" Shame and the “alpha” male or female? Or my “stuff” is better than yours. "

*

Shame and the “alpha” male or female? Or my “stuff” is better than yours?

 "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,

 then they attack you, then 

 you win." Gandhi

Being ignored has always been a common experience. Today whether it's in personal interactions or online communication, the feeling of being disregarded can be hurtful and frustrating. This sentiment is captured in the famous quote by Gandhi.

 We can have fond memories of George Carlin or just go to YouTube “Stuff”, your stuff, and my stuff. We all have “stuff” and we all like our “stuff.” Of course, Mr. Carlin might or might not use another synonym for “stuff.”

We all have our "stuff," our interests, ideas, and passions that we want to share with others. It's natural to want recognition and engagement when we reach out to someone, hoping to connect and start a meaningful conversation. However, sometimes our attempts are met with indifference as if our "stuff" doesn't matter.

Recently, I had an experience where I reached out to someone, sharing my work and hoping to engage in a conversation. Unfortunately, all I received in return was a brief update on our past activities and a link to their recent page. There was no acknowledgment or discussion of what I had shared with them.

 While I may be overthinking the situation, I can't help but feel that there is a lack of reciprocity and genuine interest. It seems that this behavior has become pervasive as if inspired by George Carlin's humorous commentary on our obsession with "our" possessions, which he referred to as "stuff."

In a world where we are constantly bombarded with information and distractions, it's crucial to find ways to overcome the challenges of being ignored and constantly being interrupted. Ignoring someone can be a form of humiliation, making them feel insignificant and disregarded. It's a painful experience that can erode self-worth and lead to a sense of isolation.

The question then becomes: How do we respond to humiliation without perpetuating the cycle? It's a complex issue that warrants further exploration, perhaps even as a topic for research in the field of "humiliation studies."

Once in the position of being the target of humiliation, what does one do?

In what position? In that position of being ignored. All one has to do is ignore you. 

 This is what all “alpha’s” know intuitively that shame begets shame. To use shame as a weapon towards others when you are in control has a pretty good chance of shaming your target into submission. Such tension tends to lead to more negative emotions. It is a dangerous game as in a small portion it inevitability leads to some type of violence. And there are all types of violence. And the alpha knows that in most instances in society that “violence” is such that “all” that is going to happen is that the injured party is going to look like the aggressor or the fool. Or if the alpha is in power, “the boss” etc. they will now be able to more readily be able to dismiss the lowly one once more and often to permanently exclude them. See: The Shame Factor

 The important point is that they know that no matter what it is, it is as if you were a nat. This sometimes fails and there is a tipping point and someone comes back with a gun or a revolution starts.

I will go out on a limb here and say that all mass shootings are based on shame and humiliation.

 It's often suggested that the best way to deal with such situations is to ignore them in return. However, this approach can be challenging, as the pain of being ignored is deeply felt. As Albert Camus eloquently stated, "The basis of shame is not some personal mistake of ours, but the ignominy, the humiliation we feel that we must be what we are without any choice in the matter and that this humiliation is seen by everyone."

You may suggest just ignoring them. Ignore Who? Those that ignore us? But we are told to express our feelings when we can and when it is appropriate and why is it not appropriate here? Do we have feelings? Because to be ignored hurts. This quote expresses the idea does it not?

 In our personal relationships and professional interactions, we must strive to create an environment where everyone's contributions are valued and respected. By actively listening, engaging in meaningful conversations, and acknowledging the existence and worth of others, we can break free from the cycle of humiliation.

 Ultimately, the path to overcoming humiliation lies in fostering empathy, compassion, and a genuine desire to connect with others. Let us work together to build a world where no one feels ignored or reduced to nothingness.

It is as if it is the most hidden of human “pivot points” but it is the point upon which almost all power rest and turns. I am speaking of this moment of being ignored. Of saying essentially “You are nothing.” If we would teach it to all, all power would melt away. Outlaw it. “I’ve got you. I know what you are doing. You are ignoring me. You are trying to make me into nothing.” But a critical mass has to learn it to change the world.

It has been pointed out that children that have been “actively” abused do better than abandoned children. The simple explanation is that the child is not “nothing” but something. The parent is attending to them in some way, providing for them showing interest. Those in power so often treat us as nothing.

