I Don't Bond

[The Albatross]

I don't understand it, and I don't think its something that is ever going to get better.

I think I would start right there and try to figure out why you think because it's something you didn't learn when you were a child you are unable to learn it now.

 

[joeylittle]

This business about "trusting the process". Seriously? With the wrong person running the show, the "process" becomes unrecognizable. In my version of reality, there IS no process. There is only the relationship and the journey.

This caught my eye - I just wanted to say I understand what you are saying about relationship - but I'd definitely put myself in the camp of believing in the process (modality, step by step of therapy) without actually needing to feel anything called "trust" in my therapist. I personally don't know if I trust anyone. I don't doubt everyone, it's not a black-or-white thing. I just can remember what it did feel like to trust someone, and I don't feel that feeling anymore. I'd call myself very neutral when it comes to that.

And your therapist being the right person (as opposed to the wrong person) doesn't by default make them trustworthy. It just makes them good at what they do in a way that will be really helpful for you, the client.

Ah, I take it back. I trust my psychiatrist. And I trusted my surgeon, recently. I have to trust them because I can't contribute a thing to the process, intellectually. I can only answer the questions and do what they ask me to do. I generally don't do well with doctors, but I know I trust in those two. I don't feel the same feeling for my therapist, or for anyone I have a personal relationship with. Maybe I'm muddying the waters, but I think it's interesting to sit with that question of "what is trust and how do I recognize myself feeling it?".

I just realized, I do have one friend I trust. I need to think more about that.

Its like I just go through life faking it all and everyone falls for it on one level or another. Or they mistake my actions for something deeper when they're not. [This happens a LOT.]

I feel like this often - this statement really resonated for me. But what I am sure of (for myself) is that its a major cognitive distortion that kicks in when I'm low. My question would be, can you take an example of this happening and objectively evaluate it? Because my guess is that in the moment you do whatever it is that you will later claim meant nothing - in that moment when you did it, it meant something. It's just that you have experienced profound betrayal of "trust" (or whatever we want to call it), and so if/when you are ever called on behavior that inspired someone else to trust you, you will have basically an allergic reaction to the whole topic, shut down, and say that you were not really the person who did that, you were being false when you did it.

Just a guess, honestly. Speaking from my own experience.

 

[anthony]

that its a major cognitive distortion that kicks in when I'm low

I would concur with that, based on the very statements made in relation to cognitive distortions and what they are, how they play their role in our thoughts and behaviours.

The more I read on them year in, year out, I'm constantly still learning examples from.

 

[scout86]

@joeylittle I like the idea of "sitting with the question"!
,
Here's some of my thoughts on "trust" as pertains to therapy.

I "trust" my therapist quite a bit. With my life? Maybe not, because I have only seen him in action in one very unique setting. (His office.) But, he's shown me that he's smart, he's insightful, and he's right more often than not in the situations where I can fact check. (Which I do. :confused:) I don't even know what his "process" IS. I'm not always sure he's got one. He's an ADHD, bouncing from one thing to another kind of guy. BUT, I know myself well enough to know that often, if I know what the "process" actually IS, my own trust issues are going to make me dig in my heels and not cooperate, whether I want to or not. This showed up in our very first session. In out very first session, he didn't know much about me (because I didn't tell him and we'd just met). He began by TALKING about his "process" and door began slamming shut in my head immediately. The second session and all those that have followed have been much different. They are completely unstructured, chaotic, all over the board, and actually seem to get us somewhere. without being real obvious about it. Most days, I wonder what we're doing and why we're doing it. Often, I wonder if we're doing anything at all. And then, all of a sudden, a light comes on and I see something he's actually been trying to get me to see. (And when I acknowledge that that happened, he always laughs like he's enjoying the "process" what ever it is.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is, for me, none of this would work, just based on a "process". I have a weird sense of humor. Many people find it annoying. My T, as a human being, doesn't find it annoying and actually seems to enjoy if most of the time. Why does that matter? Partly because I use humor a LOT when I'm trying to avoid stuff or throw someone off track. I have an odd way of thinking about things sometimes, in that my brain is really good at taking apparently unrelated ideas and sticking them together for unlikely purposes. He thinks that's cool. Many people find it annoying. (My teachers tended to either like me or hate me,not much in between.) If I was trying to work with a T who was strictly by some book or other, following some obvious kind of "procedure", I'm not at all sure it would work. I have to trust the person in order to trust the process. Could be that's just me.

@Solara , your idea of trusting the process rather than the person DOES make sense to me, in an abstract kind of way. Personally, I have to have some trust in the person and their ability in order to trust that they can implement a process. When you've said that, though, it always makes me wonder if you're not, on some level, kidding yourself. I wonder if maybe you've convinced yourself that your faith is in the process rather than the person because it's THAT hard to admit you might trust a person.

