I think "relating" is particularly important for HSPs.
Actually, I think what is important, is that we have peers to relate to. Other HSPs. Nobody understands what it means to be an HSP, like another HSP. And I feel it is central to our sense of emotional well-being to to feel "related to" on the deep level only one of our peers is capable of. Some might say it seems elitist or exclusive to specifically seek out fellow HSPs... and I have to ask "WHY those feelings?" What is telling you to just accept less than an ideal situation?
And that's why I always am recommending to HSPs that they make friendships with other HSPs. Even if you don't know anyone in your immediate circle, consider making friends with other HSPs online.
Better yet, make plans to attend one of the Annual HSP Gatherings. I have been to several of them, and a large part of my strong feelings about HSPs befriending their peers is a result of my personal experiences with the Gatherings.
It may seem expensive on the surface, but it really is worth it!
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Friday, March 09, 2007
HSPs and Relating, Part I
I have been sitting here, thinking about how we relate.
What is it that makes one person interesting to us, and another not so interesting? For me, it is in the degree to which I relate to that person.
I have written before, about how HSPs often struggle with friendships and relationships. Most often, an HSP will lament that they just can't find "deep connections" with people... and I certainly understand those feelings, as they have been very present in my own life.
I am just not all that interested in which celebrity is airing out their dirty laundry this week. I don't really get excited about whether Brad and Jennifer have broken up, nor what the rest of the world thinks about that.
Phrased differently, I don't relate across that particular set of interests.
When I see HSPs struggle in their quests to make friends and have the kind of relationships they want, I often am witness to an inner struggle, of sorts. The struggle seems to be between the idea (usually fed to us by society and our immediate environment) that we "should" make friends, and "should" have certain interests to be liked and popular... and then the inner desire to just "be ourselves."
Apart from the obvious issue of "knowing who we are" it's not always easy to find the courage to stand up and say that we don't give a rat's hind end about Brad and Jennifer, in the face of everyone else at work being totally absorbed in their affairs.
HSP, or not, one of the bottom lines in being human is a desire to feel "part of," rather than "cast aside."
And, as HSPs, I suppose it becomes extra important to take the time to "find our tribe." More about that next time.
What is it that makes one person interesting to us, and another not so interesting? For me, it is in the degree to which I relate to that person.
I have written before, about how HSPs often struggle with friendships and relationships. Most often, an HSP will lament that they just can't find "deep connections" with people... and I certainly understand those feelings, as they have been very present in my own life.
I am just not all that interested in which celebrity is airing out their dirty laundry this week. I don't really get excited about whether Brad and Jennifer have broken up, nor what the rest of the world thinks about that.
Phrased differently, I don't relate across that particular set of interests.
When I see HSPs struggle in their quests to make friends and have the kind of relationships they want, I often am witness to an inner struggle, of sorts. The struggle seems to be between the idea (usually fed to us by society and our immediate environment) that we "should" make friends, and "should" have certain interests to be liked and popular... and then the inner desire to just "be ourselves."
Apart from the obvious issue of "knowing who we are" it's not always easy to find the courage to stand up and say that we don't give a rat's hind end about Brad and Jennifer, in the face of everyone else at work being totally absorbed in their affairs.
HSP, or not, one of the bottom lines in being human is a desire to feel "part of," rather than "cast aside."
And, as HSPs, I suppose it becomes extra important to take the time to "find our tribe." More about that next time.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
HSP Topics: Love, dating and finding "The One"
In my near-decade of knowing about the HSP trait, and HSPs, the issue of "love and mating" appears to be one that causes an especially large number of headaches and heartaches for Highly Sensitive People.
On the surface, this is perhaps not so surprising. Looking at it logically, HSPs tend to struggle immensely with feeling "accepted" in the world, and they often struggle with self-acceptance, as well. Hence it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to figure out that these difficulties would readily transfer to the process of "finding love," as well.
Elaine Aron and other "experts" on the HSP trait speculate that many HSPs tend to "fall into" relationships. There can be a variety of reasons for this, ranging from simply accepting a connection that feels "somewhat good" (because it feels so much "better" than what we're used to), to getting "pushed" into a relationship with someone who moves "quickly," while we HSPs like to take time to process and deliberate, before making a decision.
In one of the online HSP discussion groups, the issue of dating and mating recently seemed to approach "boiling point" when someone posted an article about a woman who was previously very selective, but made a conscious decision to say "yes" to every single man who asked her on a date. In the final outcome, she dated some 150 people, but did end up finding "The One," as a result of her change in approach.
Now, whether you subscribe to such a notion as a love relationship with a person who's "The One," or not, is an individual matter that's not for me to decide. I happen to be a hopeless idealist who does believe in such a thing, but that's neither here nor there. I think the general ideas here can be applied to pretty much any situation.
As I read the many opinions offered by dozens of HSPs, I started to think about some issues I have observed as "obstacles," both for myself and for others. I'd thought about these before, but only in a "separate" sort of way. Now I suddenly realized how interrelated they all were.
Many HSPs tend to fall into a (frequently unhealthy) pattern of "waiting for life to come TO them." For whatever reasons-- but often the desire to avoid pain-- we gravitate towards taking a rather "passive" role; in life, and in love as well. Hence the "falling into" relationships. After all, if you're going to "take" whatever life brings you, you'd better be prepared to accept "whatever" life throws your way. Even if it turns out to be rather less than we had hoped for.
Some years ago, a friend told me something she'd learned during a discussion at a self-growth workshop. Over lunch, they were talking about self-actualization, and finding peace, and finding Self. Somehow, the discussion turned to "partnering," and one of the Teachers pointed out something I found to be particularly insightful and relevant:
The more "aware" and self-actualized a person becomes, the fewer truly compatible potential partners exist-- that is, people who can "meet you" at the same level of awareness and mental health. Beyond that, the more "special" your set of "life traits" (for example, being an HSP, or being 6'9" tall, or in the top 1% of being "gifted") the more "specialized" your desired partner's traits becomes. And the more specialized the partner who finds your particular basket of traits attractive. In other words, your potential "pool" of mates goes from maybe 1-in-25 to 1-in-1000, or worse. Those are just arbitrary numbers, by the way, used for example's sake. But my point is, "extraordinary" people more often seem like they have "settled" in their relationships.
"Extraordinary" may seem like an uncommonly arrogant and self-important term for an HSP to use. But I don't mean it in a self-congratulatory or inflated way. After all, who benefits when someone with "uncommon" traits pretends to be "common?"
At a completely different workshop I went to, some years back, a different conversation about "mating" took place. Again it related to the process of healthy self-love, and "finding self," with the eventual point made that the "brighter your light," the more (generally unhealthy) people will be attracted to it, in order to feel illuminated by it. The less "healthy" a person is, the more likely they are to gravitate towards someone who has the characteristics they perceive to be lacking in themselves.
The "consequence," of course, being that self-aware people tend to get far greater exposure to others who want to be "with" them, and those others often have dubious qualities and questionable mental health. So now you may be asking "What does this have to do with being an HSP?" HSPs, being generally introspective and interested in self-development tend to be fairly self-aware people. This can set up an interesting (and very challenging) dynamic in which we are often "attractors" for those who have a load of "psychic baggage," but our kind natures and discomfort around rejection "pushes" us into situations that are not healthy for us.
Getting back to the woman who dated 150 men, I am not suggesting that this is necessarily an appropriate strategy for HSPs. What I am suggesting is that HSPs may have a more difficult time finding someone they "click" and, as such, we really need to be more willing to give ourselves "lots of exposure." Which may feel scary to most, since we tend to be rather private and reclusive people. I suppose the "bottom line" here, is that if you're looking for someone who's "one-in-a-million," you also have to be willing to take the steps and action to (potentially) expose yourself to a million people.
Then I realized that for any of this to "make sense," we have to start with self-love and self-acceptance. Several years ago, Elaine Aron gave a talk entitled "Healing ourselves so we can heal the world." The phrase has stuck with me, in the sense of how important it is that we look to ourselves first, to come to terms with what we want in life. Nobody is going to "ride in on a fine white charger" to rescue us from ourselves and solve our problems for us, especially our love problems.
Which brings me up to the present time, and to this morning, as I was reading a huge backlog of HSP group emails.
In reading the many words, I suddenly "touched" self-love. What I mean is, I felt it, rather than just being able to intellectually describe it. Self-love in its purest form, I realized, is what happens when you openly allow yourself to be "100% yourself," with yourself, and with another. It's not about looking in the mirror and repeating the mantra "I love myself," 100 times every morning. It's about simply accepting What Is; and if you find something you don't like, simply accepting it, saying "this doesn't feel right," and then taking a step towards something you do like.
And those "amazing" relationships we sometimes see, and wish we had.... I think they tend to be the product of two people-- in a state of self-love-- occupying the same space, while their states of being "100% themselves" happen to be exactly what "feels right" to the other.
Now, I can already hear the "Peanut Gallery" going; the words of "Yeah, like that's gonna happen!" raining down from the balcony. To which I reply "Certainly not if you're leaving your life up to random chance! And certainly not if you don't believe it is possible!"
I suppose it's not merely an issue for HSPs, but I believe we have to truly "know ourselves" before we can hope to know what it is we want in another. And the self-love I mentioned before, is largely a product of knowing ourselves, because until we truly know what "ourselves" means, we can't be ourselves. Alas, it's a step we often "conveniently" overlook, as we set forth in the world with great hopes that "the right person" will make our lives whole and perfect. Whereas I believe there may be a half-truth there, I also don't believe that perfection with another can exist till we have created it (to whatever degree possible) in ourselves.
Here's something I personally believe to be true. Regardless of whether you're looking for romance, work or happiness, everything you put out in the world is a "beacon" containing information about you. What you say, what you write, where you write it, what you wear, where you go. They work like a "universal energy signature," and others in the world "interact" with them, much as we might "interact" with the produce at the grocery store. Some we like, some we don't some we feel indifferent towards. In "combination" some might be horrible, and some might be nigh onto perfect. If you have few beacons, few people will find you. If you "edit" your beacons, you will send a false image, and draw people to something that isn't true. If you put your beacons in the "wrong" places, you will draw the wrong people. If your beacons are "non-specific," you will draw "no-one in particular."
Hence the importance of putting out the energy that we truly want to "represent" us. Which is only possible through knowing who we truly are, and accepting that "100% me."
One final observation concerns the issue of "adaptability." HSPs tend to be extremely "pliable," and almost "chameleon-like," often to our detriment. Because we often have histories of being thought of as "oddballs" and "a bit strange," many of us grow "adept at adapting," and becoming whatever it is that's needed in a given moment, in order for us to fit in. Maybe that's allright in small doses and to accomplish specific short-term objectives in the world. However, in partnering it has serious consequences, when we choose to "make ourselves compatible" with people with whom we are definitely not compatible. I know broader pop-psychology teaches that compromise is an important part of relationships. But, in my opinion, that can only be "healthily" applied to such things as "which movie we're watching," or "where we'll vacation this summer." It was never meant to mean compromising our core values and basic sense of self.
I once heard someone describe the "measure" of love this way: "Ask yourself, do I love myself more, when I am around this person?" Genuinely, on a deep core level. If you cannot authentically answer "yes," move along to the next person.
Of course, these are just my opinions. That doesn't mean they are "right" for anyone else....
On the surface, this is perhaps not so surprising. Looking at it logically, HSPs tend to struggle immensely with feeling "accepted" in the world, and they often struggle with self-acceptance, as well. Hence it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to figure out that these difficulties would readily transfer to the process of "finding love," as well.
Elaine Aron and other "experts" on the HSP trait speculate that many HSPs tend to "fall into" relationships. There can be a variety of reasons for this, ranging from simply accepting a connection that feels "somewhat good" (because it feels so much "better" than what we're used to), to getting "pushed" into a relationship with someone who moves "quickly," while we HSPs like to take time to process and deliberate, before making a decision.
In one of the online HSP discussion groups, the issue of dating and mating recently seemed to approach "boiling point" when someone posted an article about a woman who was previously very selective, but made a conscious decision to say "yes" to every single man who asked her on a date. In the final outcome, she dated some 150 people, but did end up finding "The One," as a result of her change in approach.
Now, whether you subscribe to such a notion as a love relationship with a person who's "The One," or not, is an individual matter that's not for me to decide. I happen to be a hopeless idealist who does believe in such a thing, but that's neither here nor there. I think the general ideas here can be applied to pretty much any situation.
As I read the many opinions offered by dozens of HSPs, I started to think about some issues I have observed as "obstacles," both for myself and for others. I'd thought about these before, but only in a "separate" sort of way. Now I suddenly realized how interrelated they all were.
Many HSPs tend to fall into a (frequently unhealthy) pattern of "waiting for life to come TO them." For whatever reasons-- but often the desire to avoid pain-- we gravitate towards taking a rather "passive" role; in life, and in love as well. Hence the "falling into" relationships. After all, if you're going to "take" whatever life brings you, you'd better be prepared to accept "whatever" life throws your way. Even if it turns out to be rather less than we had hoped for.
Some years ago, a friend told me something she'd learned during a discussion at a self-growth workshop. Over lunch, they were talking about self-actualization, and finding peace, and finding Self. Somehow, the discussion turned to "partnering," and one of the Teachers pointed out something I found to be particularly insightful and relevant:
The more "aware" and self-actualized a person becomes, the fewer truly compatible potential partners exist-- that is, people who can "meet you" at the same level of awareness and mental health. Beyond that, the more "special" your set of "life traits" (for example, being an HSP, or being 6'9" tall, or in the top 1% of being "gifted") the more "specialized" your desired partner's traits becomes. And the more specialized the partner who finds your particular basket of traits attractive. In other words, your potential "pool" of mates goes from maybe 1-in-25 to 1-in-1000, or worse. Those are just arbitrary numbers, by the way, used for example's sake. But my point is, "extraordinary" people more often seem like they have "settled" in their relationships.
"Extraordinary" may seem like an uncommonly arrogant and self-important term for an HSP to use. But I don't mean it in a self-congratulatory or inflated way. After all, who benefits when someone with "uncommon" traits pretends to be "common?"
At a completely different workshop I went to, some years back, a different conversation about "mating" took place. Again it related to the process of healthy self-love, and "finding self," with the eventual point made that the "brighter your light," the more (generally unhealthy) people will be attracted to it, in order to feel illuminated by it. The less "healthy" a person is, the more likely they are to gravitate towards someone who has the characteristics they perceive to be lacking in themselves.
The "consequence," of course, being that self-aware people tend to get far greater exposure to others who want to be "with" them, and those others often have dubious qualities and questionable mental health. So now you may be asking "What does this have to do with being an HSP?" HSPs, being generally introspective and interested in self-development tend to be fairly self-aware people. This can set up an interesting (and very challenging) dynamic in which we are often "attractors" for those who have a load of "psychic baggage," but our kind natures and discomfort around rejection "pushes" us into situations that are not healthy for us.
Getting back to the woman who dated 150 men, I am not suggesting that this is necessarily an appropriate strategy for HSPs. What I am suggesting is that HSPs may have a more difficult time finding someone they "click" and, as such, we really need to be more willing to give ourselves "lots of exposure." Which may feel scary to most, since we tend to be rather private and reclusive people. I suppose the "bottom line" here, is that if you're looking for someone who's "one-in-a-million," you also have to be willing to take the steps and action to (potentially) expose yourself to a million people.
Then I realized that for any of this to "make sense," we have to start with self-love and self-acceptance. Several years ago, Elaine Aron gave a talk entitled "Healing ourselves so we can heal the world." The phrase has stuck with me, in the sense of how important it is that we look to ourselves first, to come to terms with what we want in life. Nobody is going to "ride in on a fine white charger" to rescue us from ourselves and solve our problems for us, especially our love problems.
Which brings me up to the present time, and to this morning, as I was reading a huge backlog of HSP group emails.
In reading the many words, I suddenly "touched" self-love. What I mean is, I felt it, rather than just being able to intellectually describe it. Self-love in its purest form, I realized, is what happens when you openly allow yourself to be "100% yourself," with yourself, and with another. It's not about looking in the mirror and repeating the mantra "I love myself," 100 times every morning. It's about simply accepting What Is; and if you find something you don't like, simply accepting it, saying "this doesn't feel right," and then taking a step towards something you do like.
And those "amazing" relationships we sometimes see, and wish we had.... I think they tend to be the product of two people-- in a state of self-love-- occupying the same space, while their states of being "100% themselves" happen to be exactly what "feels right" to the other.
Now, I can already hear the "Peanut Gallery" going; the words of "Yeah, like that's gonna happen!" raining down from the balcony. To which I reply "Certainly not if you're leaving your life up to random chance! And certainly not if you don't believe it is possible!"
I suppose it's not merely an issue for HSPs, but I believe we have to truly "know ourselves" before we can hope to know what it is we want in another. And the self-love I mentioned before, is largely a product of knowing ourselves, because until we truly know what "ourselves" means, we can't be ourselves. Alas, it's a step we often "conveniently" overlook, as we set forth in the world with great hopes that "the right person" will make our lives whole and perfect. Whereas I believe there may be a half-truth there, I also don't believe that perfection with another can exist till we have created it (to whatever degree possible) in ourselves.
Here's something I personally believe to be true. Regardless of whether you're looking for romance, work or happiness, everything you put out in the world is a "beacon" containing information about you. What you say, what you write, where you write it, what you wear, where you go. They work like a "universal energy signature," and others in the world "interact" with them, much as we might "interact" with the produce at the grocery store. Some we like, some we don't some we feel indifferent towards. In "combination" some might be horrible, and some might be nigh onto perfect. If you have few beacons, few people will find you. If you "edit" your beacons, you will send a false image, and draw people to something that isn't true. If you put your beacons in the "wrong" places, you will draw the wrong people. If your beacons are "non-specific," you will draw "no-one in particular."
Hence the importance of putting out the energy that we truly want to "represent" us. Which is only possible through knowing who we truly are, and accepting that "100% me."
One final observation concerns the issue of "adaptability." HSPs tend to be extremely "pliable," and almost "chameleon-like," often to our detriment. Because we often have histories of being thought of as "oddballs" and "a bit strange," many of us grow "adept at adapting," and becoming whatever it is that's needed in a given moment, in order for us to fit in. Maybe that's allright in small doses and to accomplish specific short-term objectives in the world. However, in partnering it has serious consequences, when we choose to "make ourselves compatible" with people with whom we are definitely not compatible. I know broader pop-psychology teaches that compromise is an important part of relationships. But, in my opinion, that can only be "healthily" applied to such things as "which movie we're watching," or "where we'll vacation this summer." It was never meant to mean compromising our core values and basic sense of self.
I once heard someone describe the "measure" of love this way: "Ask yourself, do I love myself more, when I am around this person?" Genuinely, on a deep core level. If you cannot authentically answer "yes," move along to the next person.
Of course, these are just my opinions. That doesn't mean they are "right" for anyone else....
Sunday, February 16, 2003
HSPs and Attachment Style
In both the original "Highly Sensitive Person" book and the subsequent Workbook, Elaine Aron talks about how we learn our "attachment style" in childhood, and it tends to reflect in our adult relationships... and will continue to do so unless we do some serious personal growth work to break the cycle (if it is toxic).
At my roots, I have a "mixed attachment style"-- which Elaine Aron actually told me is "a plus"-- so I suppose it is all in how you frame it. I know that "preoccupied" represents what I learned from my parents (perhaps with a dash of "fearful avoidant" thrown in)-- this was the result of growing up with two people who were far to busy tending to their own agenda to deal with a kid. Which is not to say that I was "lacking" in anything, except "emotional nourishment." My folks travelled extensively, and even when they were home, they were very busy being "glamorous." My father was a Narcissist who didn't even like children; my mother was a co-dependent social climber, alternately drowning her sorrows with prescription drugs and alcohol, and seeking the emotional intimacy her husband couldn't give her, from her child.
But whenever my parents were away, I was in the company of a loving and supportive elderly aunt with whom I experienced a "secure" attachment style. It was completely OK for me to "be me," sensitivity and all. As such, I know how both sides of the fence "feel," and that evidently makes me "wiser," somehow. Intellectually, I can grasp that-- I know what "healthy love" feels like.
That doesn't mean that I have made smart choices, however. On some strange "compartmentalized" level, I seem to have had "secure" relationships with friends, but something quite different with "love partners," probably helped along by the fact that each time I have "attached" has also coincided with periods of my life where I had chronically low self-esteem. So I "chose" people who had not the slightest ability to fill my emotional needs-- except in the context of me being an "unhealthy" person, playing the insecure-avoidant-fearful script learned from my parents. But then I would start to work on myself, only to wake up and wonder "what am I DOING here?" and "How did I GET here?"
A thing I came face-to-face with a few months ago was that I have never been "single, available and looking" at those times of my life when I was the most "together" and mentally stable, feeling good about who I was (poor relationships, notwithstanding)-- my relationships have all started in periods of deep distress, darkness and confusion, when I was feeling "not worthy" and trying to "earn approval."
And what kind of person do you think might find that attractive? Sorry, no prizes for getting the right answer....
Most of the above is "past tense," however. These days I am pretty close to having worked into a state of mind where I am capable of recognizing and choosing a "secure" attachment style-- but I am still in a relationship that was originally based on my having a "preoccupied style," so how that's going to play out, I don't know.
At my roots, I have a "mixed attachment style"-- which Elaine Aron actually told me is "a plus"-- so I suppose it is all in how you frame it. I know that "preoccupied" represents what I learned from my parents (perhaps with a dash of "fearful avoidant" thrown in)-- this was the result of growing up with two people who were far to busy tending to their own agenda to deal with a kid. Which is not to say that I was "lacking" in anything, except "emotional nourishment." My folks travelled extensively, and even when they were home, they were very busy being "glamorous." My father was a Narcissist who didn't even like children; my mother was a co-dependent social climber, alternately drowning her sorrows with prescription drugs and alcohol, and seeking the emotional intimacy her husband couldn't give her, from her child.
But whenever my parents were away, I was in the company of a loving and supportive elderly aunt with whom I experienced a "secure" attachment style. It was completely OK for me to "be me," sensitivity and all. As such, I know how both sides of the fence "feel," and that evidently makes me "wiser," somehow. Intellectually, I can grasp that-- I know what "healthy love" feels like.
That doesn't mean that I have made smart choices, however. On some strange "compartmentalized" level, I seem to have had "secure" relationships with friends, but something quite different with "love partners," probably helped along by the fact that each time I have "attached" has also coincided with periods of my life where I had chronically low self-esteem. So I "chose" people who had not the slightest ability to fill my emotional needs-- except in the context of me being an "unhealthy" person, playing the insecure-avoidant-fearful script learned from my parents. But then I would start to work on myself, only to wake up and wonder "what am I DOING here?" and "How did I GET here?"
A thing I came face-to-face with a few months ago was that I have never been "single, available and looking" at those times of my life when I was the most "together" and mentally stable, feeling good about who I was (poor relationships, notwithstanding)-- my relationships have all started in periods of deep distress, darkness and confusion, when I was feeling "not worthy" and trying to "earn approval."
And what kind of person do you think might find that attractive? Sorry, no prizes for getting the right answer....
Most of the above is "past tense," however. These days I am pretty close to having worked into a state of mind where I am capable of recognizing and choosing a "secure" attachment style-- but I am still in a relationship that was originally based on my having a "preoccupied style," so how that's going to play out, I don't know.
Thursday, February 06, 2003
HSPs and Interacting with "The Other Gender"
Someone wrote to me with a question-- actually gleaned from reading Elaine Aron's "HSP Workbook"-- which went: "Why do HSPs feel especially uneasy around the other gender?"
Whoa! Hold the phone! I read this, and it struck me as a horrendously incorrect generalization. At least for me. I am not "uneasy" around the other gender-- in fact, I am more uneasy around my own gender. 90% of my friends are (and have historically been) women-- and that's a conscious choice, based on the fact that I simply get along better with women.
Of course, what I just wrote was pure "reaction" to that question-- now I need to actually think about the deeper implications of the question...
OK. So now that my blood pressure has found a normal level again.... I realized, as I read, that I have fairly thoroughly divorced myself from cultural stereotypes. Which is not to say that I am not conscious of them, nor that I don't see the truth in them, nor that I don't see a certain "value" (from the standpoint of understanding) in many of them. Maybe it's just something that comes with age-- I distinctly remember feeling much more frustrated-- and even angry-- when I would try to deal with the difference between how I felt-- inside-- and how I felt "forced" to act in my efforts to "fit in." Now I am far more comfortable with just letting the world think whatever it wants to. Elaine uses the word "unmanly" (w.r.t. HS Men) a number of times in her books-- and I can't remember the last time I thought of myself in those terms.... early 30's perhaps?
Most of us have discovered the HSP-trait fairly recently, at least relative to our overall lives. For me, it was maybe 5 years ago-- for many, it has been even more recent. Given our median age (most people start self-inquiry no sooner than their early 30's) , that represents just a small fragment of our lives. Knowing that we're HSPs helps us explain stuff. But most of all, it helps us "come to terms" with ourselves. Perhaps to "make peace" with ourselves. It offers us a "name" for something we've been aware of for a long time. However, it is really just one piece of a much greater puzzle.
When I found Elaine's book, it was eyeopening. But I had already been through the process of making peace with the idea that I was a "strange outsider," on account of a different "trait" called "giftedness." Independently of Elaine Aron, researchers have long known that as many as 70% of gifted adults are introverts, and display high/hyper sensitivity, and can be deeply empathic. Giftedness is a nebulous thing, and I won't go into definitions-- I just wanted to share three points. (1) When I found out I was an HSP, I was already at peace with being part of a "weird minority" (to the tune of less than 1% of the population), a minority that had "high sensitivity" as a core trait, and (2) The reason I say I "confuse myself" is that I can read the HSP book and feel a connection-- yet I am not genuinely sure where/if "being an HSP" ends and "being gifted" begins. I'm not sure it's relevant even. (3) I am (very likely) something people refer to as an "Indigo." Whereas many are familiar with this term in the context of children, Indigo Adults-- especially of my age-- are quite rare. And where all Indigos's are almost certainly HSPs, not all HSPs are Indigos. But I'm just being conscious of the fact that I may be attributing things to HSP-ism that nothing to DO with HSP-ism.
I don't like the terms "gifted" and "IQ," by the way. Every time I use them (in the context of myself) it feels like I am bragging, and I hate that. But denying it is a bit like pretending you're not 6'6"-- when you are 6'6"..... and it makes as little sense as "faking" not being an HSP.
I have wandered way off my original line of thinking, however.
Elaine Aron-- when talking about the "unease" HSPs often feel around the other gender-- likes to attribute it to a form of "Love Shyness." Love-shyness.... I relate, but I don't. I am not love-shy; I am highly at ease. However, now comes some of the stuff I don't often talk about-- and I find it difficult to talk about.
To me, it feels more like my "methodology" with the opposite gender has been wrong-- or at least misinterpreted. Or has resulted in the "wrong" kind of connection. Maybe that's my "failure." I always try to get to know someone "inside" first-- and once there's a well-established "connection," then intimacy (physical and otherwise) can come into the picture. Now, many women say they actually want this from men. But this is perhaps where a dose of "sexism" comes into the mix....
Bear with me-- this is going to be a gross generality. In the greater context of "all men," where "all men" try to "cop a feel" on the first date (if they are interested in their date, that is) I surmise that perhaps my approach is interpreted as "not interested" in "that" sort of way. Leaving me (historically) in a strange world where I have "non-sexual relationships with sexual women" and "sexual relationships with NON-sexual women." Phrased a little differently... I have managed to "marry" the women I should have been purely platonic friends with, and been "just friends" with the women I could have had a "physical love" relationship with, as well as an intellectual/emotional relationship. And I am inclined to think that Sensitivity has had a direct influence on this outcome in my life.
And to get back to the original question, perhaps the "outside view" of this could be seen as "unease" around the other gender.
I'll conclude this with a sort of "side-bar comment." Very closely related to this concept of love-shyness, some years ago I was part of a study group at Georgia State University where a couple of psychology professors were studying a phenomenon called "Involuntary Celibacy." (Desiring intimacy, but not having any-- whether you're in a relationship, or not) It's noteworthy that "InCel's" and "MarCel's" (married, and involuntarily celibate) were also likely to come from unhappy childhoods, and to be sensitive/highly sensitive. What Elaine fails to mention about the love-shy trait is that people thus afflicted are probably (just a strong hunch) also far more likely to suffer from depression, diseases and mental illness. I believe human beings crave connection, and a lack of connection negatively impacts our health-- both mentally and physically.
Whoa! Hold the phone! I read this, and it struck me as a horrendously incorrect generalization. At least for me. I am not "uneasy" around the other gender-- in fact, I am more uneasy around my own gender. 90% of my friends are (and have historically been) women-- and that's a conscious choice, based on the fact that I simply get along better with women.
Of course, what I just wrote was pure "reaction" to that question-- now I need to actually think about the deeper implications of the question...
OK. So now that my blood pressure has found a normal level again.... I realized, as I read, that I have fairly thoroughly divorced myself from cultural stereotypes. Which is not to say that I am not conscious of them, nor that I don't see the truth in them, nor that I don't see a certain "value" (from the standpoint of understanding) in many of them. Maybe it's just something that comes with age-- I distinctly remember feeling much more frustrated-- and even angry-- when I would try to deal with the difference between how I felt-- inside-- and how I felt "forced" to act in my efforts to "fit in." Now I am far more comfortable with just letting the world think whatever it wants to. Elaine uses the word "unmanly" (w.r.t. HS Men) a number of times in her books-- and I can't remember the last time I thought of myself in those terms.... early 30's perhaps?
Most of us have discovered the HSP-trait fairly recently, at least relative to our overall lives. For me, it was maybe 5 years ago-- for many, it has been even more recent. Given our median age (most people start self-inquiry no sooner than their early 30's) , that represents just a small fragment of our lives. Knowing that we're HSPs helps us explain stuff. But most of all, it helps us "come to terms" with ourselves. Perhaps to "make peace" with ourselves. It offers us a "name" for something we've been aware of for a long time. However, it is really just one piece of a much greater puzzle.
When I found Elaine's book, it was eyeopening. But I had already been through the process of making peace with the idea that I was a "strange outsider," on account of a different "trait" called "giftedness." Independently of Elaine Aron, researchers have long known that as many as 70% of gifted adults are introverts, and display high/hyper sensitivity, and can be deeply empathic. Giftedness is a nebulous thing, and I won't go into definitions-- I just wanted to share three points. (1) When I found out I was an HSP, I was already at peace with being part of a "weird minority" (to the tune of less than 1% of the population), a minority that had "high sensitivity" as a core trait, and (2) The reason I say I "confuse myself" is that I can read the HSP book and feel a connection-- yet I am not genuinely sure where/if "being an HSP" ends and "being gifted" begins. I'm not sure it's relevant even. (3) I am (very likely) something people refer to as an "Indigo." Whereas many are familiar with this term in the context of children, Indigo Adults-- especially of my age-- are quite rare. And where all Indigos's are almost certainly HSPs, not all HSPs are Indigos. But I'm just being conscious of the fact that I may be attributing things to HSP-ism that nothing to DO with HSP-ism.
I don't like the terms "gifted" and "IQ," by the way. Every time I use them (in the context of myself) it feels like I am bragging, and I hate that. But denying it is a bit like pretending you're not 6'6"-- when you are 6'6"..... and it makes as little sense as "faking" not being an HSP.
I have wandered way off my original line of thinking, however.
Elaine Aron-- when talking about the "unease" HSPs often feel around the other gender-- likes to attribute it to a form of "Love Shyness." Love-shyness.... I relate, but I don't. I am not love-shy; I am highly at ease. However, now comes some of the stuff I don't often talk about-- and I find it difficult to talk about.
To me, it feels more like my "methodology" with the opposite gender has been wrong-- or at least misinterpreted. Or has resulted in the "wrong" kind of connection. Maybe that's my "failure." I always try to get to know someone "inside" first-- and once there's a well-established "connection," then intimacy (physical and otherwise) can come into the picture. Now, many women say they actually want this from men. But this is perhaps where a dose of "sexism" comes into the mix....
Bear with me-- this is going to be a gross generality. In the greater context of "all men," where "all men" try to "cop a feel" on the first date (if they are interested in their date, that is) I surmise that perhaps my approach is interpreted as "not interested" in "that" sort of way. Leaving me (historically) in a strange world where I have "non-sexual relationships with sexual women" and "sexual relationships with NON-sexual women." Phrased a little differently... I have managed to "marry" the women I should have been purely platonic friends with, and been "just friends" with the women I could have had a "physical love" relationship with, as well as an intellectual/emotional relationship. And I am inclined to think that Sensitivity has had a direct influence on this outcome in my life.
And to get back to the original question, perhaps the "outside view" of this could be seen as "unease" around the other gender.
I'll conclude this with a sort of "side-bar comment." Very closely related to this concept of love-shyness, some years ago I was part of a study group at Georgia State University where a couple of psychology professors were studying a phenomenon called "Involuntary Celibacy." (Desiring intimacy, but not having any-- whether you're in a relationship, or not) It's noteworthy that "InCel's" and "MarCel's" (married, and involuntarily celibate) were also likely to come from unhappy childhoods, and to be sensitive/highly sensitive. What Elaine fails to mention about the love-shy trait is that people thus afflicted are probably (just a strong hunch) also far more likely to suffer from depression, diseases and mental illness. I believe human beings crave connection, and a lack of connection negatively impacts our health-- both mentally and physically.
Saturday, January 04, 2003
HSPs and Unhealthy Relationships
One of the online HSP groups recently had a discussion about the way HSPs often seem to get embroiled in unhealthy or "toxic" relationships with far greater regularity than the population at large. Sometimes I am not convinced that we really get involved with more toxic people than others-- instead it may merely be a case of us not knowing how to detach ourselves from a bad situation.
I was married to a Borderline personality for 13 years. I will certainly say that it was a "learning experience." I am well beyond being mad as *&$*#, and can now say that "everything happens for a reason." Thanks to her, I got more seriously involved in psychology, and was forced to take a long hard look at the reality of myself and my upbringing. But the 13 years really should only have been 6 or 7. In some ways, that marriage should never have happened, in the first place.
As HSPs, we tend to be empaths-- and I think many of us are drawn to the pain some people have in their lives. Unfortunately some of us have early life models that draw us to the "unhealthy" versions of sharing our healing touch. One of the things I learned in post-divorce counseling (and through self-study) is that there is really nothing wrong with wanting to help people. But you don't have to be married to (or in a relationship with) those people whose lives seem to be a perpetual mess. However, it's not always easy-- I know I have an almost uncanny "radar" when it comes to finding what I have come to call "woman improvement projects."
Maybe that sounds arrogant, on some level-- like I consider myself some kind of "superior being." Well, I don't. The desire to "help" those in need doesn't automatically mean that the helper is "all that."
However, it should be a warning sign when you find yourself drawn into some situation where the person is sad because "they have never had a good relationship" and "all men/women misunderstand me" and "if someone would only give me a chance." RUN for the hills! There is usually a reason why these people "have never had a good relationship:" They are destructive/self-destructive, and people who "misunderstood" them and left them in the past did so because they are impossible to live with. There's usually a reason why these people might be 40 years old and "have never been interested enough in a job to stay there more than 6 months," and have a history of chronic firings/unemployment-- and lament that they are always broke. Those may sound like harsh words... and indeed there may be a "diamond in the rough" somewhere, and I do feel genuinely sorry for that "diamond".... but are you really ready to "shoot yourself in the foot" 20 times before you welcome that person who "needs" your nurturing powers in a healthy way?
Personally, I am very tired of narcissistic chaos-mongers who eat up all my energy while offering very little in return-- because they are too "damaged" to share healthy love.
I was married to a Borderline personality for 13 years. I will certainly say that it was a "learning experience." I am well beyond being mad as *&$*#, and can now say that "everything happens for a reason." Thanks to her, I got more seriously involved in psychology, and was forced to take a long hard look at the reality of myself and my upbringing. But the 13 years really should only have been 6 or 7. In some ways, that marriage should never have happened, in the first place.
As HSPs, we tend to be empaths-- and I think many of us are drawn to the pain some people have in their lives. Unfortunately some of us have early life models that draw us to the "unhealthy" versions of sharing our healing touch. One of the things I learned in post-divorce counseling (and through self-study) is that there is really nothing wrong with wanting to help people. But you don't have to be married to (or in a relationship with) those people whose lives seem to be a perpetual mess. However, it's not always easy-- I know I have an almost uncanny "radar" when it comes to finding what I have come to call "woman improvement projects."
Maybe that sounds arrogant, on some level-- like I consider myself some kind of "superior being." Well, I don't. The desire to "help" those in need doesn't automatically mean that the helper is "all that."
However, it should be a warning sign when you find yourself drawn into some situation where the person is sad because "they have never had a good relationship" and "all men/women misunderstand me" and "if someone would only give me a chance." RUN for the hills! There is usually a reason why these people "have never had a good relationship:" They are destructive/self-destructive, and people who "misunderstood" them and left them in the past did so because they are impossible to live with. There's usually a reason why these people might be 40 years old and "have never been interested enough in a job to stay there more than 6 months," and have a history of chronic firings/unemployment-- and lament that they are always broke. Those may sound like harsh words... and indeed there may be a "diamond in the rough" somewhere, and I do feel genuinely sorry for that "diamond".... but are you really ready to "shoot yourself in the foot" 20 times before you welcome that person who "needs" your nurturing powers in a healthy way?
Personally, I am very tired of narcissistic chaos-mongers who eat up all my energy while offering very little in return-- because they are too "damaged" to share healthy love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)