Empathy and stress...

Updated in the evening: The Swedish stress-researcher Peter Währborg (see photo above) writes in his book ”Stress och den nya ohälsan” (“Stress and the new ill health”) at page 63 in the (under-)chapter “Övriga psykologiska stressorer” (“Other psychological Stressors”) to the chapter "Stressorer" (Stressors"?), that there is an abundance (uppsjö) of psychological conditions which can redeem (utlösa) stress.

He writes that empathy, defined as the ability to compassion, has shown to be associated with an increased degree of stress-physiological activity in their research. Maybe this is surprising to some he writes, but at the same time this isn’t entirely unreasonable.

An engagement in others and for others can in a moral sense be seen as positive, but for the individual form/create strain (skapa påfrestning) and stress.

He also writes that we can discern (skönja) two principal, main causes to psychic stress. At the one hand the ones that depends on the primary emotional reaction which occurs with, for instance, a separation and on the other these which primarily depends on our personal philosophy (föreställningsvärld). The former we can group as emotional and the latter as cognitive stressors he writes.

And on page 62 he writes about Harlow’s research on monkeys, I see now, in the (under)chapter with the title “Separationer och förluster” (“Separations and losses”).

He thinks that separations and losses (especially of relations which play a central role for well being) seem to be a particularly significant psychological factor behind the development of stress, something that has been shown in many experiments, but also in studies which his group has done on children exposed to involuntary separations.

But how does one come to terms with this (eventual vulnerability to stress and burn out)? By changing ones thoughts or using other popular methods today?

I think one should need something else… Maybe I come back to this later.

A comment to my earlier posting on Balancing made me think...

Addition in the evening: I read further in the book by Währborg. At page 78-79 he writes about the differences between men and women. It’s during the last (one or two?) decades one has noticed the differences between the genders in scientific studies.

A lot talks for (??) that the women’s health has deteriorated generally, at least in how the health is experienced subjectively. Stress-related troubles have increased, especially in young women.

According to Währborg Christina Maslach (earlier postings on Maslach and Leiter and on Währborg) has established that burn out looks different in men and women, even if the condition is about equally distributed (?) between the sexes.

In women the emotional exhaustion (feelings of emptiness) are more intense and usual. Men react with depersonalization and frigidity more often instead.

More recent research has shown that women more often than men develop relation-related stress.

There is also much that talks for that women feel (subjectively?) more stressed than men. In Währborg’s research they have found that women experience time-pressure more often than men, and think they are easier stressed and they are more often sad or depressed. They experience powerlessness more often than men and perform their duties “to whatever price.”

Interestingly enough women describe themselves as more empathic than men does (!!), when this at the same time vary in correlation (samvarierar) positively with occurrence in stress substances as noradrenalin and adrenalin in the blood.

The last-mentioned finding is especially interesting as empathy is apprehended as a positive feeling. Women in works which put big and lengthy demands on empathy (for instance people in health-care, teachers etc.) are at greater risk that this capacity for empathy becomes a stressor. This is in fact maybe not so strange, as compassion with another person implies both a strong feeling but also powerlessness.

Währborg thinks that a conclusion one can draw is that women to a higher degree than men experience stress in their relations. Besides empathy (a natural feeling in many relations on good and bad) seem to generate stress.

Währborg also writes that the sleeping-time has decreased considerably (page 83). Before Thomas Edison invented the incandescent lamp (glödlampan) we slept nine to ten hours in average per night. Now we sleep just below seven hours per night. And the sleeping quality has successively been worse.

Through measuring the brainwaves (EEG) and melatonin one has found that it is worries for the coming day which above all causes worse sleeping quality with shorter periods of deep recovery-sleep (??).

Sleeping troubles are more common in women than men.

But there are probably exceptions...

I wonder where the roots for all this lies... Maybe more about this later... And maybe also write about what Währborg writes about children and stress.

Emotional needs: essential for survival…

[Updated February 17]. Wanted to write a little more and am doing this while I am listening to the Melody-Festival on TV!!

Quotes from “Rediscovering the True Self” by the Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch, about attachment, bonding and emotional needs. See the earlier posting on "Attachment and bonding..."

In the chapter “Emotional needs: Essential for survival” she writes at page 41-43:

“It is important to understand that non-material things such as love, respect, physical touch as cuddling and being held, emotional warmth, a perception of safety is necessary for the child’s very survival. In our Western society there is a strong tendency to think that although love, respect, physically affectionate touch, emotional warmth and safety, etc., are important, a lack of such things could not be life-threatening.

Phyllis Davis’ illustrates the essential nature of emotional needs. She reports some terrible facts on early child death: ‘In the beginning of the nineteenths century more than half of all children died in their first year. The illness was called ‘marasmus’, a Greek word, which means ‘wasting away’… (only fifty years ago) the most widely proclaimed method of childcare was based on the advice published in 'Care and Feeling of Children' by Dr. Holt in 1894. Stop any rocking don’t pick the baby up when it cries, feed only at set times according to a schedule, and prevent ‘spoiling’ by picking the baby up unnecessarily outside the necessary feedings and diaper changings, was some of Dr. Holt’s advice /…/

These dogmatic ideas have survived and even today some parents and doctors adhere to this ‘scientific’ way of raising children… It wasn’t until after the WWII that the cause of marasmus or inexplicable infant mortality was researched and a link could be made with a lack of touch. The infant mortality decreased notably in those places that increased the amount of touching of the infants.