BTW, I suspect that the form of therapy I described would drive a lot of people nuts. (If you'll pardon the expression.) It works for me. I'm curious about how similarly and differently my T works with different people. If I had to bet, I'd bet he's radically different with different clients. I think that would be HIM, not a process.

 

[Chava]

I can relate to the trusting the process somewhat. It takes me an incredibly long time to trust others. I'd get nowhere in therapy. I do notice I have a basic level of feeling "okay" that seems helpful with certain people, but am very slow to warm up...very cautious. I did research the therapy I'm doing because I no longer trust CBT as a form of therapy for my issues. Give me an amazing CBT therapist, doesn't matter. I do think to get anywhere there has to be some trust in something...the therapist, the form of therapy, something to get started. Trusting processes feels like a safer place to start when trusting people feels too risky. But to get anywhere, that trust has to develop...and that seems to mean being disappointed sometimes or afraid and continuing on anyway. Not caring or trusting is just how I protect myself.

I've always wanted to have people to share things with...things I like to do or talk about, be there with me when i'm sad. it's not about giving or getting so much as sharing this human ride. But isolating myself can be pretty comfortable. So there's the confusing range of personality, attachment style, shutdown or "survival mode", other possible disorders, and even feedback loops we've created. I've known a couple people with diagnosed attachment disorders and the clinging is usually pretty bad, along with some other pretty serious behaviors. If you really think you have it, it would be good to check with a knowledgeable therapist. Otherwise, it does sound like possible avoidance and/or denial of wish for connection or unwillingness to take someone else's perspective (like the people wanting to connect with you and not asking yourself what you are saying and what they are reading, etc). If you genuinely don't care about people or connect on any level, that's probably something other than attachment disorder.

 

[scout86]

.and that seems to mean being disappointed sometimes or afraid and continuing on anyway. Not caring or trusting is just how I protect myself.

Exactly!

 

[Valentino]

I'm not looking for answers b/c I know there are none. I guess I just wanted to put this out there.

Lol... It's pretty ironic how she states she doesn't want answers, and not only that. She clearly states that answers are impossible in her mind.

Then responses have variations of answers or speculation.

I don't attach to people. I don't even understand the concept of attachment. The world thinks that I'm supposed to have this automatic instinct to bond to people and I simply don't.

Even more ironic, she states she doesn't bond or attach.

Then responses have questions and attempts at relating & understanding (ie. attempts to bond & attach).

What if she can't bond or attach? What if she genuinely doesn't care about connecting with other people?

Its like I just go through life faking it all and everyone falls for it on one level or another. Or they mistake my actions for something deeper when they're not. [This happens a LOT.]

What if you simply take what she says at face value? Don't look for deeper meanings.

She fakes attachment (concern) and her actions have no deeper meaning.

 

[Friday]

Then responses have questions and attempts at relating & understanding (ie. attempts to bond & attach).

What if she can't bond or attach? What if she genuinely doesn't care about connecting with other people?

What if you simply take what she says at face value? Don't look for deeper meanings.

She fakes attachment (concern) and her actions have no deeper meaning.

Lol.. I did/do take what she says at face value. But I also like Solara, and she's wicked smart. Just because she may not attach or bond with people doesn't mean that she can't have a discussion about it. Solara and I are very similar in some ways, and polar opposites in a lot of other ways. Similar views can flesh out your own thoughts and feelings on a subject, opposite views are more interesting and -have the potential anyway- for larger scope.

Wasn't trying to bond or attach with anyone. I have some opposite views / reactions, and she's smart enough to know that people think & feel differently / grok that. She says people do X because of Y. I say I do X because of Z. Doesn't make her wrong, or me wrong. It's simply more data. Why do people do X? For Solara, Y. For Friday, Z. For other people ABC. She may know a 100 people who do X for Z. Or it may be new information. She may believe me or not. None of that is my prerogative. A bond isn't necessary in order to share and pool information. Willingness to participate in the conversation, is. She posed the thought/question. I, and others, shared our experiences, and posited our own questions or conclusions. What if. Tangents are born, information pooled, opinions formed, conversations had. Take what you like, and leave the rest.

What if she genuinely cannot bond or attach? Shrug. Depends on whether she wants to, or not, if that just the way it is, a victory, or a tragedy. I know people in all 3 camps. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Just like there's nothing inherently wrong with liking someone -or the products of their mind, or labor- who feels nothing for you (you can love a piece of music or scientific theory of a person you've never met, doesn't know or care that you're alive, or is themselves dead), or even actively dislikes you. I'm fairly obnoxious, I like &/or respect a lot of people who can't stand me. No skin off my nose. Nor theirs as long as I don't pester them. Just because I like or respect someone doesn't mean we have to be friends. And just because 2 people disagree, it doesn't mean either is wrong. Or that either is right. She explained how she sees something, I explained how I see it. They aren't mutually exclusive. Just different.