 Then recently I had a conversation about how showing slight contempt is often worse than a punch in the face. The latter of course shows real engagement and recognition of your existence while the former is dismissive of your existence.

 We are severally pained by the dismissiveness of unanswered emails and in academics, it is legend that colleagues will turn blue before admitting to having read their colleagues' work. I can at least be a little more “something” if I ignore you if you are “nothing”, at least to me.

A final thought. A famous couples therapist John Gottman is well known for being able to predict if couples will stay together on the basis of 15 minutes of conversation between them. He then says that one way to evaluate your relationships is the percentage of time your partner responds to a “Bid”. Does your partner respond to your request to engage? He says good relationships do so 86 percent of the time. Disastrous relationships respond only 36% of the time. See John Gottman .

 

Who Says We Are Not Aware of Shame and Humiliation?

*

Who Says We Are Not Aware

 of Shame and Humiliation?

"The basis of shame is not some personal mistake of ours, but that this humiliation is seen by everyone."
Milan Kundera as quoted by Hotch on “Criminal Minds”

The full quote appears to be “The basis of shame is not some personal mistake of ours, but the ignominy, the humiliation we feel that we must be what we are without any choice in the matter and that this humiliation is seen by everyone.”

Shame and humiliation are concepts that have become more prevalent in the psychological literature over the last twenty years. At the forefront of articulating their meaning and use have been those who work with the concepts of Silvan S. Tomkins and Donald Nathanson.

This short piece is the result of my in-depth use of these concepts in my work and study of Affect Psychology for several years and nascent ideas about how I see these ideas playing out in the culture, especially in the popular media.

The final impetus for this was an episode of a popular TV series called “Criminal Minds.”

This show revolves around a fictional FBI task force stationed at Quantico Vg. of mainly criminal “profilers” that can be called into action by invitation by local authorities to investigate difficult crimes. Usually, these are serial killers. They are a “strike team” with their private jet. In reality, the FBI has no such force. At Quantico, there are, however, special agents with profiling skills that can be called.

There is much fantasy here: first that there would be federal dollars to support such a task force on an ongoing basis. They are just not that many cases in reality and the more disturbing fact is that it portrays the mentally ill as statically much more violent than they are.

Why this case? There is no particular reason other than it was just one more plot of many I have seen that is based on the motive of humiliation for murder.

Synopsis:

Three talented young women disappear; they are all preparing to go off to college on athletic scholarships.

A relative of one of the girls contacts one of The FBI team members and gets them involved. Jumping to the conclusion of the episode it is found that the suspect must have been on the soccer team long ago. He is a garbage man, he blew out his knee in the championship game, lost a scholarship to Notre Dame, and everyone forgot about him. As many of these scenarios are they are rather gruesome.

But their gruesomeness introduces an interesting twist. They are gruesome to pique our interest and excitement. In being so gruesome and extreme we tend to put out of mind that such crimes do take place. We put reality out of our minds and somehow play a trick on ourselves. We feel that if we put the humiliating acts out of mind we can pretend that such humiliation only takes place in extreme cases or to other people.

In this case, the man had sequestered the three girls in a dungeon-like room without food or water until they decide who they would kill. They had to kill one of the three so that two would live.

One of them was sick so as she became weaker the more aggressive of the three took control and convinced the third they simply had to kill her. They yell to their captor telling him they have decided and his response is to throw them two large hammers.

Once they realize what has happened one weakens but the other becomes resolved that they have to kill their mate while they are agreeing the third revives sneaks up, and hits the aggressive girl in the head killing her instantly. A neat twist, thus saving the audience and the girls from the other horrid outcome of the other two wailing away freely on their teammates. Here we have a more clear-cut case of self-defense.

One might be quick to say that none of the synopsis of the murder adds much to my theme of shame and humiliation except to suggest and remind us of the debts to which toxic shame can lead people. I mainly recount the main plot for completeness.

Yet it has some further purpose. What is the murderer doing? This TV crime show is not just a silly excitement riddled story. The killer is playing out his morality play of and repeating a ramped-up version of his humiliation as payback to this pristine community for the years of “nothingness” he has felt.”

It is what I call the dangers of inadvertent humiliation. Society has not a clue, nor in this case should they, of what happened in this young kid's mind so many years ago and how it festered. How it could show up in such pathology so many years later? And we know it is quite rare that such a scenario would or does happen. Yet every mass shooting, that has its origin in humiliation, is certainly, not rare.

