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.

Photo by Alexi Berry

Recently someone requested I write an article about loneliness. I wasn’t sure what to write. Then I watched the first season of “Californication” and was feeling a little down myself and figured I could parlay that into an article.

First it is important to identify two types of loneliness. People can feel lonely because they are missing someone or are simply alone when they would prefer to be with someone else. The other type of loneliness is more pervasive and is felt even when in the company of many others. As both types can be distressing, this article will briefly discuss both.

First, there is real benefit in being comfortable alone. If we accept this as true it may indicate an issue if you are feeling uncomfortable when alone most times. It has long been my belief that in life we try very hard to avoid the fact that ultimately we are alone. We are born alone, we live alone in our skins (meaning no one really knows us completely, and no matter how close we are to someone we are ultimately alone) and we die alone (no matter who is there when you take your final breath or who attends your funeral). Sometimes when you are alone for a period, this ominous feeling can come upon you reminding you of how alone you are.

In existential therapy, you would be encouraged to experience this sense of solitude from everything and accept it as reality. Time alone can assist with this experience. At the same time I believe it is best to have balance in your life. This means not wallowing in this sense of aloneness, and instead sometimes distracting yourself from it by being with friends or otherwise engaged in activities that allow you to feel connected to others. I believe there is a balance between our being solitary and at the same time connected. But many existentialists would disagree. Regardless of the method, it is important to accept the solitude nature of your existence (which is described above).

The other, more pervasive, feeling of being alone is more pathological. Although accurate, it seems to feed upon itself and render the individual depressed and isolated. This individual feels alone even when in a crowd. It often seems no amount of contact can bring the person out of this feeling. It is my opinion that this form of loneliness is derived from depression. In this regard, I believe this type of depression stems from the death instinct. Freud was the first to identify the life and death instinct that he believed existed in all people. The life instinct was the libido, and one result of its energy was to bring individuals into fruitful contact. This doesn’t just refer to procreation, but to survival of oneself and the species. We need others to survive.

The death instinct, or aggression, is more destructive. It seems in many people this death instinct is overactive, and leads to self destructive behaviors. For some this is demonstrated in the social isolation that results in loneliness. On one hand the individual longs for contact with others, and on the other the thought produces anxiety or, in another scenario, the person uses defense mechanisms to make themselves superior and can then find few worthy of close contact. Either way the result is the same: an individual who remains isolated and alone.

So what is to be done about loneliness? First, as I hope I have made clear, one should at least attempt to embrace the fact that ultimately they are alone. Second, they should make the effort to connect with others, despite full connection being impossible (yet often longed for). The connection people can experience together can be very powerful, and help to provide energy to the life instinct. The problem with this culture is that often people aren’t really connecting, instead they engage in pseudo-connections. These pseudo connections may be demonstrated in compulsive or empty sex, superficial relationships, internet networks, and other unfulfilling endeavors. Human connection is wrought with potential problems, but it is the best source of connection we have available. The problems of human relations can be overcome, or at least managed. The first step is to really listen, and to seek to be understood. Often, for people that cannot find a suitable partner for this endeavor therapy will assist in both meeting the need initially and providing guidance in making this happen outside of the therapeutic relationship.

This seems so simple: when pervasively lonely simply connect with others. But there are often an array of issues that inhibit the simple solution. These can range from a debilitating depression, generalized anxiety, or social awkwardness, among other things. However, the ability to connect with others is vitally important to a happy and healthy life. In most studies on happiness supportive relations are identified as important contributors to happiness.

One final point is important to make: in this culture there is a tendency to idolize the melancholy and the loners, at least by some people. Hank Moody in “Californication” is self destructive because he lost the love if his life (the mother of his child). He sleeps with many women and drinks excessively in an attempt to escape the loneliness he is feeling. Despite spending much of his time with others he seems hopelessly alone, misunderstood, and depressed. Perhaps this is why so many people feel connected to his character. Of course this character is not the only one idolized who experiences this. The list is extensive. This can be another obstacle to breaking free from the death instinct. But in reality, death will eventually take you. Why not embrace your life while you can?

Photo by Alexi Berry

A recent topic in my groups has been whether group members are escaping or embracing life. It is difficult to differentiate at times which an individual might be doing. It is my contention that in a large number of cases it is more about the attitude than the activity.

The group where we have been having this discussion is for substance abusers. Recently I wrote a chapter in the book I’m working on about harm reduction and used a similar group as an example for that phenomenon. The reason I used that group as an example is because some of the members were attempting to control their substance use, as opposed to the usual suggestion of abstinence; hence, harm reduction. The example may also serve to describe the difference between embracing and escaping life.

First, I want to make it clear that substance abusers are not the only people attempting to escape life. In fact it’s not even my contention that all substance abusers are escaping life. Many people attempt to temporarily escape their life. In fact, I have spoken with people (who weren’t clients) who believed that their escapes were the only way to enjoy parts of life.

Let us begin by looking at a group of substance abusers as an example:
In this group there are five members. Ryan is in his mid twenties, and his drug of choice was opioids. He drinks a beer, glass of wine, or other alcohol beverage once in a while. In the six months he has been attempting controlled use, he has not become intoxicated. John just celebrated his twenty first birthday. He is also an opioid addict but has decided that using alcohol and marijuana are important to his life. He does become intoxicated, reporting a blackout in his short period of attempted controlled use, along with using marijuana approximately twice a week as well. Joe is in his early twenties and recently became abstinent from all substances. Betty has been abstinent for over three months and is in her mid twenties. Jane just turned 20 and is also abstinent, after having failed at controlled use at another treatment facility.

