Photo by Alexi Berry

This is my latest post for Psychology Today which you can read here.

Photo by Alexi Berry

This is my latest post for Psychology Today. Click here to read it!

Photo be Alexi Berry

You can read my latest article for psychology today here.

This is my latest article for Psychology Today. It focuses on how the ancient Greek Philosopher Epicurus’ work on happiness can be applied today.

Image by Alexi Berry

This is my most recent article for Psychology Today. Just Click to see it!

Photo by Alexi Berry

Most of you know I have really been about meditation of late. I’ve been much more consistent than I have ever been; for a few months now I’ve been meditating more days than not. If you’ve read my writing about it before, you might remember I had an amazing experience many years ago that resulted in me having too much expectation and then throwing in the towel on sitting meditation. The experience was beautiful, and from that point on I was frustrated and disappointed that it didn’t happen again. In fact my thoughts were obsessive about it, and I moved to a different type of meditation: mindful meditation that can be done while moving.
Then in May a friend suggested a group for Metta meditation and I joined. I loved it, and was back to sitting meditation (I still use mindfulness meditation at other times, and still enjoy it very much as well). For a good while my sitting meditation used a focal point: the Metta structure initially, then parts of it, and then most recently just focusing on love. For 10 minutes a day I’ve been sitting just concentrating on feeling love for all. Sometimes I picture loved ones; sometimes I just keep repeating it. Of course my mind wanders a great deal, and as with any focal point, I guide it back to love.
Recently I had great difficulty getting focused. I have been stressed about a personal issue which has affected my quality and length of sleep, and obviously if I am mentioning it here, my ability to focus in meditation. That hasn’t stopped me from trying. Some days I wander in my mind nearly the whole 10 minutes. If I’ve been able to focus on love for two minutes its been an accomplishment (it is very important to me my reader understand that you don’t have to meditate perfectly, that just the act of sitting and trying is success). So this recent day, (actually this morning, but by the time this gets up it won’t be this morning anymore) I gave up on focusing on love; I couldn’t seem to do it for even a consistent 15 seconds. So I returned to a mindfulness technique, where my mind is a screen and I just observe; I separate “me” from my thoughts. I often recommend this technique to my clients who have anxiety or depression. Again, my mind would follow the thoughts, and I’d lose the observer perspective. But when this is noticed, I ease back to the observer. While in the observer mode my ego would play a trick on me and pat me on the back for how well I was doing. I’d recognize this as having lost the observer role, and try to move further back in my mind, further the distance from creating thought or traveling with it. As I did I began to experience a greater and greater feeling of peace, connectedness, and accomplishment.
Then I had a bit of that past experience again. This time I felt like I was floating a bit. I knew I wasn’t, but I no longer felt weighed down by my body. It was “floating while knowing you aren’t” moving sensation. It was really cool. I tried to keep my observer mind, but wondered if this is why people always imagine a floating person when meditation is discussed. I am always sure to tell those I talk to about meditation that it isn’t that mystical, and you shouldn’t expect to float around the room. But occasionally you do experience something transcendent. Or maybe it’s just an inner ear infection. Of course there must be a scientific and logical explanation for it.
The point is that there are many varied techniques and experiences to meditation, and if all you experience is a little calm it is still a big success. With continued practice you will likely experience more peace, some connectedness to the universe, and a calmer demeanor.
For some of my other writing on meditation click the links below.
A Meditative Experience
Mindfulness
Zen Ironing
May, Thoughts for….
This includes some of my experience with Metta Meditation and links to other writing.

