|
|
Post by erasmus on Apr 6, 2016 18:16:35 GMT
A few words about myself by way of background:
My upbringing was, I guess, the classic one to create an anxious-preoccupied attachment style: I was an only child in an isolated rural area, my dad had to work long hours, and I was alone with my mother, whose moods swung wildly from loving and affectionate to screaming rages that seemed to go on for hours, with intervals of withdrawal and depression in between. Needless to say, I learned to be hyper-vigilant about shifts in the emotional climate as a matter of survival, and learned to trust no one (especially women), to use loving words to manipulate, and to shut down emotionally. What I seem to do now is be more anxious and preoccupied the more I care about a relationship, but also--especially if I get to the point of wanting out--to take on fearful-avoidant behaviors, such as hiding my feelings and keeping secrets.
I will just add that I'm in my late sixties, so another issue is whether it is too late to change and whether there would be any point so late in life.
What brought me here, and to the discovery of the theory of attachment styles, is a friendship, with overtones of mutual attraction, that I've developed with a much younger woman. We both know the romantic/erotic side of our relationship isn't going anywhere, not only because of the big age difference but because we are both in long-term relationships (hers is basically good, mine not, but there are practical reasons we can't part at this time). But I can see my anxious-preoccupied behaviors showing up in my interactions with her. (I honestly think this is the most miserable of all styles to be trapped in. At least the avoidant types keep a measure of independence!)
And I am sick of being this way.
Before stumbling on the idea of attachment styles, I started reading and working with a book by Pema Chödrön, The Places that Scare You: A Guide to Fearlessness in Difficult Times (because among my many defects is an abject lack of courage). There is a lot I like here. The author ties courage to compassion, including compassion for oneself, which makes an unexpected kind of sense to me. She also talks about opening up to emotions, painful as well as pleasurable, and letting go of the need for security. I'm wondering now, might these meditative and spiritual practices offer the possibility of a way out of this misery of being always fearful, always less-than, always dependent on the reassurance and affection of another?
Or is my situation really as hopeless as it usually seems to be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeb Kinnison on Apr 6, 2016 21:36:53 GMT
It's never hopeless. One benefit of age is that you know you survived all that already -- which is why older people tend to be happier, over both the anxieties of trying to make dreams happen and the disappointment that real life usually is not at all what we dreamed. But still, it's enough to be moderately healthy and in some shape to enjoy it.
Certainly meditation - and other practices that tend to get your mind out of the anxiety loop -- can help you quiet your inner anxieties so you can notice the wider world and gain perspective on your relationships. Being less wrapped up in yourself, you can see yourself with more objectivity to appreciate what is good, and not dwell on what you think you need. Being happy with the relationship that you do have with this woman is much better than yearning for a relationship you can't have, and letting that muddy the waters between you.
|
|
|
|
Post by erasmus on Apr 8, 2016 21:55:04 GMT
Thanks for your reply. I go back and forth on whether things are hopeless or not, partly depending on whether I've had enough sleep (no surprise there). I've also started a very basic exercise program as of a week ago--I always feel better right after my morning session, though not necessarily later. I appreciate your seconding the idea of meditation; it seems to make sense as a way to loosen the grip of old patterns and, as you say, notice the wider world and gain perspective.
The point about being happy with the relationship we have is well taken. Certainly it's something I'm struggling with. She's a remarkable person, and if I could get past my sadness over what we can't be for each other, and stop wanting from her what she is not in a position to give, I'd have the pleasure and deep satisfaction of a really great friendship, I think.
|
|
raco
Junior Member
Posts: 81 
|
Post by raco on Apr 12, 2016 0:42:46 GMT
But I can see my anxious-preoccupied behaviors showing up in my interactions with her. (I honestly think this is the most miserable of all styles to be trapped in. At least the avoidant types keep a measure of independence!)
Maybe some cases of preoccupied attachment are worse than some cases of avoidant attachment, but generally, I doubt the preoccupied style is the worst. Some avoidants will never be able to form a healthy bond with anyone, even in non-romantic relationships. They can be unable to show their true self, and can even be unable to access their own emotions. Which is quite a problem for a human being, in my opinion. While the preoccupied person is trying (exaggeratedly and in an unhealthy way) to reinforce his/her relationship, the avoidant is trying to sabotage it. Without even being aware of what he/she is doing. And without being able to talk about it like an adult when his/her partner wants to discuss the problem. Despite having all those flaws, they often dare to long for the perfect partner. They expect a lot and give very little, which is not at all what a preoccupied person would do (even though their dedication can be unhealthy too). About meditation as a mean to become more secure, you have to wonder if it can help you build confidence in yourself. The preoccupied style and the secure style are the same when it comes to avoidance, they differ in the levels of self-confidence. Whether you try meditation or not, maybe you can find some online resources about self-confidence that could be helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by erasmus on Apr 13, 2016 22:09:40 GMT
Raco, thanks again, I'm glad you found us and are taking part in these conversations. I can see what you mean--it's true that the preoccupied person is at least in touch with their emotions, in a way, and working on keeping the relationship together; maybe ultimately that is a healthier basis to work on. It's *so* damn painful, though!