If we compare Ryan and John we can see the difference in attitude regarding using a substance. Ryan is using minimally, and seems to be using alcohol as a supplement to an already enjoyable life. John is using substances more regularly and may very well be trying to escape what he finds to be a mundane life. When this was explored in group sessions the members appeared to agree with this assessment. Even John admitted it seems like he might be trying to escape life.

The difference between embracing life and escaping life is often simply a matter of attitude. Two events can look exactly the same, and yet one person may be escaping life and the other embracing it. It would seem that over indulgence in anything runs the risk of being an escape.

If we look at an example of a weekend getaway the attitude involved in escape versus embrace may be more evident. Both couples may feel they need a break and to get away from some of the stressors they are experiencing. Both couples may go to an island for a long weekend. What the difference may come down to is the way each couple views the getaway.

Couple one might see this getaway as a much needed opportunity to relax and focus on their relationship for a bit. They may do many of the same activities as the other couple. Couple two might also view the getaway as a much needed opportunity to relax and reconnect. But their perception may be more focused on this mini vacation being what they’ve been working to have for months. They may be dreading going back to their jobs and their “normal life”.

That simple attitude or way of perceiving life is the difference between embracing or escaping life. Many people perceive life as drudgery. This is obvious in the saying “life is a bitch and then you die”. (I won’t offer the alternate male version). A great many people muddle through life looking for the next great escape, whether it is a vacation, a new toy, or a new romance. It is not uncommon to notice people working for some kind of end reward. Many people believe happiness is around the corner, and they never really turn the corner.

A lot of this relates to what I wrote in “The Psychopathology of Normal” which came from a quote by Maslow. And the purpose of writing about it again is similar, the desire for all to find happiness in their lives. In that vein I challenge you to look at your life and determine of you are escaping it or embracing it.

Photo from an early draft of Path to Recovery Workbook cover by Alexi Berry

As many of you know, I have been working on a book combining my education as a therapist, my experience in the field of addiction, and some personal experience to create a book about addiction recovery. You may also remember I recently promised to begin providing some excerpts from it in this new year. This is the first. I wrote this recently when finishing a chapter on family therapy. Although it addresses what a parent of someone addicted might experience, it also relates to partners, siblings, and at times, even the adult children of an addicted individual who might now have taken a parental role toward their parent. Additionally I believe it also relates to parenting in general. I certainly welcome feedback.

One of the biggest difficulties for family members when confronted with someone in their family developing an addiction is with issues of control. This is especially true when the addicted family member is the child, and the parents struggle between what is enabling, what is controlling, and what the best balance is.

I have recently been working with a family that provides an excellent example of this dilemma. In this family there is an intact marriage and three grown children, two male and one female. The addicted individual is the female. She is in her early twenties, and still lives at home, as do all of these adult children. She is addicted to marijuana, and entered treatment as a result of an arrest. She has maintained abstinence from marijuana but has admitted drinking excessively. As she appears to be trying to establish her own identity and also appears to be the current scapegoat in the family, she and her parents have engaged in family therapy.

Her parents are very loving and supportive parents. They had difficulty with their oldest son in the past which resulted in a clashing between the father and this child. But since then they have continued to maintain a close familial relationship. Their love and support for their daughter, as well as their frustration with poor decisions she has made are evident in the sessions.

On one hand, this young adult’s parents attempt to prevent her from further poor decision making by not allowing her to engage in certain activities. An example would be the forbiddance of her getting a hotel to celebrate her birthday. On the other hand, their consequences for her breaking of established rules has bordered on permissive. For example after an incident where she was said (by a brother) to have been intoxicated while expected to drive, the daughter’s punishment of no car was not adhered to. Within a very short period of time she was again utilizing the family vehicle to go out socially.

It is clearly difficult to decide what to do as a parent in these circumstances. And often there is no clear cut correct answer. One of the most important things to do in these cases however is to set appropriate limitations and then stick to them. I am as guilty as the next parent of saying I will do something if a behavior continues and not follow through. Often my threats of punishment are grotesquely exaggerated (making teenage children walk home when being annoying in the car, when the distance is far too great). Often my children meet my punishment threats with laughter, as they know I am kidding, while at the same time expressing my frustration. In my years as a parent I have learned to think about true consequences that I believe are both fair and that I will stick to. In other words, I don’t make serious threats of punishment without the intention and determination to follow through. I once threatened my oldest son that if we (his mother or I) found out again that he didn’t do his homework I would bag up every one of his toys and he wouldn’t have them. The day I did it, (within a week I think) I nearly cried at his anguish. (He earned them back daily by completing his homework). The point which should be obvious is to stick to the limits / punishments you state. This is especially true for addicts.

It seems addicts learn early that the horrible things possible from addiction don’t happen. They use a substance and find it wasn’t as bad as the news, D.A.R.E, or parents and teachers had said. As the drug (or alcohol) takes a slow grip of their lives, many threats are never materialized. Parents or partners threaten to throw them out or leave, but do not. Or they do, but it is temporary, and the addict through promises, charm, manipulation, or genuine remorse makes promises they won’t keep, but which get them back in the house. Although it can be a slow process, and although there are exceptions to the rule, the addict learns many threats can be circumvented. This is part of the reason for which limitations and consequences must be followed through.