The important point is that humiliation was and is used in almost all crime stories used as a motivation for the action. But I emphasize also all the creator is doing is describing a real tangible dynamic.

I note that the motivation of humiliation is not even spelled out or followed through on in this particular episode. It is implied. We see the agents unite friends and relatives of these girls in this small town and then watch as they start fighting amongst each other and then see the agent telling them that this is what the suspect wants. Why? They don’t say it but the only reason would be to redress some previous wrong, that is for revenge.

Then all we find out is that he is a garbage man and supposedly all others involved have much higher stations in life. Of course, the three girls are star athletes and going off to IVY league schools and we learn that he lost a scholarship to Norte Dame. But there is no further comment about him. No interview, just his arrest.

It seems as if a slight misstep in the writing or just the time constraints of the format leaves no time for exploration of motive. That is not the point of the show. As always in American TV it is the case that it is our addiction to “excitement.” That does not diminish our growing maturity in recognizing shame and humiliation as a motivation for crime. Or it might be more sophisticated; a recognition that the viewer can sort all this out.

All this said it is and was for me an opportunity to comment on how humiliation has become a mainstay, a workhorse of motivation in TV drama as well as in “reality” TV. There has been some discussion of this on email lists but with this episode, it just occurred to me how it is really “right under noses” and yet not explored.

It has been suggested to me that at least the general public will more or less readily accept and understand the humiliation and the concept of shame at this level. The level of it being a motivation for murder whereas we, as already suggested, we have a much harder time understating the concepts in our day-to-day emotional lives. What do you think?

What do I mean? I mean that this whole point of this is a segue to talk about that despite the concepts of shame and humiliation being in the literate for many years they are not readily or easily accepted or introduced to the public or patients. Yet, as we see in this episode of “Criminal Minds” they are used in popular culture.

This raises some interesting questions that I think are being ignored.

First, I should be clear that for those not familiar with television drama this episode of “Criminal Minds” is by no means isolated. I wish I could offer a statistical analysis of several shows but I can’t. I can attest that any number of episodes of the set “CSI” series, the set of “Law and Order” series, and well as “Criminal Minds” base the motivation for the murder on revenge, revenge for having been humiliated. Of course “revenge” is an age-old motivation. What is different is the addition of the motivation for the revenge. That addition is the articulation of being shamed and humiliated.

Likewise, for years now, there have been several “reality shows” of all types. Shows that pit people against one another in artificial situations such as “Survivor” to shows such as “Hell’s Kitchen” and The “Weakest Link.” All of these in one way or another, in non-fictional ways, put people in situations or play-up situations where they are apt to be or ritually shame and humiliate each other.

I have broached the idea for some time that quite possibly we are simply discovering these concepts and there is no particular positive way to come to peace with them. Or they are, for the first time, coming fully into human consciousness. 

Technology and the entrainment medium offer a somewhat “safe” arena to, gain, and come to terms with these powerful emotions. We have always had the battlefield and 2000 thousand years ago we had the coliseum with Gladiators to “play with our emotions.” We still have the battlefield but to a much lesser extent despite popular opinion and we still have the coliseum for the NFL to the WWF but we also have the reality that we have seen concerning how war technology places soldiers in a surreal world where killing becomes a video game.

This is about an observation that we are making progress. Shame and humiliation are coming into consciousness and unless they do we will not be able to mitigate their power.

Although we are making progress. When I and my colleagues present these ideas in talks and therapy sessions we marvel at how little excitement and understanding there seems to be.

I will say that I think we as teachers might be missing powerful teaching moments by not referring more to and pulling examples from popular culture.

Then the question is why is it that popular culture, in my mind at least, is equal with or ahead of science in this area?

There is a saying that “the artist gets there first.”

This is completely consistent with the concepts that neuroscience is teaching us. The idea is that our information flow is in that order. It is preconscious in our deep memory banks of “affect” bundled up with “imagery” and it is only finally that it comes into consciousness. So it would seem that groups and history would follow the paradigm of the individual. The artist works on the subconscious level. They simply are pulling up the feeling and imagery more quickly then society at large.

It is said that the history of modern physics is portrayed in early modern art.