Photo by Alexi Berry

It seems to be my goal lately to challenge standard assumptions in psychology. Recently I challenged the idea that sarcasm is always anger. In this article I will challenge the notion that when an older person dates a significantly younger partner, it has to do with control and power issues.
To begin it is important to understand I am not stating that this is never true. In fact it is likely true in the majority of cases. Many men or women date younger people partly because it gives them control in the relationship. They are older, presumably wiser, and generally are more established in their career and more financially secure. In these cases it is possible and perhaps even likely that part of the attraction to a younger partner is to have control or power in the relationship.
It is necessary to define power, as power or control in a relationship can be demonstrated in various ways. For this article’s purpose we will define power and control as the ability to get what one wants the majority of the time, and especially when there is a conflict. In other words, when the couple disagrees on something the one with the most power and control more often than not gets their way.
There is a great Seinfeld episode which I often use in regard to relationships. The episode centers on George and Susan’s relationship and how George no longer has “hand”. Hand, in this case, is a wonderful metaphor for power. It is my experience both personally and professionally that someone in a relationship usually has hand. It is also true that in some of the healthiest relationships the power is pretty evenly distributed.
This power that we discuss does not have to be blatant. It can be subtle. Much of this power may be unnoticed and rarely yielded. At times it might be necessary to have a third party determine who has the power, as the parties may be biased in their perception. In many of these cases the power is close to evenly distributed.
Part of the equation for power is a “who could do without the other more easily” dynamic, often expressed as “who loves who more”. In any romantic love relationship based in this culture there is a level of insecurity. We want to posses the other, we want to know they are ours. This is especially true in the early stages of the relationship. There is vulnerability in loving someone; one risks being hurt. This vulnerability is equivalent to insecurity. Generally speaking, as the relationship progresses security grows and the concern about vulnerability diminishes (as you might be aware from my other writing, this vulnerability is always present. This is because no one ever knows what the future brings, and thereby is still at risk of losing their partner and experiencing pain).
Now to move to the argument that the older person does not always possesses the power in a relationship. As I expressed above, a key element to the power differential is the consideration of who loves who more. Is it not possible that the older person loves the younger more? I can think of innumerable examples where this might be the case. Perhaps the younger person is looking for financial security and the older person is in love. Do you believe Anna Nicole Smith loved J. Howard Marshall, a man 63 years her senior, more than he did her? I am not basing the whole argument on cases of likely gold-digging, although examples like this are plentiful.
Men are attracted to youth. It is taught in every introduction to sociology class. Perhaps it is an evolutionary fact that these men are looking to spread their seed and want fertile ground to do so. Many say that what we experience as love in this culture is an infatuation, combined with aspects of possessiveness, attraction, sexual desire and the excitement of the new. (David Hawkins). With this in mind, who would have the upper “hand” in a relationship, an older male or a younger female? If an individual is very strongly attracted to another, who has the “hand”? It certainly would depend on other factors, and of course we have to account for the sociological assumption women are attracted to men who can protect them and provide for their off-spring, as this may play into a power differential. But this is the basis of my case, that although the older person may sometimes have the power, perhaps we need to look beyond these stereotypes and explore some of the other dynamics that take place in the power differential of a romantic relationship.
In order to more fully explore this topic it is important to look at the variables that lead to attraction: proximity is more important than most people think; there is the character traits we are attracted to such as sweetness, ruggedness, etc; there is unconscious phenomenon related to our upbringing; and there is the idea of the ideal mate, and how the individual we are attracted to measures up against that ideal. (For a little more thorough explanation of attraction please see my article on attraction). Let us just look at one of these aspects and its role in the development of a power differential in a relationship:
Let’s say a woman begins dating a man 13 years her junior. At first glance we might believe she has the power simply because she is older. But what if this young man, let’s say he’s 27, nearly perfectly meets her ideal of a man. He is rugged looking, strong, sensitive, tall, dark, and attractive; fill in any of the typically positive attributes we assign to attractive individuals. He is almost, if not seemingly perfectly, her ideal. Does she still have the power in the relationship? Maybe, despite his positive qualities, he is only looking for a fun and fulfilling relationship right now. But he knows in the future he’ll want his shot at the typical American dream: wife, kids, fence, the works. He believes he loves her (as much as anyone does in our predefined way of loving in this culture). Still, the fact remains she is not his ideal, not at this time. Weighing this out can we still honestly purport that she has the power? In this simple scenario he has the hand. She is more vulnerable than he is.
This idea could be replicated with example after example. But I believe the reader has the idea. I would propose one final blow to the age equals power argument: many people as they age learn a deeper, less selfish type of love. They grow and mature, have given and taken their lumps in previous relationships, and are closer to the unconditional love that most of us strive to have (although not necessarily give). So maybe the older individual in the relationship is more nurturing and less selfish. At the same time they are still human, and like others in relationships irrationally want the seeming security of knowing their partner will be there for them. But in this scenario the older partner is more vulnerable. The younger may want to move on at some point.
In conclusion I believe I have demonstrated that there are far more considerations to the power differential in relationships than the age difference. I would venture that education and socioeconomic status are important. In fact before I had a college education I was married to a woman within my age bracket (3 years younger). I would venture to say I had far more power in that relationship than I did in my second marriage, where there was a twelve year differential. (We were both more educated, although she more than I, and in a better socioeconomic place). There is far more at play in a relationship’s power differential than age. I purport and believe I have demonstrated the most important factor is who “loves” (wants to possess, feels tied to, has a stronger attraction for) the other.