Art by Alexi Berry

For weeks I have been talking about writing an article on attraction. It is one of my favorite topics in psychology. I often catch myself looking at couples and wondering why they are together, what their relationship is like. When I meet new couples I ask how they met. And of course I analyze my attraction to anyone I date, and even those I just find myself attracted to.

Most people would like to attribute attraction to some mystical force that brings people together. Even I do not want to completely deny the existence of some type of synchronicity in the universe which brings people together. My desire for mystery in life, for a belief in magic and destiny and some sort of celestial order fosters this belief. My rational mind admonishes my dreamy side for this and instead focuses on what science and the study of attraction has demonstrated.

I recently finished teaching an introductory course in psychology and one of the chapters focused on social psychology. In that chapter the author writes how most people want to believe they have or will find their perfect match. He then jokes it will more likely be their perfect match in a five mile radius. This joke demonstrates the power of proximity in attraction. We as humans tend to form bonds with those that are in close proximity to us regularly. Most of my serious relationships evidence this. One wife I met my first semester in college. Another I met at a job. I have dated extensively at places I have worked (completely ignoring the adage “do not defecate where you eat.”) I have also dated women I have met throughout my college career (I attended college for approximately 8 or more years of my life). When I think of those I have dated that were not from either of these locals (school or workplace) I can only credit the internet, other places I have frequented, or mutual friends who set us up. This speaks strongly for proximity.

Proximity isn’t just about meeting that special someone you find yourself attracted to. It is also about being in close contact with someone and developing an attraction as a result. I do not watch a great deal of television, but catch the office now and then (on Hulu when an episode catches my eye, and I had to google the names of those I reference now). On that show Pam and Jim met at work. She was dating / engaged to a guy who worked in the warehouse. Michael dated a woman from the company for a time, and I believe he also was in love with another who worked there. Currently Andy is infatuated with the new secretary. Granted, this is a television show, but many of us likely know of love (or lust) affairs that have occurred at our jobs.

There are sayings that “opposites attract.” Although I find this to be true in more subtle ways (more later in this article) the truth is most people marry within their own race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and religion. We tend to find ourselves attracted to, romantically and otherwise, people that are like us physically and in our beliefs.

Now that some of the preliminary facts of attraction are out of the way I’d like to discuss some of the deeper aspects. First, the best book I have read on love is called “A General Theory Of Love”. In this excellent (but often biological book) the authors discuss how our childhood experiences and memory formation lead to attraction to others later in life. Basically, and unfortunately summarizing nearly a full text into a few sentences, we form strong memories from our early childhood experiences. These memories, which remain largely unconscious, guide our attraction to others. The unconscious mind picks up on the most subtle of cues, and though consciously we may not understand why we are attracted to someone, we are. This theory beautifully explains when people find themselves attracted to someone who is definitely no good for us. How many people have been themselves, or know of someone, attracted to another who later turns out to be no good for them. And not only this person, but they keep finding themselves in a relationship with a similar type, whether it be an alcoholic (who at the time we met wasn’t a problem drinker) or an abusive partner, or someone who cannot be faithful. It doesn’t always have to be this dramatic either, but the extreme examples are more readily identifiable. How often was there a parent or other close caregiver that had a similar issue to the partner?  This book does an excellent job of supporting this theory, and illuminating much of what goes into attraction.

The next aspect of attraction I’d like to discuss is the Jungian idea of projection. Many people confuse projections (of their ideal mate onto the person that they desire) with having found their soul mate. A projection is an internal ideal, thought process, or state that is attributed to another person. In other words, the individual knows what they want and need their ideal mate to be and they place these attributes and qualities into another individual. They observe this other person’s behavior and relate it to their ideal. If they do not recognize the projection, they then believe they have found their soul mate. Later, when they know the person better, the partner begins to fall short of their expectations. Falling short of expectations they cannot be the ideal, and often the search for the real soul mate begins again. This pattern of disappointment will continue until an individual realizes the reality of projection, and does not give in to the fantasy that they have found their soul mate.

Another aspect of relationships is the bargaining process. This is not an external event, but an internal one. Each person entering a relationship is aware of the attributes that they bring to the table. These can include attractiveness, financial security, a quality of sweetness, intelligence, being a giving person, being attentive, considerate, good in bed, etc. Knowing what attributes’ one brings to the table, the individual wants a comparable partner. This does not mean that we necessarily want someone exactly as attractive, nice, financially secure, etc., as we are, but it means that we want an equal or better bargain in line with what we value. For example, how many very attractive people have you seen with a partner who is financially secure. The person knows he/she brings financial well being and security and all the luxuries that come with wealth, and in turn he / she values an attractive trophy for a partner.  The attractive person in this example knows they are very attractive and values financial security.

This example is simplified although it exists.  The actual bargaining process is more complicated due to the amount of aspects to consider, but the example exemplifies the issue. It would seem rudimentary that we wouldn’t want anyone beneath what we bring to the table. At the same time, what if we ended up with someone who brings much more to the table? The result would likely be insecurity, as we would feel the other would soon discover we don’t measure up and dump us. We might constantly be on guard to protect ourselves and catch it at the earliest possible moment.

