Feelings

Racks and Cutters: and other family sayings

Ron Johnson Feelings, Humor

Families tend to have “family sayings” that have meaning to them but not necessarily to other people. These can be real fun to use in the right setting, but when they are used outside of the family, they might not make any sense to the people who hear them. My family has many of these sayings and we find ourselves using them frequently, almost always with a smile on our faces. Most of these sayings have historical roots, e.g. they come from some real situation, some real person, or some real activity that somehow led to the creation of the sayings. Allow me the indulgence of mentioning a few, and perhaps you will write back to me about things that you hear in your family that make you smile when you say them or remember saying them.

Racks and cutters

This saying has distinct historical roots, and the specific root is my father. Tragically, many people suffer from dementia of one kind or another, the most obvious of which is that of Alzheimer’s disease. I have the unfortunate history of having both of my parents having suffered from this debilitating disease, my father with the “early onset” variety with him showing symptoms as early as age 50 or 55 (he died when he was 64), and my mother showing such symptoms when she reached 80 (It is notable that most women over 80 suffer from Alzheimer’s.) This disease is no laughing matter but Deb and I, and to some degree our daughters, have retained a certain phrase that came out of my father’s dementia, something that my brother actually noticed because Bill had more contact with Dad during his deteriorating years. Know that the principal phenomenon with people with Alzheimer’s is that of memory, particuallry short-term (seconds) and intermediate term (minutes) memory not long-term memory (hours or more). More specifically, people with this disorder fail to remember nouns, which is the most prominent feature of any loss of memory. Note that you sometimes can’t remember people’s names or even the name of an object. My father had a great loss of nouns in his vocabulary and somehow came up with two nouns, racks and cutters, that represented what he saw in the world. From what I could determine, “rack” meant something that was stable, perhaps like a building or a chair, whereas “cutter” referred to something that moved in some way, perhaps a machine, a car, or a washing machine. So, Dad would refer to something (stable) as a “rack,” but you would have to see what he pointed to in order to understand what he was referencing. If he referred to a “cutter,” you would similarly need to observe what he was point at or guess as to the machine. This is a sad condition, i.e. to lose your memory, especially for nouns because it is nouns, not verbs, adjectives, and such, that are the center of speech.

Somehow, without meaning disrespect to my father, much less seeing dementia as a laughing matter, my family started to use the terms, racks and cutters, in our occasional speech. Sometimes we actually couldn’t think of the noun, and other times we might be referring to a collection of things that might include cars and toilets. To refer to the “racks and cutters” in the garage currently means all the stuff that we are taking out  It has been a distinctively family-based phrase that we occasionally use, almost always without any thought of Dad or his diminishing vocabulary. There were some other elements of Dad’s vocabulary that have remained with us, namely Dad’s use of adjectives instead of nouns. He would refer to the “longs” or the “brown” meaning something that was long or brown. My sister and I talked about some jeans that I bought her to which we referred as “longs” not jeans. I can’t say for sure if the following adjunct came from Dad, but we seem to have taken the adjective-for-a-noun to a different grammatical level, e.g. referring to an informational board on a hike, walk, or drive as a “read.”

It is interesting as I think about this shortening of vocabulary that Sigmund Freud said that anything long and narrow, particularly in a night dream, was a reference to the male, while anything round and flat was a reference to female, a reference to his genital orientation in some of his psychological understanding.

Blue

I think this is distinctly between Deb and me, which one of us uses when we hear a question or a statement from the other person but we cannot hear what was actually said or asked. The origin of saying “blue” came some years ago (neither of us remembers the actual time or place) where one of us spoke something to the other person that was not understood (nor do we remember who was speaking and who was listening). Whoever was listening evidently only heard a blur of sounds and half-words with the only identifiable word being “blue,” so the hearer simply shouted out, “gazorninplat (or something equally nonsensical) together with the only identifiable word “blue” attached. Ever since that time in memorial when one of us hears something that is not intelligible, the hearer will say, “blue”, which is to say, “I didn’t hear what you said.” Occasionally, we use other colors, for instance when I am urinating in the bathroom and Deb tells me something. I leave it to your imagination as to what color I say. Saying “blue” seems much more appropriate than, “I can’t hear you” or “I’m urinating.” It works well…most of the time. At other times, like these when I’m in the midst of doing something, perhaps like picking out my shoes for the day in my closet, I just pretend that I didn’t hear her at all hoping that she will conclude that I didn’t hear her. I suspect she knows my ruse.