I will leave you with a synopsis of what I think is one of the poorer crime shows and that is “CSI Miami” It focuses almost totally on the mechanics of yet-to-exist technical crime techniques and very little character development. I say this as this episode had a fairly strong storyline based on humiliation.

The telling of the tale, however, takes only a few lines. The story takes place during the famous “Spring Break” in Miami. Two young men are found dead under suspicious circumstances. It turns out that at some previous point, they had severally humiliated a young lady who was overweight making her feel as if she was “nothing.” So much so that she lost the weight and became quite attractive, came to spring break, and enticed them sexually. They were none the wiser as to whom she was. At the appropriate moment, she let them know who she was and then killed them.

My final comment is this type of understanding of shame and humiliation is articulated over and over again. The writers have a very conscious understanding of it or so it would seem. They must be familiar with the literature. I invite comments about it. So it would seem that we in the business seem to be, to me, on a “high horse” of sorts and with blinders thinking we are the only ones of sorts “holding these concepts in consciousness.”

Shame is inevitable. It is at base a biological signal that something went wrong. We then learn what that signal means. It can mean many different things  The opening quote is complex and accurate on all levels. Shame is certainly not some “personal mistake of ours.” But it is precisely the helplessness we feel in the fact that we have no choice in the fact that our desires are interrupted by life willy-nilly and we are brought to our knees that we, often, feel immense humiliation. And when we are exposed it can drive us insane.

  

*

"TREE OF FAILURE"

 

By Brian Lynch"

 Updated and revised

 This is a commentary on the David Brooks essay linked here

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14brooks.html

  

David Brooks has always seemed conversant. He has had a regular gig on the "News Hour"  was for years in a "civil" setting with Mark Shields (1937-2022) another civil man. The conversation now continues with other co-contributors. They had a civil conversation. It is and was not about winning but exploring ideas for a few minutes. 

 

 "So this is where civility comes from — from a sense of personal modesty and the ensuing gratitude for the political process. Civility is the natural state for people who know how limited their powers are and know, too, that they need the conversation. They are useless without the conversation." Brooks

 

 Brooks's essay is a commentary on a speech President Obama gave in Tucson in 2011 at a memorial after the mass shooting that involved U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords. 

I first say that when I listened to Obama's speech I was pleased and shamed.

 I was shamed for a short while because before the speech I had jumped on the bash the Sara Palin bandwagon. She had a few months earlier been associated with an ad that put several congressmen in the crosshairs of a target. One of those was Congresswomen Giffords. 

From the first lines of the President's speech, he set a tone that raised the bar. I came back to work and had conversations about it. That said it is also important to point out we too need not have the language of "hunting" and killing in our political speech or business. Witness the man arrested at the town meeting telling the "Tea Party" member "your dead." Of course, this was and is a mental health issue.

 

 But I protest to myself a bit in a "conversation" with myself. Is it so simple? In the ensuing days, the conversation in the media was somewhat civil and rational and brought in discussion of the mental health issue and the insanity of the system and how those in psychotic states get bantered about the system and usually will end up in jail often with felony counts. This conversation was introduced firsthand to me, through direct experience, when it was first happening, years ago, when the hospitals were being emptied and the community health centers were not being built and were not being funded. Not a political issue? And therefore not directly or indirectly related to the shooting? I think not. There is a direct cause and effect. Things do come home to roost. 

 

 There was mention of that the danger of the "self-esteem" movement is that I come to think that I am the center of the universe and that I should not have any bad feelings at all. Can there be too many trophies given out? 

These ideas apply more to those of us who should be capable of "conversing" and fixing the problems and helping the psychotics, than those not capable of conversing at least much of the time as many of those do need many trophies because they are often where are because they have been destroyed by shaming and humiliation. But for those of us, capable, Brooks’ point is well taken when he says "The problem is that over the past 40 years or so we have gone from a culture that reminds people of their limitations to a culture that encourages people to think highly of themselves." 

 

 I see this too in the larger society. This is the irony and the conundrum of the "rights" movement and I have often expressed it as such. Everyone is "equal." Unfortunately, everyone becomes equal in all ways. So why would anyone have anything to say to anyone? Everyone is right in their way and beautiful as the song says. Give me my space and I'll give you yours. Just leave me alone. No discussion. I can't risk the humiliation. 