Earlier I mentioned opposites attracting, and wanting to return to that theme. In doing so, I want to discuss the psychological theory of compensation. In compensation, one overdoes an aspect where they feel insecure. For example, they might buy big cars when they don’t feel very manly. Compensation in regard to attraction is similar, although it relates more to the choice in a partner than a weakness. Carl Jung identified character traits people tend to favor: introvert / extrovert, feeling / thinking, etc. It has been my contention in regard to these attributes people tend to choose a partner that helps bring them to balance. For example, outgoing, social people often pair with quieter, more reserved types. This is often a function of compensation.

It is easy to see how although attraction is a multifaceted and complicated process, it is not all mystery and magic. There are some theories which help explain it and I am sure I haven’t even covered half of them. Hopefully you are able to look at your attraction, and understand it a little better, or at least question the next time you find yourself attracted to another.

Photo by Alexi Berry

A few months ago I wrote a review of “I Love You Man” and related it to dishonesty. At the time, I had caught several students cheating on an exam, and I wondered aloud (or in print) about what leads people to be dishonest. Now I want to revisit this topic, but adding in infidelity.

I think it might be important to define infidelity at this juncture, as I was once involved with a woman who believed having coffee with a woman without her knowledge (in other words hiding it) was cheating. Although this point has some validity, for this article we will consider infidelity as any sexual act with someone other than one’s partner. Sexual is defined as any act of kissing, coddling, sexual touching, or anything involving genitalia. (Come on, if your still looking for a way to say it wasn’t cheating at this point, you’re kidding yourself).

There is no way one can be unfaithful, keep it a secret, and not be behaving dishonestly. Although some do not define omission as lying, we will when it comes to sexual acts (defined above) when in a committed relationship. (Committed does not mean marriage, it means there is an understanding of monogamy). You might notice at this point I am really defining terms, and I suppose my reasoning is I have had so many clients debate whether something was cheating or not. I actually had some male clients tell me that their receiving oral copulation from someone other than their wife wasn’t cheating!

So, with everything defined, let’s return to the discussion. It is estimated that between 44 and 75% of men cheat on their wives, and that 17 to 25% of wives cheat on their husbands. I would put more faith in the higher numbers, as infidelity often goes unreported, and in these times I only see the numbers going up. Women are quickly catching up to men in many of the negative behaviors men are notorious for. What’s more, these statistics do not include those that are not married, but are in otherwise committed relationships. I saw “Funny People” recently, and when questioned in a condescending fashion about his infidelity in the past by someone without even a girlfriend, the character who had cheated replied “It’s easy not to cheat when no one wants to sleep with you.”

What I want to discuss is why with so many people being unfaithful, why do we cling to the cultural standards we have. Most who know me are aware I have had issues with fidelity in the past. Beyond that, having come to know myself a little better over these years, I have realized long term (read a year or more) relationships do not suit me personally very well. I am open about this to potential partners (I am using the term partner to represent any woman who engages in a romantic relationship with me). What it has resulted in is insecurity, suspicion, and other relational difficulties. I am not trying to claim this is unwarranted. With honesty there is consequences. And this is largely why so many lie to begin with. But what I am saying is that the honesty contributes to these feelings of insecurity, when in reality the individual is only reporting what is generally true for many anyhow, but goes unspoken.

I often hear from women they want honesty from a man. Many people find my honesty refreshing. But then I am punished for it. My argument here is that people really do not want honesty. They want to be sold an illusion of the possibility of “Happily Ever After.” Understand me correctly: I am not saying they want to hear it will last forever, but they do not want the illusion of that possibility crushed. So instead of enjoying whatever they might have in an honest relationship, they would rather find someone who does not destroy the illusion.

In my earlier blog on dishonesty (which focused on students cheating, then on the surprising and hilarious honesty of Jason Segal’s character in “I Love You Man”) I wondered why so many lie until the evidence is clear and there is no escape. Of course I understand the reasoning: it is better to play the odds. But I want society (read you and all others) to look at its part in creating this epidemic of dishonesty. If as a society we continue to try to maintain an illusion of fairy tales but act in direct contradiction to it (by cheating and lying and believing the fault for our fairy tale going wrong lies in the doing of someone else) we will continue to promote a society where dishonesty is the better bet, and where everyone continues to pretend everything is okay with them, all the while hoping something better is just around the corner.

In his blog my friend Oscar wrote about lying: “Of course, it is not you. You are probably reading this and nodding your head in agreement with me. You are probably thinking ‘Yeah man! It’s sick!’” He goes on to say “And really, what’s even worse, you might genuinely believe that you are a good person but you are just too blind to notice otherwise.” Now Oscar has a way of embracing controversy. And I would like to soften this a bit, and purport that often the dishonesty people engage in is done automatically, with the defense mechanisms of that make negative behavior more palatable at work. In other words, I believe many our victims of their own thinking. But this can be overcome.

Think of this for a moment: how many of you have begun on the slippery slope of cheating? The slippery slope is when you are attracted to someone, and you start to flirt. Then you are finding excuses to talk to this individual. Maybe you are spending time with them after work just “chatting.” The attraction grows. Now a decision has to be made: do I cheat? (By some people’s standards you already have, calling this an emotional affair). Or do you pull in your behavior, and remain faithful? A great majority choose the latter, at least the first few times I am sure. Some will fall to this temptation later. But some who do not cut off the exchange use the defense mechanisms rationalizing and minimizing to justify their behavior. “Everyone does it.” “She (or he) is probably cheating on me.” “He (or she) has been neglecting me.” Or perhaps the worst defense of all in my opinion “I think this new person is my soul mate, this was destined to be.” Please understand that as I reported earlier, I too have used these rationalizations and minimized the consequences. I am not judging, just trying to bring some new level of understanding.

