at my meeting with the doc, the 'it was so great to meet with you' nurse and the medical student... medical student's eyes almost fell out of her head when i said i wanted to do bio-med. and when i started talking about how i was interested in ball throwing (the different ways in which balls can be thrown) partly because of the different kinds of injuries that result (and it occurred to her how much of medicine generally - but of course psychiatry in particular - was obsessed with systematization).
and teh doc was like... of course you could do research... but med...? and she looked dubious... and i was like 'yeah, i hear the point of the interview is to screen out 'people like me''... but of course i should have said:
oh. please can you give me the updated list on approved occupations for me now. with my most recent dx. i just can't keep up... but i'd only like to pursue something that you approve of, you know, as a doctor. with a special insight into my future (prognosis).
i mean... you wouldn't want the world to be turned upside down. autistics to have great verbal skills. schizophrenics to recover. autistics to 'hear what you're saying but disagree'. and so on...
i think this is why all they really have for me now is the name of a consumer group...
but i think: they owe it to me to MAKE SURE that i really do interview well. i mean... it is because of them that i have loss of faith in my ability to present well in interview setting. i think it is the f*ck*ng least they could do.
and i feel very ambivalent indeed... that i guess part of me is taking some sort of consilation?? that i'm going to be really very good at math. oh yes i f*ck*ng well am.
seroiusly though... i am going to be much happier over there. perhaps in engineering...
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 17:23:44
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 17:09:44
but the point is: that it needs to be my choice.
instead of it being that they give me an approved list... (i've been very bad already in having completed a masters thesis in a verbal subject, but of course no surprises now, no surprises at all that i didn't finish my phd)...
why can't people just support me in doing what i want to do?
if i'm not a good fit for medicine then why can't it be that I discover that. in other words, that i discover that i don't really want to do that, that instead there is something else that i'd rather do. why can't it be like that.
whereas instead it is like there are little things that they are like 'oh well of course you would be good at that' (like the math. the genius hypothesis. which SUCKS *SS because it totally disregards HOW HARD I"M WORKING. i mean, sure, i get it helps people feel better about themselves 'i just wasn't born a genius' instead of getting to face up to the fact 'i could have been terrific at any one of any number of things - but i just never got off my *ss and worked particularly hard at anything over a sustained period of time'. i don't know where the motivation / drive comes from. i do suspect that it is more about that... but whatever...
the point again...
i want the opportunity to do med. whether i decide to pursue it or not. same for engineering and.. whatever.
the attachment thing... if you get some peace and help from it, then that is good. i... found my therapy (attachment focused) to be... largely traumatic. not in a 'triggering of the past' sense. but in a 'overwhelming in the presence' sense.
if i have a brief moment of eye contact with a passing stranger on the street... i have a photo image of their face burned into my brain (it feels like)... superimposed on my current vision... for at least 30 seconds. it is... very capturing of my attention. i can be at risk of stepping out in front of passing cars because i can't see much of what is actually going on in the world.
can you see how a walk up the street can be exhausting? especially someplace like university where most people are so friendly... squeels... that noise that teenage girls make when they greet each other... continues to resonate in my ears like that, too.
there is a certain extent to which desensitisation occurs... and the amazing thing is that when there truly is something... like an alarm that stuns most people... the constancy of the noise frees up my thinking...
but i'm... wired up different from most people, i think.
i can relax around a person sometimes. but this is very special. i do like eye contact intimacy sometimes. but again, that is very special for me. it isn't something i like doing with strangers. and people who DEMAND it from me (who simply won't leave me alone unless i give it to them / who turn on me when i don't) are dangerous people for me to be around. i need to be protected from such people / i need an escape hatch from them.
i refuse to think of myself as broken anymore.
i've looked into the biology... the evolutionary theory... and the justification isn't there. people can appeal to 'evolutionary dysfunction' as much as they like and it is b*llsh*t. they have no power over me.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 17:44:14
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 17:23:44
i am interested in how i will respond / handle high pressure situations with time pressure. I suspect... that there will be something about the degree of focus / concentration that I will really click with / be good at. when an emergency case comes in i don't suppose one needs to worry about having a 5 minute chat to the paramedics about their dog and their sisters husbands second cousins new toothbrush to ensure the handover goes smoothly (that the paramedic doesn't get all offended that you don't care so decides they will make your life a living hell until you give them whatever validation they crave. aka: unless you allow yourself to feel emotionally raped by them.).
can i respond flexibly in such situations? i think i could... i've got my own calm inner voice... and other people seem to have them, too. when the voice is task oriented, calm, and clear in what it says... the message gets heard pretty clearly. so long as something has happened to turn off the f*ck*ng happy puppy noises that people insist upon making much of the time... 'pay attention to me i've got important stuff to be saying about the party this weekend! oh me too squeeeeeeeeeeeeel!!!!! eeeeeeeeeeee! look at me... look me in the eyes... look at me right in the eyes right now!!!'
