I've seen articles about the backstory topic. A person has a younger sibling with special needs, and the younger child takes up all of the parents' time. The older sibling then feels guilty whenever he needs emotional attention.
@MondoBeno What you describe is natural, normal guilt, which April undoubtedly feels, but she also feels crushing guilt because she somehow came to believe that she is preventing her mother from having a life.
Patriarchal attitudes have also been empirically documented; although I don't have statistics on them ready at hand, I can say with confidence that they are scientifically observable and have been observed. In Paul's case, the show tells us that he has been distant from his family and, in particular, has taken a peripheral role in childcare while focusing intensively on his career. The fact that t is gender-appropriate behaviour for men could explain why he has not noticed this about himself.
I have no doubt that you are right. Although we like to stress the rationality of our behavior, the fact is that much of our behavior is shaped instinctively.
Perhaps, but my point was that men and women tend, probalistically speaking, to have distinctly different social experiences, and hence to be socialized differently. For a man to define himself - his self-image and his self-worth - primarily by his career, secondarily by his family relationships, and devote his energies accordingly is still the norm in our society, so much so that it often goes unnoticed among people who consider themselves quite progressive.
Conversely, for women to define themselves in a subordinate relationship to a man in their life is normative. Kate describes her past relationship to Paul in terms that mark her role as submissive and his as dominant: he had been a kind of mentor figure, someone who flattered her and gave her self-worth by his attention to her. In season 2 Paul describes himself as a great tree that his children shelter under, and it seems likely that he was this for Kate as well.
It seems to me that part of what destabilized Paul and Kate's relationship was a subtle shift in the power dynamic between them that left Paul unable to play the patriarchal role he had unwittingly or unconsciously been settled into. He denied this angrily in therapy, but his angry denials in therapy generally seemed to indicate that what he was denying was true, or uncomfortably close to it.
for me that is hard to follow in a viceral way. so she, in part, caused the relationship to break up because she became independent. and he becuase he could not adapt, he was left behind. he must of them tried looking for the emotional need from somewhere else and pick laura.
I think this happens in many relationships. To 'be a man' is to be dominant, but often in ways that are not recognized as dominance. So when women become more equal (more independent, more self-assertive), men sometimes feel inadequate - they start to feel inferior, when in many ways they are still the more dominant partner. This can prompt them to do destructive things. I think that if more men were more aware of this dynamic, they could adapt more successfully.
ahh ok i can totally see that now. thank you. yea i would have to say that i dont have that problem so thats good. lucky for me lol. but i can complete understand how someone like paul would have a problem. i wonder if this show has help men in there relationships with there wives
why is it possible to know rationally that a pathogenic belief is false but to still behave as if it is a truth. for example someone feeling like they are not worthy of love or success of any of those things. but know that this belief is irrational and illogical.
Excellent question. The problem is that the person may know that the feelings are irrational but hasn't mustered the courage to ACT as if they were irrational in his life. Pathogenic beliefs create a host of defensive postures. A person must courageously ACT in the face of these postures time and time again for the irrational feelings to go away. Realizing that they are irrational is only the first step. The crucial step is ACTING AS IF THEY WERE IRRATIONAL.
I understand your explanation but I still dont feel like I am complete in my understanding yet. So what your saying is that it is too difficult, scary, weird, what have you, to actually follow the more rational belief. So it is not possible to think your way out, you must act on your reason as well.
Two questions, is it possible to not know that a belief is irrational and harmful. The second is, does knowing that it is a pathogenic belief more helpful for the overcoming one.
Pathogenic beliefs arise because of early experiences in relationships. Those beliefs contain predictions about how other people will treat the person. These predictions cause a person to adopt defensive maneuvers. What a person needs to do is show that those predictions are false, and the only way to do that is by experiences in relating to other people when subjectively vulnerable because of a courageous refusal to put the defenses up. Most people don't see pathogenic beliefs as irrational.