Yeah, my self-confidence is pretty well shot, it's true; at least, and especially, where romantic and sexual relationships are concerned. Though a strong case could be made that that's just a realistic assessment based on experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaeger on May 10, 2016 12:36:54 GMT
Hello again Erasmus, We seem to bump into eachother quite a bit on here. I have also read up on the anxious preoccupied style as I feel I had transitioned into it during my time with my dismissive-avoidant ex partner. One of the articles I have found might be able to help somewhat, given your current question. Following are two excerpts that may help you determine if you want to read it. "Preoccupied individuals have a more frantic, less confident approach to getting their needs met by others. They tend to act clingy or needy, because their needs were inconsistently met as children. They may have had a parent who sometimes met their needs, but at other times acted out of their own needs or was intrusive with the child. These unresolved issues from childhood play out in their present day relationships, making them feel anxious and insecure, even when there is no need to feel this way. Think about the person who is constantly jealous or overly worried about his partner’s whereabouts, or the person who never believes her spouse really loves her and constantly seeks reassurance. Another way a person might recreate this pattern in their adult relationships is to unconsciously be drawn to partners who are inconsistently available, thus recreating the feeling of their early environment. In essence, they can maintain their defended posture; they may feel miserable but in an old familiar way." Also, "For example, if you have a preoccupied attachment style, you can learn to identify and get a hold of your insecurities and moments of anxiety. You can become aware of the critical inner voices that are fueling these feelings and come to recognize the internal working models that are informing your perception of the situation. You can learn techniques to calm down within yourself rather than acting out toward your partner and potentially hurting the relationship. You can start to develop a new image of yourself and trust in others." I'll send you the link in case you want to read the whole thing. Closer to home, Jeb has also written a post on this question. You likely have read it already, but in case you haven't, it's at jebkinnison.com/2014/10/12/changing-your-anxious-preoccupied-attachment-style-or-type/In closing, though I feel for your evaluation that this might be the worst style to have developed, I would agree that the avoidant might take that title for me. Though it's hard, your ability to reflect and feel puts you in a position to affect change. Since these things are typically lacking in avoidants, and they are so focused on maintaining their own artificial self-confidence, they are far less likely to consider the thought that they might be causing their own relationship problems in some way. This makes the chances of them realizing the effects of their own behaviour on their problematic relationships much smaller, though that is likely exactly what would be necessary to identify a need to change from within (why change when it's always someone else's fault?). |
|
|
|
Post by erasmus on May 11, 2016 5:11:16 GMT
Thanks, Jaeger, you've given me a lot to think about here. I had missed Jeb's post that you linked to--it rings very true. And yes, please, I'd like to read the article you quoted from when you have time to send the link.* You may be right about the avoidant's style being especially problematic, at least in terms of being likely to change. Painful as the anxious-preoccupied style is, when I think seriously about how it would really be to be strongly avoidant, it is kind of a frightening prospect. *And I see you've already sent it. Thank you! I am going to bed now, so I don't make myself more of a wreck with sleeplessness,  but look forward to reading the article in the morning. |
|
katy
Sticky Post Powers
Posts: 147 
|
Post by katy on May 11, 2016 6:12:10 GMT
This is another take on preoccupation which I saw in a very long post on the Web site Limerence Experienced.
(tribes.tribe.net/limerence).
This post discusses how dealing with individuals who are erratic in their connections can actually biochemically make people very obsessed and preoccupied. Limerence is the ultimate in debilitating preoccupation. LO is the person whom the Limerent is obsessed with. Tennov is Dorothy Tennov who wrote the original source book on limerence.
I think that this is a very interesting discussion about how people, who can usually control their preoccupation when they are dealing with stable people, often really go downhill with erratic, avoidant people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm actually a clinical neuroscientist, and therefore have been trying to think about my own experience, as well as those I've read about, from the perspective of what I know about neuroscience ...