'tracheotomy'.
just say it. somebody. anybody. clearly. loudly enough to be heard. that's it. you don't need to be all like 'hello, my name is x and i'm going to be the y today and my job is to p and t and u and r' for that do happen. do you? really? oh. god. no.
or... that should have been enough. i would think... i am almost certain... that that would have been enough for me. because... it was obvious once it was mentioned. the problem was that it wasn't mentioned / that the people who it occured to didn't mention it. you shouldn't have to f*ck*ng well look at the nurses ever five minutes just to check whether they have something important to say but they have just decided to use sign language today... should you??
i don't know.
Posted by SLS on January 26, 2014, at 17:58:13
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 17:44:14
> i refuse to think of myself as broken anymore.
You are you. Whether or not this is a good thing, only you can decide. When I read your posts, I don't see autism. I see Alexandra.
I don't know what was in Twinleaf's mind when she submitted her last post along this thread. I can't read it the way you do because I am not you. It's just that I can't believe that she would set out to hurt you purposely. I was under the impression that the conversation was more academic than personal. I could be wrong.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 18:24:46
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory? » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on January 26, 2014, at 17:58:13
oh, i'm not hurt by anything twinleaf has said...
i'm more... engaging with?? not quite the right word... shore. and psychiatry more generally.
he was a big influence on me during my time in aussie. i was very interested in his work since he was doing stuff to reconcile (not quite the right word either) psychoanalytic theory with neurobiology.
whereas cognitive neuroscience is more aligned with cognitive psychology and behaviourist psychology. cognitive behaviour therapy...
i was very interested in psychodynamic theory... and the idea that different analytic theories could be coaxed into something like testable hypotheses... and his neurobiological investigations were providing some support for aspects of klein etc etc etc...
this stuff now... is much more recent. after i've discovered the disability / autism consumer movement. well, there are a bunch of different ones, to be fair... but the line i've come to... more or less...
so now i'm rethinking... that's all i've got here.. it is just a process of me rethinking...
sorry if i'm hijacking the thread... maybe it is something for others to bounce off in the development of their own view??
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 18:42:17
In reply to Re: Attachment Theory?, posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2014, at 17:44:14
> or... that should have been enough. i would think... i am almost certain... that that would have been enough for me. because... it was obvious once it was mentioned. the problem was that it wasn't mentioned / that the people who it occured to didn't mention it. you shouldn't have to f*ck*ng well look at the nurses ever five minutes just to check whether they have something important to say but they have just decided to use sign language today... should you??
> i don't know.because there is something that falls out...
if you do a lot of math / logic... if you get good at math / logic you learn to grant certain things.
you can answer questions about what bus you should take from the city to get to the stadium on time for the game and you KNOW you don't get to pick the one that runs an hour earlier in order to plan for such things as traffic / the bus being late / the inevitable delays.
you can answer questions about whether the driver should flip the switch on the trolley car to run over 1 to save 5 without talking about how the driver should flip this other switch to turn off the power because the trolley is running on electric.
you learn to make certain assumptions and not question them. questioning them is tiresome... it is missing the point.
and more doctors come 'oh you are stuck, how can i help' and of course the problem is 'i'm trying to insert this tube down here and i can't quite get it to do...' so you end up with a bunch of people trying to get the tube down.
and a nurse standing there... with the tracheotomy kit. not quite sure whether that is like how they wanted to turn off the electricity to the trolly car or catch the earlier bus just in case (and so if they say tracheotomy!) someone will bite their head off for their suggestion... one could be nicer and kinder... but too much of that and then you get happy puppy noises so the signal gets lost that way, too...
what's to be done???
communication. obviously. better communication. more understanding. more empathy. on both sides.
i have had times when someone was about to start making my life a living hell because they felt i wasn't paying sufficient attention to them... when someone took them a bit aside... and said something to them... not entirely sure what... and they just... left me alone. then approached me more calmly at some other time. and i was able to interact with them then. and then things were okay. there need to be more people like that. bridges. social smoothers. people who speak both languages. to facilitate. there are strengths and weaknesses in both ways of being... and of course it is a matter of degree...
but i think it should be more about expanding upon / improving upon what you have rather than changing to be more like others.
i think.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.