A lot of guys (and cognates)

This is one of several saying that we use in our household that originated with the Garrison Keillor radio show. I don’t remember the whole bit, but Keillor was talking about “guys,” and I think he wrote a book entitled Guys something. The bit was things that tradesmen say to one another when something hasn’t gone wrong, like the 2×4 wasn’t stationed properly. As it recall it, Keillor mentioned a (fictional) character in the story who commented on the figurative 2×4 that wasn’t positioned properly leading to the collapse of the wall. The crew leader said, “A lot of guys would have positioned that wood in a different way.” This was a seemingly polite way of correcting a fellow laborer without criticizing him. Then Keillor said there were cognates of “a lot of guys…”, which include “I seen a guy who would have…” (you have to use the grammatically incorrect “seen” instead of “have seen.” Or, you could say, something lighter, like, “a guy could…” or “some guys might…,” all of these statements being variations of “a guy could” instead of criticizing.

Now in our family these statements come in handy when something goes array, like when I forgot to put my car in park and it went on its own until it hit our other car. Deb could have said, “A lot of guys would have put the car in park before they got out of the car.” This has turned out to be a friendly way of teasing without meaning to make the other person feel offended. It usually works.

Careful not to drop that…

I know the origin of this one and it is some 60 plus years ago. I was working for a moving company and I was at the warehouse where one of my colleagues was slowly backing the truck up to the warehouse while another guy was waving him in. Somewhat on purpose the guy in the warehouse did not really warn the driver that he was about to hit the warehouse dock. So, when the driver actually bumped into the dock, the warehouse guy said, “Watch out so you don’t hit the dock,” which of course was already too late. So, I took this into our household and we both use it from time to time, often when one of us is showing and drops the soap (do you know what I mean, like you can’t keep the soap in your hands when you’re washing your back and it falls on the floor?) So, Deb will hear the soap dropping and say, “Careful not to drop the soap on the floor,” which of course is already too late. Our grandson who lived with us for three months last year picked up on some of these family statements, particularly liking this one when someone does something untoward, like spilling your coffee (“Careful not to spill your coffee”) or drop a knife on the floor (“Careful not to drop your knife”).

Colorful metaphor

We have borrowed this statement from Star Trek IV in which the Star Trek crew has gone back in time from the 24th century to the 20th century. Captain Kirk quickly picks up on the propensity of people in the current age who are inclined to swear and curse frequently. Spock observes Kirk doing that and he doesn’t understand the use of such language, but refers to such things as Kirk has said like, “Well, a double dumb ass on you” and other such expressions replete with some curse words in them. Spock refers to such expressions as “colorful metaphors.” Later in the movie Spock suggests that a certain situation “might call for a colorful metaphor.”

We have taken this as an opportunity for one of us to share with the other one a time when something has been done inadequately or something has broken or otherwise gone haywire saying, “Might this be a time for a colorful metaphor?” There appear to be many such opportunities in our life together, perhaps when I forgot to put the car in park.

You know what they do to you when…

Another family saying that comes from do movie was spoken frequently by the actor Joe Pesci in one of the Lethal Weapon movies. When he was in a situation that was unfortunate and he didn’t get what he wanted, he said, “You know what they do to you when…” (that followed by the drive-in fast food, the hospital, or elsewhere) with, “…they fuck you.”

We have taken the first part of this statement (and occasionally the second part) when we encounter something unfortunate, perhaps at the bank, grocery store, or the like, or more likely with insurance companies, lawyers, or politicians, saying, “You know what they do to you when you’re at….”

