“Not lying is lying”

Brian Lynch

“You Tell The Strongest People,

 

The Weakest Lies.”  Sugar Blue

Few of us get to adulthood without realizing that “thou shalt not lie” is a “black and white” simplistic approach to human relations. 

But that does not mean that we often slip into the idea that “we don’t lie.” But since it is impossible to not lie, all we can do is try the best we can.

Now there are various types of lies. Some pump up our ego. It is easily proven that everyone lies when meeting new people. Within ten minutes we are oft to tell, on average, three lies. On the other end, there are “lies” that protect confidences be it a business deal or a clergy parishioner relation, or a doctor-patient relationship.

But from time to time we want to believe in George Washington’s truism of “I never tell a lie.” If we do, we have a problem because then we will deny the need to lie! What happens? Shame and confusion ensue for not lying. But the truth is we will lie in some way just not in the rigid terms we have set for ourselves “I never lie!”

How do we lie? Well, I always end up back to what I have come to feel are our only options when we are suppressing feeling and they are: I can try and run away from the feeling, I can blame myself for the feeling, I can blame you for the feeling or I can do something to avoid the feeling. Each of these can be a type of lying as they all can be and are a type of “avoiding” the issue. Avoiding the issue is a “lie.”

Of course, here we can pick on the “politician.” Watch any politician in a heated interview and there is almost always something they do not want to answer. When they are asked they answer masterfully from years of practice of lying without lying.

They change the subject. They avoid the question altogether and often will, in the process start attaching the opposition. They may “hang up the phone”, or end the interview (withdraw, run away). Rarely, will they attack themselves or blame themselves, but even this might be a lie. That is, they might indeed take the fall for someone.

Then there is “politeness.” I am not interested in you, but I can not say it. Or I “need” you for something. Well, in these cases the relationship itself is a “lie.” It is certainly difficult to avoid some relationships like this. And to be compassionate our feelings are not always clear. We are ambivalent. But in the process we will, often due to shame “show our hand.” We will “Tell the strongest people the weakest lies.” “I didn’t have time to call you.” (translation: I had no interest in talking to you.) “I didn’t get to your emails, you know I don’t like to use the computer.” (translation: ditto). These answers are a combination of “attack” and “avoid”.

Of course in any human encounter if we are on the receiving end of such comments how can we be sure? Well, can you be sure it is a lie? And often, maybe it isn’t. If the speaker is not telling you a lie they certainly will be thrown off guard by being called a liar. Of course, being so blunt statements reveal a lack of empathy and a frankness that is inappropriate. What else could it impart to the listener than “I am not interested in you?” The point is, it is simply difficult. I would say we mostly have to judge people by their actions over a long period. 

As a bit of an aside, I use to work with an ethnic population doing initial hospital admissions. I would ask them if they spoke English. If they said “no” then they usually said they did not “like” English. I hope, in some non-shaming way, I said it had nothing to do with “like”, it had to do with necessity as one could easily die in a foreign country due to not speaking the language. In short, they were lying due to shame. Lying to themselves. It was an easy answer.

So the point is “lying” is not the issue at all. The issue is why I am lying. Am I lying out of some, yes, “moral” duty to a higher ideal, that is lying is often the most “moral” thing to do, or am I lying out of shame?

“The “Good Scène” is too much”

Brian Lynch

What is the “Good Scene?”

The good scene is simple to understand. It is about those situations in which we feel good, interested, and joyful.I explain this situation often in various ways. 

It is thought that throughout our childhood we will have feelings of interest and joy and for the most part they are  accepted as the way things should function.

The problem is that bad feelings are inevitable. These bad feelings are often the consequence of something that thwarts our interest or joy. 

Now what happens to someone that gets their interest lambasted all the time?

Well, it hurts and it hurts a lot.

 

They might come to relate their interest directly to shame and hurt. That is, how can my interest be worth anything? No one lets me pursue them.

So we grow and because of our nature as humans, we cannot help but be “interested” in the world. We do feel good despite ourselves, but in those of us who have been robbed of more “good times” than not, well, don’t you think it would be reasonable for us to have some fear? Fear that any good time I have will end by some fateful act or someone’s hand?

We become constantly on guard when we start to feel good. Our subconscious starts to interpret any of these feelings as being “too good to be true.” Watch out we say to ourselves this cannot last. This good scene cannot last.

This has the most tragic consequences as the better the scene is here in the present the greater the fear that it will end.

It is only natural that I will be confused and probably withdraw. I may even do something to make sure the situation will come to an end. I will ruin the good scene. This is why we sabotage relationships over and over again. We cannot believe they will las

" Are we good enough and smart enough?"

Are we good enough and smart enough?

Brian Lynch

A colleague of mine who worked with the same ideas I do for many years developed a scale for self-evaluation made up of a list of 32 questions.

I would like to present several and explore a few of them. For example:

1) I feel like I am never quite good enough.

2) I feel somehow left out.

3) I think that people look down on me.

The idea is to rate yourself on a scale of 0-4 with “4” being that you feel this way “almost always”, “3” “often”, “2” “ sometimes” and “1” “seldom”.

In the end, you get a score that is then compared to a scale that is based on an average score of a group who took the questionnaire. It is not a “test” but an evaluation.

My purpose is to suggest that the evaluation and each item is a window into the way we imagine ourselves. Each statement is an “Image.” An image can be thought of as a “scene.”