It took me a while to realize that you had posted in response to my comment. You're quite mistaken in what you say; there is abundant empirical evidence of non-trivial differences between men and women. We could begin with statistics like those indicating that women's mean annual income is only 75% of men's, when full-time status and education level are controlled for, and less than 65% of men's when they aren't.
We could also consider that 85% of reported domestic violence victims are female, or that, in couples with children, the female partners do twice as much housework as the male partners, on average. So I'm not sure how to take your comment that there is no scientific evidence for non-trivial differences between men and women; these seem like non-trivial gender differences to me.
Moreover, if there are no significant differences between men and women, then why are your own comments about Paul so strongly gendered? You've written that Gina fails to understand that "he just wants to be a MAN", and Paul is weak because he is "woman-identified". How do these statements make sense without reference to gender?
Simply because there is no evidence to support what you say.This has nothing to do with sociological variables such as "patriarchy"that.Terrible it is to admit but there is no reliable scientific(not anecdotal) evidence that there any non-trivial differences between men and women!!Psychotherapy is an endeavor of studying individual differences.Gender is not a psychological term but merely a bunch of non-verifiable generalizations that people have fun arguing about over a glass of merlot.
I am sorry, but I don't know what you are reacting to. I took a look at the video again, but I can't see anything there that is relevant to your comment. On second thought, I think the comment should have been directed to daedalus71.
Paul "runs" to her because he thinks he deserves the criticism.He's been a bad boy(at least in the maternal transference) to Gina.He is so depressed and passive this year it is painful to watch him flounder and not be a strong man.He is woman identified.
You seem to have a patriarchal view of gender roles. I've seen a couple of comments in which you equate manliness with strength, and you imply that Paul's being 'woman identified' is part of his pathology. But isn't the reverse possible that Pauls' unconscious insistence on being the family patriarch has put distance between himself and his wife and children, for instance?
Gina is part of the problem.She makes mistakes all over the place.She was rejecting when he wasn't sure he wanted to be in Tx with her.She gets hurt and starts to walk away.Then,she makes him "promise" not to be in a relationship with "another woman".Then she gets hurt when he mutters "Women".She is ,as they say,retraumatizing him.She is like a jealous mother.And he will be unable to find fault with her.She won't help him oppose her,not at all.Gina is a very confused as well as unpleasant woman.
I have wanted to talk about Gina but get sidetracked. It's possible to make judgments about Paul's mother from the women later in his life, like his wife Kate and Gina. I take Kate's narcissism to possibly indicate that she criticized Paul as his mother did, as does Gina, although she is not as bad as last season. She was the only person to vote against Paul becoming president of the Institute and was very quick to say he should dump Laura. Paul runs to her BECAUSE she is overly critical.
She was not falling to test anyone.She already had had plenty of evidence that wouldn't know what to do if she cried.Accidents do happen.Paul doesn't listen to the reactions patient's make to his inappropriate and he so weirdly defensive.He can't take blame from women.BUT this makes good drama and something for people to talk about over their lattes.He rarley knows why he makes mistakes.He does do well,however, to insist she get chemotherapy.
You are possibly correct, of course, about the "accident." You are exactly on target in your observation that Paul is sensitive to blame from women. The sessions with Gina are helping to explain why this is the case.
I've seen articles about the backstory topic. A person has a younger sibling with special needs, and the younger child takes up all of the parents' time. The older sibling then feels guilty whenever he needs emotional attention.
MondoBeno 1 year ago
@MondoBeno What you describe is natural, normal guilt, which April undoubtedly feels, but she also feels crushing guilt because she somehow came to believe that she is preventing her mother from having a life.
ControlMastery 1 year ago
One more thing.You are right.
Women are from Venus;Men are from Jersey.
Groucho5 2 years ago
To Daedalus 71:
Whatever!!
Groucho5 2 years ago
Patriarchal attitudes have also been empirically documented; although I don't have statistics on them ready at hand, I can say with confidence that they are scientifically observable and have been observed. In Paul's case, the show tells us that he has been distant from his family and, in particular, has taken a peripheral role in childcare while focusing intensively on his career. The fact that t is gender-appropriate behaviour for men could explain why he has not noticed this about himself.
daedalus71 2 years ago
I have no doubt that you are right. Although we like to stress the rationality of our behavior, the fact is that much of our behavior is shaped instinctively.