It is my contention that one of the greatest contributors to pathology in our psyche is the belief we have to rise up to an unattainable standard because we believe those around us are. And all the while, it is a great charade. We are all just drinking the Koolaid, believing in something that doesn’t exist, and ostracizing those that attempt to live more in line with what reality seems to be saying.

In looking at this, I realize it sounds bitter, and perhaps there is some bitterness in it. And in some rare cases, a couple does live happily ever after. On a certain level, I don’t want to crush everyone’s belief in the possibility. But I would like people to look more rationally at the world around them, and at their own behavior. It seems a large percentage of people cheat. I am not saying this is positive. I realize some may read this article and think I am pro infidelity. I am not. I am pro living a genuine life, and being true to yourself. I don’t like to see others hurt. My advice, if someone was contemplating cheating, is not to do it. It will make being genuine and honest difficult for the rest of your life. Not only will your partner not trust you, but future partners likely will not as well.

Alex suggested in one of his comments that I read a book where the author purports that it is cheating that saves a marriage (I haven’t, likely will not, and it defies statistics that say only 35% of marriages survive an infidelity). Marriage may be becoming an outdated concept for many. Most Americans engage in serial monogamy (if they are monogamous at all). Right now my mind screams out to our culture a line from Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”: “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!” Or can you? Can you see the world the way it truly is, and not judge it negatively from atop the façade of an ivory tower?

Painting by Cortney Pleus

According to the most recent statistics, the divorce rate, often quoted (even by this author in psychology classes) as 50% of marriages, is actually closer to the low 40 percentile. (Divorce Rate: It’s Not as High as You Think, By Dan Hurley, The New York Times, April 19, 2005). But that does not negate the fact that the United States has the highest divorce rate in the world per capita. The fact that so many American marriages end in divorce leads to the question is marriage an outdated institution? I think the answer is dependent on some of your personal variables.

First, let us look at the facts: over 40% of marriages end in divorce. This does not simply infer that the in tact marriages are happy. This author attended a lecture by a respected psychiatrist, rabbi, and author who suggested that another half of the in-tact marriages were unhappy. Per capita, the United States has the highest divorce rate in the world.
The average duration of a marriage in the U.S is about 7 to 8 years. And although marriage is an institution which makes childrearing most efficacious, marriages in which there are children end in divorce with a higher frequency than those marriages without children.

Yet marriage remains an institution that many would not think of doing away with or even restructuring. Likely even the question of marriage being an outdated institution raises eyebrows. A controversial issue in this country currently is whether gays should have the right to marry, again showing the attachment to this social institution. Many young people wouldn’t dream of not getting married. In fact, many women have been dreaming about their impending nuptials since they were young children. This is not only true for women, as many men assume marriage and children are a foregone conclusion in their lives.

So what is this author’s argument that the idea of marriage might be outdated? Well, beyond the statistics above, I also believe that as the Dali Lama said, “Our purpose in life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we simply desire contentment.” This is becoming more and more true today, as more people seek happiness. Marriage is a source of lasting happiness for some, but for others it is only a temporary high.

The first argument that marriage might be outdated is the divorce rate. Marriage has been around as an institution since, well, according to anything found in this author’s research, ancient time. It was reported as necessary for childrearing, property disbursement, and bloodline. In these times it was more necessary to have a partnership to survive. Even more than partnerships, tribes were necessary for survival. As times changed, neighborhoods became like tribes, and small communities worked together to enhance the lives of all. But Western civilization has continued to move toward a more individualistic culture. Today people are less likely to even socialize with their neighbors, let alone rely on them. It is true some areas are bound by their neighborhood, and the community works together to enhance the life of its members. But this is becoming less and less true. As an example, how many “daycare centers” for children were there 50 years ago?

As this culture becomes more individual focused, bonds with others for survival becomes less important. We now pay people to do the things we used to accomplish in a partnership. Restaurants and fast food chains, once relegated to occasional family outings, are a main source of nourishment. There are agencies that will deliver “home-cooked meals” to you or have them ready for pick-up. Cleaning staff, once limited to the rich or to businesses, are being used by the middle-class. Both parents are working, focusing on their careers, their paths toward self individuation, and more tedious tasks like yard work are being hired out. The point, partnerships are less necessary than they were 60 years ago.

That is the social reason that the institution of marriage may be outdated. But the social influence does not stand alone. These changes impact individuals and individuals make up a marriage. So what are some of the individual characteristics that may contribute to marriage being an outdated concept? First, as discussed above, it is the desire for individuation by those in a marriage. More and more often people want to have meaning in their life, beyond raising a family. We are culture whose individuals want to be different. Americans want to stand out. They want to feel they accomplished something for themselves. As such, simply supporting a partner to achieve feels inadequate to many. They also want to achieve, and to be supported in their endeavors. This alone can contribute to strife in a marriage. Whose needs come first? How long do I put my goals on the back burner to help you attain yours? When can I pursue my happiness?