I read the first statement and what immediately happens is that a flood of subconscious thoughts happens, a flood of “scenes” well up in me, situations wherein I have felt exactly that way, at work, in school, taking a test for anything. I am riding the bus or train and looking at everyone and imaging their lives and comparing myself to them.

If I were having such a thought as the statement in #1 suggests it might immediately lead to the thought in number #2 as we will obsess and “magnify” about our difficult situation and start to convince ourselves that our problems have to be worse than everyone else’s.

Now in terms of the questionnaire, the idea is that the 1-4 response is immediate and therefore more a reflection of how your life has gone up until now. Of course, some of us have been lucky and this is the point of the questionnaire to evaluate the overall history of the individual. Maybe I do feel like I am as good as anyone else and put a “0.” This is fine and so we go on to the next. But we still might feel left out some of the time. Now when did we feel left out? Under what circumstances did we feel left out?

Finally, I think the more severe of the three, the last one, is probably an indication of how much we have been put down and humiliated in our lives and the opposite of how little we have been encouraged and rewarded for our efforts, albeit in the end, all three are an indication of these actions.

So by now, I am sure you have rated yourself on just these items. The score means “nothing” in itself. It is a sample. The whole scale, again, is a self-evaluation. But just based on these three items what do you think the difference in feeling and how a person approaches a day is between one who has a score of “0” (that is never feels any of these feelings) compared to someone with a score of “12” (that is almost always has these feelings”). I think their quality of life is quite different.

Can we change our feelings about our “image” and indeed change our self-image? Indeed, I think we can. We can get interested in both our image and how we feel about it.

Copyright 2010

SEE: Internalized Shame Scale

"Well someone must be doing well”

When people say, “Well, someone must be doing well”.

Brian Lynch

Have you ever met up with friends or family or just friends for dinner and mentioned that you are going on a trip or bought a car, something of this sort and they immediately say something like “Well, someone must be doing well” or you asked how things or going and you make the mistake of saying things are a bit better and from then on it is like you are set for life?

It seems that I have had my share of experiences with this. This response is what I call a “scripted” or automatic response from the other. If you would bring it to their attention they would be shocked, offended, and annoyed and may never speak to you again. That said, it is a good example of some of the most sublet humiliating put-downs people do.

Yes, the people that do it are universally those that are in a better position than you are and usually a much better position than you are and you get the sense that they very much intend to stay that way.

In its best light, it is an example of what Dr. Don Nathanson calls the empathetic wall. He says this wall is  a “skin” we have or a bubble we all live in. We have to have this wall or we would all be overwhelmed by the feelings that others project on us. We have to “pick and choose” what we let in and out.

In these instances, it is a negative example of a defensive reaction and of the flow of the empathetic wall. People sense that you are not really in a good position. Things are not really going all that well, so their statement that “things are looking up” is a “disavowal” of the situation and negation/denial of it. They, that is, cannot let in the emotional information. The best light to put on it is that there is indeed pain felt on their part, but it too is disavowed it cannot be recognized and brought to consciousness and shared with you. They cannot make the real effort to really engage you and ask you how things really are.

Copyright 2010

“What Is An “Intervention”?”

Brian Lynch

In the “recovery movement,” an intervention is an activity where family and friends attempt to intervene in a person's life when they feel that their use of some drug has gotten out of hand to the point that it is ruining the person's life. This is where they more or less “trick” the person into coming to dinner or just over to someone’s house and then ten people show up and confront the person about what is going on. This is done in a “scripted” manner.

I had not thought about this in some time until a recent conversation about it with someone and it was mentioned that someone was contemplating organizing an intervention for someone but they were not sure there was a drug problem. What was certain was that there was a problem of communication.

It fairly rapidly occurred to me that there was a “problem” with this type of thinking. I voiced my opinion that I very often or almost always emphasize to people that come to me about addiction and that the addiction has “ultimately nothing to do with drugs.” It has, “Nothing to do with alcohol.” And overeating has “nothing to do with food.” Of course, they all look at me as if I am crazy at first but only for a moment. Why? Because it is true. All our problems start with emotional turmoil and then we do something about it. Of course, things can get complicated but for now, we will focus on the thought that we feel and then we do.

I emphasize also that society needs scapegoats and that we pick on addicts as addictions are just more visible than other problems like staying in the house all day or being addicted to sex or money.

So my thought about this intervention was, well, go ahead and do the intervention! It does not have to have anything to do with “drugs or alcohol” and be darn sure you don’t mention drugs or alcohol. Do not mention drugs or alcohol.

I am not that familiar with the experience of an “intervention” but I am sure many of them are “run” horribly and are disasters as they turn out to be shaming and humiliating to the intended target.

Any such approach has to be done with the greatest of care and respect and dignity for the person. The only message that can be sent has to be that “We are interested in you.” “Interest” is the key. This however cannot be but shame-producing to the person and the response can be and often is anger. 

Remember you invited yourselves to the party. If you have been hurt by the person it is fair to say you have been hurt, but remember you are there for them realizing that the only way you are not going to get hurt in the future is for them to get better. What is the long-term best interest of everyone? What is in the best interest of the “community?”

A favorite poly that I also hear is that people are told "Get help or we will not help or talk to you."

How this is "good" psychotherapy and how it is based on good research I haven't a clue. People are in these situations because of deep issues of having been shamed and humiliated and often have severe issues of abandonment. To now be "cornered" like this must indeed be humiliating and it must, when this ploy is used now trigger new massive fears of abandonment.