There again…

This is another of our family sayings that has entered our vocabulary as a friendly way from an unknown source. It is a way of expressing how something was done incompletely or incorrectly. An alternative use of this phrase could be used by the person being corrected as a way of suggesting that he or she has “yet again done something untoward. I use the phrase when Deb tells me something that I should have known before I charged right into doing something, which tends to be my nature. She might use the phrase for when I suggest a small grammatical correction (She usually says something like, “I’m going to lay down” rather than the preferred, “I’m going to lie down.” So, when one of us finds him/herself in a position of having been “caught” in some kind of minor error, it is a good way of saying, “Sorry” but with the added suggestion that the hearer doesn’t really care about what is being corrected. Deb certainly doesn’t care about the lay/lie distinction.

You have me confused…

“You have me confused” is a shorted version of something we heard…again from who knows where…of “You seem to have me confused with someone who gives a shit.” We actually never use this with one another but find ourselves using the statement or it’s cognates in reference to other people, always out of their earshot. We use this phrase in two different circumstances, namely when we heard something from someone or they heard something from us, both of which are times when someone didn’t seem to care about what was being said. Let me give you an example. We will sometimes use this statement when we have said something to someone that we deemed as important but they didn’t care much. Hence, we would say, “I had him confused… (with someone who cared about what I said.). The alternative is “He had me confused… (with someone who cared about what he said.). We would never say this to someone, only a private-between-us statement that allows us to admit to a disinterest without disrespect of the other person.

Not on the TCH

We know exactly when and where this comes from because we remember the exact moment of its inception. Deb and I were traveling through Newfoundland, Canada, perhaps 25 years ago, traveling on the Trans-Canada Highway (the TCH). Now, importantly, Deb loves her espresso coffee, which is pretty to get in most places in the world, but when you’re in the somewhat undeveloped province of Newfoundland, it is not so easy. Expresso is certainly, in St. John’s, the capital of Newfoundland, and in the two or three other medium size cities, but when you’re on the TCH going overland, there isn’t much at all but barren land, however being beautiful in its own right. So, we’re about halfway through the province and Deb desperately needs a cuppa. I say, I think we’ll find an espresso shop somewhere, but Deb is quite uncertain, and says quite clearly, “We’re not going to find espresso in the middle of Newfoundland.”

Now before I finish this story, I need to note that Deb is an “analyst” by temperament, namely a person who seeks information, seeks to learn, seeks to understand, and seeks to solve problems. That having been said, analysts like Deb are notoriously ones who appear to be “negative” because they hate to be wrong and hate to not know something. Deb and I have had fun with teasing this element of her analyst temperament for years, she asserting that she is “not negative” but just aware of problems and the possibility of danger. I, on the other hand, tend to be wildly positive often ignoring the possibility, or even probability, of failing at some endeavor. I get just as much teasing for my ignoring the obvious when I confront something that needs to be done.

Now back to the TCH. Well, what do you know, right in the middle of nowhere I spy an expresso shop and pull over in order to quench Deb’s espresso thirst. So, ever since this incident we have used this “there’s nothing on the TCH” statement to refer to something that Deb might think won’t happen or something that we can’t find.

Summary

You may use any or all of these statements as you please. Do know, however, that such statement, however meant in a spirit of joy and friendliness, could be hurtful to the person hearing, especially if they are unfamiliar with the process.

I’d be interested in your own family sayings: ron.johnson@midlandspsychological.com

Perfect Love Prevents Fear

Ron Johnson appreciation, Development, emotional maturity, Feelings, grief, happiness, mindfulness, Self-Awareness, Spiritual

In one of the later books of the New Testament, the writer and apostle, John, states this:

“There is no fear I love. But perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love” (1 John 4.18, New International Version).

Other versions of this passage adjust words to some degree (The King James version has, “perfect love drives out fear, or casts out fear), but the message is the same. You might find it valuable to read the verses before and after this verse, which includes many words about love: God’s love for us, our love for others, and what the essence of love is. John is often cited as the “love apostle” because of his focus on love. He is the only writer to say, “God is love” although other writers describe God with other characteristics like truth, infinite, even beautiful. My task in this blog is not so much to give a biblical examination or presentation but to note that this idea of love “driving out” fear is interesting at the least. And this idea of love conquering fear (among other things) continues to be a position Deb and I have taken in our work and in our writings. In this blog I will offer my take on how “love drives out fear,” other things that loves “drives out,” what it means to “drive out,” a bit about what love is, and a good bit about what fear is. We think more importantly that perfect love prevents fear. The way we see it, fear is a “love problem.”