Another aspect of this is the drive toward excitement and experience. For some people, experience is more important than possessions. Some people just enjoy experience, for its own sake. They may be thrill seekers, or may just place a high value on novel experiences. These people just enjoy doing new things and meeting new people. At one point in time these characters might have been explorers, adventurers, or other types of risk takers. It seems though, that this is becoming much more common as a character trait these days. And folks with this character trait are likely to find the routine of marriage stifling.

There are other reasons that marriages may fail that are related to society. For one, despite many marriages failing or being unhappy, we live in a culture that romanticizes marriage. People are constantly told they will find their soul mate, that if this relationship doesn’t workout, another will come along who might be “the one.” In reality, how often are you able to accurately predict who your “one” is? Most people getting married believe they found the one. And when that doesn’t work and they remarry, they often believe this time they found the one. And this isn’t limited only to those who marry. How many people did you get romantically involved with who at some point you thought were probably “the one”? Perhaps this concept, which shows no signs of dying despite the evidence against it, is at worst mere wishful thinking, or at best, a long-shot.

Along with this idea of marriage being romanticized is the desire to simply have a wedding. First, a wedding is a beautiful thing. The pageantry, the pomp, and the beauty of it all results in it being majestic. Everyone should have one. It just doesn’t seem they should have to stay together forever as a result. In a recent discussion with a colleague who was discussing marriage, she reported she wanted to get married. It wasn’t that she necessarily wanted to marry the guy she was with, but that she wanted to get married to someone. She discussed the beauty of a wedding, and how it would be a shame to miss out on that. Everyone wants to be Cinderella or Prince Charming for a night. This is not uncommon thinking. But does the expectation have to be that they will stay together for a lifetime? (There was an article two years ago about a politician in a European country advocating a law that marriages expire after seven years, with the opportunity to renew. Of course she was mocked and ridiculed).

Another point of discussion for why marriages may fail focuses on the fact that many people get married before having been on their own. Recently one of my students, when discussing her relationship, actually said she didn’t want to be alone for the rest of her life. She couldn’t have been more than 27, although early 20’s is more likely. For some reason this is a predominant fear in our culture (this could evolve into an existential discussion, but that is better placed in another article). There seems to be a myth that if you don’t find someone, and latch onto them, you will be lonely and miserable, possibly for the rest of your life. Many people seem to settle so they don’t have to face this fear. Ultimately, this fear becomes less predominant, and the person may leave the marriage. But the real culprit was the fear leading to settling.

Too often, marriage is an attempt to posses another. When humans love someone, they are afraid to let them go. People are afraid of loss. And what better way to secure someone than marriage? Marriage provides a {false} sense of security. It definitely makes ending the relationship more difficult.

But beyond just the fear of being alone is the fact that if you haven’t been on your own you are used to a cycle of dependency. First people are dependent on their caregivers. And if they go from this state to one of marriage, they have never really been independent. There has always been someone else helping out. Outside of simply being dependent, there is a level of maturation that comes from living on your own and not being in a romantic relationship. One learns to nurture oneself, to care for oneself, to be independent in the truest sense of the word. Unfortunately, many who enter marriage have never really experienced this.

This discussion of personal growth leads me to another point regarding how the changing times have altered individual’s character. These days more people are interested in their own personal growth. As people grow and change the risk of growing apart increases. When most people in their forties think of what they were like in their twenties, they can usually see the tremendous changes that have occurred. This is even truer when personal growth is a goal. And with one or even both partners growing and changing, the potential for growth in opposing directions is a possibility. And even if you don’t grow apart, there is the possibility of a loss of attraction for your partner, and growing attraction for others you meet on your path.

Attraction is one of my favorite areas of psychology. The reason one individual is attracted to another is rich with possibility. For some, there is a reminiscence of something deeply enjoyed in the past. A client recently discussed how the attraction to each of her recent relationships related to two important men in her life. This is excellent evidence of this phenomenon.

For some people they believe this person they are with is the best they will ever be able to get. Sometimes this comes from feelings of low self esteem, but this is not always the case. Often there is a bargaining process which goes on inside of us when considering a romantic partner. We have this much beauty, smarts, financial potential, humor, etc, and we want equal value. Too much value and we might be insecure. Too little, and well we are getting the short end of the stick. But beyond all of this is the most common reason one individual is attracted to another: early childhood memory. This article is not the appropriate place for this discussion, so I refer the reader to “A General Theory of Love” by Lewis, Amini, and Lannon.

In short the above book systematically provides a theory that purports that all experiences, but most importantly early childhood experiences, affect the choices we make in close relations. If we had dysfunction in our home, we continue this pattern in other relations.

This leads to another reason marriages may not remain in tact as they used to, and hence may be an outdated concept. Bluntly, pathology is less accepted now. In the past, abuse, issues of control, alcoholism, addiction, and mental illness were hidden in a closet. These days’ people are more psychologically informed. They are more aware that being mistreated is not acceptable, that it is not a reflection on them. They are less likely to tolerate behavior which contributes to their unhappiness. And furthermore, they are more likely than their predecessors to read self-help books, engage in therapy and resolve the issues that result in staying somewhere they are unhappy. They are even more likely to resolve the issues that lead to the attraction to begin with, which would result in the attraction dissipating.

So is marriage an outdated concept? It is possible after reading this article you may think this author believes so. And for many people, I do believe marriage is an outdated concept. And I am not alone, although likely in the minority (judging from the comments posted on the article “On Marriage: Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off” posted on MSN June 28, 2009). But I do marriage counseling, and believe marriage is right for many other people. The goal is to find if you are right for marriage. And ultimately whether marriage is an outdated concept or not is a personal decision.

