neuroscience and social feeling

[Regina Sewell]

Adam,

Alas, what you describe -- the strokes, the curtiousness, the thank you 
note, the added question 'and how's your wife/partner/dog/child?'  We 
used to call that good manners.  It seems in our time obsessed society, 
we've let go of that piece of the old cultural conserve.

I saw a news clip on bullying in schools that looked at social 
hierarchies and who made it to the top.  The people who make it to the 
top tend -- if male be good at sports, mature early, and/or be funny. 
Money of course is helpful.  Girls, it's money and looks...   And some 
of this ties into social skills.  The people who have better social 
skills from the get go tend to acquire even more skills as adults 
because they are around other socially skilled people.  They socially 
clueless tend to remain socially clueless because they hang out w/ other 
clueless people -- that's the theory anyway.  At some level, this links 
with Seigel's attachment theory.  It starts so early.  And yet, it can 
be learned.

And it has big impact.  According to news reports, for example, the 
doctors who get sued are not the least competent.  They are the biggest 
assholes.  I know it works w/ tips and waiters.  Charm and genuine 
concern go much further than getting the order perfectly right and the 
water perfectly on time.

As I write this, I'm noting that we all have a fundamental need for 
connection and yet our culture has, I think, taught us that doing those 
things which foster connection are feminine, subservient and thus signs 
of weakness.

Peace,
regina


On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Adam Blatner wrote:

> Dear Regina,
>     I appreciate your bringing up Siegel, because indeed the 
> neurophysiologists and new research in cognitive and social psychology 
> all are supporting the power of interpersonal psychic resonance. 
> People pick up subtle cues and respond.  Now, let's say we get it, 
> fully. My style is to leap into the so-whatness of things, the 
> implications, what Jung called an "intuitive type" ---not that I'm 
> more intuitive---he meant what I said, oriented to the implications.
>       So if we were to make a firm foundation of all this that it's 
> true, then what would we be empowered or encouraged to do more of or 
> less of?
>
>   It seems to me that the growing literature on both neuro-physiology 
> and social intelligence has at least (for starters) the following 
> implication:
>
> It is not taught in college, and not even in medical school or 
> psychiatric residency and I doubt that it's taught in most counseling 
> programs. But I think that we need to emphasize and advocate for the 
> importance of explicitly learning to be gracious, hospitable, 
> courteous, warm, friendly, attentive, rather than distracted, 
> self-absorbed, curt, rude, brisk, cool, etc.
>         I suspect that faculty sort of take it for granted, but I 
> wonder if they should.
>
>    For example, what if most folks are about at a mid-range in skill 
> in this way. They're reasonably nice and courteous, enough to get by, 
> but few actually make a conscious effort to be gracious, to send thank 
> you messages, to do more than what is clearly discourteous.
>    On the other hand, many of these normal people think of themselves 
> as benign, but actually create their lives so they feel too "busy" to 
> attend to the little things that make people feel noticed and 
> appreciated. This is the key starting point!!
>      I suspect that most people don't let on that they desire more 
> strokes; don't even admit to themselves that they need more strokes.
>
>         Doctors, professionals, lots of stories about people who 
> clients feel don't really listen, don't really care. Now I know that 
> most docs care, but they haven't had much modeling in knowing how to 
> show it.
>
>       There are lots of folks who don't respond at all to repeated 
> outreach via email, or only occasionaly.
>
> Another problem is that people who want to be known, appreciated, 
> disclose so indirectly, so partially, that it's hard to appreciate 
> them if if one tried. It's as if they unconsciously feel/think, "If 
> you really loved me you could read my mind."
>
>   So the good work being done on neurophysiology is important, it 
> helps to lay the foundation. My interest shifts into methods for 
> harvesting what they've been learning, turning into applications.
>        I also wonder about the active unconscious resistances to 
> social bonding, the self-reinforcing cycle that is based on 
> defensiveness.  Some people grow so cold that they defend themselves 
> from knowing how hungry their heart is for someone to notice, to care, 
> to want to know who you are, to be your friend.  Their vague wistful 
> fantasy may whisper, "Does that happen anymore?  Or was that just in 
> children's stories, so it seemed?"
>
> I do believe we're in a world of significant alienation, and part of 
> that is that people who are lonely and not getting enough strokes-- 
> I'm big into Eric Berne's concept of strokes--- and I think most 
> healthy people are getting now about 50% of the number of strokes that 
> would be optimal.  I think folks have forgotten to dream again that 
> there could be communities where people felt relaxed enough, where 
> there was sufficient group cohesion and morale, so that A might take 
> the time to ask B, How're ya doin? and really want to know.
>
>   I guess this also fits with another thought that when Moreno talked 
> about groups, he was referring not to psychotherapy groups (or only 
> peripherally), but more the general sense of we-ness, of community, of 
> what can people do to promote community-feeling and build on community 
> energy.
>
>    More reflections on your comments later.   warmly, adam