Fear is one of four basic emotions

Deb and I have been working with the concept of feelings for decades as well as the subset of feelings, emotions. This may come as a surprise unless you have followed our writings on the subjects. In The Positive Power of Sadness we discussed the centrality of the emotion of sadness. In our more recent I Want to Tell You How I Feel, we present a paradigm of feelings and identify emotion as an expression of feelings. We use the term “feelings” as representing the central core of an individual, sometimes called inner self, core self, or even God inside of me. We propose that feelings are expressed in four ways always in sequence: physical, emotional, cognitive, and active. Thus, emotion is an expression of feelings, and thus emotions are not to be equated with core self. We also proposed in this book that people tend to express their feelings in one of these four ways and may express them in another of these four ways. Yet everyone experiences feelings first physically and so on. The problem with most people is that we have not matured in our understanding, valuing, and expressing our emotions, much less the deeper, spiritual nature of our feelings.

Beyond this understanding of emotions being a subset of feelings, we understand that we have four basic emotions that are all related to love in some way:

  • Joy: the emotion associated with having something I love
  • Sadness: the emotion associated with the immediate losing of something that I love
  • Fear: the emotion associated with the possibility of losing something I love
  • Anger: the emotion associated the past loss of something that I love

In addition to this understanding of the current functioning of emotions, we propose that these four emotions are developed naturally in early childhood, e.g.:

  • Fear is the predominant emotion of an infant 0-12 months old. The infant is fearful or calm, but not angry, joyful, or sad
  • Joy is the predominant emotion of the second year of life. The infant discovers the joy of loving something, e.g. person, place, activity or thing. Ideally, the 1-2 year old is less afraid but still has the intrinsic fear that is accompanied by potential danger because s/he can’t yet really take care of her/himself
  • Anger: the predominate emotion of the toddler years, ages 2-6. Anger develops as a means of defense against the frequent “assaults” that toddlers get because of being restricted. Think of it this way: they got almost all of what they needed the first year life; they got most of what they wanted in the second year of life. But now they can walk, talk, throw, yell, and scream. So, they use these things to attempt to get what they want. They do not normally distinguish between wants and needs.
  • Sadness: this is the last and by far the most important emotion that children develop. Ideally by age 6, they have a rudimentary understanding that they don’t get most of what they want although it will take many more years to truly understand that it is normal and ultimately good for them to not get what they want.
  • Few kids get through these stages ideally.

So, what is the “love problem” associated with fear? It is the emotion associated with being afraid of never getting what I want, or perhaps need. Importantly, an infant does not distinguish between wants and needs. (Unfortunately, many adults have failed to make that distinction as well.) If the infant is not afraid when s/he needs food, comfort, or care, s/he will not survive. Fear is the most basic emotion we have, and as a result, fear is the emotion that the brain churns up when the brain feels there is danger. Why does the brain churn up fear when there doesn’t appear to be anything to be afraid of?

The brain and perceived danger

I have to start by reminding you that the brain is a machine. An incredible machine, mind you, but a machine. The brain doesn’t know anything. It is just like your computer. Your computer doesn’t know anything despite the fact that most people end up talking to (or yelling or swearing at) their computers, which are, like the brain, machines. Your brain knows two things and two things only: safe (or lack thereof), and pleasure (or lack thereof). Your brain doesn’t know people, love, ideas, things, or anything else. Your brain is programed to take care of you, namely providing safety and pleasure. Furthermore, your brain doesn’t know the future or the past, but rather just the present. So, in a manner of speaking, your brain is pretty “stupid” aside from being the most advanced machine in the known universe. So, here’s the picture as the brain sees it: provide safety, and if that’s taken care of, encourage pleasure. The pleasure part of the brain is hormonal, namely endorphins that are essentially happy chemicals (endorphins) that the brain secretes when you are doing something that brings your pleasure. The pleasure orientation that the brain has can lead to addictions but that is not part of our current discussion. I want to focus on the danger orientation that the brain has. So, here’s the picture as the brain sees it when it sees that there is some kind of danger:

  • Your mind thinks of something that is in the future that might be dangerous.
  • Your brain, not knowing the future, thinks there is some present danger
  • Your brain then churns up cortisol, which is the chemical that causes you to be aware, or perhaps hyper aware
  • Your brain churns up cortisol so you can be aware of the immediate danger that the brain thinks exists in the present
  • The brain doesn’t know that you might be thinking of something that might happen in the future, perhaps an hour later or a year later. The brain doesn’t understand the future, so it does whenever it determines that there is danger.
  • You feel some kind of increased vigilance, or perhaps even hypervigilance, which is identified by increased heart rate, increased breathing, and an increased awareness of the problem that is before you.
  • In all this, the brain is protecting you from what it perceives as present danger. It’s doing its job: protecting you. You didn’t ask the brain to do this. It did it all on its own.
  • You feel some kind of anxiety, which is a cognate of fear. The brain has done this for you. You experience it as fear; your brain experiences this as danger and the need to be hyperaware.
  • Think of it this way: you think about an interview that you will have tomorrow. As you think about this interview, you begin to worry that you might know what to say or how to say it. You’re brain hears this message but not the content (because the brain is “stupid” about such things.) The brain thinks something like, “There is a lion coming over the hill and we have to be prepared for fight or flight.) There is no lion, and in fact there is no immediate danger, but your brain doesn’t know that.
  • Your brain sort of “talks” to your mind (because your brain can’t think), and sort of says, “Please mind, figure out how we can protect ourselves from the lion,” even though there is no lion.
  • So you end up thinking more, and the more you think, the more you can’t know what you might say or do, and the more you end up worrying.
  • Sound familiar?

I try to help people understand this mind/brain interaction and get the mind in control of the brain, thus forestalling the brain taking control of the physical process of surviving and getting you to worry. That is also another story that we don’t have time to discuss at the present. Rather, I want to talk about the “love problem” that is at the heart of the fear that the brain churns up.

Fear is a love problem

Fear is the emotion associated with danger. In practical terms, however, we must ask, “What am I afraid of when I experiencing fear (or anxiety or worry). Understanding this phenomenon is central to overcoming 99% of fear and 100% of anxiety and worry. I need to be afraid if I am in genuine danger, like being stabbed by an assailant or being crushed by an 18-wheeler that has moved into my lane, but these things are the 1% of fear that is valuable and life-saving. It is no easy task to overcome the other 99% of fear. Underneath the question, “What am I afraid” of is the more important question, “What do I love that I am afraid of losing?”

There are several categories of things that I love, and hence might be afraid of losing. They are:

  • Property
  • People
  • Social contact
  • Freedom
  • Ideas
  • Self

Normally, we think of losses as having to do with people, like losing a friend for some reason, someone dying or getting divorced. Indeed, these are important losses. But the other elements I have noted could be even more difficult to lose. People that we call “caretakers,” like me, truly love property and the care of property, something that seems materialistic to non-caretakers, but the love of property is quite different from hoarding or acquiring. The loss of freedom for whatever reason, perhaps losing a job or being incarcerated, can be a terrible loss, and all of these losses are related to loving freedom. Likewise, the loss of an idea, perhaps the idea that you could become a lawyer but fail the LSAT, or the idea that you could really change the world in some way…all of these ideas are based on loving something be it abstract.

Of all the things that can be loved that I have noted (and there are certainly more), by far the most important one is love of self. I believe that one naturally loves him/herself at a deep level, but this love of self does not equate with liking oneself, much having someone else like you or love you. The loss of self-liking is frequent, as it should be, for instance, when I simply make a mistake and end up not liking what I did or even my approach to something. You can never lose your love for yourself because it is endemic to being human, but you can lose track of this love if you end up not liking yourself or you have important people not like you. So what does love have to do with fear, and the prevention of fear?

Perfect love prevents fear

Consider that every time you are afraid (or anxious or worried), you are concerned that you might lose something, namely the things mentioned above, like people and ideas. So, the essence of fear is love-based. Think of fear as love-based, and you will be able to conquer fear, and eventually you will be able to prevent fear altogether. There is no good reason to be afraid of losing anything at any time. Fear does not engender effective care, nor does it help you cope with a loss that you might have sometime in the future. Almost all fear is delusional.