Some of the things you might look at before making the decision are your motives for marriage. Are you buying into a preconceived notion of what is supposed to be, without evaluating your values? Have you been planning your wedding since you were young and do you just refuse to give up on the dream, regardless of how your personality might affect long term commitment? Are you one of those people who value continued personal growth and / or novelty more than commitment? Are you devoutly religious, and believe that pleasing God comes before personal happiness? If you believe marriage is for you, and you have evaluated your motives, then far be it for any article to sway you. Just realize marriage is work, and it will be important to forgo your happiness at times to maintain the marriage. And keep your hope. Even if marriage is an outdated concept, everyone has the right to make the choices they make. Good luck on your path.

In a class I teach at FIU on the Psychology of Drugs and Drug Abuse I am often asked if I think marijuana should be legalized. I usually try not to express my opinion directly, but instead present and entertain discussion on the topic. But recently I was pushed for an answer, and I replied: “I once read an outstanding book called ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Television.’ What I remember most from that book is how often we base our decisions on too little information (in the case of the book’s perspective, based on television images. Take elections for example). So my best answer is I probably do not have enough information to make an educated decision.” However, based on Amsterdam and Portugal’s experience of fewer problems as a result of decriminalization, it seems like it is at least a viable option. Of course, if the U.S took that approach, there is first no guarantee it would go the same way, and secondly I would anticipate an explosive increase in substance use initially. The difficulty is: are the rewards worth it?

One thing that concerns me about the American people’s substance use is the motivation. According to VH1’s documentary on “The Drug Years” the initial increase in marijuana and hallucinogen use in the sixties was a result of attempting to achieve enlightenment and a sense of oneness and communion. This is evident in the images we have of that time: sit-ins, free drugs being provided at musical events, and wanting others to “turn-on” and experience the sense of love and oneness that others were achieving and that a psychology lecturer at Harvard named Timothy Leary was advocating.

Initially, that seems to have been the purpose. But times have changed since the sixties, and let’s face it; even then the movement was not completely successful. We American’s are an individualistic culture. On the continuum between individualism and collectivism Americans definitely fall on the side of individualism, which is defined as everyone looking out for themselves or their family first. This is opposed to collectivism, where the group is cohesive, and where the group protects one another and the individual looks out for the group above their personal needs. Using these definitions, it is quite easy to state Americans are on the individualism side of the spectrum. The movement in the sixties (which in some regards continues, witness “one human race” and “coexist” stickers) to make the human race more united, and now more in tune with the earth and its needs, is not grand enough to alter the individualistic nature of this culture yet. And it is the opinion of this writer that the individualistic attitude of this culture has even altered the motivation of drugs initially used to enhance a sense of oneness and enlightenment.

My more recent experience with clients is that these substances, especially marijuana, are used as an escape from reality. Many people find their existence boring, or worse, painful. A student (who I promised I would give credit for the quote) named Christine Vera said “In a world that feels nothing, we all want to feel something,” when asked why she believes people use drugs. This statement seems related to the boredom with life discussed above. Many have become desensitized to life, and want more excitement. Without excitement, life is boring, and when life is boring, for many escape through substances becomes a viable option.

Although escape seems a motive much of the time (as reported by substance abusers entering treatment, by those who know addicts, or by those who also formulate personal theories to explain others’ substance use) it is not always from boredom. Sometimes the individual perceives life as too painful to cope with without the use of substances for relief. Substances, at least initially, provide a sense of euphoria. This is true of nearly all substances, although some seem more effective to different individuals. (For example, some enjoy marijuana but not other substances, others cocaine, others alcohol, and so forth). Some of those attempting to escape pain have endured horrible life circumstances or, some horrible internal states (self-loathing, depression, or overwhelming anxiety, to name a few). Others began substance use innocently enough, but progressed into relying on it slowly, and now, as a result of the substance use, are caught in an endless cycle of substance use, further problems, further need to escape, continued substance use.

Besides the escape motive there is the desire to experience something new and different. This is often true of hallucinogen use. It is rare that someone would use hallucinogens to escape reality on a regular basis. Hallucinogens generally render a person unable to function in a normal manner for a period of time. When someone takes mushrooms, LSD, or other hallucinogens, they aren’t generally trying to work, drive, or otherwise do much other than experience the “trip.” In other cultures hallucinogens are used to facilitate enlightenment.

As mentioned earlier, hallucinogens have been used by other cultures as a pathway to enlightenment. In many of these cultures, those familiar with the uses of hallucinogens were shamans, medicine men, or the spiritual leader. This movement was also true in the sixties, where a certain sect of the population attempted to again connect with God or the spiritual, often using hallucinogens.

This is not generally true of hallucinogen use today. Today many young people are looking for a new experience. The abuse of cold medications (some of which in large doses create hallucinogen effects) is evidence of this. This is also true of the drug Salvia, only recently (July 2008) made illegal in this state (Florida). In other cultures, it is called “Diviner’s Sage.” But rather than using it to connect with a spiritual sense, it is simply used for the experience.

Many substances initially create a sense of connectedness between individuals. Alcohol has been known as a social lubricant, making talking and interacting with others easier. And marijuana is usually initiated with others in the beginning. But many resort to isolated use later. And even if this is not true, many simply get “high” with others playing video games or watching movies. The point is, it is generally not taken for spiritual reasons anymore, but instead to make perceived tedious tasks more bearable or to heighten the enjoyment of relatively passive tasks (listening to music, video games, movies).