ControlMastery 2 years ago
Perhaps, but my point was that men and women tend, probalistically speaking, to have distinctly different social experiences, and hence to be socialized differently. For a man to define himself - his self-image and his self-worth - primarily by his career, secondarily by his family relationships, and devote his energies accordingly is still the norm in our society, so much so that it often goes unnoticed among people who consider themselves quite progressive.
daedalus71 2 years ago
Conversely, for women to define themselves in a subordinate relationship to a man in their life is normative. Kate describes her past relationship to Paul in terms that mark her role as submissive and his as dominant: he had been a kind of mentor figure, someone who flattered her and gave her self-worth by his attention to her. In season 2 Paul describes himself as a great tree that his children shelter under, and it seems likely that he was this for Kate as well.
daedalus71 2 years ago
It seems to me that part of what destabilized Paul and Kate's relationship was a subtle shift in the power dynamic between them that left Paul unable to play the patriarchal role he had unwittingly or unconsciously been settled into. He denied this angrily in therapy, but his angry denials in therapy generally seemed to indicate that what he was denying was true, or uncomfortably close to it.
daedalus71 2 years ago
for me that is hard to follow in a viceral way. so she, in part, caused the relationship to break up because she became independent. and he becuase he could not adapt, he was left behind. he must of them tried looking for the emotional need from somewhere else and pick laura.
thesparitan 2 years ago
Yes, that's how I see it. As you say, in part, because there were other factors as well as that one.
daedalus71 2 years ago
I think this happens in many relationships. To 'be a man' is to be dominant, but often in ways that are not recognized as dominance. So when women become more equal (more independent, more self-assertive), men sometimes feel inadequate - they start to feel inferior, when in many ways they are still the more dominant partner. This can prompt them to do destructive things. I think that if more men were more aware of this dynamic, they could adapt more successfully.
daedalus71 2 years ago
Kate's growing independence was an opportunity for Paul, as well as a loss. They could have entered an exciting new chapter in their relationship.
daedalus71 2 years ago
ahh ok i can totally see that now. thank you. yea i would have to say that i dont have that problem so thats good. lucky for me lol. but i can complete understand how someone like paul would have a problem. i wonder if this show has help men in there relationships with there wives
thesparitan 2 years ago
Quite true.
ControlMastery 2 years ago
Thanks.
daedalus71 2 years ago
why is it possible to know rationally that a pathogenic belief is false but to still behave as if it is a truth. for example someone feeling like they are not worthy of love or success of any of those things. but know that this belief is irrational and illogical.
thesparitan 2 years ago
Excellent question. The problem is that the person may know that the feelings are irrational but hasn't mustered the courage to ACT as if they were irrational in his life. Pathogenic beliefs create a host of defensive postures. A person must courageously ACT in the face of these postures time and time again for the irrational feelings to go away. Realizing that they are irrational is only the first step. The crucial step is ACTING AS IF THEY WERE IRRATIONAL.
ControlMastery 2 years ago
I understand your explanation but I still dont feel like I am complete in my understanding yet. So what your saying is that it is too difficult, scary, weird, what have you, to actually follow the more rational belief. So it is not possible to think your way out, you must act on your reason as well.
Two questions, is it possible to not know that a belief is irrational and harmful. The second is, does knowing that it is a pathogenic belief more helpful for the overcoming one.
thesparitan 2 years ago
Pathogenic beliefs arise because of early experiences in relationships. Those beliefs contain predictions about how other people will treat the person. These predictions cause a person to adopt defensive maneuvers. What a person needs to do is show that those predictions are false, and the only way to do that is by experiences in relating to other people when subjectively vulnerable because of a courageous refusal to put the defenses up. Most people don't see pathogenic beliefs as irrational.