What does that mean? Delusional? What am I talking about here? I suggest that most fear is delusional because fear turns into fretting, worrying, and other forms of anxiety. This occurs because of our “stupid” brain that does not understand the difference between immediate danger and future danger. This marvelous machine that we call the brain “thinks” that if it churns up cortisol and creates hypervigilance in you, you will then be protected from the raging lion that is coming over the hill. So when you are anxious about something, you are “delusional” because you have this brain-mind interaction that acts without your knowing it and feeds upon itself. Fear of the unknown and any kind of fear of the future is delusional because this mind-brain interaction sort of “believes” that if I worry enough about the future, I will change the future. You know better than that. I know better than that. But your brain doesn’t know that and then the brain gets your mind to believe that you can change the future by worrying. The only way to get out of this anxiety-based delusional thinking is to conquer fear or prevent fear by facing the love that you have because “perfect love prevents fear” as the biblical reference suggests. So how do I do that?

I face the fact that I have a “love problem,” namely that I love something that I could lose. When I face the fact that I love something and may lose this something, I will feel what we call anticipatory sadness. In other words, I allow myself to feel the potential sadness that I would feel if I lost this something that I love. And the deeper the love, the deeper the sadness. This is not an easy concept to understand, much less utilize in preventing fear and anxiety, but it works if you allow yourself to go with it. By the way, your brain isn’t going to help you in this process, so you have to learn to get your mind (soul, spirit, self) in control of this machine-brain. In order to prevent fear, you need to actually allow yourself to imagine losing the thing you love, e.g.:

  • Losing your life, your freedom, your idea…this is most important
  • Losing people you love, whether permanently or temporarily
  • Losing property, position, or possibility

What I am asking you to do is very hard. And you most certainly don’t want to do it. Of course, you don’t want to do it. Who wants to be sad? Who in their right mind would actually choose to be sad? Your brain certainly doesn’t want you to be sad, so your brain is of no help here. You have to use your mind. You have to imagine losing the thing you love and allow yourself to feel sad. Here’s the crux of this strategy of “perfect love prevents fear”: sadness ends. Fear doesn’t end. If you feel sad, deep enough and long enough, you will no longer feel sad. You will have faced the potential loss, grieved the potential loss, and finished feeling sad about this potential loss. By the way, eventually your brain will get on board with this program and not fight you in the process of anticipatory grief because your brain will learn that sadness is good for you because sadness is a “love problem.”

So be courageous and consider that you would feel sad (not afraid) if you lost:

  • Your property
  • Your life
  • Your spouse
  • Your child
  • Your idea
  • Your plan
  • Your freedom
  • …and anything else that you love.

By the way, remember, perfect love prevents fear and drives out fear. You are not perfect. You do not love anything perfectly. Therein lies the real task: to get better at loving, looking for perfection in loving, which means by the way, that you know that you will most certainly lose everything you love, but in the meantime you can enjoy loving what you have. Love everything with an open hand knowing that you could lose it at any time. Do this and you will find that get better and better at loving…and losing…and loving again.

The Challenges of Honesty, Openness, and Truth

Ron Johnson communication, Development, emotional maturity, Feelings, mindfulness, Personality, relationships, Self-Awareness, social esteem, Spiritual

I am no philosopher, but like all people, I delve into the medium and art of philosophy unavoidably as we all do. I am certain that philosophes could be bemused by my meanderings in their territory with my minimal training and understanding of such things. I am often bemused by people meandering into the realm of psychology, like the current days when seemingly everyone has at least one psychological diagnosis. So, granting my philosophical superiors much greater understanding of things philosophical, I will indulge myself by attempting to blend the philosophical concept of “truth” and its cognates with things that I do understand, namely the different characteristics of personality.