Bowlby’s ground-breaking research in the early fifties also shows how vital it is to satisfy the emotional needs of infants:…from empirical observation we suggested that the young child’s hunger for his mothers’ love and presence is as great as his hunger for food.

In the early fifties people’s eyes started opening up to the fact that infants’ emotional needs are as strong as their need for food, implying that a lack of having these needs met would have severe consequences and eventually lead to death; death by ‘marasmus’. Just as lack of food would eventually lead to death by hunger if this lack were great enough.

Well-known experiments by Harry Harlow on maternal deprivation provide us with yeat another illustration of the importance of emotional needs. As described by Melvin Marx

‘…The results generally indicate that permanent psychological effects can ensue unless adequate substitutes for the mother are provided /…/

Because both heat and food were provided by the surrogate mothers, these satisfactions do not appear to be sufficient to produce normally behaving offsprings.

Harlow’s baby monkeys definitely preferred the surrogate mother with a body of terry cloth over sponge to the simpler wire-frame model, although each presented the same heat and food. Apparently the monkey affectional system is dependent upon contact stimulation provided by the terry cloth, which encourages cuddling; here is more to even monkey motherhood than warmth and hunger satisfaction.’

‘Neglect or abuse, lack of attention from an uninterested or self entered parent, and physical punishment all leave damaging traces on the development of the emotional brain, that result in the shaping of life-long emotional characteristics. In childhood, responses to treatment by caregivers take on a fixed pattern in the fundamental synaptic wiring of the neural architecture, and are difficult to change later in life.’

Lastly, I would like to refer to Robert Prentsky’s research, which also clearly illustrates the enormous impact that follows when emotional needs of the child go unfulfilled. His research shows how the first years of the lives of criminals, guilty of extremely cruel and violent crimes, differed in one way from other criminals who had committed less cruel and violent crimes. The very violent criminals had been sent from foster home to foster home, or they grew up in foundling homes. Their personal history indicated severe emotional neglect and subsequently a very slight chance for adjusting to or bonding with other people in their environment, due to a lack of continuity in relationships.

Just as in the case with Harlow’s little monkeys, there is abundant evidence showing that children have strong emotional needs. Children need more than food and physical warmth. Safety, cuddling, love, respect, and nurturing physical contact, etc. during their first years are essential in order to secure survival and healthy emotional development.”

Addition February 17: Found the following text at this site.

“It is generally known (back to medieval or ancient times) that deprivation of sensory stimuli like voice and vision in the early phases of human life will cause irreversible mental retardation in the child. Also the prevention of child play will cause intellectual deficits in the adult. But eyes, ears and the nose are not the only human sensory systems.

Additionally there are the two body sensor systems, the 'somatosensors'. One is the vestibular sensor for maintaining orientation and upright walk [see this paper about talking without words, or about non-verbal communication; in Swedish though. Not disturbing or even destroying it, but show the child the outermost respect! We can recover, more or less, but it is an enormous struggle doing this!??]. The other one is the skin, for sensing touch [see Bosch about boundary violations! And also here].

MOTHER BONDING IS ESSENTIAL FOR PEACE

Through the work of James W. Prescott, Ph.D. and various others until the mid 1970s it was established that these previously neglected senses are of overwhelming importance for the development of social abilities for adult life. Their deprivation in childhood is a major cause for adult violence.

James W. Prescott /.../ created and directed the Developmental Behavioral Biology Program at the NICHD where he initiated NICHD supported research programs that documented how the failure of ‘Mother Love’ in infant monkeys adversely affected the biological development of their brains. These astonishing abnormal brain changes underlie the behaviors of depression, impulse dyscontrol and violence that result from mother-infant separations.”

Addition February 23: And also see this, about the kangaroo-method.

Perfektionism...

a cold February-Day 2007.

[Updated January 29]. Såg ordet perfektionism i det förra blogginlägget, tråden som mynnade ut i ämnet gråt och sökte på detta nu av nyfikenhet och hittade detta och detta, samt två uppsatser på ämnet perfektionism här.

---

Saw the word perfectionism in the former posting and searched articles on it today and found the ones linked above (in Swedish).

Addition January 29:

"Unless you aren't perfect you won't get my love!?? And not until you are perfect I will notice you (but I don't promise anything)!"

"Until then you don't exist to me!"

"If I...? Then maybe?? If I try with this...? If I do this, then...? If I am well-educated,then...? If... then...?"

Women and children are less worth?? To some... Why?

"I am very fond of children!"

the man said to his coming wife. It's one thing what you say and another how you actually behave and what you actually do, she realized!?? Yes, there are many fine words, but living as one learns... That's difficult. I probably don't see things either...