 

 As a physician, one that de facto has to be in a position of "power" from time to time, I like many here, have had to suffer through many embarrassing situations of being told that someone is just as "equal" as themselves or at least insinuated that they where equal to me; a janitor, "housekeeping", an administrator tells you would you please (or and your lucky to have the politeness thrown in there) vacate the room now, tell them exactly when you will be done, finish your work in thirty minutes or whatever when in fact you are engaged entirely in patient-centered care. I have essentially been fired on the word of the janitor. I had asked the janitor to please come back when my group was done as he was mopping under and around the conference table as the group was going on. 

I make clear yes everyone is absolutely equal in that they have a common set of human needs and rights. We can not, however, all fly the plane.

 

 I am too not sure that calling us to and reminding us of our "sinfulness", as Brooks does, is an answer. Brooks: "But over the past few decades, people have lost a sense of their sinfulness. Children are raised amid a chorus of applause. Politics has become less about institutional restraint and more about giving voters whatever they want at that second. Joe DiMaggio didn’t ostentatiously admire his home runs, but now athletes routinely celebrate themselves as part of the self-branding process."

 

 Yes, I agree with the overall sentiment. And that is again I think the idea of looking out to the community to a "conversation" but I do cringe at "sinfulness." This is what I think we do not want. Brooks is struggling due to a lack of vocabulary to go "back in the day when." Except I and I think we all get queasy or should when we talk about a "wished for day"? A wished for day of "conversation?" When and where exactly was that? Yes, there were times of greater bipartisanism of the great backroom deal of great conversation. And I suppose you can say that is what helped start bringing us out of segregation, and sexism and gave us social reforms. 

 

 But of course, conversation of yore did not precisely include all. Ted and Orin were able to reach across the aisle in the greatest deliberative body. We can only hope it will continue to be that and I suspect there is no reason to believe that other odd pairings will not materialize. The challenge is that the tent is now big, the reforms now made, and the positions taken. Can we risk the humiliation and leave "Everyone is right in their way and beautiful as the song says. Give me my space and I'll give you yours. Just leave me alone. No discussion." behind? I think this challenge to be true on all levels no matter even our understanding of affect.

 Edit: This was written in 2011. Things have not gotten better by any means.

We have to even be careful, unfortunately, of what we mean and how we carry out "conversation." I went well out of my way to steep myself in the tradition of education vis-a-vis what anyone might call "civil conversation" and have found it to be the refuge for many of those who wish to "cogitate." The elite or those by nature that are engaged in the life of the mind as an avoidance and not an engagement of the world. Certainly not all, of course, but it is no news to anyone here that one might say the problem of all education is an almost complete lack of education in emotional intelligence. So that students can be highly educated in the "art of "logic" and 'the art of conversation'" for four years and come out emotional cripples or at least no better off than when they entered. 

 

 Online encounters with my alumni community proved later to show that four years of formal education in "conversation" ( and indeed this being the centerpiece of the school) seemed to have caused no effect on their basic "true" affective/emotional makeup. Online those years of civility instantly disappeared. At a alumni gathering a "prospective" parent who was a psychiatrist shied away from me when I pushed the idea that schools should deal with emotional health and education. "Oh no they have enough to deal with!" 

So a conversation, I suppose, you have to start somewhere.

Some quotes from the Brooks article:

Every sensible person involved in politics and public life knows that their work is laced with failure. Every column, every speech, every piece of legislation and every executive decision has its own humiliating shortcomings. There are always arguments you should have made better, implications you should have anticipated, other points of view you should have taken on board.

Moreover, even if you are at your best, your efforts will still be laced with failure. The truth is fragmentary and it’s impossible to capture all of it. There are competing goods that can never be fully reconciled. The world is more complicated than any human intelligence can comprehend.

But every sensible person in public life also feels redeemed by others. You may write a mediocre column or make a mediocre speech or propose a mediocre piece of legislation, but others argue with you, correct you and introduce elements you never thought of. Each of these efforts may also be flawed, but together, if the system is working well, they move things gradually forward.

Each individual step may be imbalanced, but in succession they make the social organism better.

As a result, every sensible person feels a sense of gratitude for this process. We all get to live lives better than we deserve because our individual shortcomings are transmuted into communal improvement. We find meaning — and can only find meaning — in the role we play in that larger social enterprise.