First, the primary ingredients that Tennov refers to: "hope and uncertainty," look exactly like what happens during operant conditioning experiments (rats, primates, and humans) under a "variable ratio schedule." If you give a cue and then consistently a reward, an animal will first be conditioned to pair the cue with the reward, but after a few trials during which the cue and reward don't pair, the animal quickly becomes deconditioned. However, if you give a cue that sometimes, but not always, is paired with a reward--and is done so in an unpredictable manner--then you very quickly *f* up the animal, who goes nuts in trying to predict the reward. That's what limerence seems to be: an initial attraction, combined with reward (reciprocation by the LO) that is offered on a variable ratio schedule. The rats, primates, and humans in operant conditioning experiments with variable ratio schedules, show the crazy obsessive behavior not because they have "abnormal brain chemistry," but rather because it is actually the nature of the brain's reward circuit to break down in the face of unpredictable reward cues. In physics, there's a notion of falling and getting stuck in "local minima," (in dynamical systems, this would be called an "attractor") in which you're essentially trapped in a vicious cycle: the more unpredictable the reward cues, the more screwed up your behavior, and the more screwed up your behavior, the more unpredictable the reward cues. Once you're in that state, it takes something really catastrophic to knock you out: either the reward needs to stop (in which case the animal becomes deconditioned) or the unpredictability needs to stop (in which case the animal becomes normally conditioned). These, of course, correspond to starvation and reciprocation, two of the three strategies that Tennov suggests can work. By the way, I'm not speaking of an analogy here: from a purely physiological perspective the brain's reward circuit is actually a control circuit, and therefore does have the potential to get stuck in local minima, just like any electrical circuit. But again, I have to emphasize that this is not due to the brain's circuit not working properly, but rather an intact circuit getting caught in a loop due to a perfect storm that combines the "right" sexual chemistry between two people, as well as the fact that one of the pair responds and pulls back in an unpredictable way.
My second reason follows from the first. Just as crazy obsessive behavior can be reliably triggered with a variable ratio schedule is most animals, this is also true of most humans. One thing that Tennov makes clear is just how common the LE is. Moreover, while some people are serial limerents, the vast majority seem to have the experience only once, with one person. If limerence were truly due to abnormal brain chemistry, then you'd expect it to be consistent across most relationships, and yet that isn't the case: it's normally specific to ONE person...limerence is more likely to be the result of a normal reward circuit coupled with a shitty interpersonal dynamic ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jaeger on May 11, 2016 7:23:01 GMT
First, the primary ingredients that Tennov refers to: "hope and uncertainty," look exactly like what happens during operant conditioning experiments (rats, primates, and humans) under a "variable ratio schedule." If you give a cue and then consistently a reward, an animal will first be conditioned to pair the cue with the reward, but after a few trials during which the cue and reward don't pair, the animal quickly becomes deconditioned. However, if you give a cue that sometimes, but not always, is paired with a reward--and is done so in an unpredictable manner--then you very quickly *f* up the animal, who goes nuts in trying to predict the reward. That's what limerence seems to be: an initial attraction, combined with reward (reciprocation by the LO) that is offered on a variable ratio schedule. That's a very insightful article, Katy, thanks for sharing. It, indeed, goes a long way towards explaining how normally secure people can find themselves changing towards the anxious side of the spectrum in a dynamic with an 'unpredictably reciprocating' person. Logically, it would exacerbate the insecurities of those who are already anxious to start with.. The rats, primates, and humans in operant conditioning experiments with variable ratio schedules, show the crazy obsessive behavior not because they have "abnormal brain chemistry," but rather because it is actually the nature of the brain's reward circuit to break down in the face of unpredictable reward cues. In physics, there's a notion of falling and getting stuck in "local minima," (in dynamical systems, this would be called an "attractor") in which you're essentially trapped in a vicious cycle: the more unpredictable the reward cues, the more screwed up your behavior, and the more screwed up your behavior, the more unpredictable the reward cues. Once you're in that state, it takes something really catastrophic to knock you out: either the reward needs to stop (in which case the animal becomes deconditioned) or the unpredictability needs to stop (in which case the animal becomes normally conditioned). These, of course, correspond to starvation and reciprocation, two of the three strategies that Tennov suggests can work. By the way, I'm not speaking of an analogy here: from a purely physiological perspective the brain's reward circuit is actually a control circuit, and therefore does have the potential to get stuck in local minima, just like any electrical circuit. But again, I have to emphasize that this is not due to the brain's circuit not working properly, but rather an intact circuit getting caught in a loop due to a perfect storm that combines the "right" sexual chemistry between two people, as well as the fact that one of the pair responds and pulls back in an unpredictable way. Since the unpredictability would most likely lead to a need for predictability (reciprocation) in both the secure and the anxious, they would probably increase their attempts to find a definitive answer (are you there for me when I need you or aren't you?), which escalates as the pattern of withdrawal and asking for emotional availability is repeated. My second reason follows from the first. Just as crazy obsessive behavior can be reliably triggered with a variable ratio schedule is most animals, this is also true of most humans. One thing that Tennov makes clear is just how common the LE is. Moreover, while some people are serial limerents, the vast majority seem to have the experience only once, with one person. If limerence were truly due to abnormal brain chemistry, then you'd expect it to be consistent across most relationships, and yet that isn't the case: it's normally specific to ONE person... limerence is more likely to be the result of a normal reward circuit coupled with a shitty interpersonal dynamic ...