I often hear people (especially those in the psychology field) state that they perceive sarcasm as anger. There is truth in this, and I cannot deny that when some people use sarcasm it has an angry sentiment embedded in it. But is it true that sarcasm is always anger? I do not believe so, and hope to defend the argument in this paper.
As someone who has had an anger problem in the past, and who currently provides anger management counseling, I have wondered if the masses that report sarcasm is anger are correct. As someone who uses sarcasm frequently enough I am also concerned it is perceived that way when I do not intend for it to be. Additionally if I am being sarcastic and do not believe it comes from anger, than one possibility would be I am in denial of the anger I am unconsciously demonstrating.
To begin I’d like to discuss when sarcasm is anger. I have witnessed many occasions when individuals make sarcastic remarks in a passive aggressive attempt to communicate their displeasure with something, while at the same time avoiding confrontation with the escape hatch of it all being a joke. I would expect many of my readers can identify someone who uses this technique. If confronted they likely back off and say they were just kidding, and may even put it back on the person confronting that they are being sensitive and can’t take a joke. In this manner they are able to express their displeasure without taking responsibility for it.
In respect to the above it is not necessary that the person always defend against confrontation by saying it was a joke. Sometimes the passive aggressive maneuver is successful in that the other takes the hint and changes their behavior. Other times it is not successful in facilitating change in behavior (as is likely desired) but still serves as a release. Another possible payoff of masking anger in sarcasm is the person feels they aired their grievance, the other did not heed, and they have more to complain about. This is an unhealthy way of dealing with conflict but it has its payoffs for many and is used fairly frequently.
Many of the television shows that people enjoy are full of sarcasm. I would venture a bet that most of the jokes in sitcoms are based on sarcasm. Again, I cannot deny that much of this is anger. Look at the old sitcom “Married with Children.” Nearly all of the jokes in that show were based on contempt the characters seemed to have for one another.
So it is conceded that there are many instances where sarcasm is based in anger. Now I would like to move to the argument that sarcasm is not always anger. For this argument I will use “Seinfeld”. This show is nearly entirely based on sarcasm. Every member has their own brand of sarcasm (although Kramer perhaps less so than the others). At times there is anger in the sarcasm they use. One could even purport that some of the characters are angry. An argument could be made that George is an angry person, and that his sarcasm is a demonstration of that. Perhaps his anger stems from his own self-loathing, which appears to come through occasionally in the episodes.
But despite the occasional anger masked as a joke, would you describe Jerry as an angry guy? It is my contention that Jerry is a pretty happy guy, and that his sarcasm is more of an attempt to be funny than any attempt to express his anger in a way that does not result in confrontation. Yet Jerry’s main shtick is a sarcastic retort (perhaps second to his observational humor). The majority of his lines are sarcastic, even somewhat condescending. Yet his friends love him and do not take offense to his manner (this is irrelevant to my argument however). Unless you make the argument condescension is hidden anger, I believe you would be hard pressed to propose that Jerry is an angry person.
I expect that my readers who may watch more television sitcoms than I can put this argument to the test. What other, perhaps more current television characters use sarcasm as anger, or who use sarcasm but are not angry? My point is that sometimes sarcasm is an expression of anger, or is the expression of an angry person. But it is not as many therapists might purport. Sarcasm is not always anger. In fact, it may not even be predominately anger.
Now to relate this to existentialism: As discussed in previous articles, the existential position consists at least partly on taking responsibility for your life and actions. In this vein it is important to look at your use of sarcasm, or of your response to those who use it with you and to determine if it is anger or not. If you are the sarcastic one, are you reasonably sure you aren’t angry? Would you be willing to explore this with some of your closest relatives or peers? If you use sarcasm frequently but do not perceive yourself as angry, what is its purpose? Has it just been reinforced for a long time by people laughing so you continue to use it? How is it affecting your relationships with others? How is it affecting how others perceive you?
If you are the receiver of sarcasm, are you allowing those close to you to escape confrontation through their use of sarcasm? Are you more comfortable with their sarcasm than an outright challenge? How do you reinforce their use of angry sarcasm (if that is the case)?
I teach a good amount, and use sarcasm frequently both in and out of classroom and therapy. Although the majority of the class may laugh, sometimes I wonder later if I offended a person whose remark or response was used as the impetus to the sarcasm. I have recently wondered if when someone perceives me as arrogant if the sarcasm has played a part in that perception. Although I believe I will use sarcasm until I die, it is still a worthwhile endeavor to look at its use and to see if I am misusing it or overusing it. One of the goals I have been striving for is to demonstrate more loving-kindness. I can’t imagine sarcasm is helping that cause. At the same time, I believe in being yourself, so I will never entirely give it up. I am well aware of the payoffs of being a smart-ass.