In some states marijuana is used for medicinal purposes, and I believe the facts in this area speak for themselves. Marijuana helps those wasting from AIDS, those with cancer, and many other ailments that traditional treatment falls short in. This includes pain relief for some. In fact, prescription pain analgesics (opioid based pain killers) are quickly becoming more damaging to their users (which in many cases are abusers) than all illegal substances combined. There were more deaths in Florida in recent years from overdose on prescription medications than all illegal drugs combined. And there has yet to be a reported case of marijuana overdose.

There is a drawback to these prescription uses however. Many of my students who know people in California (where there seems to be the most “medicinal” use of marijuana) state that many of their peers have prescriptions. One student reported that 8 out of 10 of their friends in California have a prescription. Headaches and anxiety as well as insomnia are reported to be reasons to get a prescription.

In summary, there are many reasons to decriminalize some, if not all, drug use. The benefits seem important in this day and age. But at the same time we are culture where people are often out for themselves. And we have become a country and culture of shortcuts and reliance on pills to make our lives tolerable, rather than the more natural and healthy (but requiring more time and energy) solutions. Feel depressed, get a prescription. Want to loose weight, get a prescription or order diet pills from the internet. Additionally, some of the communal and enlightenment reasons seem outdated and unlikely at this time. Then there is the likelihood there will be a strong surge in substance use if decriminalized. There is probably a great deal more information out there that both supports and denounces legalization or decriminalization.

In an ideal society, we would work toward self actualization while assisting our peers to do the same. There would be a sense of communion with all other humans, and with all living creatures. My question is which helps us get there, continued criminalization of substances, or the legalization of them.

Painting by Alexi Berry

  “What we call normal in psychology is really a psychopathology of the average, so undramatic and so widely spread that we don’t even notice it ordinarily.” This is a quote by Abraham Maslow, the theorist who gave us the idea of the hierarchy of needs (once your basic needs are met you begin to seek higher needs) and the idea of self-actualization.

Maslow’s point is that being normal, being average, although normally perceived as okay, is pathology. Pathology can be simply defined as disease or sickness. The free online dictionary’s definition of psychopathology is “The study of the origin, development, and manifestations of mental or behavioral disorders,” or “the manifestation of a mental or behavioral disorder.” It should also be clarified what is meant by being average. Most people would be offended if someone were to say that they were average. Yet, by definition, most are. Average in psychological terms is where most people are. Average is a huge category, encompassing the majority of the population. Those that are not average are outliers. Outliers are the small percentage at either end of the curve. They are either well below average, or well above. Average in this sense doesn’t have much to do with not being an individual. You can be an individual yet fall well within the average.

So now that we are all feeling insulted, lets discuss what Maslow was getting at, and why it is so important. Maslow’s contention was that one goal of humans to self-actualize, to become all they can in a lifelong process of self-improvement. He also contended that all humans have this potential to self-actualize. But before that can happen, other needs which are positioned below self actualization must be met. These include physiological needs, needs for safety, needs for love and belonging, and the need for esteem. Once these needs are met, the individual can look toward self actualization. What he is saying is that not striving toward being all you can be is your pathology. And he is using this bold statement to get your attention and to encourage you to take action.

It can be assumed most people in this country (particularly if you are reading this article online) have these lower needs met. Most have enough food, water, and shelter. Likely we do not feel constant threats to our safety. And, hopefully, we feel loved and a sense of belonging. So with these needs met, we can move toward feeling esteemed. This need encompasses self confidence, feeling competent, and believing at least some others hold you in high esteem. Again, it seems reasonable that many readers are having these needs met as well. This is not to say you feel this way all of the time. There may always be flare-ups of self doubt. But it is understood that generally, most of the time, you feel confident in yourself and your abilities, and that others believe you to be as well. So, with all of these important needs met, why aren’t more people becoming self actualized?

The answer is simple: we become satisfied (or perhaps more accurately stated: we don’t realize the actual reason we aren’t satisfied) with these lower, but important needs. Then, instead of working toward self-actualization we become consumers: keeping up with the Joneses, being the first on our block to have the newest gadget, over-indulging in “entertainment needs” (movies, television, trips) and otherwise trying to fill the yearning for a higher purpose with purchases, rather than self-work.

It stands to reason then, that the solution is simple as well. Perhaps what is keeping the majority of people from self actualizing is that they are misinterpreting their yearning for self-actualization as a need for more of something else: More love, more things, more fun. So the solution is to cease filling this void with things, and instead, focus on you, and what you can be. What are you doing that is creative? What are you doing to exercise your mind? What are you doing to make the planet (and your brothers and sisters on it) better? What are you doing to be happier with you, rather than your possessions? Answer these questions and begin your movement toward self-actualization.

If you still have trouble getting started or maintaining progress, it is possible that there are unconscious forces that lie within you that are keeping you stagnated. One suggestion is to enter therapy so you can discover these blocks, remove them, and get back on track. In my opinion, making the unconscious more conscious is one of the most beneficial aspects of therapy. So often today we view therapy simply as a place to vent or get some direction with other life problems. But at its best, therapy is geared toward insight, toward understanding yourself, and to becoming self-actualized. Good luck on your journey.