Again, this seems to show that no matter the attachment style you most often exhibit, there is a strong neurological pull towards the anxious side of the spectrum in this dynamic. Which leads me to the following question;
Since being with an avoidant can apparently lead to a surfacing (strengthening?) of anxious behaviour, does this also work vice versa?
Does anxious behaviour tend to lead to the surfacing (or strengthening) of avoidant behaviour?
|
|
katy
Sticky Post Powers
Posts: 147
|
Post by katy on May 11, 2016 15:37:12 GMT
My very limited answer your last question, based only on my very limited experience. In my case, once the avoidant decided that he had rejected me, nothing that I did would have shifted his rejecting attitude to a more positive view. But, before I understood what was really going on, when I did make approaches to try to get things back to "normal", he got much more hostile. My very limited opinion is that there is a base-line avoidant rejection that will never get better but that the rejecting behavior can get worse if the avoidant feels un-heard or un-obeyed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcamper on Nov 10, 2016 13:25:05 GMT
Wow. That was a really good article and it really clicked for me. I'm a guy....going thru divorce right now from an avoidant wife.
I've called it inconsistent affection. I've been told by a counselor that I was obsessed with my wife. It came down to be constantly asking when we could just have a date or spend time together after a crazy busy week (3 kids).
It's a feeling like having a rug snatched out from under you. They are there and you relax, maybe have a high feeling or relaxed,you let your guard down. But the next few days they give you (well she did, in my view ) the cold shoulder, distant ,aloof. Like you're put in the dog house but you did nothing wrong.
She can't see it....she can't comprehend why we fight for 2 hours about why we can't go to lunch together.
We've been separated 7 months now. She's using the kids to hurt me...she manipulating friends that she's the victim.
She avoids conflict big time....keeps lots of secrets..
But anyway...back to the article. . I can very much relate to getting your head F'd up by a partner that you 'need' to connect to, who unknowingly to her, is not there or else she is....you're reduced to this uncertainty of Are you there for me? But, there are plenty of fish in thensea....this sucks so bad and is such a shame...and I'm finally free and seeing peace again.
I finally had the courage to ask for a divorce ...the ultimate failure...but this is what we need. I hate it for my daughters but they don't need to grow up seeing parents live like this. It will get better.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcamper on Nov 10, 2016 13:38:39 GMT
But I can see my anxious-preoccupied behaviors showing up in my interactions with her. (I honestly think this is the most miserable of all styles to be trapped in. At least the avoidant types keep a measure of independence!)
Maybe some cases of preoccupied attachment are worse than some cases of avoidant attachment, but generally, I doubt the preoccupied style is the worst. Some avoidants will never be able to form a healthy bond with anyone, even in non-romantic relationships. They can be unable to show their true self, and can even be unable to access their own emotions. Which is quite a problem for a human being, in my opinion. While the preoccupied person is trying (exaggeratedly and in an unhealthy way) to reinforce his/her relationship, the avoidant is trying to sabotage it. Without even being aware of what he/she is doing. And without being able to talk about it like an adult when his/her partner wants to discuss the problem. Despite having all those flaws, they often dare to long for the perfect partner. They expect a lot and give very little, which is not at all what a preoccupied person would do (even though their dedication can be unhealthy too). About meditation as a mean to become more secure, you have to wonder if it can help you build confidence in yourself. The preoccupied style and the secure style are the same when it comes to avoidance, they differ in the levels of self-confidence. Whether you try meditation or not, maybe you can find some online resources about self-confidence that could be helpful. Raco, Wow. You have a way with words. I went back and was reading this thread.... I'm a guy who went out on the anxious line as my STBX wife went way out the avoidant line. I very aware of the confidence issue... this relationship almost.killed me as I tried and tried. But ... I see now a lot I need to work on myself to be a content and at peace person, and to love me. I am also realizing with all the bad bad things I could say about her....I'm realizing she can't see it, she blames me for abandoning her, she just cannot understand the pain and isolation and distancing that she did. Yes, I'll doubt myself and get in a negative loop....but I can look back to FACTS of what happened and know the truth. And that she lied about her childhood for 12 years. So friggen sad. Lose lose scenario...but all will be ok. Anyway, great insight and wording in your post. Thank you. |
|
but look forward to reading the article in the morning.