Photo by Alexi Berry

Many therapists advocate the practice of meditation for their clients. The benefits of meditation have been well documented in articles and books. Meditation can assist an individual in controlling their breath, which helps to reduce anxiety by lowering heart rate and blood pressure. There are also chemical reactions in the brain observed in fMRIs which activate parts of the brain associated with relaxation. There has even been some documentation on lasting changes in the brains of those who meditate regularly.

Another way meditation is helpful is through distancing the individual from their thinking. Most therapists, at the very least, will focus to some extent on challenging the clients’ distortions in thinking. Meditation helps provide the distance that assists in this questioning and challenging of thought. In many circumstances people allow their thinking to control them. Their anxiety or depressive thinking dictates their thinking and mood. The person who meditates is better able to step back psychologically and not be as driven by their automatic thinking. They have a distance between their thoughts and thereby are able to be an observer of their thoughts, rather than at their mercy.

Although I have always been an advocate of meditation, I have only practiced sitting meditation for periods sporadically. Recently a friend on Facebook started a group for the month of May where sitting mediation is the practice. I have sat in meditation most days (admittedly I had a tough time making time or forgot a couple of the days of the practice). But even with sitting most days (6 of 7 weekly) I have noticed a substantial change in my reactions to stress. This in turn has impacted my mood, resulting in more calm.

I generally consider myself a very happy person. But, as those who know me are aware, I am passionate about some things, and react, at least initially, to stimuli. I might have a small but noticeable reaction of anger or disappointment to a stimulus. Since sitting in meditation I seem less reactive. I am more able to be an observer to situations that I am involved in. Situations that would normally lead to a reaction I am more distanced from, and I thereby handle them better.

The meditation we are doing is a Metta meditation. It focuses on loving-kindness. The first week or so of the practice we focused on loving kindness for ourselves. I believe I said in a previous post, but it bears repeating: I believe this practice has an abundance of benefit for anyone. Most people I see in therapy are very hard on themselves, and this practice creates a more forgiving and loving atmosphere for them.

I did follow the practice completely as laid out. At first I skimmed some of the directions (I am a guy) and admittedly missed some of the leaders suggestions initially. I had read and practiced Loving-kindness meditation in the past, and incorporated some of my previous learning. But when reading later suggestions from the leader, I went back and reread what I had missed. I say this now because if you have also been following her tutelage, my process may vary.

The next stage I engaged in, following loving kindness for myself, was envisioning loving beings around you while you meditate. These loving beings can be people you know who are loving, or beings you imagine to be loving. I would like to discuss my experience with this portion of the practice. The first time I did it, I went weeding through the people I know to surround myself with loving people. This turned out to be a little more difficult than I expected. As I went through my friends, I would first put them in the circle, envisioning them entering a sort of empty space with me, and with them we made a circle. Then for some I would remember times they weren’t very loving or kind, and eliminate them from the circle. I even toyed with the idea of just using beings, but as I have trouble believing in that type of thing, I kept going through people I know. Eventually I was able to get myself a circle of people I perceive as loving. Many were friends; some were spiritual leaders (the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hahn). Some were people I don’t know well but imagine are loving (the group leader, a few others that I have read submissions from).

I also found this practice to be very beneficial, and to affect the way I was to strangers. As many others, I do not walk around exuding love. I imagine there aren’t many who envisioned me in their circle of loving friends, and that is understandable. I have a shell that is meant to protect me from being taken advantage of or otherwise hurt. This shell is often unnecessary, but the habit of keeping it up is well ingrained. This practice of surrounding myself with loving individuals and creating a bubble of love helped to lessen the unnecessary use of a shell and made me more personable to strangers, when I had usually been indifferent.

Another part of the meditation I’d like to discuss is the “Benefactor”. When I read this I thought how easy it would be. So many people have helped me through my life, both professionally and personally.  But when I brought my benefactors in, I realized I held some small negative feeling for some. There was an old director of a program, who although was quite a model, we had a falling out and never repaired the relationship. He has been deceased some time, but feelings I thought were gone surfaced. This repeated for at least a few of my benefactors. As such, I found I needed a hybrid of the benefactor and difficult person practice. I move from recognizing the benefactor to bringing all living beings into the meditation. First, I start bringing in anyone I can remember as they have likely impacted my life, and to this degree, are benefactors. Second, even those I find difficult somehow affect me, so I bring them in. All the while I am focusing on loving-kindness for all living things, expanding it in concordance with those I have invited into the practice.