"On Stuttering"

*

"On Stuttering"

This is written as a suggestion for those that stutter or for those helping others overcome it.

 On stuttering or now subtitled "On The King's Speech", the movie by the same title just won the Oscar for "Best Picture" of the Year. 

At the time of first writing this, I had not seen the movie. I have subsequently done so. King Edward had much reason to have "shame" and a dose of humiliation in his life and thus lose his "voice." This voice couch gives him his voice back.

 

The Terry Gross interview at the end of this piece is a personal story of stuttering that encapsulates what I am saying without technical language. If you put in the effort to learn the basic theory I am putting forth you will read it with a new understanding and understand the movie at a new level.

I stuttered. I don't anymore. Why? I am not sure how I got over it but now I going to present a possible mechanism of the cause and the cure. (Since the original writing of this these ideas are more accepted.)

I know that since I stopped I have learned a great deal about the emotional life of mankind.

I share some thoughts on my personal view as a physician, patient, and student of psychology on these matters.

The idea is to be practical and help people stop stuttering.

It may seem in some of what I say that this is not what I am doing. That is for anyone to improve through this method it will take an understanding of their emotions and therefore it is not "practical." It is not practical to expect people to take the time.

We have to start somewhere and "break the ice.“ It is my particular sensitivity that we, for the most part, are dangerously in a mindset that unless it comes in the form of a machine or a pill we are not very interested in it. We are not, that is, very self-reflective. That is a lot of us. On the other hand, we are the nation that uses "psychotherapy" more than any other country. I guess we are just a complex lot. 

I want to speak to everyone. So I suppose what I am trying to do is reach and warn those of you reading this that are looking for a solution in a pill or an apparatus or in some kind of new "speech therapy." Please try and look past that kind of external solution. Otherwise, I will be, as they say, "preaching to the choir." There is no claim here that this is the only treatment or the only cause. 

I am not saying at all that this is not at all a genetic or inherited problem. The fact is stuttering may have various causes and that fact is we do not know how to distinguish among them. The literature is still not specific on either the cause or cure. Now, I think that may be precisely because we have not looked into the specifics of what I am about to say But the fact is I do not stutter anymore.

So one might go through various therapies in an orderly fashion. That is try all you can and see what happens. That is an alternative to what I am offering. Or at the same time try this.

It would seem that there is a good chance that any therapy that works in some would partially work in all but of course, there are no guarantees.

I can pretty much guarantee you will feel differently about things if you give what I am offering a try and if so you should feel at least a tad bit better and if so you will probably stutter less. No one can tell me that when they feel "nervous" they don't stutter more!

Some basic points:

* Human beings speak. Far and away this makes us human.

.

* I will try and be practical.

* Human beings can be said to "want" things.

* We "want" to get our "message out."

* Something often "impedes" this message.

This sequence of events happens in all of us, all the time every day many times during the day. When it happens we "feel" something. I have taken to saying that we feel "hurt" and or "confused." There are microbursts of this and macro bursts. I say we put a buck fifty in the dispenser and nothing comes out. Our "want" or interests have been blocked or impeded. We are flying down the highway and turn the curve and see a bank of red tail lights, again our "interest" is impeded.

I hope you see where this is going.

From the first time I caught on to this simple emotional idea that, well, yes my "interest" was an emotional force, and when something got in the way I just felt 'blocked", "impeded", "hurt", "confused", "a 'thud'" it soon brought back to me remembrances of times past when I stuttered.

Right now as I write I "feel" those times. This is why I am writing this. Most precisely because I yet again saw a piece in a news magazine about stuttering and felt that I should not yet again put off putting these ideas down on the cyber screen.

I trust the reader might, again, see where I am going. It is but a short step to thinking that when we speak it is to relate to "other." I do not think that there is any way that the statement :

"When I speak I have an emotional interest in communication to self or other.", can in any way be denied.

Since speech is a flow of something it can be blocked, impeded, or stopped. That process will have consequences. In this case what we call and describe as stuttering or stutters.

What can cause it? This is what this article is about and what I am suggesting and what will take some work and commitment.

Up until now not much has worked in treatment except time. Not until now. This is why I write but the answer is not blatantly on this page. I am saying that in my experience and putting 2 + 2 together this seems to make sense to me. What is "this?" "This" is an investigation of the emotion of "interest" I know you have never really considered "interest" as an emotion and the consequences of tampering with it. I say stuttering is one of those consequences.