One of the effects of high demands (and demands on perfectionism?) is the use of medicine for for instance Alzheimer patients in not sick people to improve their intellectual capacity, a form of doping in fact. Which was discussed this morning in the morning-sofa... Phew! What's the risks they wondered... And what does this mean for even more raised demands on people to achieve?? And an increased stress... The message you aren't good enough, a feeling you have with you (sometimes denied?) from early?

A parallel to doping in sports!?? Risking your health and maybe even future life?? Behaving self-destructively in fact! One of many ways in behaving self-destructively... (some are more socially accepted? And not viewed in the same way as for instance anorexia, where anorexia, alcoholism etc. are seen as diseases...).

A Swedish brain-researcher thought the effects are marginal compared to side-effects. And it would be better to take care of our brains in other manners, by for instance sleeping one hour more each night (if we can)... There were a lot of texts (articles) on his home-site, which I haven't read, but I skimmed the headings. One was about ADHD and damp (actually a book he has written a conrtibution to), another about biologism, another about why we have become as we are "Ett oskrivet blad - därför blir vi så" *... His published papers here.

The nature has fixed the balance between forgetting and remembering during human beings development for hundred thousand of years he said... My thoughts: Now we are challenging this. Aren't we abusing and violating this actually? If one should come back to and use the terms abuse and violation! And why are we doing his? What's this about?

And it was this with biomedical scientists and empathy deficits too... They are just developing their intellects (even more? Or?)... And what are they actually trying to prove? That troubles, diseases etc. of different kind aren't parents' fault?? They really need to prove this, both to themselves, but the whole world - and their parents? They desperately need this?? (probably of understandable reasons, but what do they actually bring about for the rest of the humanity). Honoring their fathers and mothers by their achievements?? Too many are like that? Martin Ingvar's father was brain-researcher he too!

And intellect is more valued than emotions... The "intellectual" more valued than the "emotional"... But many also react with insecurity if one start to talk about emotions? At least in some circumstances? And some (many) are afraid of "strong" women??

That about having both IQ and EQ and strong broad-bands between them... But is emotional intellegense the same as true empathy? With this not said at all that I should be some sort of virtuoso on this at all...

See Bosch and Freyd on Daniel Goleman here.

And their training and the whole milieu they come to work in many times strengthens this too?? They are being brainwashed, even more!?

Other themes that struck me (things in general, not only connected to this posting): the need for power and control, the need for superiority, the need to exercise these things... The need to sit on others... Does this create closeness or nearness though??
* Där står bland annat:

"Varför är vi som vi är och varför utvecklas våra barn som de gör? Den snabba kunskapsutvecklingen inom genetik och hjärnforskning gör det åter aktuellt att föra diskussionen om arvets och miljöns betydelse för människans och samhällets utveckling. Diskussionen är nödvändig, det märks inte minst på hur ämnet diskuteras i media och i politiken. Vågorna i debatten har gått höga under lång tid. Är det bara mammas och pappas fel att det blir som det blir? Är det samhällets fel?

Egentligen är det förvånande att det fortfarande är kontroversiellt att säga att våra beteenden också har en genetisk och biologisk bas. De flesta accepterar att en ko beter sig som en ko eftersom den har en kos gener och inte enbart för att den härmar andra kor. Om det inte var generna som styrde skulle kon likaväl kunnat härma en häst. Trots det framkallar påståenden om att människans personlighetsutveckling och beteende har ett genetiskt underlag fortfarande motresonemang som tidvis blir våldsamma."

Jo, fast jag tror också att en kos beteende påverkas av hur den blivit behandlad, liksom andra djurs beteenden påverkas av hur de blivit behandlade... Jag har ju faktiskt vuxit upp bland en massa djur och vi har haft djur. I och för sig kanske detta inte innebär att jag sett en massa saker eller förstått eller kanske ens förmått ta in... Fast jag tror faktiskt barn kan se en hel del, innan de kanske blir ännu mer avtrubbade, eller kanske helt avtrubbade!??

Se också Harry Harlows apor och det med deprivation!? Uppsatser om deprivation här. Harry Harlow.

And see these two videos: "Harry Harlow & Rhesus Monkeys – development" and "Abuse". About the last video it stood:

"Examines violence both in tribal and modern societies and explores Dr. Prescott's S-SAD theory, both the cross-cultural and the neuropsychological aspects. Video documents that palecerebellar decortication eliminated pathological violent behaviors including self-mutilation and permits positive prosocial, affectional and alert behaviors in the adult mother-deprived monkey that was not possible before surgery, thus confirming Dr. Prescott's SSAD theory that the cerebellum has a major role in the regulation of emotional-social behaviors, particularly depressive and violent behaviors. -1976"

Interesting: there are connections between aggression/violence and depression!!??

See "The Origins for Peace and Violence –Deprivation of Physical Affection as a Main Cause of Depression, Aggression and Drug Abuse."

Childhood abuse (not or less processed) results in either directing things out and/or in!? You direct things, act things out either at others and/or yourself?