This blog has been brewing for several weeks in my mind but just the morning I received a request from a patient of mine that required me to delve into the matter of honesty. In this man’s case, he asked that I render some advice as to how he should handle a complex situation in his life that centered on a forthcoming funeral for his father. I did my best to help him migrate these murky waters but not without a good deal of thought and feeling. This matter of truth and its cognates, openness and honesty is no easy matter. I did my best with my patient, and I will do my best with this blog but admittedly I am not particularly skilled in the philosophical matters. It does occur to me that the very words, philosophy, derives from the Greek, namely philos, which means “love” and Sophia, which means wisdom; hence the love of wisdom. (Note that Philadelphia derives from philos and adelphos, which means brother; hence “the city of brotherly love). So, when we delve into philosophical matters, such as truth, we are seeking to “love wisdom,” perhaps thinking the wise thing or doing the wise thing,

In this blog I will dare to fuse the concepts of personality and philosophy with the grave danger of being simplistic or artificial. If you have followed me over these recent years, you have heard me speak of personality type and personality temperament among other elements of making what I call a “friendly diagnosis.” It is in this context that I wish to share with you some things about the whole business of truth and its cognates, openness and honesty. I originally thought of entitling this blog something like “different kinds of lying,” but then I listened to my own way of thinking about life and psychology and decided it would be better to look at how people of different personality stipes might face the matter of truth et al. Among the ways of understanding differences in personality, I often make use of the terms “personality type” and “temperament,”

And occasionally differences in personal development, cultural background, and differences in the various aspects of intelligence. Instead of examining all of these elements of human existence, I choose to focus on a couple of areas of personality, and examine how we could examine truth, or the lack thereof, within these boundaries, possibly leaving other ways of examination for a later exploration. Before I dare to dive into how differences of personality affect one’s approach to truth, we must consider the whole concept of truth itself.

Truth and consequences

Obviously, I borrow this title from the parlor game and the TV show that existed before most of you were born. I intend to render (perhaps my simplistic) distinctions between the terms honesty, truth, and openness because while they are second cousins these three terms represent somewhat different elements of the idea of being honest. My minimal understanding of these terms is as follows:

  • Truth: something that is accurate or an accurate representation of something. Hence there are “truthful words that represent a feeling, a thought, or an action.
  • Honesty: speaking the truth as one knows it. Perhaps also keeping silent so as to avoid agreeing with a statement made by another person that is felt/thought to be untrue. There is also the element of “being honest with yourself”…or not.
  • Openness: the expression, or perhaps a personality tendency, to express one’s thoughts, feelings, and actions

As a result, we have the complex situations where:

  • A person could be honest not actually be speaking the truth because s/he did not know the whole truth. It is even possible for someone to be speaking the truth as s/he sees it but it is not actually the truth. Children do this all the time and are false accused of “lying” when they actually “saw the ghost in the room.”
  • A person who could be open in some expression but not necessarily be honest. I may openly espouse something that I don’t actually believe. This might be as the simple nod of the head when you hear something that you don’t agree with so as to avoid hurting your friend’s feelings.
  • A person can speak the truth but not being open about certain matters that relate to the truth s/he is speaking. This is something like speaking some of the truth but not all of it. It is this element that I want to tackle next.

Different kinds of truth in personality characteristics

Here I choose to examine three elements (of the available four) that are the result of the Jungian concept of psychological type or as Myers-Briggs calls it, personality type. Here I note examples of how people engage the world of truth and its cognates differently.