We do have to review and be clear about this inherited and genetic stuff.

Let us say that there is genetic material in my family for me to get diabetes. Let us say that I get tested and I have the gene for diabetes and you can now get tested for this gene.

Am I going to get diabetes? Not necessarily. There is much you can do to avoid it. You can maintain your weight and there is much evidence that if you take the drug Metformin along with a substantial walking routine you can prevent diabetes.

So let us say there is a stuttering "gene." Ok, we can't do anything about that. Does that mean you are going to stutter? I would say we don't know. I would say some will some won't.

Now what is always brought up about stuttering? It is the teasing, ridicule, and humiliation of the person which inevitably makes the stuttering worse. So, I say it is a clue that is right under our noses. Again, I said above that nervousness makes stuttering worse. Why? It is because it impedes our interest. It seems to me there is at least an indirect connection if not a direct connection. Connection to what? A connection to the neuro-emotional system.

Now comes the hard work.

If you are an adult then maybe you would be willing to consider that stuttering might have an "emotional" basis." To be sure many of you have already done this and have been through much therapy. This would just be a new "twist" to the therapy.

I have no problem whatsoever realizing that my stuttering had this emotional basis and I am quite certain that it was probably 100 percent emotional. In the last ten years, there have only been a few occasions where I had a glimpse of a feeling that I might falter. I now can speak in public without fear. I attribute all of this to my understating of the emotion of interest and what happens when it is blocked. Whatever kind of therapy this consists of it is a deep understanding of that concept. Yes, it is in the mode of relaxation but it is very much an organic relaxation.

I fear to say more would start to, well, block your interest. It would start to give you too much information and confuse you.

You need now, to explore more in dept.

I suggest:

If you can, speak to someone familiar with Affect Theory/Psychology that might agree with this essay. That is have them read this essay. They need not have thought of this idea before if they are proficient in Affect Psychology to help you with your problem. That is they should be able to read it and understand immediately the connection.

There is very little material on Affect Psychology that is readily accessible.

There are two small books:

My book "Knowing Your Emotions".

Which is a general introduction to Affect Psychology (currently out of print soon to be republished).

And "What Babies Say Before They Can Talk" By Paul Hollinger.

This is worth reading as it has a lot of good general material about Affect Psychology and should give anyone some good ideas.

That is about it.

Then you can graduate to Don Nathanson's "Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex and the Birth of the Self", this is pretty much a major undertaking and of masters level material but a beautiful book.

Ok, none of it is directed at stuttering nor do I think you will find the word "stuttering" in any of the texts. The "help" lies in understanding the theory. In understanding that when interest is blocked speech will be blocked. What are the myriad of ways our "interests" are blocked? How do we feel when this happens and how can we improve this situation? If we improve it all the neuro-muscular feedback systems will improve that are impeding our "interest" in talking. Seems reasonable.

I write this because of my own experience and because I know this material helped me and am convinced that there is something to this. I am also convinced we have made so little progress with stuttering because we know so little about this connection to "interest" and its blockage.

The next easiest place to go is my web page Facebook Affect Psychology Group, EmotionalMed YouTube, and SubStack Brian Lynch M.D.

These are "new" ideas in this area but we have to start somewhere. I am trying to pick up the ball. I wish there was some specific literature but there is none.

Hope it might help someone. Let me know.

Note the following:

On the National Public Radio Show, "Fresh Air" host Terry Gross had a guest that is an admitted "stammer." David Mitchell an author who talks in very articulate terms about stammering/stuttering without using the words shame or

copyright ©2010 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission is required.

Heard on Fresh Air from WHYY

August 5, 2010 - (Soundbite of music)

TERRY GROSS, host:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross.

My guest David Mitchell is recently described by Dave Eggers as one of the more fascinating and fearless writers alive. Mitchell is the author of the new historical novel "The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet." ................................

You've written about how as a boy you had a very bad stammer.

Mr. MITCHELL: Mm-hmm.

GROSS: And there's still I guess elements of that left, but.......................

Mr. MITCHELL: It's my life-long companion.

