Are You A Highly Sensitive Person?

Do you respond more intensely to experiences than the average person might? Do you cry easily? About 20% of the population fits into the category of being a highly sensitive person (HSP). This trait is distributed pretty equally among men and women. HSP is different from introversion, although both can get overstimulated and need to retreat at times. It's believed that sensitivity may run along a spectrum, like some other traits, from low to high. This is not a disorder, but a trait which tends to be permanent over one's lifespan.

HSP was first identified in the 1990's by research psychologists Elaine and Arthur Aron. HSP is also known as Sensory Processing Sensitivity. The Arons developed a 27-item scale to assess for being highly sensitive, which you can take online at http://hsperson.com/test/highly-sensitive-test/.  Here are a few sample items:

Other people's moods affect me.

I am easily overwhelmed by things like bright lights, strong smells, coarse fabrics or sirens close by.

I have a rich, complex inner life.

I am deeply moved by the arts or music.

I am conscientious.

I get rattled when I have a lot to do in a short amount of time.

Being very hungry creates a strong reaction in me, disrupting my concentration or mood.

Changes in my life shake me up.

When I must compete or be observed while performing a task, I become so nervous or shaky that I do much worse than I would otherwise.

Highly sensitive people show brain scan differences in their neural activity, as compared to non-HSPs. Those with this feature are more empathetic, pay close attention to the environment and non-verbal cues from other people. A study at University of California, Santa Barbara published in the Journal of Brain and Behavior in April 2014, demonstrated that people identified as HSP have more neural activity in parts of the brain when looking at the face of a loved one than people with an average level of sensitivity.

People with HSP are believed to have a deeper depth of cognitive processing. They can get overwhelmed, be more aware of emotional subtleties and have stronger emotional responses than others do. HSPs are well-suited professionally to work as counselors, teachers, artists, pastors and writers.

There are liabilities that come with being an HSP, too. They can be easily hurt. They can get exhausted from people and too much stimuli. HSPs can be vulnerable to stress. Dr. Arthur Aron, research professor at Stony Brook University in New York and visiting scholar at University of California, Berkeley acknowledges that HSPs can get easily overwhelmed and that they tend to process information more deeply than others.

In relationships, both HSPs and their partners need to be aware of the sensitivity. The highly sensitive person can learn to identify when they are a needing a time out during disagreements with their partner or when overwhelmed. HSPs need to do extreme self-care, being certain to eat healthily, sleep well, and get downtime to relax. HSPs must appreciate that their partner probably processes events and experiences differently, and appreciate the differences.

People who are partnered with an HSP are best to never say "calm down." It's best if you are not critical, and validate your partner's feelings. Telling an HSP partner that they are making a big deal out of something won't help. Be supportive, and express that you understand what they are feeling.

Being a highly sensitive person can be both a gift and a burden. Understanding yourself as an HSP or your HSP partner is of critical importance for a well-balanced, happy life and relationship.

Deal Breakers in Dating Relationships

What really turns you off to someone new?  Consider what you can not see yourself getting past with a potential partner. Would it be selfishness? Being rude to wait staff at the restaurant? Monopolizing the conversation so that you can hardly speak? Maybe you avoid people who are arrogant or inconsiderate.

Apparently, according to recent studies, most people find the qualities of laziness and being disheveled to be two of the top deal breakers when it comes to potential dates. After these two qualities, there are some differences in how women and men see potential dating partners and what turns people off.

Recent research on deal breakers in dating was published in the October 2015 online version of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, which incorporated studies done by Western Sydney University, Indiana University, the University of Florida, Singapore Management University and Rutgers University. The Wall Street Journal featured their results in its' November 3, 2015 edition.

Researchers found women have more deal breakers than men do. Everyone has more deal breakers with a long-term relationship than a short-term one. People who consider themselves "a good catch" have more deal breakers as well. There are theories relating to evolutionary biology about why women tend to be more selective than men. Perhaps women are hard-wired to want a partner who is confident and intelligent enough to support her if she bears children.

The researchers administered a list of 17 negative personal traits to 5,541 single American adults. Each individual identified the traits they would consider deal breakers. "Disheveled/unclean" ranked number one for both genders, followed by "lazy" and "too needy".

Women ranked "lacks a sense of humor" as a bigger concern than men did. Men were concerned by women who "talk too much"  or with "a low sex drive". In long-term partner choices, both genders found anger issues, not being trustworthy, health issues and not being exclusive as deal breakers.

In the studies, here's how the rankings of turn offs broke down by gender:

Disheveled: A deal breaker for 63% of the men and 72% of the women

Lazy: A deal breaker for 60% of men and 72% of women

Too Needy: A deal breaker for 57% of men and 69% of women

No Sense of Humor: A deal breaker for 50% of men and 58% of women

Lives far away (more than 3 hours): A deal breaker for 52% of men and 48% of women

Lacks Confidence: A deal breaker for 33% of men and 47% of women

Too Much TV/Videogames: A deal breaker for 25% of men and 41% of women

Stubborn: A deal breaker for 32% of men and 34% of women

Talks Too Much: A deal breaker for 26% of men and 20% of women

Too Quiet: A deal breaker for 11% of men and 17% of women

It's important to identify and think through your own relationship deal breakers. You want to be reasonable, and not overly rigid. (Perhaps your wonderful partner will come with a cat or dog you hadn't planned on.) It is perfectly okay and valid to know yourself well enough to know what you just can't compromise on. Dating enough before settling down to do your due diligence and learn about yourself and what you can and can't bend on is key.

Even once you find the right partner, this might be a useful list for taking inventory of yourself in your primary relationship from time to time. Being the right partner is just as important as finding the right partner. Exercising self awareness and taking responsibility for being an interesting, confident, flexible, motivated, well groomed and relational partner is always a plus.

Encouraging Your Child the Right Way

Parents often worry about their children's self-esteem, and try to find a balance between being too stingy with praise and overdoing it. As it turns out, we may want to help our children have a realistic view of how they are seen by others. Over-inflating self-esteem, as in “everybody gets a trophy,” may set your youngster up for a crash when they hit a rough patch down the road.

In Sue Shellenberger's recent Work and Family column in the Wall Street Journal (2/27), the journalist gives a practical update on current studies and thinking about the relationship between parental encouragement and developing solid life skills. As it turns out, high self-esteem is more a result of good performance than a cause. Overdoing it on the parental encouragement can make a child feel worse when things don't go well.

Mark Leary is a professor of both psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, who determined from his studies that children as young as 8 years old tend to have their self-esteem level fluctuate based on feedback from their peers about their likability and attractiveness. While children always need to feel loved and valued, Dr. Leary believes it's quite alright for children to feel poorly about themselves for a bit if they are behaving in ways that are mean, selfish, or generally not going to be adaptive in later life. We want to help our children create a positive, but also realistic, view of themselves.

I found it interesting that a study of 313 children, ages 8 to 13, published this February in the Journal of Experimental Psychology found that parents can do harm to their children’s self-esteem when pumping them up too much. The children can feel shame later when they experience frustration and defeat.

Research studies show that helping children have a realistic perspective about themselves is helpful. When researchers tried to inflate self-esteem of college students with flattery in a 2007 study published by the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, the college students’ grades worsened. Researchers proposed that the students’ inflated self-esteem may have made their attitudes more cavalier, causing them to study less, and resulting in dropping grades.

Here are some tips for parents about finding the right balance with encouragement:

1.      Focus on the effort the child is putting in, not the grade or result.

2.      Empathize when your child is struggling or having a rough time with something (academics, friends, a sport). You may want to share something age-appropriate that you struggled with, but hung in there and persevered.

3.      Encourage your child to look at how others (his team, etc.) will see his or her behaviors, or other long-term positive outcomes in life, work, and relationships for doing the right thing.

4.      Emphasize character-building choices.

5.      Don't give up or encourage your child to give up. Don't predict future doom, as in “You will never succeed in life if you don't try out for Junior Lifeguards.”

6.      Praise things that are sustainable, like effort on homework, rather than straight A’s.

Parents of children of all ages, go out there and give some encouragement this week. Build that resiliency, notice that effort, shine a light on the improvements, and focus on your child's creating a healthy and realistic view of him or herself. You can do it!

Children of Divorce

Children whose parents divorced are affected by that loss, and for a longer time than people often think. This was among the findings of a pioneer research psychologist, Judith Wallerstein, Ph.D., who passed away in June 2012 after making significant contributions to the research of mental health concerns for families and children after divorce.

Wallerstein wrote 60-70 journal articles and 5 popular books on the topic of helping families and children after divorce, several with her co-author Susan Blakelee, including The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (2000), What About The Kids? (2003), and Second Chances:  Men, Women, and Children a Decade after Divorce (1989).

Wallerstein was the lead researcher on a 25-year longitudinal study on the impact of divorce on children. She followed 131 children from 60 families in Marin County, California beginning in 1971. She met and assessed the children again every 5 years for 25 years. Wallerstein has been criticized for not having a control group of children whose parents didn't divorce, as well as for not having a larger sample size.

Despite these critiques, she really did contribute to the knowledge base of mental health professionals and influenced changes in family law and custody in order to try to better meet the needs of children. She taught for over 30 years at UC Berkeley in the Social Welfare program. She lost her own father at age 8 from his early death, perhaps stirring her interest in the profound impact of parent-child bonds and attachment.

Wallerstein was a pioneer in the early 1970s, as the divorce rate in the US was climbing, to begin to shift the focus to how this change was impacting the children involved, and what parents can do to minimize that impact, rather than increase the damage. Here are some important points from her life's work that Wallerstein leaves as a legacy:

1.      Parents divorcing is a significant and generally long-lasting loss for children.

2.      Grief impacts children differently, depending on their age and emotional maturity at the time of the divorce. The loss issues experienced by children can reappear at later watershed points in a child's development, triggering more feelings long after the divorce.

3.      One of the great risks to children is the alienation or abandonment by the father, emotionally, time-wise, or financially becoming disengaged.

4.      Both parents need to work through their own issues of loss, anger, resentment, etc. about the break-up of the marriage to avoid poisoning the children with the adults' feelings. I always recommend that divorcing parents work out their own feelings in personal therapy, or a divorce recovery program for this reason. Your children, no matter what age they are, cannot be your listeners to bad stuff about their other parent. It's not fair to put them in that position.

5.      Parents dating again, remarrying, and blending together families is challenging, and needs to be handled with a great deal of sensitivity and thought. Step-parents shouldn't be asked to replace parents where the parents both exist, they are simply another adult who should love the child, and leave the discipline to the biological parents. It takes a really mature grown-up person to love someone else's child. (Screen carefully!)

6.      Children of divorce can be vulnerable to depression or worry. They can feel especially concerned that they not experience a divorce in their own life as an adult. Parents should be watchful and get professional counseling support for the child if it is needed, to work through the child's grief.

7.      Each child has their own grief process about their parents’ divorce, independent from what the other children are feeling.

8.      The transitions back and forth between the parents' households often stir up feelings for children and teens. Many teens resent the impact on their own life with packing up and changing houses.

9.      Custody arrangements need to be revisited from time to time to make sure they are still working for the child or children involved.

10.  Children often later resent a parent who ruined their relationship with the other parent. While a child may initially join with a parent by fusing with what the parent is feeling about their former partner, this usually backfires down the road.

I had the pleasure of hearing Wallerstein present her findings at a conference for mental health professionals 20 years ago at UCLA. She was bright, caring, and deeply devoted to helping families through the divorce process and on to healing.

Judith Wallerstein was an important pioneer researcher about the impact of divorce on children and families, and got mental health professionals and parents thinking about the longer-term picture. While Wallerstein sometimes got criticized for her research methods or for her comments about questioning the necessity for the increasing divorce rate, ultimately she had the best interest of children at heart. Children are often the most impacted in a divorcing family, and their developmental and emotional needs should be at the center of every decision that is made. After all, the divorce wasn't their choice.

Your Social Circle: How Big is Too Big?

Here's a fun question in the age of social networking, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram: how many meaningful relationships with people can the average person have? The answer: about 150. This number was derived from the research of British psychologist and researcher, Robin Dunbar. This research has been coined “the Dunbar number.” This week's issue of Bloomberg Businessweek magazine (Jan.14-21, 2013) has a nice, concise write-up about Dunbar's studies, and how they apply to most of us, written by Drake Bennett.

Dunbar grew up in Tanzania, and has an academic career in England, where he teaches at Oxford. He began his research career studying the behavior of monkeys. He found that primates’ behavior changed based on the size of their social group. The larger the size of their social group, the more they seemed to exhibit behaviors to be seen favorably by other members of the group.

Dunbar went on to study brain size and look at the advantages and complications of animals that evolved into having larger brains. The complications of large social groups include competition for resources, like food, as well as the data that must be processed about the relative hierarchies and relationships with all the others in the social group. Dunbar’s research eventually led him to hypothesize that larger brains (and therefore higher intelligence) led to the development of larger social groups.

However, even the smartest primates have limits!  While there are individual variances for personality, and particularly extroversion/introversion, Dunbar theorizes that for most human beings, the limit of meaningful relationships a person can have is 147.8. In the Bloomberg story, Dunbar deftly describes that number as “the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you bumped into them at a bar.”

Dunbar networks with his colleagues in a wide variety of disciplines to focus on the social brain hypothesis, including linguists, computer scientists, physicists, classicists, economists, archeologists, anthropologists, and literary scholars. He's spoken at TED conferences, and written several books for non-academics, including The Science of Love (2012).

Dunbar has been invited to consult with a former Facebook executive, who left to co-found Path, a mobile photo-sharing and messaging service, which began in 2010. After consulting with Dunbar, Path founders decided to limit their site’s users to 150 friends. Basically, Dunbar suggests that we, as humans, have an upper limit in the number of meaningful social relationships we can have, and beyond that is something else— perhaps marketing, or acquaintances, but probably not meaningful relationships. Dunbar recognized this pattern of 150-person limits across the world—many companies, clans, and even military units are often capped at 150.

No matter how technology expands, human beings have a finite number of intimate and meaningful relationships. Digital technology doesn't change the fundamentals of our biology and neocortex. I found it interesting that Dunbar, although well-liked by colleagues across disciplines, considers himself on the shy side. He doesn't use Facebook or Path, and says he got a LinkedIn account only by mistake.

Dunbar's research actually suggests other numbers as well. Most people, he believes, have an innermost circle of 3 to 5 people. The next circle has 12 to 15, and their loss would be difficult for us.

I found it interesting that Dunbar believes most friendships can survive only 6 to 12 months without face-to face contact. His research suggests that women can have 2 best friends, including her romantic partner, while most men have only one.

Dunbar's research has critics, but I found the Bloomberg article by Drake Bennett great food for thought and discussion about social networking, genuine intimacy, and the gaps between the two. It’s fascinating that Facebook allows 5,000 friends. Or maybe that’s just acquaintances.