 

[scout86]

If we ever decide to compile a "Best of @FridayJones " I'm nominating that one!

 

[Valentino]

A bond isn't necessary in order to share and pool information. Willingness to participate in the conversation, is.

Based on Solara's lack of responses in this thread, in contrast to her activity in other threads since Friday(when she started this thread). Does her behavior point towards willingness or unwillingness to participate in this conversation?

I think I was trying to address that the type of responses written towards her seemed to be contrary and/or confusing to a person who openly admits that they don't bond or attach.

In the bigger picture I think it's more related to socialization. If a person has a different type of bonding or lack of bonding, then there is trouble with socialization. And unfortunately, in our current society, if you don't 'fit-in' or 'get' all the unspoken underlying constant socialization rules and structure, then you suffer and get left out. There's few people who consciously recognize what's going on under the surface, to even attempt to try to accommodate the minority who don't fit in. Also there's a challenge because in-adequately socialized people give off a weird, confusing, cold, distant or dangerous emotional vibe.

Socialization is a term used by sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists and educationalists to refer to the lifelong process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies, providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within his or her own society. Socialization is thus ‘the means by which social and cultural continuity are attained’.
...
Some types:
Primary socialization for a child is very important because it sets the ground work for all future socialization. Primary Socialization occurs when a child learns the attitudes, values, and actions appropriate to individuals as members of a particular culture.
Secondary socialization refers to the process of learning what is the appropriate behavior as a member of a smaller group within the larger society. Basically, it is the behavioral patterns reinforced by socializing agents of society. Secondary socialization takes place outside the home. It is where children and adults learn how to act in a way that is appropriate for the situations they are in.
Re-socialization refers to the process of discarding former behavior patterns and reflexes, accepting new ones as part of a transition in one's life. This occurs throughout the human life cycle. Re-socialization can be an intense experience, with the individual experiencing a sharp break with his or her past, as well as a need to learn and be exposed to radically different norms and values.
Natural socialization occurs when infants and youngsters explore, play and discover the social world around them.
Planned socialization occurs when other people take actions designed to teach or train others—from infancy on.
Positive socialization is the type of social learning that is based on pleasurable and exciting experiences.
Negative socialization occurs when others use punishment, harsh criticisms or anger to try to "teach us a lesson;".

There are all types of mixes of positive and negative socialization. ... A high ratio of negative to positive socialization can make a person unhappy, defeated or pessimistic about life.
- wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization

Maybe attachment issues can be similar to a disability of socialization, without bonding a person might be blind to many forms of socialization.

This blindness to socialization could be what's contributing to Solara issues with not understanding attachment, not understanding motivations for why others attach, inability to bond, etc.

Socialization is also a two way street. It's not just difficult for someone who doesn't bond within the 'social norms', it's also creates discomfort for the people they interact with that are more within the social norm.

I'm reminded of the 'Still Face Experiment' by Dr. Edward Tronick, which is a classic experiment in development psychology. This shows how quickly and extreme a baby reacts negatively to a mother who simply ceases facial engagement (still face) for a short period of time.

Here's actual video footage of the experiment. If you choose to watch, be warned, some people have difficulty watching through all of it.

So, bonding might be an integral part of socialization, that starts as early as a few weeks old (from still face experiment research). For the minority of people who have different bonding types through nature (in born genetics) and/or nurture (adverse childhood experiences), they are left to suffer in isolation, never able to safely fit in and bond to their community, because they are simply blind and ignorant to socialization norms.

Trying to encourage them to bond, and aggressively challenge their distorted thoughts that come from bonding blindness. Seems like an impractical strategy.

In an ideal world, a more practical strategy might be to have some sort course with basic teachings on socialization catered to adults who couldn't or didn't learn it growing up. But it would need to be customized to the individual's different bonding style. And the bigger challenge would be how to simplify the vast amount of constantly changing and growing information within social norms into a very simplified basic elementary level.

At the moment, I don't really have any easy answers to this problem.

I also bond differently than social norms, and have had to personally figure out ways to learn and adapt. But I've chosen to 'fake it' by being more invisible to blend in, and try to be very concise, objective and detached when I do try to communicate. I still mess up plenty, but I continue to try to learn and grow from every experience.

 

[scout86]

At the moment, I don't really have any easy answers to this problem.

At the moment, I think they call that "therapy".

Interesting video. Kind of creepy and hard to watch on several levels, but interesting and food for thought, for sure. Thanks for posting it.

 

[anthony]

Kind of creepy and hard to watch on several levels, but interesting

My sentiments exactly... :eek::coffee::cautious::eek::wtf::O_o: