Inducing and Being Induced: How to Recognize Dysfunctional Relationship Dynamics
March 15, 2014
James Tobin, Ph.D.Licensed Psychologist, PSY 22074220 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1Newport Beach, CA 92660949-338-4388www.jamestobinphd.com
2
Interpersonal Patterns
• Scientists now argue that natural events do not evolve spontaneously and without constriction: there seems to always be a pattern (chaos theory).
• So too in interpersonal relationships: there are no chance occurrences; all is pre-determined.
3
The Contribution of Evolutionary Psychology
• We are programmed to assign and play roles in all social systems.
• We perceive the other with “interpersonal shorthand,” i.e., we calculate unconsciously what or who the other represents to us in order to determine very quickly safety, control, power, and vulnerability.
4
“Attraction”
• Attraction is largely pre-determined. • We are attracted to two types of others:– TYPE A: YOU INDUCE: You find someone who is
familiar (i.e., will re-traumatize you or you can flip-flop roles with and traumatize him)
– TYPE B: YOU ARE INDUCED: You find someone who coerces you to act out a role from their relationally traumatic life (i.e., you are assigned a role and play it out)
5
Attraction + Induction
• Romantic love needs several ingredients:(1) Another person with enough
characteristics to play the TYPE A or TYPE B roles (“attraction”).
(2) Induction: This other person becomes coerced psychologically to fulfill TYPE A and/or TYPE B roles. (3) Relational constriction: freedom
gradually becomes narrowed and constricted.
6
The Code of Relationships
• These two types “code” our most significant relationships, giving them a patterned texture so that what is KNOWN can be repeated over and over again (no matter how traumatic or distressing).
• This code is similar to any complex intellectual exercise (GRE, LSAT): once the code is “cracked” or understood, we feel competent.
• So, people are moving through the world with a sense of cracking the code, even though their relationships may be highly dysfunctional.
7
Me/Not-Me
• Our self-concept (“Me”) is strongly fixed. • “Not Me” is resisted and pushed away. • We (and our partners) promote patterned
romantic relationships to maintain our notions of Me/Not-Me for emotional and psychological security.
8
Me/Not Me
9
The Patterns of Relationships
Inducing the Other (we find the Type A person: someone who will re-traumatize us -- ROBERT)
& Being Induced by the Other (we find the Type B
person: someone for whom we play a role in their relational past -- KEN)
10
TYPE A: Someone Who Will Re-Traumatize Us (“Robert”) // “INDUCING THE OTHER”
11
Sandra’s “Attraction” to Robert
• Sandra’s developmental history: she never “measured up” to her father’s expectations, and her father subtlety shamed her.
• Robert contains “elements” of Sandra’s father, i.e., he is an ambitious, charismatic entrepreneur who works very hard and has achieved success.
12
The Attraction is Relational Coding
• Sandra is drawn to qualities in Robert that ultimately caused her great pain but are familiar to her.
• Very early on in their interactions, she intuitively senses the familiarity and is “stirred” by it.
• The stirrings are largely avoided. • Her “ME/NOT ME” conceptions gradually create
the culture of the relationship, and Robert is indoctrinated into this culture.
13
As Indoctrination Continues ...
• Robert, because of his own attachment needs and his own psychology, “obeys” the indoctrination and begins to lose his relational freedom with regard to Sandra; he is then induced repeatedly.
• Robert’s care for/tenderness/desire to support Sandra SWITCHES OFF: he has now been role-assigned.
• At this point, Robert will often choose to stay in the relationship because of his need for role-assignment, usually to his own demise.
14
TYPE B: “BEING INDUCING BY THE OTHER” //someone for whom we play a role in their relational past -- KEN)
15
Ken’s Past
• Includes “break-downs” when he made an effort to attach/get close to important caregivers.
• The break-downs were painful, humiliating, and made him feel weak and vulnerable, which he never again wanted to experience.
16
Ken “Finds” Jennifer
17
Ken’s Attraction to Jennifer
• Jennifer recently went through a difficult divorce and moved to the town where Ken lives.
• She is feeling emotionally raw, unsure of herself (affair), low on her self-esteem, vulnerable.
• When she meets Ken, she is “attracted” to his confidence, strength, and helpfulness.
18
Jennifer Becomes Indoctrinated into Ken’s Narrative
• Ken will induce Jennifer, perhaps to play the role of HIM (in his prior life!).
• As their relationship evolves, Jennifer reaches out for Ken and he is not reachable ..... Jennifer feels the break-downs of connection and in a way comes to know what Ken experienced vicariously.
• They become polarized: Jennifer wants more and more, Ken withdraws/wants space more and more.
19
Resentment
• As resentments solidify, they signal the occurrence of role-assignment and induction.
• Both feel hurt and frustrated, but are usually unable to undo their roles with regard to each other.
20
DISCUSSION:Avoiding Type A and Type B
Induction Patterns
21
Type B: The Other Induces Us
-we sense we are being positioned into a role or some extreme position (we get “set up”)
-we don’t identify the other’s vulnerability -we represent something to the other (we are the
poster child for xyz) -we begin to change our own behavior and act in
accordance with these representations -the relationship makes us feel as if we are polarized
in relation to our partner
22
Type A: We Induce the Other
-understanding our relational past -recognizing “stirrings”-Me/Not Me constructions and lack of flexibility -the culture of relationship into which we socialize our partner-we cannot see our partner in ways that others can -we deny our own vulnerability – our partner does not feel as if they are meaningful to us
James Tobin, Ph.D.Licensed Psychologist PSY 22074220 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1Newport Beach, CA 92660949-338-4388
Email: [email protected] Website: www.jamestobinphd.com