GROSS: You write something I thought was very funny and very true. You wrote: The willpower myth maintains that a stammerer is analogous to a newly wheelchair-bound character in a heartwarming American film. The doctor says he'll never walk again, but his gritty determination proves them wrong. This myth, you say, cost me angry years of believing that I stammered because I wasn't trying hard enough not to stammer......................

Would you describe what you tried to do during those angry years?..................................

Mr. MITCHELL: What I went through in those years: sort of a state of civil war with myself. It took a long, long time to understand that a stammer is more like a kind of force field, and the more you throw at it, the more it throws back at you. You sort of have to outwit it rather than outfight it. And, in a way, not even outwit it. You sort of - I think of it now as a kind of a companion. It's a part of me. It has a right to exist as I do and I need to sort of come to a working accommodation with it.

A friend who was an alcoholic once said to me that an alcoholic never stops being an alcoholic. He may - but what you have to aspire to be is a teetotal alcoholic. And in the same way a stammerer, I think, certainly in my case, will not be a stammerer but you have to aspire to become a non-stammering stammerer. And this involves certain strategies and techniques that you can sort of encrypt into how you speak so that I'm able to do this interview, for example, which 20 years ago would've been unthinkable. And in the end, these strategies can become so well integrated into who you are and how you speak that they become behavior and speech patterns rather than techniques.

GROSS: So do you find you should say up front to people yeah, I've got a stammer, so that's the way it's going to be?

Mr. MITCHELL: Oh, much, much more so. Yeah.

GROSS: Mm-hmm.

Mr. MITCHELL: It's a huge weight off your shoulders. Yeah.

GROSS: Was that something you had to hide - try to hide when you were young?

Mr. MITCHELL: Most certainly. All the time. Being a teenager is hard enough at the best of times. But if you're a stammering teenager, then I noticed if it's known, and if you're sort of exposed as a stammering teenager then it's really tough. So I spent a lot of energy and a lot of angst and a lot of stress trying to hide it throughout my 20s as well. But in the long run, it's much, much better for me at least to be upfront about it.

GROSS: It must've been so frustrating because you're Mr. Language. You know, and you're all about...

GROSS: ...language and when you opened your mouth it wouldn't come out smoothly. Yet, I'm sure you were writing even as a teenager and...

Mr. MITCHELL: Frustrating, yes.

GROSS: So people would make fun of you because of your stammer, yet you probably knew so much more about language and were so much more facile with language than the people who were mocking you.

Mr. MITCHELL: In part yes, because of my stammer. This is why I view my stammer now as a companion and not an enemy. ]I might've been a writer without it, but I certainly wouldn't have been this writer. One of the strategies I was referring to, which you meet quite early on in your career as a stammerer, is autocue sentences ahead of time. You see what words are coming up, and say right now I'd have difficulties with words beginning with S. If I, certainly as a younger person, if I saw an S word was approaching then I would try and reengineer that sentence to avoid needing that Sword. And this teaches you how language can be employed in many, many different ways to say the same thing.

GROSS: Now you lived for eight years in Japan and taught English there to Japanese students........................................

GROSS: You don't stammer when you're talking to animals?

Mr. MITCHELL: No. No. You see, it's all to do with...

GROSS: Why is that?

Mr. MITCHELL: Oh, I've thought about this a lot. But I think, and you may have some speech therapists listening to this program who could have a different point of view, but it's to do with what you think is going on in the listeners' heads. If you can have a certain militancy about it, if you can think that, you know, I frankly don't care if I'm about to stammer or not. I don't care if this person thinks I'm weird. I don't care if this person thinks any less of me, then miraculously, kind of the fingers of the stammerer loosen and suddenly, you're more fluent again. Obviously, an animal isn't thinking in these terms. So when you're speaking to an animal you don't stammer.

This is also why it's good to be upfront about it. If there's no question before you start that, hey I am a stammerer, it's out in the open and I may well stammer in this conversation, if that's there before the conversation starts, then as often as not, the stammer will be a lot lighter and looser in that conversation.

GROSS: You know, I'm thinking, you have this problem with a stammer, so speaking has always had obstacles and the threat of failure, right?

Mr. MITCHELL: Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. MITCHELL: Yeah.

see transcript:

 @ http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=128872438

Dr. Brian Lynch March 2008

Brian Lynch, M.D.

3044 North Laramie

Chicago, Ill 60641 HOMEPAGE -

DrBPLynch@aol.com -

773-202-7991