It is important to remember that it is a practice. My mind wanders when I meditate, and I have to bring it back to the breath, and recently to the thoughts of loving kindness. I am not an expert practitioner. No one really is. I believe everyone’s mind wanders. The goal is to become aware of it and come back to the practice. I write this so those who are new to it don’t feel they aren’t doing it correctly and quit.

In conclusion I cannot say enough about the benefits of meditation. I have become a meditation evangelist with my clients, discussing the benefits and when appropriate my experience with the practice. Metta practice and meditation in general, can be of the utmost benefit to individual mental health, and a feeling of serenity.

Art by Alexi Berry

As I mentioned in the beginning of the year, I plan on posting excerpts from the draft of the book I am writing about addiction recovery. The book combines my training in the field along with professional and personal experience to provide examples. This excerpt is from an early chapter and discusses bottoms. As always I welcome any feedback.

Whether an addict has to hit bottom or not is a topic of much debate. It is often heard when someone who has tried recovery briefly and failed that “they did not hit bottom yet.” Using this reasoning and considering the amount of people that relapse after reportedly hitting their bottom, I suppose one will only know if they hit bottom after they remain in recovery a significant period of time. Treatment professionals often consider part of their job raising the bottom for their clients, so they don’t have to go any lower. That brings the discussion to the next topic, motivation.

When someone enters treatment others often try to determine whether the motivation is internal or external, or a combination of both. External motivation was discussed briefly above, and consists of outside, societal produced reasons to seek help or to stop substance use. These reasons include people one cares about applying pressure, legal trouble that requires abstinence, some licensing boards that force their members into treatment if a problem is discovered, other work or career issues, and health problems exacerbated by substance use.

Internal motivation is the realization a behavior is detrimental to your life goals or incongruent with your values, and a decision to stop as a result. In over 16 years of work in the addiction field, I can vaguely recall one or two legitimate cases where there was this type of internal motivation. In a recent group I run where the majority of clients were impaired professionals stipulated to treatment by their licensing entity, there was one gentleman who had no career or legal problems. The group members genuinely gloated about his internal motivation, how great it was to have entered treatment on his own, to not be forced, and how proud he must be. When he couldn’t take it anymore he stopped them and informed them his wife made him enter the group; and that if not for her, he’d probably still be popping pain pills.

Almost all the literature and research regarding who fares better in treatment, those with internal or external motivation, reports that it is equal. This is easy to see if one looks past what brought an individual to treatment. Those that are truly internally motivated have the desire to change their life for the better, and may readily accept suggestions and go the extra mile. Those that have a monitoring system like the courts want to remain out of trouble, and as such must follow direction. And for many externally motivated clients it doesn’t end there, they have to submit to random urine drug screens for extended periods. Many of the impaired professionals I work with have five year contracts which require random drug and alcohol screens.

As a clinician I have often made the argument that all motivation is internal, and all motivation is external. Perhaps it’s my Eastern philosophical stance that each apparently opposing side is part of the whole. Regardless, my argument is such: if one wants to stay out of jail and maintain freedom doesn’t that convert to internal motivation? They are internally motivated to have a better life, knowing freedom is better than incarceration. If it is their career at stake, the argument remains the same: they believe keeping their license to practice law (or medicine, or nursing) offers more opportunity for enjoyment in their life than not practicing. And if the internally motivated individual wants to improve their life, or behave more in line with their morals and values, doesn’t that also serve an external component? Do they not accept an external reward in this life or the next? My point is that motivation can be external or internal, depending on the focus. The point is that the substance abuser has to change their focus and want to remain abstinent, no matter what the reason. And this is then internal motivation.

I have worked with clients with very low bottoms and with high bottoms, if we choose to use this designation. My clients have included women (and men) who have traded sexual favor for a five dollar bag of crack. I have worked with doctors, nurses, and lawyers as well as a few professional sports figures whose careers were on the line if they did not cease substance use. The highest bottom person I ever worked with entered treatment because she bruised her knee in a blackout, and found this unacceptable. And of these substance abusers, there have been those that lost what they entered treatment to save as a result of continued substance use. There have also been those who have saved their life, which at the time may have been all they had left.