ControlMastery 2 years ago
yup!!!
Groucho5 2 years ago
It took me a while to realize that you had posted in response to my comment. You're quite mistaken in what you say; there is abundant empirical evidence of non-trivial differences between men and women. We could begin with statistics like those indicating that women's mean annual income is only 75% of men's, when full-time status and education level are controlled for, and less than 65% of men's when they aren't.
daedalus71 2 years ago
We could also consider that 85% of reported domestic violence victims are female, or that, in couples with children, the female partners do twice as much housework as the male partners, on average. So I'm not sure how to take your comment that there is no scientific evidence for non-trivial differences between men and women; these seem like non-trivial gender differences to me.
daedalus71 2 years ago
Moreover, if there are no significant differences between men and women, then why are your own comments about Paul so strongly gendered? You've written that Gina fails to understand that "he just wants to be a MAN", and Paul is weak because he is "woman-identified". How do these statements make sense without reference to gender?
daedalus71 2 years ago
Simply because there is no evidence to support what you say.This has nothing to do with sociological variables such as "patriarchy"that.Terrible it is to admit but there is no reliable scientific(not anecdotal) evidence that there any non-trivial differences between men and women!!Psychotherapy is an endeavor of studying individual differences.Gender is not a psychological term but merely a bunch of non-verifiable generalizations that people have fun arguing about over a glass of merlot.
Groucho5 2 years ago
I am sorry, but I don't know what you are reacting to. I took a look at the video again, but I can't see anything there that is relevant to your comment. On second thought, I think the comment should have been directed to daedalus71.
ControlMastery 2 years ago
Things will get worse before they get better, because he is thinking of linking up with Mia, a woman sure to criticize him.
ControlMastery 2 years ago
Paul "runs" to her because he thinks he deserves the criticism.He's been a bad boy(at least in the maternal transference) to Gina.He is so depressed and passive this year it is painful to watch him flounder and not be a strong man.He is woman identified.
Groucho5 2 years ago
You seem to have a patriarchal view of gender roles. I've seen a couple of comments in which you equate manliness with strength, and you imply that Paul's being 'woman identified' is part of his pathology. But isn't the reverse possible that Pauls' unconscious insistence on being the family patriarch has put distance between himself and his wife and children, for instance?
daedalus71 2 years ago
Nope!
Groucho5 2 years ago
Why not?
daedalus71 2 years ago
Gina is part of the problem.She makes mistakes all over the place.She was rejecting when he wasn't sure he wanted to be in Tx with her.She gets hurt and starts to walk away.Then,she makes him "promise" not to be in a relationship with "another woman".Then she gets hurt when he mutters "Women".She is ,as they say,retraumatizing him.She is like a jealous mother.And he will be unable to find fault with her.She won't help him oppose her,not at all.Gina is a very confused as well as unpleasant woman.
Groucho5 2 years ago
I have wanted to talk about Gina but get sidetracked. It's possible to make judgments about Paul's mother from the women later in his life, like his wife Kate and Gina. I take Kate's narcissism to possibly indicate that she criticized Paul as his mother did, as does Gina, although she is not as bad as last season. She was the only person to vote against Paul becoming president of the Institute and was very quick to say he should dump Laura. Paul runs to her BECAUSE she is overly critical.
ControlMastery 2 years ago
I'm confused - in which episodes does Paul talk about his mother criticizing him? I only remember him talking about her illness.
daedalus71 2 years ago
She was not falling to test anyone.She already had had plenty of evidence that wouldn't know what to do if she cried.Accidents do happen.Paul doesn't listen to the reactions patient's make to his inappropriate and he so weirdly defensive.He can't take blame from women.BUT this makes good drama and something for people to talk about over their lattes.He rarley knows why he makes mistakes.He does do well,however, to insist she get chemotherapy.
Groucho5 2 years ago
You are possibly correct, of course, about the "accident." You are exactly on target in your observation that Paul is sensitive to blame from women. The sessions with Gina are helping to explain why this is the case.
ControlMastery 2 years ago