Differences in perception: how we see the world

  • I see the world objectively. Hence I see things as they are, not as they should be or the way I would like them to be. I tend to make statements rather than asking questions. I tend to be honest with what I see, but because I don’t see all that can be, I do not see the whole picture, namely something that could happen, or perhaps even should happen. This roughly falls into the category of being “honest but not necessarily speaking the truth.” Such people tend to get lost in the real world, perhaps the practical world but often miss the rest of life that is not real and objective. I can “lie” to other people without realizing that I am “lying” because I didn’t see all there was to see. Kierkegaard said of these people, “everything is real but nothing is meaningful.”
  • I see the world subjectively. Hence, I see what could be, might be, or should be, but not necessarily what actually is. I tend to be honest about looking for things, and often ideas and tend to ask questions. I can be quite satisfied to ask questions without having complete answers. I want to speak the truth and often do so but I to be “dishonest” by getting lost is ideas, possibilities and questions. I tend to “lie to myself” in the constant finding new ideas and having new questions but not really doing anything real. Kierkegaard said of these people, “all things are possible but nothing is real.”
  • I evaluate the world objectively: Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.” If I evaluate objectively, I think objectively, feel objectively, and act objectively. What you see is what you get. I reason with logic and have a sense of the ultimate fairness in making a decision that is based on reason. I do the “right” thing…regardless of how anyone “feels” and even regardless of how I feel. I can get caught in being truthful to logic but not truthful to my feelings, much less anyone else’s feelings.
  • I evaluate the world subjective. Descartes could have said, “I feel, therefore I am,” although many contemporary psychological writers have suggested that could be a way of looking at decisions. If I evaluate subjectively, I “feel,” whatever that means (read our book, please), and attend to my feelings and other people’s feelings. “Truth” is thus highly related to feelings and to relationships and cannot be explored, felt, or expressed apart from these elements. Thus, I can speak “truth” that is related mostly to how I feel or someone else feels, which may actually be truthful in the objective sense of the terms
  • I am energized by being with people: I talk in order to be listened to and to be talked to. I tend to be “open” with my thoughts and/or feelings and expect other people to do the same. This openness, however, is not always exactly “true” because I can embellish, enlarge, or elaborate with colorful metaphors seeking to “communicate” what I feel or think. This amounts to being open but not entirely honest. I also can fall into not being honest with myself for the sake of communicating with someone. I tend to “lie” objectively, say something that is not factually true.
  • I am energized by being alone or with one special person. I tend to keep my feelings entirely to myself and most of my thoughts to myself. I am honest with myself but not necessarily honest with people around me perhaps thinking, “It’s none of their business what I think or feel unless I want them to know.” I tend to lie subjectively, i.e. not saying something that is true.

Examples of “lying” by good people

You might enjoy reading my blog, “Why Good Men Lie,” which examines the tendency of men to lie to women. In the same blog I suggest that while men lie to their spouses, unfortunately, women tend to lie to themselves, also unfortunately.

I am reminded of an experience I had 30 years ago with a group of men who regularly attended a men’s group that I led. One night one fellow named Bill said to the group that he believed that some of the men didn’t like him, and proceeded to ask whether this was true. Each man responded to the question, and I remember one man saying to this man that he “flat out didn’t like him,” while another man said, “Sure, Bill, I like you.” I inquired with the second man privately why he said that he liked Bill given that I had heard that he most certainly didn’t like him at all. His response: “he is not important to me so I didn’t feel compelled to tell him the truth.” Some weeks later, Bill was speaking about some subject what seemed to go on without profit and one after another men left the group, seemingly bored or disinterested. This left one man yet in the room with Bill, the man who said that he “flat out didn’t like” him. Such a mix of truth and consequences, truth, honesty, and openness.

I have seen many courageous statements of truth despite the consequences:

  • The man who speaks his mind and as a result is not allowed to graduate from a seminary because that “truth” didn’t seem to fit with the “truth” the seminary held
  • The woman, in the company of his former husband, when the two of them were discussing the challenges of their son. She said that the reason that the two of them had been divorced was that she had been “unfaithful” and possibly caused their son harm because of it
  • The child (actually, many children) who said, “I hate you” to his parents. He didn’t know it at the time but he had the permission to say such things because he lived in a loving home.
  • A few politicians who are courageous enough to challenge the party line and take the consequences. Liz Cheney comes to mind as does John McCain.

I have seen many more examples of the lack of truth spoken…or not spoken:

  • The several women who spring the “D” word on their husbands having evidently lived with someone they didn’t like for years…or decades
  • The several men who have been unfaithful to their spouses, sometimes with their common friends or relatives
  • The teenager who has simply not found the social maturity to be honest about whether he did, indeed, brush his teeth or take a shower

 

These are my current thoughts. But I must leave you with this, abridging the statement, “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.” Perhaps truth is also in the eyes of the beholder. But I am also cognizant of Shakespeare’s statement, “When first we practice to deceive, oh what a tangled web we weave.” I am brought back to the patient I mentioned at the beginning who is trying to find a way to be wise, kind, loving, and honest with his family, girlfriend, and himself. He has a very tangled web that has been constructed by many people including himself.